digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at huffingtonpost.com

Victoria's Secret, Slave Labor And So-Called "Free Trade"

huffingtonpost.com — Workers are allowed just 3.3 minutes to sew each $14 Victoria's Secret women's bikini, for which they are paid four cents.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • jmpeagle, on 12/09/2007, -35/+119that is free trade. It is pareto efficient. If you took away their jobs they would go hungy or be forced into things such as prostitution.
    3.3 minutes for 4 cents translates into 73 cents per hour which in purchasing power parity (because wages are paid at the exchange rate from dollars to Jordanian dinars) is about $1.72 per hour over (assume light sweatshop conditions of 10 hours per day, 5 days a week) translates into about $4600 per year, which is around the per capita income of the average Jordanian (in PPP it is $5100)
    • Evildudetx, on 12/09/2007, -18/+5I agree - if someone wants to complain about it, they should be sending letters to the labor boards in those countries......if they have one.
      • ScofflawVA, on 12/09/2007, -0/+4All of these sweatshops operate out of sigh out of mind. If these conditions existed in the U.S. like they did less than a hundred years ago, there would be an uproar.

        Sending a letter to the labor board is like ***** into an ocean.
        • DucoNihilum, on 12/09/2007, -4/+2We've, using capitalism, gone past conditions like that. Conditions like that generally wouldn't exist in the US because we've grown past the bad stages of capitalism and have become rather successful- in spite of socialist intervention.
          • terrordome, on 12/09/2007, -2/+3Excuse, but what the hell are you talking about? Capitalism did not get workers better conditions. Workers, trade unionists and socialists fought, was arrested and even died for it. It's not in the capitalists interest to have better conditions for their employees than absolutely necessary.

            The US is not "successful", it's a very ill society. There is very little "socialist intervention" (whatever that means) in the US.
          • DucoNihilum, on 12/10/2007, -2/+2Socialists fought for the removal of freedoms and the reversal of better conditions. Compare pre-capitalist society to industrial revolution capitalism..... if you've studied history at all.....

            "
            The US is not "successful", it's a very ill society."

            *****. We're one of the most prosperous countries in the world, to claim we are not 'successful' is absolutely insane.

            "here is very little "socialist intervention" (whatever that means) in the US."

            Oh really? So I guess it's a totally free market, minus the ... massive intervention....
      • DucoNihilum, on 12/09/2007, -3/+1Ze great socialist leaders know best, call ze labor board!
    • spudnic, on 12/09/2007, -13/+15I've never understood why people think of how much people get payed doing jobs like this in terms of how they could live in the USA.
      Could Vistoria's Secret pay them more? Sure they could. But they aren't being payed especially poorly compared to people in their country. Their standard of living probably isn't too far removed from that of low paid factory workers over here.
      • runesya, on 12/09/2007, -7/+22a long quote, but i think it is necessary, because many of you skip the fact that these people are forced to work long hours and not getting the right share of the profit they make possible.

        We are all responsible for this if we do not work against the bad working conditons imposed or made possible by the US government.

        "The workers begged management to free their unjustly imprisoned friends and co-workers. Management refused and the workers stopped working at 10:30 a.m. on November 12. The strike continues. The owner of the factory is now threatening to have all the guest workers forcibly deported back to Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. The owner says food and water will be cut off and following that, the workers will be forcibly removed from the dorms.

        The workers paid anywhere from $1,500 to over $3,000 to purchase three-year work contracts in Jordan--an enormous amount of money in Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. Workers had to go deeply into debt, borrowing the money on the informal market, often at five to ten percent interest per month, If the workers are deported, they will never be able to pay off their debts, and they and their families will be ruined."
        • mciampa1214, on 12/09/2007, -6/+5I think you skipped the fact that they are only forced to work there once they chose to. It's not like they were kidnapped, chained to a bench, and forced to sew thongs... They borrowed money so they could move to Jordan for the opportunity to make more money. They could have stayed in Bangladesh or Sri Lanka, but clearly for them this wasn't a better alternative.
          • runesya, on 12/09/2007, -3/+3yes, they weren't moved to Jordan chained like their descendants. but isn't it the way we slave people nowadays? we say that all people are free to live. but only option they have is to choose the best among the hardest and worst life styles.
          • DucoNihilum, on 12/09/2007, -1/+2You have to work to make a living in ANY country and ANY conditions!
          • airwalkery2k, on 12/09/2007, -0/+5You obviously skipped the fact that they paid for work permits and never received them, so they are forced into a small compound. And I doubt 100-hour weeks or any of those conditions were what they were promised when they left for Jordan. Typically those "programs" are scams to trick people into being forced into those working conditions. They obviously traveled there to gain a better way of life, but obviously from their reaction and their treatment, it is not much better.
        • keraneuology, on 12/09/2007, -6/+5What is the "right share" of the profit? There is no "right share" of profit unless you are a) an owner or b) were promised a "right share" of the profit as terms of your employment. Labor is -an expense-. Labor never has - and never will - generate profit, only sales can do that. I rephrase, only SALES generated profit.
          • SanTe, on 12/09/2007, -0/+3And only labor generates sales, for if there is no product to sell then even the owner can pack it up and go home.
        • guniouz, on 12/09/2007, -1/+1You make a good point, that they suffer a lot of injustices.
          But could we please all make the distinction that this isn't due to evil "free-trade" but just really poor labour laws in said country?
          The fact of the matter is, foreign "sweatshops" are usually unfairly compared against US standards of living. They are certainly an improvement over toiling 14 hours a day in a field under the hot sun. And not to mention these workers chose these jobs too.
          Free-trade did not bring about exploitation... lack of government oversight for working conditions did. It's important to really realise what is to be blamed. Free-trade isn't what made poor working conditions ok. It's the lack of laws.
        • wildgift, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1Free trade brings about exploitation, because we drop tariffs for countries that super-exploit their workers. If we kept these tariffs high, their products would not be able to compete in our local market. If we conditioned free trade on the other country maintaining labor and environmental standards equal to our own, then, free trade would reduce, rather than increase, exploitation.
      • WallyAnti, on 12/09/2007, -2/+10So why not favor the low paid factory workers over here? Where people aren't, you know, exploited because it's typical. I just don't understand. If you don't make it a priority for foreign companies to treat and pay their employees well, then they just won't do it. Your money has the power to persuade these bastards to clean up their act; more so than any regulation or government intervention.
        • mrsteveman1, on 12/09/2007, -0/+6That argument doesn't hold up well most of the time. If nearly everything on the market that could be considered competitive is produced by these same practices, should people just stop buying items in that product class entirely? Thats quite unreasonable in many cases, and typically doesn't ever work because a large number of people continue to buy because they don't care, or don't know about the situation. So in the end you get a mediocre number of people who refuse to buy something, sales decline slightly, sometimes the companies attribute this to something else and nothing changes.

          The only way to effect change like this is to STOP buying entirely, which as I said rarely if ever happens unless the BUYER feels threatened by the product, like with the lead in toys scandal. Even in that situation, people are still buying the items, even though the companies are well aware of the problem, and even though most people are as well.

          Regulation is in fact necessary in cases like this because the market DOES NOT correct problems automatically.
          • absentmindedjwc, on 12/09/2007, -2/+2or, on the flip side, they determine that there isnt as much profit on the item as there was before, so they decrease the wages even more... They can do much worse than 4 cents per item, which by most poorer countries standards, is a decent wage.
            I don't know about you... but I would rather make almost 73 cents an hour in sweatshop conditions and be able to feed my family than be forced to make less because some asshat group decided to boycott a product influencing the company to take a pay-cut and recoup their losses in the easiest way possible
          • wildgift, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1The solution is to regulate the market. Products made with slave labor must be excluded from the market. The most common way is via tariffs, but an outright ban can also work. The best way to prevent slave labor is to enforce workers' rights to organize unions, and to make sure labor laws are being followed.

            The argument that if it weren't for these jobs, people would starve, isn't borne out. Because of these jobs, certain garments are slightly cheaper than before, and compete better against other, more expensive garments. Profit margins at VC grow, and management is encouraged to contract with other dirty factories. Overall, working people suffer because this bad company is in the market, undercutting the honest companies.
        • airwalkery2k, on 12/09/2007, -0/+1I agree, put your money where your mouth is. But there aren't exactly videos of factory conditions playing right next to the price tag of an item in the department store.
      • Claverhouse, on 12/09/2007, -6/+1I'm gonna guess that 'payed' is some kind of American synonym for 'screwed'.
        • drouk1556, on 12/09/2007, -0/+3It's not just American companies. Don't be an ass.
        • DucoNihilum, on 12/09/2007, -1/+1Because no money / selling your kids off to prostitution / being a prostitute yourself is a MUCH better way to live in a poverty stricken country! How DARE companies provide 'opportunity'?! We need HANDOUTS!
      • greves, on 12/09/2007, -12/+8I've never understood why people don't see the fact that THESE WORKERS VOLUNTARILY CHOOSE TO LEAVE THEIR HOMES AND GO WORK ILLEGALLY FOR LOW PAY.

        That is all.
        • saisumimen, on 12/09/2007, -6/+9"Voluntarily" as in "if you don't voluntarily get a job, you'll die of starvation".
          • ShugNinx21, on 12/09/2007, -3/+9If I don't voluntarily go to my job, I will die of starvation. Does that make all jobs slave labor?
          • saisumimen, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1You missed the point. "greves" was saying that they have a choice and don't HAVE to go make 12 cents a day; that they "voluntarily" go to work.

            You have the luxury of quitting your job and getting another one because there isn't just one factory in your entire village.
    • kublerross, on 12/09/2007, -8/+19yeah because before the great benevolent victorias secret factory came to town no one could think of surviving
      • DucoNihilum, on 12/09/2007, -2/+1It's helped that area- it has brought jobs, money, etc into the economy.
    • WallyAnti, on 12/09/2007, -10/+36I disagree, just because someone is happy to be in an exploitative situation because they have escaped a more exploitative situation is not justification. Unless you just toss all ethics out the window, which a lot of you economists seem to be happy to do.

      There never has been, nor will there ever be a "free market". It's just a buzz word to get lazy people to go "auuhh yeah I like freedom". It's controled by the government (which is ideally controlled by the people), or it's controlled by a few people who just continue to disproportionately become more influential than the average joe. I believe that even Adam Smith said that capitalism would require regulation.

      "Write a letter" puuuhlease. Vote with your dollars people. Vote for ethics or vote for convenience. Your choice.
      • mstoneburner, on 12/09/2007, -10/+8What's unethical about paying workers at or above what they could normally make at other jobs in their area?
        • WallyAnti, on 12/09/2007, -4/+6You're normally forced to swim in feces and you get promoted to swimming in urine. Sure it's easier but it still stinks.
        • keraneuology, on 12/09/2007, -2/+3Nancy the Democrat thinks nothing of it... she took special care to make sure that the tuna executives in her district would be exempt from paying their workers in US territories the minimum wage. Lousy democrats.... never think about the little guy.
      • mrsteveman1, on 12/09/2007, -0/+4I agree with most of what you said, except for the vote with your dollars part. That rarely works because sales don't usually decline enough for the company to understand, much less care enough to change.

        But yes, regulation is necessary even in a real free market, which this is not.
        • DucoNihilum, on 12/09/2007, -1/+3Price floors are NOT necessary.
        • WallyAnti, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1"sales don't usually decline enough for the company to understand"

          I would agree that short term boycotts do not work... but if the populace would simply try to make an effort to be somewhat educated about what they buy (and whom they are buying from )on a case by case basis, then it would absolutely work. It would work because it would be a selling point. Why do big corps. give to charity? That "vote with your dollars thing" wasn't really a suggestion. Whether you like it or not you are voting with your dollars. I know that for the average consumer it's fashionable to be stupid as hell, but I have faith that one day that the majority will care about what they are really doing for their kind.
      • Singularitarian, on 12/09/2007, -3/+7What would be unethical is using force to make people behave the way you want them to behave. The morally right thing to do is insist that all human interaction be strictly voluntary, with free trade as a corollary. It is laissez-faire that has the moral high ground.

        As a practical matter, laissez-faire does not create poverty; but sometimes it inherits it from a previous system.
      • sanotaan, on 12/09/2007, -2/+3wouldn't the government control simply negate our dollar votes?

        the only reason voting with dollars works is because we do indeed have (something fairly close to) a free market. it is not some economic buzzword.
        • ChaosMotor, on 12/09/2007, -0/+2We don't have anything remotely near a free market. You're livin in a dream land.

          A free market wouldn't pay agricultural subsidies, wouldn't impose import and export tariffs, wouldn't pay corporate welfare, wouldn't favor existing companies in contracts, wouldn't bail out the S&L industry, the airline industry, or the mortgage industry... I could go on and on and on. We do NOT have a free market.
          • sanotaan, on 12/09/2007, -0/+2good points. there are significant places in our economy where price controls and other regulations exist, like those you mentioned, but as far as the exchange wallyanti was talking about goes, there is no subsidization or artificial price control in place, and that's precisely what's going to let the "voting by dollar" concept work in this case. i should have been much clearer about that in my previous post
        • WallyAnti, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1"we do indeed have (something fairly close to) a free market"

          "Freedom" does not have categories or levels.
        • WallyAnti, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1Voting by dollar should work in tandem with government regulation. I don't see why it has to be an "either/or" decision.
      • keraneuology, on 12/09/2007, -3/+8"There never has been, nor will there ever be a "free market". It's just a buzz word to get lazy people to go "auuhh yeah I like freedom". It's controled by the government"

        Incorrect. MASSIVELY incorrect. There absolutely IS a "free market" - a free market exists any time the government refuses to act. The only reason why the market isn't free is because the government repeatedly insists on either getting involved and taking control or running interference for the corporations that are screwing everything up. If you want a truly free market then eliminate minimum wage and hold company owners and managers -personally- liable or any injuries/deaths caused by the working conditions they create. Knowingly sign off on a dangerous and deficient product? Not nearly as likely when you personally are subject to prosecution for negligent homicide when your toaster blows up. Refuse to spend the money on air quality and safety equipment for the workers? No more hiding behind "just because I wouldn't sign the check doesn't mean that I wouldn't buy the equipment... the company didn't buy the equipment, not me". And, above all, punish to a severe extreme anybody who attempts to silence critics of your company. No more slander/libel lawsuits against consumers who were screwed over.

        It really is that simple.
        • WallyAnti, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1I refuse to call this agenda a "free market" sorry. I know the concept of what you are speaking of, but won't carry on with that misnomer. And what you are talking about is the agenda that companies be allowed to regulate themselves. It doesn't work. Read history.

          I really couldn't follow you. At first it sounded like you wanted no regulation whatsoever on companies... then you want their owners punished to a higher degree, probably to the degree of the death penalty, for things that happen daily in the market we have now. No one would ever produce anything even slightly risky in such a market. Companies would be perpetually tied up in court.
      • DucoNihilum, on 12/09/2007, -4/+1Paying laborers what they are worth sure sounds exploitive to me! Giving them money, not handouts! SHENANIGANS!

        There have been markets with various amounts of freedom, the more freedom in the market the more sucessful the country tends to be. Look at the US a few hundred years ago.

        "or it's controlled by a few people who just continue to disproportionately become more influential than the average joe."

        Lol, wait, what? You mean by busniess owners? That WOULD Be a free market.

        "I believe that even Adam Smith said that capitalism would require regulation."

        Socialist regulation you propose? I think not.
        • WallyAnti, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1 "Giving them money"

          I never advocated nor will I ever advocate that. Giving typically only postpones a problem. I'm not really even for improving their condition. I just do not want to have a hand anywhere near that type of disregard for humanity simply for the sake that they be treated a little less inhumane. I personally refuse to participate in any way because I like to sleep at night.

          You use words with no regard for meaning. "What they are worth" translates into "the bare minimum we can get away with", it just sounds nicer when said as the former.

          "various amounts of freedom"
          Oxymoron alert!

          "by busniess owners? That WOULD Be a free market."

          No, that would be a market controlled by an established group in whose interest it is to maintain and dominate control. Nothing evil there, it's just the nature of a business. If left unchecked you get unpleasant things like... oh say Coal mines and company stores (a most basic monopoly). Or you get the Steel trusts (the reason we have anti-trust/monopoly laws) , or you get Ma Bell and the choice of one very expensive telephone, or you get worker exploitation (ala the industrial revolution and the reason we have, now useless, unions. Or maybe you think those were bad decisions, I'd really like to know if you do and what you would've done instead.

          The whole reason capitalism is good is that it acts for the greater good. At points at which the few are benifiting disproportionately to the majority, you know you have to step in and legislate.

          "Socialist regulation you propose?"
          I'm really not trying to insult you here but what in the hell is socialist regulation?
        • DucoNihilum, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1"You use words with no regard for meaning. "What they are worth" translates into "the bare minimum we can get away with", it just sounds nicer when said as the former."

          If you study economics you'd realize each worker is 'worth' something to a company. Giving them more than the free market allows harms things.

          ""various amounts of freedom"
          Oxymoron alert!"

          Lol- no.

          "I'm really not trying to insult you here but what in the hell is socialist regulation?"

          Government intervention into the economy.....
    • kestrel1989, on 12/09/2007, -1/+11I understand the differences in the cost of living for Americans compared to those in the sweat shops. What I do not understand are many of the other points brought up in the article. Why are the workers not supplied with their residency permits? Were these permits part of the fee paid to D.K. Garments? Why are the workers forced to work overtime? Was this part of their contract with D.K. Garments? Does their contract also permit D.K. Garments to beat the employees, deny earned overtime wages and withhold food and water. If D.K Garments has broken their agreements with the "guest workers" then Victoria's Secret should take notice and act to correct this. Unless of course they would prefer the world to know they don't care how their subcontractors act.
      • JonGalt, on 12/09/2007, -6/+3OMFG....can you people PLEASE stop referring to this as free trade? THE PRINCIPLE APPLICABLE TO THIS SITUATION is "free market" where goods and services are transacted openly, uncoerced, without force or fraud, in a free market economy governments CAN and are OBLIGATED to punish this type of behavior by criminals, make that distinction between what you may be referring to as business men carefully. There is a HUGE difference between the two.

        Free trade is the principle that deals with removing all hindering effects on imports and exports on countries that have trade, AND the governments intervention, which only has one legitimate behavior in a free trade situation, protection of individuals from coercion, force, harm or fraud. Which is were the similarities between the two end, although they go hand-in-hand philosophically.

        please read the difference between the two for yourself so you don't sound like an ignorant jackass:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market
      • guniouz, on 12/09/2007, -0/+1All those things you pointed out are injustices caused by poor labour rights in Jordan, not free trade.
        Free trade improves on terrible working conditions in these countries, even though many of us will argue, sweatshop conditions aren't good enough. But that's due to poor government control of labour rights, NOT free trade.
        • wildgift, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1The free trade policy should be predicated on reasonable enforcement of labor laws. Every reported violation should be cataloged, and result in an immediate increase in the tariff, and an immediate ban of all product from the offending factory.

          People in free countries should not be "free" to purchase products made with slave labor, because slave labor or people laboring under slavery-like conditions, because it undermines freedom.
    • reddikilowatt, on 12/09/2007, -4/+6You make a point, but many of these people (and Chinese workers as well), were substance farmers prior to entering the workforce. Yes, they didn't have any money, but they were able to eat. The problems start if there is a bad growing season (Africa), or a war (Africa), or a takeover of land (3 Gorges dam in China).

      There's nothing wrong with not being part of the economy. By your thinking, the Amish and Mennonite communities here in the US are poverty stricken, even though their diet and quality of life are likely much better than yours.
      • guniouz, on 12/09/2007, -0/+1I'm sorry I don't quite follow your logic.
        Sure they were able to eat before, but the point is, they probably couldn't have eaten as much.
        I'm not a substance worker, but I think I live better than one... I don't see your point.
        • ChaosMotor, on 12/09/2007, -0/+2Subsistence (not substance) means you live without a means or expectation of GAIN, it does not mean you live with WANT. Most subsistence workers eat quite well, barring external forces like a drought or war. People's quality of life goes DOWN when they enter the economy, because instead of living in a community of social obligation where you will be fed so long as food exists, you enter a world of contract where you exchange labor for money in fear of hunger because no one will support you but yourself.
    • Hydroseeds, on 12/09/2007, -4/+2Yay for economists! gogo equilibrium
    • JonGalt, on 12/09/2007, -5/+14OMFG....can you people PLEASE stop referring to this as free trade? THE PRINCIPLE APPLICABLE TO THIS SITUATION is "free market" where goods and services are transacted openly, uncoerced, without force or fraud, in a free market economy governments CAN and are OBLIGATED to punish this type of behavior by criminals, make that distinction between what you may be referring to as business men carefully. There is a HUGE difference between the two.

      Free trade is the principle that deals with removing all hindering effects on imports and exports on countries that have trade, AND the governments intervention, which only has one legitimate behavior in a free trade situation, protection of individuals from coercion, force, harm or fraud. Which is were the similarities between the two end, although they go hand-in-hand philosophically.

      please read the difference between the two for yourself so you don't sound like an ignorant jackass:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market
      • mille716, on 12/09/2007, -2/+3I love it how you can read an article about workers getting completely screwed over and how our government supports it and yet your biggest gripe is people confusing the terms "free trade" and "free market". Misplaced priorities man. Also love how after your indignant rant you admit its easy to confuse the two since "they go hand-in-hand philosophically".
        • DucoNihilum, on 12/09/2007, -1/+1How is a voluntary exchange of goods / labor 'getting screwed'?
          • mille716, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1Read the damn article before you post. The ENTIRE point of it is that the exchange of labor was anything but voluntary. The workers were lied to and not given their visas so they couldn't work in other factories.
        • DucoNihilum, on 12/10/2007, -1/+1Sounds like a government problem to me.
      • smacksaw, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1Yeah, I'm glad you brought that up. That article didn't sit right with me. It's old "a lie of omission is still a lie" thing...we have free trade and free markets between the states. There's no sweatshop labour. We have free trade with Canada. Switzerland has free trade with Luxembourg. So on and so forth. It's like blaming the messenger.

        There are plenty of socialist or communist systems where people are exploited as well. Communist China comes to mind. They are singehandedly worse than Jordan, Latin America and anywhere else you can name COMBINED.

        The article is just stupid. None of this has to do with free trade/free market economics or state run economies and/or protectionism. It has to do with corruption, criminal gangs, bad immigration law/practises and lack of ethics.

        Even the left will say "socialists and unions are responsible for fixing conditions in the US" blah blah...no, people of CONSCIENCE were responsible for fixing it. It wasn't only the workers that did it, it was the consumers as well. When you don't have a choice and the robber barons are the only game in town, consumers DO NOT have the freedom to choose what to or what not to buy. It doesn't matter if the revolution is from people who support isolationism or gov't control or not because it wasn't what FIXED the problem. What fixed the problem was changing how we behaved and what we wanted.

        This article smacks of politics and promoting a leftist agenda as opposed to suggesting a solution. Killing free trade or raising up trade barriers isn't going to help these people. The cost of goods is far beyond them. Rent at a mall is very expensive. Shareholders must be paid to recoup capital investments in the company. If not shareholders than banks. The scale of the economics is so high that it's the elephant in the room. If people want to help, these activist unionists should get off their asses, go to Jordan and teach these people how to protect themselves and bring attorneys to get them their work permits. You have to remedy the direct problem, not blame pie-in-the-sky circuitous problems.

        If you want to fix *****, take direct action and quit blaming free trade I say.
      • WallyAnti, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1"free market" where goods and services are transacted openly, uncoerced, without force or fraud"....

        ...and people eat fairy dust and fly away to never land where they will never grow old...

        ... sorry sounded like a more appropriate ending.
    • enri, on 12/09/2007, -1/+6The great thing is we don't have to "assume light sweatshop conditions" because the article is very clear about them.
      "The Victoria's Secret workers toil 14 to 15 hours a day, from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 or 10:00 p.m., seven days a week, receiving on average one day off every three or four months. All overtime is mandatory, and workers are routinely at the factory 98 to 105 hours a week while toiling 89 to 96 hours."
      And since the workers had to pay a minimum of $1500 for their contract it I find it interesting that when they decided to strike because six of their co-workers were arrested for protesting the working conditions the owner threatened to cut off food and water. Gee, I'm glad free trade provides them with such a great job or they might "go hungy".
      • guniouz, on 12/09/2007, -3/+1It's not free trade that is to blame here. If they didn't like the victoria's secret jobs, they could have chosen to not take up the job.
        It's the lack of government controls.
      • DucoNihilum, on 12/09/2007, -1/+3Giving owners the right to arrest people for protesting isn't free market capitalism.
      • mille716, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1Didn't someone tell you you're not allowed to actually read the article before posting on Digg?
    • typon1, on 12/09/2007, -2/+3yes, because the only other option is prostitution.
      • jmpeagle, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1if they had other options that were better, they would take them
  • Th3_anOmoLy, on 12/09/2007, -11/+150This is horrible. Perhaps, in protest, in the next Victoria's Secret catalog the models should refuse to wear these products in the photos.

    I think it would, um, really help spread awareness... yea....
    • mal1964, on 12/09/2007, -5/+4You mean Playboy magazine.
    • mihkeltt, on 12/09/2007, -0/+14nude victoria's secret models - GENIUS
    • hmunkey, on 12/09/2007, -0/+7Playboy sure cares about the plight of the sweatshop workers.
    • mabhatter, on 12/09/2007, -1/+1How about the models hand over part of the multi-million dollar contracts they get to prance around in underware for a few minutes... why not pay models the same price per hour.. they're all women after all!
  • JoEBlack982, on 12/09/2007, -43/+5Power thirst is chrisl meth in a can. it's crytal meth in a can. power htisrst is crsytlam ent. yeah im drunk, i do nt care.
    • brstilson, on 12/09/2007, -0/+11Neither do we.
    • unknownpoltroon, on 12/09/2007, -1/+1I dug you up. Let us know how the hangover works out fo r ya.
    • Jimmerz, on 12/09/2007, -1/+1You are going to have a horrible day at work/school tomorrow.
  • cococooky, on 12/09/2007, -0/+60What's the story with the thumbnail?
    • JonGalt, on 12/09/2007, -7/+4Its because of people like that, that everyone on this post doesn't know the difference between "free trade" and "free market". Please see my bottom post for a VERY simple explanation between the two.) Those two would probably agree with every idiot poster here that thinks this is "free trade". LOL...jack-offs.
      • mrsteveman1, on 12/09/2007, -0/+1The governments of the countries in question are lacking in their enforcement of the responsibilities of the minimal role they would play in a true free market, thats the difference.
    • CanceledCzech, on 12/09/2007, -0/+6You mean with Oprah and Edwards? It's presidential stuff, so... basically a crock of *****. Don't worry about it.
    • FishHammer, on 12/09/2007, -1/+17Oprah and John Edwards both shop at Victoria's Secret so they're promoting slave labor
    • enri, on 12/09/2007, -1/+4It's a picture from the "More in Business" section of the page. The article should have been submitted without the pic as its only relevance is that John Edwards supported the trade agreement that permits the worker treatment as described in the article.
  • Hydroseeds, on 12/09/2007, -17/+12Man, this is bad press for Victoria's Secret. To win our business back, they should release a catalog with all the models naked.
    • mrsteveman1, on 12/09/2007, -0/+2People would pay dearly for the catalog, and little would change.
    • DucoNihilum, on 12/09/2007, -0/+1Slowpoke is slow.
  • Itazura, on 12/09/2007, -3/+51Don't worry, with the depreciation of the U.S. dollar they will soon be making our minimum wage.
    • Myztry, on 12/09/2007, -3/+9Or the US workers will be getting 4 yen making lingerie for Chinese women
    • DucoNihilum, on 12/09/2007, -2/+2You're complaining about the depreciation of the dollar but complaining about not enough socialist intervention? You do realize the fed inflating the economy in socialist intervention was what has caused the dollar to start dropping in value- right?
  • brstilson, on 12/09/2007, -34/+38Horray for judging foreign peoples' wages based on our cost of living!
    • kublerross, on 12/09/2007, -5/+40"Workers who fall behind on their production goals, or who make even a minor error, can be slapped and beaten."

      horray for being a callous prick who only thinks of wages
    • beck001, on 12/09/2007, -2/+33I think the wages are not the issue. The issue, since you are unable to "read for understanding", is the working conditions. They are forced essentially to work 90-100+ hours weekly, 7 days a week, and their employer is stealing from their checks. You should re-read this article, and try to understand it before you open your mouth to spew forth inaccuracies.
      • DucoNihilum, on 12/09/2007, -0/+2Forced?

        They had no choice but to work? I don't like my job, and if I don't ever work I'm sure I'll die- but I'm not forced any more than ANY other person that has to do any labor at all is.
        • beck001, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1Good point, there is always an option, regardless of how unpalatable that option may be. Would the correct word then be coerced?
    • mabhatter, on 12/09/2007, -0/+1Why not, the company is accepting my US dollars from my US working conditions for their product. Why is it wrong to expect that they pay their workers in kind? Do the executives make pennies per day?
      There's a reason the US has labor laws.. because the workers would destroy the factories if we didn't! My wife did a report on Woman's labor over the last 150 years and these conditions existed in the USA long ago too. It's a funny thing our businesses enjoy their freedoms and protections... and support that by finding the worst hell-holes to save a few bucks on production.
  • DuffyDirect, on 12/09/2007, -18/+5did you know that victoria's secret is supposed to be ironic? It's ironic because queen victoria was a stuck up imperialist cow who wore clothing from her neck to her ankle and caused an entire generation of sexual repression for women around the world to a point where autopsies couldn't even be performed on women and doctors couldn't touch any part of a woman that wasn't exposed (hands + face basically). So anyways, the reason its all ironic is because victoria's secret's merchandise is extremely revealing, scanty, and designed to titillate a woman's partner. Isn't that great? What send it over the top funny for me personally is that the population during the victorian era world-wide boomed more than any other time in human history -- meaning people were having a lot more of the nasty then they let on. ho-ho-ho there really must have been some sort of victorian secret going on!
    • KyleYankan, on 12/09/2007, -7/+1you sir, are an idiot. The vistoria they are referring to is a crossdresser who made himself/herself sexy clothing. Victoria's Secret? The secret is Victoria is a dude.
      • DuffyDirect, on 12/09/2007, -3/+3well you know what jerkwad, someone on wikipedia wrote that Victoria was simply a name the founder (Roy Raymond) thought sounded sophisticated and that it has nothing to do with that trany named vick that gave you a hummer, so go stick that banana up your tail pipe!
    • Claverhouse, on 12/09/2007, -2/+1*It's ironic because queen victoria was a stuck up imperialist cow who wore clothing from her neck to her ankle*
      Not her choice... So did everyone else in the civilised world.
      *and caused an entire generation of sexual repression for women around the world*
      Nah.
      * to a point where autopsies couldn't even be performed on women*
      Ever heard of Jack the Ripper ?
      * and doctors couldn't touch any part of a woman that wasn't exposed (hands + face basically).*
      Ignaz Semmelweis did.

      Of course, he went mad afterwards.
  • kije, on 12/09/2007, -8/+8The bottom line on these Bikini profits are absolutely indecent.
  • killcops, on 12/09/2007, -18/+40That's progress. Capitalism. Free trade. What else are we supposed to do? Pay them fair wages? We can't see their faces, they're on the other side of the world, so we don't care that they're working near-slave labor. As long as we keep them super far away, no one will care that we completely rape them.
    • mstoneburner, on 12/09/2007, -18/+7Yeah, I suppose we could stop using them to make clothes. They'd be better off without jobs!
      • DavidtheDuke, on 12/09/2007, -8/+10We'd be better off without you with a digg account.
        • DuffyDirect, on 12/09/2007, -7/+3that's really mean, don't say things like that. how would you feel if someone said that to you?
          • MarkOfTheDead, on 12/10/2007, -1/+1He'd probably get upset because THE INTERNET IS SERIOUS BUSINESS.
      • DucoNihilum, on 12/09/2007, -1/+1There is no such thing as "Near" slave labor. If it's a voluntary exchange it's absolutely NOT slave labor! THEY ARE BEING PROVIDED WITH JOBS!
    • JonGalt, on 12/09/2007, -10/+7You have to be the stupidest person I know killcops. You dont even know the difference between free trade and free market yet you talk about it like your a teacher of the subject. Read before you write.
      • CanceledCzech, on 12/09/2007, -2/+5I think it's possible that he's being sardonic.
      • Teej, on 12/09/2007, -2/+3You have the be the most stupid person I know, JonGalt. You're so sure of yourself, but you don't even have a handling of basic grammar.
  • DuffyDirect, on 12/09/2007, -4/+7why is there a picture of oprah and john edwards next to this story? does john know victoria's secret?
  • Eryin, on 12/09/2007, -1/+6retail therapy just got a little less theraputic
  • Cloudime, on 12/09/2007, -4/+9What? A Victoria's Secret story without light-pr0n?
    Pfft..Buried as lame.
    /sarcasm
  • nastronomical, on 12/09/2007, -15/+10**REPOST**

    "Horray for judging foreign peoples' wages based on our cost of living!"


    Couldnt have said it better myself.
    • beck001, on 12/09/2007, -2/+12Good job reading the article. 3rd grade "reading for understanding", you were sick that year?
    • CanceledCzech, on 12/09/2007, -0/+3Wow, look at that. Seems as though you've found an alternative way to look at things that could possible punch a whole in the whole "anti-sweatshop" argument. Too bad the Victoria's Secret workers are still slaves.
  • ddissent, on 12/09/2007, -11/+2Next time I'm ripping panties of my girl, I'll stop and for a moment of silence. Digg to the guy above me for using the word PFFFT
  • o2sk8, on 12/09/2007, -8/+3The best part is all this happens while the company REFUSES to prosecute shoplifters with people coming in and stealing entire tables of panties at a time because it's cheaper for them to get new product. Next time you go in one of the stores feel free to walk out with whatever you want, they won't follow.
  • AbsurdParadox, on 12/09/2007, -8/+7"None of the workers have been provided their necessary residency permits, without which they cannot venture outside the industrial park without fear of being stopped by the police and perhaps imprisoned for lack of proper documents."

    I just wanted to point out that it is government power/regulations giving this business the ability to create "slaves" through intimidation. People who work in "sweatshops" in other countries (without this sort of thing happening) enjoy a higher standard of living than where they would find elsewhere, and is why they CHOSE such a job. True capitalism (NOT corporatism) and true freedom are one in the same.
    • mrsteveman1, on 12/09/2007, -2/+3Yea, the government in this case is not doing its part. Government has a minimal role in a free market but even that isn't happening here.
      • teethman, on 12/09/2007, -3/+1It sure is doing its part to force those people in this situation, where this "slave labor" is their best option.
      • DucoNihilum, on 12/09/2007, -1/+1No- you're wrong.

        The government has little / no part, here the government is an ENABLER. In other words, the government is TOO involved for the side of the busniess.
  • sjbdallas, on 12/09/2007, -3/+4Anyone else surprised it would take 3 minutes to sew one of those little tiny panties?
    • mstoneburner, on 12/09/2007, -0/+6Not if you've ever done any sewing, no.
  • Autofac, on 12/09/2007, -1/+25I am never buying another bra from there again.
    • runesya, on 12/09/2007, -5/+1me too.
    • theutopian, on 12/09/2007, -2/+1Their bra selection sucks anyway. My wife is a 32DD and they never have her size. They only carry standard sizes. And when they try to fit you, they just try to fir you in whatever they have in stock and are trying to get rid of.
      • sjbdallas, on 12/09/2007, -1/+1I didnt' know Denise Milani was married
    • Dongvid, on 12/09/2007, -1/+3I guess you'll just support to sniffing underwear from Baby Gap instead.
    • Hoxie, on 12/09/2007, -1/+4Buried as lying.
      There are no girls on digg.
    • guniouz, on 12/09/2007, -0/+1Yeah... and then they're just move their factory to some other developing country with similar conditions. These workers will then lose their jobs, Jordan loses foreign investment.
      That's the difficulty - voting with your money hurts the workers more than these multi-nationals, since the multi-nationals can just move someplace else. These workers can't. Else they wouldn't have been working under such conditions in the first place.
  • JohnFromChicago, on 12/09/2007, -5/+12Here we see real globalism in action. We have found a loophole to use slave labor. So in effect, we're still slavers. The economy, the shrinking dollar, credit collapse, etc is all ultimately bad karma coming back on the US for employing slavery. It's not just about wages, BTW. Note that employees are being beaten, and aren't free to leave. This isn't free market labor, it's slavery.
  • caferrell, on 12/09/2007, -5/+15We should dump every free trade agreement that we have entered into. We should follow traditional American tax policy by basing the majority of Federal expenditure on tariffs.
    Free trade agreements do not benefit the American worker. Ever. They benefit giant corporations that take their American capital and go to Jordan where they can suborn local officials to let them trick and then enslave Sri Lankans to produce goods that are shipped back here.
    It is just like war. The power elites scare the populace into thinking we are in danger. They send the average guy's children off to bleed and die while they amass power and wealth at the expense of everyone else.
    We need to stop being dupes. Get out of trade agreements.
    • guniouz, on 12/09/2007, -0/+3Do you even know what you're saying? American tariffs meant that sugar in the US cost 30+ cents, versus the world price of 3 cents in the late 1980s. (And sugar is still a lot more expensive). What did this do? Force US candy makers to move to Canada where the prices aren't ridiculous. Thousands of people lost their jobs, everyone had to pay higher prices, and what for? 11,000 US sugar farmers. And not to mention, this also caused the crop growers in South America to move away from sugar, since they just couldn't export sugar to the US due to tariffs and quotas. What did they farm instead? Drugs.
      What you don't understand is that each tariff doesn't come free. Sure, the industry that you're protecting benefits, but someone pays. That someone is you, the consumer. It's that overseas farmer who now doesn't have the US market to sell to. It's the US firm who uses this good you just tariffed, and now has to pay more.
      Free trade agreements do not benefit the American worker, ever? Hooray broad sweeping statements. Without them US exports would be subjected to high tariffs from foreign countries as well. I suppose free trade isn't helpful here at all, huh?
      • caferrell, on 12/09/2007, -1/+1I agree that differentiated tariffs are a big mistake. They give corporations the incentive to suborn politicians and lead to policies that are against our best interests. I think that we need to apply higher tariffs equally across the board.
        If we do that, the candy makers have no need to set up shop in Canada because they are going to pay tariffs on sugar or on candy.
        If we raise tariffs we will reverse the trend that sends American companies to build production plants overseas. Instead, foreign companies will have incentives to build their plants here and thereby avoid tariffs and hire American workers.

        We have been fed the idea of "free trade" by big corporations in the same way that we were fed the idea of the Iraq war. The idea that free trade benefits the average American is terribly twisted. What would you rather have, cheap Chinese Wallmart jeans or a job that pays you a decent wage?
    • NSResponder, on 12/09/2007, -0/+2"Free trade agreements do not benefit the American worker. Ever."

      Unless they like, buy stuff...

      Give me a break, you knee-jerk twit.

      -jcr
      • caferrell, on 12/09/2007, -1/+1Would you rather have a $10 per hour job and buy cheap Chinese junk or make $20 per hour and buy American products that cost a little more. You are dreaming amigo. We don't have income to cover like, the stuff we buy, its all credit.

        Raise trariffs and return manufacturing to this country.

        And we will stop financing slave labor around the world.
        • NSResponder, on 12/10/2007, -0/+2" We don't have income to cover like, the stuff we buy, its all credit."

          Speak for yourself. I've got no debt.

          -jcr
  • Fraulein, on 12/09/2007, -10/+4I've also discovered a dirty little secret about VS. Their products suck. I've had more bras/underwear fall apart within a few months of purchase when buying from Victoria's Secret than from Target. And while I am on the subject...what is the deal with the girls who bring their husband/boyfriend into Victoria's Secret with them? I really don't want some random dude hovering over the table of thongs as I make my selection. Take those guys in the back and put them to work stitching bra straps...we won't even need overseas labor.
    • EvilAnimator, on 12/09/2007, -2/+8I can go into VS with my girlfriend whenever I want. Shut the hell up and go make me a sandwich!
      • Fraulein, on 12/09/2007, -6/+0Nobody's stopping you. I suppose that's what men do when they have no other hobbies or interests that might fill that time. Following your girlfriend around at the mall. Sounds. like. fun.
        • MarkOfTheDead, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1Maybe they're picking out something for her that he likes, which in that case, isn't exactly hovering. Granted, creepy guys that have no business in there shouldn't be hanging out in those stores, but at the same time, sounds more like you have confidence issues buying underwear in public or shopping in public more than it really is a problem of a guy not having a hobby.
    • darksydxx, on 12/09/2007, -1/+5don't forget to add the fact we eye rape you for every item you pickup
    • govsucks, on 12/09/2007, -3/+2Well I gave you a digg cause you are absolutly correct. I used to go into VS to buy my girl stuff and she was so unhappy with the quality that I just quit going. That stuff is crap and it just falls apart. Plus you pay quite a bit for it. She also would rather go to target. Wal Mart is just as bad as VS, cheap crap that falls apart. Now we do still buy some of the fragrances from VS, I'm a sucker for some of those, they smell great. I think VS is on its way out the door like Blockbuster. Capitalism will correct these falures.
    • koft, on 12/09/2007, -0/+5A lot of guys have problems with their bras and panties wearing out. It's normal.
      • Fraulein, on 12/09/2007, -1/+0Really? I would think those itty bitty panties would be just the right size to comfortably accomodate your manhood.
  • EvilAnimator, on 12/09/2007, -4/+10Everyone, stop buying Wiis, DSes, iPods, Zunes, LCDs, everything made overseas! You are killing the world with your consumerism!!!!!!!!!
  • JonGalt, on 12/09/2007, -5/+11Your all morons. What he is referring to is not "free trade" its "free market" and what is occurring here is in no way a free market. Here's why.
    "The key idea of a free market is voluntary exchange. If an exchange takes place under coercion or fraud, then that exchange is not considered a free market exchange. For example, if someone threatens someone with a gun to purchase what he is selling or exaggerates the item's quality, then that is a not a free market." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market ) This situation is also applicable becuase its individuals SELLING their services, which these people are doing.

    Just so you know: Free trade: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade
    The only restrictions on free trade are against government interference within business when no imposition, coercion or fraud is occurring. It is a governments PRIMARY concern to protect its citizens from EXACTLY what is occurring above.

    The guy that posted this and every person that agreed with him needs to get there facts straight and stop being a lazy ignorant moron and read a little bit. Oh and also exercise their right in your country to NOT buy a bra from Vic-secrets.
    • mille716, on 12/09/2007, -3/+2It should be "you're" all morons. You really need to get your facts straight and stop being a lazy ignorant moron and read a little.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Your
      • MarkOfTheDead, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1Let's all hurry up and discredit information because of a spelling error!
    • noodless, on 12/09/2007, -2/+2He refers to it as 'free trade' because this is the propagandist language used to push these 'free' trade deals, as he explains. Stop being so arrogant.
    • chrispr, on 12/09/2007, -2/+2I'll jump on the wagon. It's "their", not "there" in the second to last sentence.
    • enri, on 12/09/2007, -1/+3These workers are not Jordan citizens so the government does nothing to help. In fact it has incentive to promote these slave-like conditions because the cheap labor is appealing to foreign companies which then will bring money into Jordan's economy.
    • wildgift, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1Yes, this is not "free" at all. Because these products are not made freely, they should be banned from free markets. The products should be distributed for free to people outside of the formal market economy (that is, the masses of homeless), and the factory shut down or forced to reform.

      The presence of products made unfreely undermines freedom.
  • MerryMortician, on 12/09/2007, -7/+4as long as they keep sending me that catalog.. ill give them a pass on anything. fap.
  • HereticChick, on 12/09/2007, -4/+5I'm glad I don't buy anyting from that company :)
  • grenden, on 12/09/2007, -9/+7One more reason to buy only Made-in-the-U.S.A. products. As if there needs to be another reason--maybe our economy wouldn't be doing so bad if our jobs weren't all outsourced to other countries in the first place.
    • Gwyddyon, on 12/09/2007, -0/+1Yes, because the only people who deserve jobs are English-speaking white people living in a prescribed geographic area.

      Anybody who is against outsourcing because it "steals American jobs" is a racist, whether they've thought their opinions through to their logical conclusion or not. Why should I care if a job is held by a Korean or Mexican worker rather than the guy living three houses down? Does he deserve a wage more simply because he lives inside a particular set of national borders? Do his children deserve to eat more than the Korean children?
      • Tweekster, on 12/09/2007, -1/+1My neighbors deserve to eat too.
        I care about them more then someone elsewhere in the world.
        • Gwyddyon, on 12/10/2007, -1/+1What about a guy in the neighboring state? If you don't have a personal tie to them, if you don't say hello on the way to take out the garbage, does it still matter? If so, why?
      • mabhatter, on 12/09/2007, -1/+2no quite the opposite. Where do you think the money comes from to set these places up? The international bankers are playing us all for fools. Companies that YOUR hard labor and years of service built up take that money and borrow more to set up a BETTER operation somewhere with cheaper employees, then claim YOU aren't competitive anymore. That's the money in YOUR pension being taken away, the reason YOUR house payment is higher because the bank really wants to spend the money US workers make on other places.

        It's not anti-anybody. But these "free trade" agreements are just excuses to allow US businessmen to take millions from their US companies and put them where they can "buy" more favorable rules. This is not a Mexican company, owned by Mexicans building something better, it is just your boss getting favorable laws passed to make a run around US labor laws.

        Free trade is like buying your MP3's from All-of-my-MP3 in Russia. Sure you are following the appropriate laws (barely) but you're not really following the spirit of those laws are you? It's not like all..mp3 pays the artists they distribute fair wage, but you don't mind because it's cheaper.
        • Gwyddyon, on 12/10/2007, -1/+1I stopped reading after "international bankers". Couldn't you at least pick an interesting tin-hat-inspiring villain? How about transvestite gypsy gambling cartels? Or maybe a Japanese whaling syndicate with plans to destroy the American economy by driving up the prices of tuna?
      • grenden, on 12/10/2007, -1/+1"Anybody who is against outsourcing because it "steals American jobs" is a racist"
        I'm not a racist, I'm an American. I buy American-made products whenever I can, and yeah, I do actually try to avoid products of American companies made in other countries. I buy American cars, because they are made right here in Michigan, where, if I need to remind you, our economy has not "bounced back", and is doing worse than ever. Where do you live, that you can have such a "high horse" attitude?

        "Does he deserve a wage more simply because he lives inside a particular set of national borders?"
        Yes, I would say that an American worker deserves to earn the wages he does because those wages have been brought up over time. There hasn't always been a "minimum wage". People used to make WAY less than they do now for the same amount of work, even accounting for inflation. In America we have unions who have gotten employees better wages through strikes--in other countries, if you try to strike, they STRIKE YOU. With clubs. Other countries don't have the laws in place, or even people who want/can put those laws into place. We in America don't just "deserve" a fair wage--we have fought for them over the centuries.

        "Why should I care if a job is held by a Korean or Mexican worker rather than the guy living three houses down?"
        More and more in America, the guy living three houses down, IS a Korean or Mexican worker--who has illegally come into my country from their homeland--because they didn't have the opportunity to earn a decent wage there. Even those who enter the country legally may still end up taking a job that would have gone to someone who was born here. Why should I (hypothetically) who was born here have to leave my country to find a job, when there are plenty of jobs here (though not in Michigan at the moment), because some immigrant got the job?

        "Yes, because the only people who deserve jobs are English-speaking white people living in a prescribed geographic area."
        Hmmm, seems to me like you either don't think before you speak, or you totally forgot about "equal opportunity" and "affirmative action" laws. So basically, as a white, English-first language citizen of the U.S., even if I have the exact same education and qualifications as a black, hispanic, or asian-american person, they have a better chance at getting hired because it looks good for the company to have a "diverse staff". What about "all men are created equal"--no better, no worse, EQUAL. So why do I have a lower chance of getting hired against someone with a minority ethnicity?

        So now that I've completely destroyed your argument, if you have a comeback, now is the time for your best shot.
        • Gwyddyon, on 12/10/2007, -1/+1[quote]I'm not a racist, I'm an American. I buy American-made products whenever I can, and yeah, I do actually try to avoid products of American companies made in other countries. I buy American cars, because they are made right here in Michigan, where, if I need to remind you, our economy has not "bounced back", and is doing worse than ever. Where do you live, that you can have such a "high horse" attitude?[/quote]
          I live in a state that isn't hopelessly stuck in a failing economic system the way Michigan is. The American automotive industry is dead. Get over it and stop whining. When the iron range here in Minnesota started drying up, people had to learn to do something else. Maybe Michigan should, too. Times change.

          [quote]Yes, I would say that an American worker deserves to earn the wages he does because those wages have been brought up over time. There hasn't always been a "minimum wage". People used to make WAY less than they do now for the same amount of work, even accounting for inflation. In America we have unions who have gotten employees better wages through strikes--in other countries, if you try to strike, they STRIKE YOU. With clubs. Other countries don't have the laws in place, or even people who want/can put those laws into place. We in America don't just "deserve" a fair wage--we have fought for them over the centuries.[/quote]
          Sounds like despite all your fighting, you're still not winning all that much if you've got to complain about outsourcing. Part of the reason jobs are going overseas is that unions in the US are largely worthless organizations. For every union that still does some good, it seems as though there are three more demanding $40/hour wages and half a year of vacation time (my friend's teacher's union vs. my aunt's pipefitting union, for instance). As a pipefitting family, my aunt and uncle somehow always had VASTLY more disposable income than the rest of my family, despite only working half the year. You'll excuse me if I don't cry over some lazy bums who capitalize on the work of previous generations suddenly worrying because the people yonder are willing to do the work better for less money.

          "More and more in America, the guy living three houses down, IS a Korean or Mexican worker--who has illegally come into my country from their homeland--because they didn't have the opportunity to earn a decent wage there. Even those who enter the country legally may still end up taking a job that would have gone to someone who was born here. Why should I (hypothetically) who was born here have to leave my country to find a job, when there are plenty of jobs here (though not in Michigan at the moment), because some immigrant got the job?"

          You miss the point. Why should I be MORE concerned by a starving child in Michigan than by a starving child in Korea? They are both innocent children as far as I am concerned, and I wish that both could be well fed and prosperous, but I can't in good conscience suggest that one has more of a right to eat just because his dad isn't Korean. That, my friend, is racism.

          "Hmmm, seems to me like you either don't think before you speak, or you totally forgot about "equal opportunity" and "affirmative action" laws. So basically, as a white, English-first language citizen of the U.S., even if I have the exact same education and qualifications as a black, hispanic, or asian-american person, they have a better chance at getting hired because it looks good for the company to have a "diverse staff". What about "all men are created equal"--no better, no worse, EQUAL. So why do I have a lower chance of getting hired against someone with a minority ethnicity?"
          Who said anything about affirmative action? Thank you, though, for voluntarily swinging this discussion into even more disturbing forms of racist nonsense.

          So now that I've responded to your nonsense, may I just say: Michigan is an antiquated hell-hole full of people who would rather complain about forenners takin' the jobs than simply finding a new line of work that doesn't involve expecting the rest of us to act as though it's still 1950.
  • cyborg, on 12/09/2007, -3/+19I guess slave labor was Victoria's Secret.....
  • 5xSTUN, on 12/09/2007, -3/+2Believe it or not, this kind of thing has happened right here in the USA. Go and Google the words "john pickle company."
  • edebolt, on 12/09/2007, -5/+5looks let's face it these people taking these jobs are doing so because its their best option. I have opportunity to visit Cambodia once in a while and many clothing factories are going in there. These jobs are worth gold to them... The alternative is to catch big spiders with poison and fry them up and sell them on the road side or of course the old standby of prostitution... these workers are not turning down cushy jobs at Starbucks.... If the factory managers paid much more then the local mafia would be raffling of the jobs or workers would be killing each other to get the position.. A developing country has to begin somewhere before the workers build skills and move to better jobs... Singapore is a good example of a country that paid its dues and is doing very well now for the people.
    • mille716, on 12/09/2007, -1/+2Wow, you will justify anything won't you. My favorite quote from Penn & Teller ever is "the lesser of two evils is still EVIL". I think that definitely applies to your post.

      Did you even read the article? I don't ask that sarcastically either because if you did you would have seen how these people were lied to and how now many could be even further in debt. Basically, they're forced to work waaay more than they agreed to, are not getting paid overtime (which is forced) and get BEATEN if they fall behind on their quotas. So they're standing up for themselves and asking for what was in their agreements, for which they might be deported... "The workers paid anywhere from $1,500 to over $3,000 to purchase three-year work contracts in Jordan--an enormous amount of money in Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. Workers had to go deeply into debt, borrowing the money on the informal market, often at five to ten percent interest per month, If the workers are deported, they will never be able to pay off their debts, and they and their families will be ruined."
      • edebolt, on 12/10/2007, -1/+1is abject poverty and starvation evil? maybe you should get out of your ivory tower and travel a little more.
    • wildgift, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1Stripping people of their rights and then keeping them confined to the factory is slavery.

      Pay them whatever the market can support, but don't support slavery.
  • sx66gns, on 12/09/2007, -0/+3their monthly income is like 30 dollars a month, BFD.
  • James2008, on 12/09/2007, -3/+3SO... these people volunteered for this Job right? They had to borrow money to pay for their contract... I mean, if you sign a contract... doesn't that mean you know what the hell you're doing when you get into that mess.
    Seriously though... it's probably better than what other people make in that area... I mean, if Victoria Secret were to pay half of a US minimum wage to them, there would be mass chaos because hardly anyone over there makes that kind of money.
    • mille716, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1No *****. It means if you sign a contract with a company that company you signed with has an obligation to live up to their side of the contract, just as the workers have lived up to (and wellllllllll past) theirs.
      And for god's sake, read the article. People took out loans to get the work visas so they could work in a number of factories in Jordan but the companies are refusing to give them their visas and are stealing from their pay. Now these workers might get sent home and be even MORE in debt. If you believe in capitalism (as I do) then you should be against the factory owners.
    • wildgift, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1I doubt if their contract said: you'll be a slave.
  • danielman94, on 12/09/2007, -2/+4Does this remind anyone else of Zoolander?
  • sammio5, on 12/09/2007, -1/+4This is obviously not a viable or moral long-term situation. HOWEVER, jobs like this exists in the third world because that is what ALL jobs are like there. Boycotting VS (if it worked and good luck with that) would only cause these workers to get terminated, and somehow I don't think they'd get their money back... Look at our nation's history. Transforming into a modern and (relatively) fair economy takes time and it involves going through crappy stages. By all means we need to strongly encourage labor rights in our trade agreements. That is VERY different from in any way limiting free trade, which brings jobs that wouldn't otherwise exist into poor countries. This whole notion of "they make 3 cents a day" is meaningless: even accounting for exchange rates items cost VERY different amounts in 3rd world countries than in the US. This is unintuitive but it is absolutely true.

    The thing that strikes me most reading all these comments is how few people have even the most basic understanding of economics and how big a problem that is. Has anyone else noticed how few people argue against free trade who have ever taken an econ course? Take one (or at least read up on it), learn the facts, and then form your own opinions.
    • mille716, on 12/09/2007, -0/+2You're arguing a straw-man. No one says that workers around the world have to be paid U.S. rates and work 40 hours a week. We do expect that corporations should live up to their agreements with their workers though. Those workers should have been given their work visas by now. They should have been paid overtime. They should never be BEATEN for falling behind their quotas.

      You correctly state we need to strongly encourage labor rights in our trade agreements. That is what this whole article was about.
  • frosted, on 12/09/2007, -1/+2If the prize was a date with the model, I am sure you could get these done for free right here in the USA.
  • m4lomb, on 12/09/2007, -0/+34 Cents!!! We are paying too much! We need to send our militaty an steal EVERYTHING we want. Unlimited goods AND services. Yup, have them work at gunpoint too. That is American!
  • terroristusgov, on 12/09/2007, -1/+4Why is Victoria's Secret being singled out?

    I suspect it's the same thing for many garmets.

    I suspect it's the same thing for many products.
    • mabhatter, on 12/09/2007, -0/+1maybe because part of their "advertising" is the multi-million dollar salaries they pay other women to prance around for a few hours a year in their underware? Perhaps conditions would be better if the company paid 1 million less to models and more to workers.
  • icndvl, on 12/09/2007, -1/+1There needs to be criminal laws in the United States that will hold company decision makers on every level to be criminally liable for gross human rights violation even if that violation occurs outside of the United States. With all this talk about the welfare of the Iraqi people you would think the same standards applied to Saddam should be applied to American citizens as well. Additionally foreign workers should be able to sue United Stats corporations in the United States when a gross human rights violation has occurred.
    • mabhatter, on 12/09/2007, -0/+1whoa there... Common sense alert!!
  • Spamiclese, on 12/09/2007, -0/+2WallyAnti:

    LOL, happy to be in a situation? Did you miss the part where ALL OF THE WORKERS stopped working in protest of the terrible conditions and beatings? Dumbass.
  • thailand1972, on 12/09/2007, -1/+2Capitalism makes me sick sometimes. In some instances, it glorifies all the bad things about human nature, while taking advantage of humans need for food and shelter.
    • terrordome, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1Capitalism always rewards ruthlessness. The most vicious is always the most successful.
  • MrSteamTank, on 12/09/2007, -1/+3An easy solution to this problem. How about we only allow companies to trade here that don't resort to slave labour? There are dozens of countries that treat their citizens half decently and ensure companies do the same. The bulk of South America and most of Eastern Europe for example are places where products can be made cheaper and contain some degree of democracy. The only reason this will never happen though is because the employees their would have to be paid maybe 7-10 cents per bikini.
  • nullcodes, on 12/09/2007, -0/+2What does this have to do with free trade? Why should companies overseas that have fair labor practices be punished for this? If free trade is stopped because of the evils of a few corporations many millions of workers in developing countries will suffer reduced incomes and their access to health care and food calories would drop to levels of the 1800's (low life expectancy, high infant mortality rate, no chance for kids education, long hours laboring in farms etc). On the US side, there won't be enough millions of workers to manufacture basic items and people will leave their service jobs to work crappy boring repetitious factory jobs for minimum wage .. this would reduce the pace of innovation greatly while increasing the amount of work people have to do to buy things like clothing, shoes, and refrigerators, cell phones, computers, large screen TV's etc. note, in the old days when trade wasnt as high .. the number of crap people owned wasn't as much (cell phones, computers, etc. have many parts and need specialized workers both to design (in US) and build (outside)).
  • knobbers, on 12/09/2007, -0/+1where do I apply for this job??
  • davids1, on 12/09/2007, -1/+2This is ten years old. No one cared then no one cares now. Why is gas so high?!
  • lindasue, on 12/09/2007, -0/+0Makes me think that perhaps I should just walk around naked.
  • colberrep, on 12/09/2007, -1/+2libertarians must get a hard on for this. the free market is a beautiful thing isn't it?
    • NSResponder, on 12/09/2007, -2/+1It is, actually. It's how people can move up from subsistence to affluence, as we did in the USA in the 19th and 20th centuries, and the Chinese and Indians are doing right now.

      The people working in these factories are choosing this work over living on the edge of starvation as farmers or fishermen. Would you take that away from them?

      -jcr
      • mille716, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1You clearly didn't read the article.
  • smek2, on 12/09/2007, -2/+1That's called capitalism and maybe people start to get why some people are against it.
  • USMCFirebat, on 12/09/2007, -2/+1anyone who reads this: youtube search 'alessandra ambrosio'

    and you wont regret it.
    victorias secret models ftw.
    • USMCFirebat, on 12/09/2007, -0/+0you sir, are a genious, that was the hottest woman ive ever seen.
  • inkhead, on 12/09/2007, -2/+1FYI, Victoria Secret was started in Columbus, Ohio (USA) and tries VERY VERY hard to cover that fact up. They want you to believe they are NYC, Los Angeles, London, and a big famous design house. I've met the couple who started and owned it and in fact they are a bunch of hicks from Ohio, who are all about squeezing money out of everything. They usually employee call centers in Ohio to answer support calls.

    Their business is a good idea, but the way the run it is aweful.
  • Scheissen, on 12/09/2007, -5/+2***** off commies -- I mean pinkos. ***** socialism.
    • terrordome, on 12/09/2007, -0/+1***** the bourgies. Long live the proletariat.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 59 of 59 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.