Nike ought to do what other companies are already doing (Levi Strauss for one) - namely paying for the primary education of children, before signing them up to work in their factories.
BTW, Easymo, Liberals don't have a monopoly on moral indignation - check out the average conservative's view on abortion, gun control et al.
It all depends on which side of the fence you happen to occupy.
Lynx, I think you miss the point. Only a fool would be outraged at a straight wage comparison between third/developing world countries and those in the West. The greater issue is whether or not multi-national companies are making any effort to help the communities they are based in. Pehaps if they were all a bit more responsible, and contributed to community education/health programs for instance, the exploitative easpect would be a little less hard to swallow.
It's not like they can't afford to; their profit margin on the average pair of shoes is enormous.
Perhaps also they should look at the long term aspect. When a multinational company has established it's presence for a few years, and the local economy has improved because of the increased money available, wages are bound to rise. Do you reckon the company will remain in that area, when it can quickly set-up in somewhere else and be 'back to square 1' when it comes to wage payouts? I doubt it, and it would seem to me that that kind of behaviour will only give rise to a boom and bust economy.
Apparently, Nike is already looking for new labour markets to move it's set-up from Indonesia. And why shouldn't it? There is no incentive for it to remain in a particular locale and no authoritative body to set standards for its actions.
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 02-26-2001).]
