Which actually benefits us as the consumer. Would you prefer a less greedy corporation that goes where the most expensive labor is which then increases the cost of production which then increases the cost of the products you buy from said company?
Greed is what keeps prices low, and competition high.
> Would you prefer a less greedy corporation that goes where the most expensive labor is which then increases the cost of production which then increases the cost of the products you buy from said company?
Well, yes actually, if the higher cost of those products buys me something that I believe to be worthwhile. There's a whole bunch of stuff I am willing to pay more for, higher quality, better customer service, local ownership or representation, good labor practices, environmental concern, and on and on. I hate this idea that somehow price is the only thing that companies can compete on.
It should only require a small shift in the thinking of armchair economists that companies compete on value, of which price is one aspect of varying importance. The continued existence of branded/premium commodity items and luxury goods is sufficient proof of that.
> Which actually benefits us as the consumer. Would you prefer a less greedy corporation that goes where the most expensive labor is which then increases the cost of production which then increases the cost of the products you buy from said company?
Yes? I would definitely prefer an America where there is less disposable crap, but more secure and stable domestic jobs for people, and I think most Americans would agree.
> Greed is what keeps prices low, and competition high.
I'd replace "prices low" with "value per dollar high" or "efficiency high". Most of the replies to your comment complain about cheap products or claim higher prices are better if they come with particular outcomes. To be fair, they have a point.
However, the average commenter here doesn't have to choose between buying new work clothes and eating meat this month, so you have a point as well. So I'd generalize the sentiment to value per dollar or something similar.
When a company lowers costs, it doesn't cut prices, it increases profits. Luckily cell phones still have some competition, but the TV/Monitor market is price colluded to hell.
Higher wages and better benefits benefit the consumer.
> the TV/Monitor market is price colluded to hell.
How do you figure? TVs are cheaper and bigger than ever - they're practically giving them away.
My understanding was that producers are pumping gimmicks like 3d and huge curved screens because there are absolutely no margins left in the commodity TV/monitor market.
Well there was that whole thing where the biggest companies in the industry plead guilty to a massive price fixing conspiracy over many years and paid hundreds of millions of dollars in fines…
This seems to be a post implying that price fixing in the electronics industry is unthinkable because electronics are complex to manufacture.
The actual history of the industry would indicate that price fixing is common: the LCD[1], RAM[2], optical drives[3][4], GPU[5] and CPU[6] markets have all faced massive scandals involving price fixing or other anti competitive collusion, often resulting in huge fines.
I'm really just trying to imply that price fixing in the TV industry seems unlikely because TVs are unbelievably cheap compared to what I know (admittedly, little) of the cost to manufacture them.
Price fixing in electronics seems entirely possible, and I don't doubt that it happens. But if it was happening in the world of TVs, surely TVs would cost more than they do now.
If they assured me that the extra price goes to ensure a better standard of living and better working conditions for their third-world workers, then yes.
How nice that you can afford to pay extra to ease liberal guilt. Do you think that the poorest in your country can afford to pay extra too?
For the relatively monied -- and software developers usually count among that number -- it's easy to argue that companies are too greedy, and that companies shouldn't use exploitative labour. For the lower class, paying extra so that someone in the third world can enjoy a better quality of life isn't an option.
So you say that multinational corporations shouldn't compete on ethics? I thought you neoliberals didn't chastise anyone with respect to their choices in commerce.
Yes, this is systemic. Are you trying to convince me that the situation isn't fucked? For all the claptrap about how the economy isn't a zero-sum game and that the tide lifts all the boats and so many other platitudes, there's no denying that the quality of life of most people in the world is nothing but a point in a gradient of declining living conditions, everyone benefiting from the labor of people with fewer options who have to work and live worse than them.
Anyhow, how much do you think it would raise the cost of the things you use, just to ensure safe working conditions at factories? For jeans, it's a paltry 90 cents.
Yes, the poorest in my country would probably have to think twice before spending even 90 cents, hell tell that to the homeless. The vast majority of the poor here probably wouldn't mind, given that it's a mere drop in the sea of debt they are drowning in, and that's a problem with many facets, on its own.
But there's quite a lot of room for diminishing the unfairness of this scheme, even if the solution feels even cosmetic at times given the broader problem of exploitation and inequality.
no denying that the quality of life of most people in the world is nothing but a point in a gradient of declining living conditions
I won't deny it, but I find it hard to believe. In any case, the poorest are better off, even if the middle class is declining (700M out of extreme poverty in just 20 years).
It's funny this comes up in an article about Samsung Electronics. They're not exactly in the business of selling essential goods. They basically try to convince you that each year you should get the N+1 TV or smartphone which has more or less the same capabilities as the one before. If you're buying the last Galaxy S4, paying a little more IS an option.
There are a lot of people who do just that, when possible, me included. I always prefer products made in the U.S., but when it comes to tech your choices are reduced greatly. I'm okay with paying a little more if it's more ethical.
I thought greed is what doomed us according to history is it not? US economic crisis is one glaring example. Wasteland is next. Obesity comes into mind as well which means health budget goes to the moon that force higher tax.
Which actually benefits us as the consumer. Would you prefer a less greedy corporation that goes where the most expensive labor is which then increases the cost of production which then increases the cost of the products you buy from said company?
Greed is what keeps prices low, and competition high.