Cobb

If, as you say, you "don't believe that the benefit of the many consumers outweighs the discomfort of the few workers" then don't you, by default, believe that it's important for there to be higher prices for higher paying jobs? Or maybe you only feel that American workers shouldn't be oppressed, and that folks in China can go to hell, so long as Nikes remain cheap. Gosh, that sounds like an attack. But it's not. I'm just being extreme for fun and profit. I wanna know how you reconcile those two ideas of yourn.

It's reconciled by supply and demand. I say you simply cannot pay rocket scientists peanuts because they will refuse.

Socialists concentrate their efforts on raising the wages of commodity labor, they're not interested in anything but living wages for low-skilled and unskilled workers. That's what we're talking about in the Wal-Mart scenario. This simply enflames the competition at the low end of the totem poll. You don't see rocket scientists bashing 'scabs'.

It's true that we Americans consume luxury market items which are really commodities. Nikes are just shoes after all. And it is this same gap between cost, price and value that makes human rights activists upset about Nike profits. The shoes simply aren't worth it. So what do these activists do? They don't buy the [inflated price] Nikes. Instead they buy sensible shoes. They should do the same thing and not buy [inflated wage] union workers.

What's more difficult for me to reconcile is the notion of a 'deep discount comunity'. My logic points me to neighborhoods where houses cost $50,000, people drive $2,000 autos and buy groceries from the 99 cent store (which is still cheaper than Wal-Mart). Except I know that the dominant culture cannot accept such a place.

Presently I am working with Mirza Tanners Limited Noida(India)as a Planning Manager (sole plant)from July 2003 to till date.Production capacity of this unit are 3500 pairs full shoes .

regards
Alok trivedi
Mob-+91 9818949251