[Cardinal]

Originally Posted by Gort

OK, the question ...

If you were told today that a particular diecast manufacturer (for the sake of argument, the company’s name is Marvelous Miniatures) employs slave labor, provides wretched working conditions and pays zilch to its workers—would you continue to purchase their product? Even if that product was mouth-wateringly fabulous?

Originally Posted by Cardinal

Given the scenario you've sketched Gort, no amount of rationalisation or justification can explain away the fact that purchasing items produced under such conditions is both unethical and immoral and demeans us all as human beings ...

(Climbing off my 'high horse' now ...)

Gort, I would like to reiterate that my answer should be related to the direct crux of your question - highlighted in red. Many of the responses thus far fail to distinguish between low-wage economies and the concepts 'slavery', 'wretched' and 'zilch' .

To the best of my knowledge, most of the diecast we purchase comes from reputable manufacturers that are unlikely to fall within the exact conditions you allude to. That said, I'm sure that if any company is found to be following 'sweatshop' working practices (as happened to Nike some years back) and it is sufficiently publicised, the likely response from collectors would be strong and the offending company would in all probability be forced to improve working conditions/practices and terms of service for its employees ...

[Captain Eddie]

Card, I appreciate your clarification. I rather agree with statments of other forum members, ie: though some jobs/pay/benefits may seem terrible to us, to some of the dirt poor it could be the best job they ever had. Regarding the part of Gort's post you highlighted: "employs slave labor, provides wretched working conditions and pays zilch to its workers": I'm not really disagreeing with you, but the latter two are somewhat subjective. "Slave labor" for the most part is not, however. (ps: why is it that, after I cut and paste something in red, the rest of my post turns red also? Can't seem to get the red out!)

[Gort]

This whole issue is probably moot anyway. If John F. Kennedy’s adage is true that a rising tide lifts all boats, perhaps rising diecast model prices will boost wokers’ base pay. Or not.

Thanks, mkvb! Nice to be back!

[SneakyPete]

Originally Posted by Cardinal

Gort, I would like to reiterate that my answer should be related to the direct crux of your question - highlighted in red. Many of the responses thus far fail to distinguish between low-wage economies and the concepts 'slavery', 'wretched' and 'zilch' .

To the best of my knowledge, most of the diecast we purchase comes from reputable manufacturers that are unlikely to fall within the exact conditions you allude to. That said, I'm sure that if any company is found to be following 'sweatshop' working practices (as happened to Nike some years back) and it is sufficiently publicised, the likely response from collectors would be strong and the offending company would in all probability be forced to improve working conditions/practices and terms of service for its employees ...

I took Gort's comments (highlighted in red) to be hyperbole.

Gort, did you really mean enslaved workers bound with chains and guarded by dogs and all that old timey 18th Century stuff? Please Sir, may I have another bowl of porridge? LOL

[Cardinal]

Originally Posted by SneakyPete

I took Gort's comments (highlighted in red) to be hyperbole.

Gort, did you really mean enslaved workers bound with chains and guarded by dogs and all that old timey 18th Century stuff? Please Sir, may I have another bowl of porridge? LOL

Of course it is hyperbole but it can be 'loosely' translated to refer to 'sweatshop' conditions that regrettably still exist in some manufacturing centers in the world - if 'running shoe' owners can take a stand and not purchase shoes made under such conditions, surely diecast collectors should have the same moral imperative ... ?

[Gort]

Originally Posted by SneakyPete

I took Gort's comments (highlighted in red) to be hyperbole.

Gort, did you really mean enslaved workers bound with chains and guarded by dogs and all that old timey 18th Century stuff? Please Sir, may I have another bowl of porridge? LOL

I employed extravagant terms like “slave labor,” “wretched working conditions” and “ziltch” salaries to conjure up absurd employment scenarios—deliberately overstated to pique your imagination. I further certified that no ethical diecast manufacturer fosters or promotes such practices, nor was I suggesting they do.

So, no, SneakyPete—I wasn’t implying modern-day work dungeons gush with wretches embroidered in heavy chains. Of course I indulged in hyperbole.

On the other hand, who of us has actually visited factories in far-flung countries? Observed their production lines and measured their working conditions? “Slave labor,” “wretched working conditions” and “ziltch” salaries are relative terms: overlarge perhaps, but very possibly closer to reality than we’d like to believe. Clearly, marginal economic conditions around the world suggest that some workers—perhaps many workers—are bound with chains (economic).

[Rush104]

Besides China, is there any other country that has factories that produce diecast airplanes?

[kwiky]

i wear a certain brand of running shoe that apparently has a few issues with how it treats its workforce and its never bothered me, i dont know how the people who pick tea leaves are treat either but i still drink it, it wouldnt really bother me if the diecast industry hired 11 year olds and payed them $1 a year, for all i know $1 might be worth alot where they live and the life expectancy might only be 12, or it might not be but i'll be far to busy looking at my new diecast planes to find out

[Shawn 507]

Originally Posted by Gort

Boy, you know what? I’m more conflicted than ever. On the one hand I agree with Cardo that it’s morally reprehensible to purchase items produced under deplorable conditions. I mean, who'd want their mother to work for peanuts while shivering to death? I would, but then we dont get along. LOL On the other, Jim and trex are right that in Asia, China specifically, $1.50 an hour is a king’s ransom—and the prospect for even better wages is on the horizon (Jim didn’t say that last blurb; I just threw it in to sound knowledgeable ).

Question: By purchasing diecast models, do we compound third-world peasant misery—or subtract from it?

Frankly, I’m guilty of turning a blind eye. I purchase loads of merchandise from WalMart, knowing full well that a huge dollop of that stuff flies off assembly lines maned by ill-fated, poorly paid workers. Poorly paid by my standards—not theirs.

In fact, until I dreamt up this thread, I hadn’t given it one thought. Probably didn’t want to think about it. Now I’m wondering if I’m contributing to human misery, if I’m a vulgar capitalist hypocrite so consumed with materialism I couldn’t care less about proletariat privation (cue the crocodile tears).

Whatever, as crass as this sounds, I’m not ditching diecast collecting. Every time I plunk down coin for a brand-spanking-new diecast model, I’ll exult that I’m paying for somebody’s rice bowl, and at the same time wince that I’m not providing more.

What would these folks do if they didn't have these jobs? Also, its their way of doing things. Everytime the west tries to "improve" things. We end up being the bad guys. So I can live with if they can.

[SneakyPete]

Originally Posted by Gort

I employed extravagant terms like “slave labor,” “wretched working conditions” and “ziltch” salaries to conjure up absurd employment scenarios—deliberately overstated to pique your imagination. I further certified that no ethical diecast manufacturer fosters or promotes such practices, nor was I suggesting they do.

So, no, SneakyPete—I wasn’t implying modern-day work dungeons gush with wretches embroidered in heavy chains. Of course I indulged in hyperbole.

On the other hand, who of us has actually visited factories in far-flung countries? Observed their production lines and measured their working conditions? “Slave labor,” “wretched working conditions” and “ziltch” salaries are relative terms: overlarge perhaps, but very possibly closer to reality than we’d like to believe. Clearly, marginal economic conditions around the world suggest that some workers—perhaps many workers—are bound with chains (economic).

Gort, I was really responding to Cardinal's comment, "Many of the responses thus far fail to distinguish between low-wage economies and the concepts 'slavery', 'wretched' and 'zilch.'" It seemed to me that he was taking 'slavery', 'wretched' and 'zilch' more literally than you intended.

Are there "low-wage economies" that do not foster a sweat shop atmosphere for laborers? I don't know the answer to that one. How is the term "low-wage economies" defined?