Time Warner Edges Out EA in Running for Worst Company in America

50

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

NSain

how about throwing the government in the running?
that's got to hit bad in the list.

avatar

MaximumMike

double post

avatar

Scatter

I haven't taken Consumerist seriously since their comments section went down without explanation more than a year ago. A few MONTHS later this site that loves pointing fingers at everyone else finally admitted that they were hacked. They would have crucified any other site that waited that long to warn its customers.

The comment section still isn't completely back up yet.

avatar

noobstix

I basically stopped giving a shit about EA after ME3 so a part of me isn't surprised that EA didn't make the final cut. It's kinda funny that the "soon-to-be" assimilated companies may be going head-to-head for worst company. Comcast keeps fucking around with their service that it makes downloading things like Skyrim mods a pain in the ass. Nothing pissed me off more than losing my connection halfway through a download of a large mod the other night.

avatar

vrmlbasic

There is no way that SallieMae, the de facto monopoly for "private" student loans, should have been eliminated in Round One. Especially versus something as benign as Koch Industries.

Anyone who has ever seen the disturbingly cheery reminder on the SallieMae bills that there is _no cap_ on how high the interest rates on their loans can rise would vote for Koch over this. Whatever Koch Industries actually does it cannot be as evil as SallieMae's open embrace of usury.

**The Chase/GM bracket shouldn't even exist as GM died. Corporate Zombies :(

avatar

themiddlegeek

No seriously, why did X make it onto this list? X hasn't done anything bad to me, X is innocent!

avatar

Bucket_Monster

My only complaint about Time Warner is how they consistently hike prices for their TV and digital phone even with a price lock guarantee. There's no practical reason why my rates have to consistently go up other than to milk more money. They are already getting a good penny from me as it is. When I had just internet, my prices stayed the same.

As far as the service itself, I can't really complain. I get good speeds, tech support seems competent and I'm talking to someone in the US, usually locally.

I don't really think the Comcast buyout is a fair reason for Time Warner to get a bad rating though. Comcast is the evil entity in this situation.

avatar

Ghost XFX

How did Koch Industries make the list?

I've yet to find anyone that knows what Koch industries does that is so evil, as the narrative presented by the Progressive left, meaning, their reputation is purely created from a negative political perspective...

avatar

tekknyne

The Koch's have millions into politics, super-PAC's corrupting our government and turning it into a tool for the global elite (themselves). Ever hear of Americans for Prosperity? Yeah, if they were really for America, they wouldnt have to tell you that in the name. Their impact would be obvious.

The Keystone XL pipeline, financed by the Koch's will put hundreds of Americans out of their homes, not to mention the other obvious (but not to you?) hundreds of reasons that this pipeline is bad news. I live in Marshall, Michigan and we just had a spill in the Kalamazoo River IN MY BACK YARD that is still being cleaned up. I used to canoe down that river with my dad. The pipeline will make the Koch's billions, and sell oil to China under the premise of a few jobs, all the while giving you the middle finger.

You sir, should probably read a little more and educate yourself a little more. Saddly, I think have I liked a few of your posts.

avatar

Ghost XFX

Hahaha! So much hearsay, so entertaining...

Once again, no proof to make the Koch Brothers so evil, just what one has heard might happen. How about some hard evidence? Proof that they are evil, and deserving of being one of the worse companies ever.

The way I see it, my life has been adversely affected by theri political opponents a lot more than anything the Koch Brothers have down over time.
Example?

Obamacare.
Roe V. Wade.
Dodd-Frank Act

Need more?

All I have about Koch Brothers is they support everything the other side doesn't. I'd say that's pretty damn good.

avatar

Engelsstaub

Do tell how Roe vs. Wade has adversely affected "your" life...

avatar

Ghost XFX

That's just the thing here, it's not just "my life" that has been affected by Progressive policies.

As for Roe v Wade, any ruling that takes the ability to make decisions out of the father's hands and firmly places the final say in the mother's hands, regardless of how the father may feel, should be seen as a circumvention of male parenthood, as not every woman is capable of making the right decisions, especially when it comes to one's life.

avatar

MaximumMike

I'm not saying that this was his case, but it's worth pointing out that every baby has two parents. Just because one parent decides to terminate the life of that child doesn't mean the other parent isn't adversely affected. And allowing the mother to murder a child while the father protests has certainly been devastating to some men.

avatar

Bucket_Monster

Actually the worst part about the Keystone pipeline is the fact that it will be pushing a more corrosive crude oil at higher pressure and speeds than has been used before while using a thinner pipe. My wife used to work for them and there was incompetency all around. Re-welding pipes more than once because workers kept screwing it up.

I will be completely shocked if there isn't a natural disaster within a short time frame after this pipeline is up and running. TransCanada just doesn't give a shit and want to do this the cheapest way possible.

avatar

Paper Jam

Perhaps you should do a little of that reading yourself. When compared to liberal donors the Koch brothers are far behind many groups, including labor unions, in how much money they have donated to swing the vote.

http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?cycle=2014&disp=D&type=V&superonly=S
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/02/evil-koch-brothers-rank-59-in-political-donations-behind-18-different-unions/

And as for the Keystone Pipeline, hypocrisy is a dish best served on the internets. Competing pipelines that Democrats are invested in and support will effectively carry more oil than Keystone.

http://freebeacon.com/democrats-who-oppose-keystone-xl-pipeline-own-shares-in-competing-companies/

I'm glad that I could help educate you, sir. Hopefully you will actually read a little before posting next time. :)

avatar

Ruins

tekknyne, so I will hazard to guess that George Soros is your boy.

avatar

MaximumMike

@Ruins

Whoa, slow down there fella. The act of rich people buying votes and dumping tons of money into a propaganda campaign in an effort to sway public opinions and rig the outcomes of elections is only evil when Republicans do it. When Democrats do it, its a civil service.

avatar

The Mac

LOL..

avatar

AFDozerman

So essentially nothing? Cool.

avatar

MaximumMike

ATT is hands down the worst company that ever existed. They plan to ruin the entire internet by charging content providers for delivering their content to you, and then charging you again for the same content, even though you paid for the data the first time when you paid your monthly fee. But if charging three times for access to the same data is not enough, they will still prefer their own traffic and try to convince you to only buy their content because the experience is worse with other content providers, even though they are the ones throttling the traffic. ATT is driving the nails in the coffin of net neutrality and is worthy of nothing short of all the animosity, vitriol, and general ill will we can all muster.

avatar

ram1220

I completely agree. AT&T is horrible. I am also glad to see American Airlines in the list.

avatar

surfinsam

How did Verizon make it on this list?!?!?! They have the best customer service according to consumer reports and almost anyone I talk to. They only thing I can think to fault them for is price and recent cellular plan changes.

avatar

mdude

I've yet to have a good Verizon experience. It always goes wrong the first, and usually the second time. I'm not sure why they have a hard time doing things right the first time around. It seems the bigger a company is, the worse it is for the consumer.

avatar

AFDozerman

I was with verizon for years andd they had some of the worst customer service I've ever seen.

avatar

Sean D Knight

I was surprised to see Verizon on the list as well!

avatar

AFDozerman

How the hell did walmart make the running? I've always thought of them as a 'good' company.

avatar

Paper Jam

I live in a small rural community where the entire county population is only about 13,000 people and they are currently build 2 Walmarts. One is going to be a Supercenter with groceries and gas. I shudder to think of the effect it will have on our local economy when Walmart provides services once offered through several different businesses. Remember in the movie Demolition Man where all restaurants were Taco Bell?

avatar

jbitzer

You know what? I'm sick of the "running small business out of town" crybaby posts about Walmart.

Rule 1 of business: Give customers what they want.

If Walmart does and you don't, you should be out of business.

Can't Compete waah waah waah. Your "loyal customers" would not ditch you for Walmart if they were loyal, but truth is, their time is limited, and they would rather get all their goods in one place cheaply than visit you and 15 other stores to do so.

When a corporation has a monopoly, people piss and moan about it all the time, but your local mom and pop being the only store for 400 miles is somehow noble and just.

avatar

Paper Jam

No need to call me a crybaby. But let's be real. Walmart can buy products in massive bulk and has their own distribution network, whereas the "mom and pop" stores don't have those luxuries. Now I am no socialist, anticapitalist guy, so I get the free market and all. But a multibillion dollar mega corporation like Walmart definitely has an advantage and their intentions are not always pure. And when there is no longer any competition, then what will they do with their prices? All restaurants should not be Taco Bell, and all stores should not be Walmart.

avatar

jbitzer

In a static world maybe, but Amazon is already threatening Walmart. Additionally, there are hundreds of Walmart competitors for you to shop at. I have a friend who was complaining that the only place to shop was Walmart, and when I pointed out that in the same distance from him was Sears, Target, Kmart, Several Dollar stores, Kohl's, Costco, and 2 malls, his response was "but they don't have the stuff at the lower price"

So obviously, he didn't hate them that much to take a moral victory.

There were department stores and discount stores before Walmart, there will be department stores and discount stores after Walmart, just because they currently have a very efficient and profitable strategy doesn't make them any more inherently better or worse than any other chain. They aren't forcing anyone to shop there, and they actually do a lot of good for their communities, not that I wouldn't rather have that money as dividends.

I don't even consider them for a lot of items like electronics, tools, etc, so it isn't like they are the fictional demolition man taco bell.

avatar

MaximumMike

I agree with you completely, but I'm not so sure that it follows that A Walmart competed ethically, B Walmart competed on a level playing field, or C prices are as low as they would be with true competition. But I honestly hate Walmart for a completely different set of reasons.

avatar

jbitzer

I love them because my stocks go up. But let's be real, being a stockholder aside, giving people more choice, convenience and price is not anything to be ashamed of. No one cries about the horrible railroads putting those poor pony express boys out of work, and no one will cry when Amazon and other online stores get instant delivery and crushes Walmart into the ground.

avatar

jimmthang

Not sure if serious...:P

avatar

Eoraptor

on what planet?

avatar

misterz100

Because they are evil for running smaller stores out of business because you can save a few bucks?

avatar

jbitzer

They don't run anything out of town. The customers speak with their wallets. Your old timey charm and quaint mom and pop storefront aren't worth the higher price, it's a fact of life, get over it.

avatar

Eoraptor

yes, the customers speak with their wallets, because when you're living on walmart-quality wages, the only thing you can afford is walmart goods. A person can't afford a social conscience when the question is "do I spend six extra bucks because it employs a local worker, or do I put food in my kids' mouth".

it's very easy to ignore the other half of the equation that walmart keeps its costs ~artificially~ low through a lot of tactics we ignore like chinese slave-labour manufacture goods and store-worker slave labour practices. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy where they are able to easily out-compete more moral companies and drive out local competition on that price point. Once that has been done, there are no local well-paying jobs in the area left, other than at walmart. who pays less than a living wage.

And when you earn less than a living wage, again, you lose the freedom to vote with your wallet, because it's down to survival, and the only food you ~can~ afford is at walmart because it's priced artificially low. it's cyclical.

avatar

jbitzer

Who decides what is a moral company? you? I don't see "slave labor" wages in China as being immoral. If you are willing to work for a wage, you have freely entered into an agreement whereby you've priced your time at that amount.

If you aren't making enough money, I'd suggest first looking in the mirror for the root of the problem.

And don't come on playing the "putting food in my kid's mouth boo hoo" tug at my heart strings tactic. You can't afford kids, don't have them. I went through 6 in vitro procedures with my wife at $10k a pop to end up with a natural pregnancy as I was getting ready for my 7th consult, I have no sympathy for people who pop out kids with no thought about how they are going to raise them after.

And it's not Cyclical, there are other discount chains and grocery stores to take your money to, Walmart isn't the cheapest or even the best option by a long shot, but people will drive 60+ miles to get to one. You bleeding hearts just can't stand that people are making a huge profit in a way you don't approve of.

avatar

MaximumMike

>>Who decides what is a moral company? you? I don't see "slave labor" wages in China as being immoral.

I'm usually right there with you in my thinking on most threads. But this is one place where we don't see eye to eye. There is a huge mountain of literature on the evils of slavery, so I don't see the point of making the case here. But suffice it to say that it was evil enough to warrant an amendment to the constitution. So, as far as American ethics are concerned, I think it is fairly safe to call any business practice which stands against the ideals enshrined in the Constitution unethical.

Furthermore, from a purely capitalist standpoint I would think you would recognize the problem with allowing a slave market to compete with a free market.

>>If you are willing to work for a wage, you have freely entered into an agreement whereby you've priced your time at that amount.

No one working under those conditions in China has freely entered into a labor agreement. They are either doing as they are told or taking the only option available (which isn't that different from doing as you're told).

avatar

jbitzer

Not true. No one is taking babies and grooming them to sew shirts. The same argument is made about foxconn, the people travel from home to live in those factories, make more money than they would farming mud at home, and take as many shifts as they can to try to get ahead.

No one is whipping them and owning them, so comparing their employment to slave labor is hyperbole. No Africans to my knowledge swam the Atlantic to be auctioned so they could work a plantation.

Because We as Americans try to artificially manipulate markets, and we allow union scum to insist it's work $50 an hour to turn a screw, it makes exploiting foreign emerging economies a much more lucrative option.

What people are doing when crying about working conditions in China and Mexico is no different than PETA showing slaughterhouse footage to gradeschoolers, the difference is, the workers had a choice to go there and work.

You want to talk about slavery? let's discuss the rampant sex slave trade in Europe and South America rather than compare some guy in a country with a much different economic model than our not having OSHA.

avatar

MaximumMike

>>Not true. No one is taking babies and grooming them to sew shirts.

Wow, how is it that you find yourself stooping to such logical fallacies? You don't have to be born into slavery to be a slave.

>>The same argument is made about foxconn, the people travel from home to live in those factories, make more money than they would farming mud at home, and take as many shifts as they can to try to get ahead.

Wait, are we talking about Apple or Walmart? Because I'm pretty sure Foxconn isn't the major Chinese supplier to Walmart.

>>No one is whipping them and owning them, so comparing their employment to slave labor is hyperbole.

No, it's worse than that. The lucky ones get beaten. But often they are raped and forced into prostitution as well.

>>No Africans to my knowledge swam the Atlantic to be auctioned so they could work a plantation.

Have you gone nuts? Slavery in the world existed long before the African slave trade and has taken many forms throughout human history. You didn't have to get shipped across the Atlantic to become a slave. Just ask those living in China's forced labor camps.

>>Because We as Americans try to artificially manipulate markets, and we allow union scum to insist it's work $50 an hour to turn a screw, it makes exploiting foreign emerging economies a much more lucrative option.

Glad to know I should only be making $300 to $500 a year, which is what some of these slave labor shops that distribute to places like Walmart pay. If we would all just willingly thrust the fruits of our labor into the hands of big corporations and beg them to mistreat us here at home, they wouldn't have to go looking in places like China, right?

Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of unions. But I find your argument that unions are causing slavery in China rather disgusting.

>>What people are doing when crying about working conditions in China and Mexico is no different

Have you been to any of these places? Or do you just lie to yourself so you can sleep at night?

>>than PETA showing slaughterhouse footage to gradeschoolers,

No one hates PETA more than me, but some of that footage really is disturbing. I'm not entirely against treating animals more humanely.

>>the difference is, the workers had a choice to go there and work.

No, the difference is that the workers are human beings and not animals, and they shouldn't be treated like animals. Those people live worse than many American pets so you can wear nice clothes and have fancy electronics to play with. American companies shouldn't be doing businesses with places that don't show basic human dignity to their employees.

To argue that economics justifies it is also laughable. The reason is that the labor there is competing with the labor here. To buy products made by people who work under those conditions is to devalue American labor at home. Any time a slave market competes with a free market, the value of labor in the free market is unfairly undervalued. You want to rant about the way we " artificially manipulate markets" here, but at the same time turn a blind eye to the negative economic consequences of allowing products made on slave labor to compete in our economic system.

>>You want to talk about slavery? let's discuss the rampant sex slave trade in Europe and South America

Do you know nothing of human trafficking? It is also prolific in Mexico, China, and even here in the good ole US of A. I'm not sure how it works to just draw a demographic line and pretend that sex trafficking is just fine on one side of the line while it's terrible on the other.

>>rather than compare some guy in a country with a much different economic model than our not having OSHA.

It makes perfect sense when that economic model is based off of slavery and other forms of limited personal freedom that artificially deflate production costs. Free markets can only remain free when everyone plays on a level playing field. You do understand how free markets work right? In the interest of protecting our own market we shouldn't allow places like China to play.

And in regards to OSHA, I would advise you that I worked construction growing up. I can remember working one job where we were tying rebar into a steel beam on a deck about 40 feet above the concrete floor below. I was working on the back side of the beam, and on that side the wood decking stopped about three feet away from the beam. After that there was nothing but a straight drop to the rebar sticking straight up like spears out of the concrete 40 feet below. Also, I wasn't given a safety harness but was instead advised to secure myself to the very beam I was constructing by tying a piece of tie wire to my tool belt. When I first questioned having nothing more than this three feet of wood to stand on and protect me from impending death below, I was laughed at by the foreman. But I complained to the right people and they understood that this was a gross and possibly expensive OSHA violation. When I arrived to work the next day a nice wooden rail had been nailed up to help separate my clumsy backside from the concrete slab below me. So, to imply that OSHA is without its purpose would be foolish in my opinion.

avatar

jbitzer

I only have first hand experience seeing slavery in Europe and South America, I'd be making anything up outside of them.

Should we tariff or otherwise artificially inflate the market to "keep it in America" the inflation would kill us. You go ahead and insist that it's realistic to expect things to change, but don't single out one company that's doing what the whole world does as more or less evil than any other.

There has always been exploitation of people in worse economic situations since the dawn of man, pretending it will ever stop is a foolish dream. Unless that is, we go to a purely money free society where no one can ever get ahead.

avatar

MaximumMike

>>Should we tariff or otherwise artificially inflate the market to "keep it in America" the inflation would kill us.

I'm not so sure about that one. I think that leveling the playing field would cause adjustments across the board. It might be painful at first, but I would expect the recovery to be quicker and stronger than any in the history of our country. But I'd be lying if I said I fully understood the magnitude of such a change. But I believe in America and our way of doing things so strongly, that it's hard to fathom that returning to doing things the right way could possibly be the wrong thing.

We certainly can't keep going the way we're going. An economic correction of some sort is inevitable. And I truly believe our best chances of surviving one are in doing things the right way as opposed to continuing in the wrong way. Until someone can show me clearly that it's not possible to run a modern economy without slave labor, I doubt my opinion will change. And as such an argument is likely to include a complete rejection of free market economics, it better be damn good.

>>You go ahead and insist that it's realistic to expect things to change,

Since history is rife with change more radical than what I'm proposing, I think I will.

>>but don't single out one company

I'm really not. I didn't start this whole Walmart thing. I'm just fine with hating ATT for the moment. I only jumped in when I heard you saying you didn't think slave labor was a big deal. I realize its not just Walmart that does it, and I have a problem with any company doing it.

>>that's doing what the whole world does as more or less evil than any other.

I think it's pretty evil across the board. But let's be clear that just because everybody is doing it, that doesn't make it ok. It's one of the few places where I feel the rest of the world has reason to criticize us, and perhaps the only thing that could make me ashamed to be an American.

>>There has always been exploitation of people in worse economic situations since the dawn of man, pretending it will ever stop is a foolish dream.

Murder and thievery have always been right there as well. And despite the fact that every society I know of has always had laws against them, people go right on killing and stealing. So, do you propose that we do away with laws against murder and theft? Or do you believe, as I do, that we should keep keep laws that acknowledge what right is, even if they aren't capable of eliminating murder and theft?

>>Unless that is, we go to a purely money free society where no one can ever get ahead.

Ya, but until man is fundamentally changed a moneyless society has an even lower chance of success than communism. We had some idiot here who was piping on about it several months ago. When I brought up a few of the fundamental problems with his science fiction society that seemingly defied the laws of both physics and human nature, he promptly became offended and retreated. I honestly don't think I could take anyone advocating for a moneyless society any more seriously than that guy. But unless I've entirely misunderstood you, I know that you're not actually proposing one.

avatar

jbitzer

Of course I'm not proposing a moneyless society, I can imagine it, but the way to implement it would require such horrific human rights abuses that it would make labor camps and sweat shops seem like a pleasant dream.

outside of the guys with the biggest and best guns and bombs enforcing economic controls on the whole world, the current exploitation of emerging markets is still probably the most humane system. If we were to stop taking products from places like India, China, Mexico, etc tomorrow, not only would our economy experience a huge loss of dollar value as your prices on all goods would suddenly skyrocket due to rarity (because getting the production systems in America running again would take time) and cost of production due to having to pay people exponentially more money in America.

Additionally, those countries, we are outsourcing work to would experience a similar collapse of a major source of revenue, their development would stop, as suddenly they'd have millions of people out of work, forced to turn back to whatever they were doing before their economies experienced a surge in demand for labor. I'd imagine though, it would be interesting to see what they'd repurpose all of the now useless products they would have a surplus of to do.

I don't agree with forced labor camps, let me make that distinction, but I don't see using cheap foreign labor as evil or immoral, as long as the people are working those jobs by choice, I used Foxconn as an example previously because there seemed to be a big fad of shitting all over them the last few years for a few suicides that are actually a fraction of the rate our own all volunteer military faces.

So, summary of my opinions: anyone trying to influence the markets by legislation and force is usually bad. Walmart does more good for America than harm. Mom and Pops are not some shining example of all that is good, and Walmart "pushing them out" is a fault of their own failure to adapt, not an inherent evil in Walmart. For as much as Walmart jobs are horrible and evil, somehow they manage to have more applicants than jobs at a new store by a factor of at least 10, so someone must want the work.

avatar

MaximumMike

>>the current exploitation of emerging markets is still probably the most humane system.

It may be better than some alternatives we have tried, but I'm confident we could do better.

>>If we were to stop taking products from places like India, China, Mexico, etc tomorrow, not only would our economy experience a huge loss of dollar value as your prices on all goods would suddenly skyrocket due to rarity (because getting the production systems in America running again would take time) and cost of production due to having to pay people exponentially more money in America.

Anything worth doing is worth doing well. And ceasing trade with these countries tomorrow is not what I would call doing it well. The American abolition of slavery is a prime example of exactly the worst way to do away with slavery, e.g. fighting a big bloody war that ruined most families on both sides of the war, decimated the economy of the losing side and didn't exactly help the winners, dumped a massive uneducated slave force into a society that was no more prepared for it than it was for them, and then encouraged society to treat those newly freed slaves as poorly as possible. I honestly don't think it could have gone any worse, and don't see any reason to repeat those mistakes now. Some actual planning and intervention would go a long way to making such an enormous economic transition bearable for the world. Nonetheless, I feel we have a moral and economic obligation to either get out of those kinds of places or insist that they change the way they treat their citizens and workers.

>> I used Foxconn as an example previously because there seemed to be a big fad of shitting all over them the last few years for a few suicides that are actually a fraction of the rate our own all volunteer military faces.

Anything I have recently read about Foxconn indicates they have drastically improved their work conditions. So, it looks like insisting that they change the treatment of their employees has worked. But it's worth noting that Foxconn is not in China. It's in Taiwan, where the gross human rights violations of communist mainland China don't happen. If China were like Taiwan, you wouldn't hear me complaining about them.

>>So, summary of my opinions: anyone trying to influence the markets by legislation and force is usually bad. Walmart does more good for America than harm. Mom and Pops are not some shining example of all that is good, and Walmart "pushing them out" is a fault of their own failure to adapt, not an inherent evil in Walmart. For as much as Walmart jobs are horrible and evil, somehow they manage to have more applicants than jobs at a new store by a factor of at least 10, so someone must want the work.

Other than the, "Walmart does more good than harm" bit, there's nothing in there I would disagree with. I especially agree with your stance regarding the mom and pop stores. I think I partially agree with you in regards to legislation. I'm not in favor of trying to jury rig up the market through lots of bad legislation that will inevitably make more monopolies. But I also don't think you are in favor of imposing tariffs on these slave labor products that are coming into our country, and I most certainly am.

I'm honestly undecided if I think the existence of Walmart works to our ultimate benefit. For the time being I think of them as a barely tolerable evil. Knowing what I know about how the supply chain works, the same and worse could be said of most other large retailers, especially the companies that run large chains of dollar stores like SuperValu and are more likely to carry items produced in sweat shops.

avatar

jbitzer

I'm against tariffs because of what they are, not because of the goal you're trying to achieve. I don't like artificially manipulating markets like I said. Rather than make the consumers pay more for something they want, I'd like to see positive incentives given to bring manufacturing here. We have every power to make us an attractive place to build a factory, but protectionism and political tricks keeps us from doing so.

Tariffs are a negative incentive. I prefer positively changing people's behavior without making things more difficult for them. Honestly, look at how great tariffs worked for motorcycle prices to "save" Harley Davidson. Great, now you pay more for a bike than a car, regardless of manufacture, what a win for consumers!

The problem with living in a free country, is that means people are free to be jerks. I don't believe protectionism and allowing government to play "who's our favorite corporation?" is the answer.

also, point in face, Foxconn's terrible practices and majority of factories are in China:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn#China

---wikipedia

edit: making the cheap crap at Walmart that people buy because they can't afford Macy's as expensive as Macy's through tariffs isn't an answer.

avatar

The Mac

I would agree, mosly.

Macy's is expensive because it costs money to pay designers, purchasing agents, sales associates, high rents, etc.

although they are most likely made in the same chinese factories (or indonesian, or malaysian) the cheap chinese knockoffs dont have those added expenses.

Its going to hard to incentivize that. If Macy's received any kind of incentivising breaks, they would just increase their margins, as thye need to maintain "Status". Bringing prices down wouldn't do that. It would "cheapen" the designers status, forcing them to sell elsewhere.

avatar

jbitzer

Basically we're both saying: Messing with the market is not going to produce the desired or often even a considered result.

In the end, the best thing is to bring abuses to light, allow people to become outraged and demand change, because trying to account for it with behind the scenes tampering is not going to work. Tariffs are more likely to just make people mad at the government for imposing them, rather than fix the root problem.

avatar

The Mac

Yup, there is a reason we are the large economy in the world.

And it isnt due to legislation.

avatar

The Mac

+1