[dual_basis]

The Nike sweatshop situation is actually a counterexample to your point. People complained and, at least according to what I read, not only did Nike change but they lobbied for legislation to force their competitors to change as well.

[the_pwner224]

Doesn't seem like it.

> People complained and, at least according to what I read, not only did Nike change but they lobbied for legislation to force their competitors to change as well.

They realized their sales would drop unless they started spending more on manufacturing costs - which would decrease profit. Solution? Make all your competitors spend more too. That way we all make less profit, instead of me making less and everyone else taking over the market with their higher margins.

[dual_basis]

I mean, that does seem like the optimal outcome, doesn't it? Not only is Nike not using sweatshop labor, but all their competitors are also not using sweatshop labor. Did you want Nike to stop just because they felt bad, but their competitors could continue to use sweatshop labor? As you point out, that would mean that they would be pushed out of the market and we'd just have a new major corporation using sweatshop labor to be mad at.

[the_pwner224]

It is a pretty good outcome. Your comment made it seem like Nike pushed other manufacturers to get better labor practices out of a desire to do good (perhaps I am reading it wrong), whereas I think what happened was that a purely-profit-driven corporation acting in its best interest ended up doing something good.