[yummyfajitas]

I'm confused. If a company pays people money to build stuff for them (as in India or Indonesia), you criticize them as exploiting the poor.

And if they stop paying people money to build stuff for them (as in Flint Michigan), you also criticize them for exploiting the poor?

[louislouis]

Pay is certainly a good thing. But perhaps the companies need a heavy touch of social responsibility as part of their manifesto. Unfortunately social responsibility does not fly in the name of profit. That is what I mean by exploitation.

[anamax]

> Unfortunately social responsibility does not fly in the name of profit. That is what I mean by exploitation.

Profit? How about the buyer?

You're free to tell Apple that you won't buy unless they pay enough so workers can have BMWs. If Apple believes you, it will do so and pass along those costs.

What? You're not willing to pay for workers to have BMWs?

You're awfully free with other people's money.

[louislouis]

Your argument is void because the buyer never finds out what conditions the products are made in unless the factory workers protest such as in this case. Social responsibility is not part of the sales pitch, all the buyer see's are the shiny packaging and the sparkly tv commercials with their favorite celebrity. Were the buyer able to make an informed decision regarding his/her purchase, perhaps they'll choose otherwise.

[anamax]

> Your argument is void because the buyer never finds out what conditions the products are made in unless the factory workers protest such as in this case.

Buyers find out what they're interested in.

> Were the buyer able to make an informed decision regarding his/her purchase, perhaps they'll choose otherwise.

You write that as if there's no relevant experience. "Fair trade coffee" is merely one of the examples.