Would you pay more for the same shoes if it meant the other citizens making them got a better life?

[lightbulb27]

Shoes is just a general item... could be anything. Would you pay say, double or triple... but if confident the $ went to the workers and not already wealthy, you would pay it?

Price now increased from $125 to $425 thanks to the "Help Workers Act"

Poor children make little $, no negotiating power

Yes, should be fairness in labor... we should live like kings when others live like paupers

No, they have to fight for their wages in a free market. If they can't afford protein, it's their problem

Other

[molonski2]

The question is a little too simplistic..

As once these companies moved off sure and started using sweat shops , the amount you pay the retailer is not a valid price , all the fat goes to the retailer or producer like NIKE , in the case of a NIKE store it all goes to NIKE , so if they tried to say the shoes go up $25 and it goes into some fund.. then NO, NIKE is a listed company and their profits would actually rise.

You are far better off boycotting all these BIG brands , and purchase generic , you will not change the swaet shops , and labour standards will never be like that in the WEST that's how they make money , that's how they pay dividends.

And Yes , I am guilty of having one pair of FILA , and one pair of FootJoy , but many more generic , and guess what? You don't actually get what you pay for , you are paying for confirmation of brand marketing , and shareholder returns.

So go buy NIKE scrip , its down a bit at the moment , and be a part of sweat shops , because they are happy to have the business.

[lightbulb27]

agree on brands bur how know the others aren't same... probably are. my point is simplistic... not about implementation, but if you'd pay more.
the problem is that companies control these people for profit, the distribution of wealth often times seems inequitable. thats the problem in the world over and over... the one we face now... and the one that leads to revolutions.
is there a better way... and would you pay more.
sounds like you would.
imagine some trusted coding like a blockchain code that lists the workers that caught your wild tuna, processed it. part of your purchase goes directly to their blockchain currency rather than through company. sort of like a "tip", but taxable all the same.
just an example brainstorm. Some sort of direct connection to those that do the work.
Nike... pheewwwy... blech... I don't buy that crapola. total waste.

[molonski2]

Yes true , extremely good thoughts , maybe its possible.

[RavVid]

Interesting thoughts on block chain and it would be possible. We need to not verge onto the discredited Marxist wage theft concept though.

[RavVid]

Tariffs have been called job subsidies which is what they are. We had a lot of them but at a point they were removed. Consequently jobs making shoes disappeared.

So a lot of those shoemakers just went on welfare and were paid 'sit down money' because all other jobs they could do also disappeared.

The cost of job subsidies in the form of tariffs just moved into welfare costs. Whether that was an economic gain overall or a net loss I don't think was ever studied.

There are social costs with joblessness. House breaking for example. You might see that in your insurance premiums. Drugs and violence is another.

I have looked for studies on this but never found any. That is not to say there aren't any.

I think this is an area that does indeed need study. Which is best job subsidies or welfare?

[purplepoppy]

I shouldn't have to make that choice, these companies make billions and shouldn't be exploiting people

[lightbulb27]

they value their shareholders... which are the ones that hold power over them, not the workers... whom hold little power.

[jshm2]

Usually it's nothing to do with "better life" and more to do with companies maximising profits. Hence the US introducing the Accountable Capitalism Act.

It costs $10 to make an iPhone in the Foxconn Chinese factories. The workers get paid less than that. Shoes too cost only a few bucks to make.

[lightbulb27]

another good example. that's the point... would you pay something more that went to the workers... in some way. so many people are the living poor/broke... basically enslaved. been that way for decades.

[KostasKouvalis]

Bangladeshis don't care about me, so why should I care about them? If it was French, English or White South Africans making these shoes, I would pay more gladly.

[lightbulb27]

what if you could get to know them personally... if their identity was digitally attached to the shoe they created and you could direct send a thank you note to them. that be more human connection and appreciation of value. I couldn't make my own shoes...
just an example. consider about the future what it could be, if you want that.

[KostasKouvalis]

Not really. I don't know what kind of person he is. He would still be a stranger to me

[exitseven]

I buy New Balance shoes and San Antonio Shoes and Red Wing Boots. They are more expensive but they are made in the USA. I want ot support my own economy They are also much better quality.

[Unit1]

Welp. As a brokie still i don't have a choice.

[paledreams]

No, I voted other, I buy my shoes wherever their made from and cost $19 bucks most recently 👟 👟

[Anonymous]

I fail to see hoe me paying more for shoes does that.