Well, let's say that a worker gets paid 20 cents to make a pair of shoes. Ever price a pair of nike shoes? So is there some reason they couldnt pay the worker 50 cents to make a pair of shoes? Still be like, 50 dollars profit there. The CEO's of companies like NIKE make their profits from the flesh of their workers. It's all about standard of living. And as for the question, what would those kids and women who currently work in the sweat shops be doing if not for companies like Nike?

Well, if Nike weren't dicks they could insist on fair wages. Not hard. Don't buy their shoes, OK?

Yeah, bikes good, companies bad. :P

And Lance is a hero, if you ask me. He might be rich, he might forget his roots, hell who wouldn't, he's boffing sheryl crow! But really, i hope he wins 6.

I [the later] have to explain why the things some college freshman or burned out 50 year-old is certain are true are not as they may appear to the someone [the former] who is over-worked, under-paid and looking for that big story that will get them the Tim Russert (or at least Geraldo)-sized paycheck.

Despite what you may have read, journalists are not in the pocket of large corporations, or at least not in the pocket of the corporation I work for. The reason shocking bits from teh third world don't make the news in the U.S. is not because of some corporate-media consipiracy. It's because editors don't think it's what people want to watch, read or hear. Tell me, when was the last time you heard a story about the genocide going on in Congo this spring? It probably got bumped by the coverage of American Idol.

The reason you hear about Nike all the time is 1) they do some really crappy stuff and 2) it's a really good story to make you feel bad about yourself and guilty about you affluence. People complain about Nike all the time, but do you think their sales have really dropped? Don't you think if people didn't buy the shoes, Nike would change the way it does business? That would drive change faster and more effectivly than any legislation or media coverage.

Sorry to thread jack. The post just hit a pretty raw nerve. And the commercial is very, very cool.

it sounds like maybe you dont realize that there are a great many people over the years who have devoted their lives to thinking about these issues. instead of speculating and talking out of your ass you would do well to read the research of such theorists. in my lazy attempt to guide you to a more interesting venue i suggest: http://www.zmag.org/weluser.htm
;)
in other news.... yay fixed gear. on friday i busted up my knee. they told me i should get stitches but i opted for the gnarly battle wound instead.

I agree completely with your first point about not paying wages that are in any way, shape or form proportional to the price of the good produces. As for CEO's making money from the flesh of their workers, that's the case with almost all for-profit entities. I think that the greater issue is that of the means that an economy puts to use to develop. Not one developed economy can look back and not see labor exploitation. You can point to the US as being close (in the past, before a global economy) but if you note that the economic history of the US is tied to that of Great Britain, you'll find that laborers have been exploited to as great an extent as just about anywhere else. The dramatic difference today is the global economy. Instead of having people within a nation exploit its workers, you have foreign companies doing it. This, to me, is more of a tragedy in some ways. Before the world was so closely tied together, the money generated by the exploitaton of labor stayed within the country to be invested in infrastructure, etc. Now, the developing world finds some increased income that can be used for such ventures, but they don't have as high of a ceiling on the labor force. In other words, there's not a CEO in Bangladesh or wherever Nike has manufacturing facilities making piles of money off of the laborers there. It's the folks here making the cash. This is the real problem that I see in the whole thing, in general.

And I really do respect a position to boycott a company. My problem is that most of the people that I've met that take such a stand do so not because they have thought about the issues involved but because they're removing something from their lives that they can live without easily while also relieving their middle class guilt, which superchivo has also mentioned. That, or they do it to feel more liberal or fight the norm or some other reason that has little to do with their stance. My apologies if I have come off as being one against a meaningful boycott of any industries.

Nothing like an election year to bring out the political activist in everyone. Not only are people debating whether or not we should pull out of Iraq, but they're debating who's the better cyclist...Kerry on his Serotta or Bush on his mountain bike. Remember, both of them did take a tumble. To vote for Kerry, dial 1-800-YAY-LANCE and press 1. To vote for Bush, dial 1-800-YAY-LANCE and press 1. Dial carefully and thanks for voting!

Anyhoo... the commercial is cool. I wanna be like Mike? Forget Mike! I wanna be like Lance! Funny how the TdF brings out the Lance in all of us, eh? I like the end where the kid is on Lance's wheel whilst his shoulder pads dangle from his handlebar. Nice. On a BMX nonetheless....with one gear....cool.

Have you purchased your Live Strong wristband yet? I'm thinking of buying a case or two or three and handing them out at the office.

nice logic.

my 2cc: politics debates on the internet are usually a pointless waste of time -- as opposed to the pointed waste of time that constitutes everything else.

I'm sorry that my thoughts are so petty to you. Nice to see that there are so many ready to hear different ideas. If you can point out where I claim that my ideas are the absolute truth, please do. Further, I don't see how I'm talking out of my ass any more than several others in this thread. Why not put forth a lazy attempt to help others who are in as great of a need as I am?

Or are you just one to not believe that anyone can have a take on an issue that varies from the norm?

There's no doubt that we're in agreement on that. And they usually go all to ****. I fear that this one's on its way. I think I'll leave while the boat's still slightly afloat.

Oh I don't know - going to school? Not getting maimed in factories? Making better lives for themselves and subsequent generations?

Not likely to change quickly as things stand at the moment, but there is no good reason why this sh*t should continue. None. Period.

As for the commercial, I dig it. Woulda been better had he been on a fixie, though. :)

Not sure #1 is much of an option in many of these places. It's not like the kids are playing hooky. And as for #2, working in the fields is not much better of a prospect. The wages sure aren't better. Bit of a lose/lose situation, I'd say, which makes #3 no more than a pipe dream.

Not a fan of slave/child labor. But kicking out Nike and Kathy Lee Gifford isn't exactly going to leave you with Valhalla.

No no cavit, the USPS dropping l\Lance thing... I'm well aware of the controversy surrounding Nike. :)

but, SOMEbody has to make the products for the rich americans to consume, and americans demand so much more money than the poor, uneducated boarish children of impoverished nations...

that was sarcasm.

trek does not make a track bike. they should jump on the bandwagon...i'm sure a tons of people would line up to jump off that cliff...just like the bianchi folks, and (more recently) the specialized folks, and the khs folks, and the surly folks....nothing wrong with any of those bikes of course. in fact, i'm glad more people are getting turned on to fixed riding, and riding in general. i just got tired of seeing the flat black ones everywhere i looked in boston.

TREK, not TRACK. grrr...