Ban Ronald McDonald?

[Coito ergo sum]

But it does. Look around at the most popular, most worn shoes, they will coincindentally be the ones with the most successful advertisements.

So what?

The whole idea of the liberty of speech and expression is that people and groups of people have the right to try to persuade others. The fact that speech succeeds in persuading someone doesn't invalidate it. The right of people to speak and persuade is not extended to only those who fail in the attempt.

[RuleBritannia]

I have seen careful, successful companies spending horrific amounts on advertising, betting every time they do that their advertising works.

They keep on winning that bet, so I won't simply take on your opinion that advertising doesn't work that way.

Advertising makes you aware of the product, no shit Sherlock. But what advertising doesn't do is force you to buy the product, more people don't buy a product than do.

Britannia, Macca's asks for donations for fuck's sake, they "donate" 20c from a $2 hamburger DURING A PROMOTION, and yet they rake in billions every year. That whole thing is a farce, a PR stunt.

Oh I see, you'd rather McDonalds give nothing to charity and just keep all the profits.

I bet you're one of those people who get outraged about businesses moving to third world countries, giving people jobs, BASTARDS! Only paying them $3 a day! Get the fuck out of Indonesia big bad corporation, these people don't want jobs, they want to earn $0 a day.

But it does. Look around at the most popular, most worn shoes, they will coincindentally be the ones with the most successful advertisements.

Well du! (see first section of this post)

[Trolldor]

Oh I see, you'd rather McDonalds give nothing to charity and just keep all the profits.

I bet you're one of those people who get outraged about businesses moving to third world countries, giving people jobs, BASTARDS! Only paying them $3 a day! Get the fuck out of Indonesia big bad corporation, these people don't want jobs, they want to earn $0 a day.

And I bet you think Corporations give a shit, that they put the time and money and effort they can afford to in to actually improving conditions in these countries.

[RuleBritannia]

Oh I see, you'd rather McDonalds give nothing to charity and just keep all the profits.

I bet you're one of those people who get outraged about businesses moving to third world countries, giving people jobs, BASTARDS! Only paying them $3 a day! Get the fuck out of Indonesia big bad corporation, these people don't want jobs, they want to earn $0 a day.

And I bet you think Corporations give a shit, that they put the time and money and effort they can afford to in to actually improving conditions in these countries.

Whether they care about the conditions of the workers doesn't matter, the corporations get cheaper labour and the workers get a wage to feed themselves, it's win-win.

Besides it's not the responsibility of corporations to improve worker conditions, that's what governments are for.

[Cunt]

[

How much do you think they pay to say it? Why would a fiercely competitive corporation pay so much to say so little?

----------

To establish name and brand recognition, for example.

Or perhaps because they believe that spending that money will make more people spend at McDonalds more often.

They believe it because, even if you DON'T accept that advertising works that way, they keep making money.

I am not even saying, by the way, that Ronald should be banned - I was the one who suggested that advertising budgets be shared with government so that healthy eating can be promoted as vigorously as the quick-serve alternatives. I mean, they are already meddling by not allowing prostitutes or lawyers to advertise...

[Coito ergo sum]

[

How much do you think they pay to say it? Why would a fiercely competitive corporation pay so much to say so little?

----------

To establish name and brand recognition, for example.

Or perhaps because they believe that spending that money will make more people spend at McDonalds more often.

Yes, of course. Advertising is meant to increase sales.

They believe it because, even if you DON'T accept that advertising works that way, they keep making money.

What "way?" Nobody is disputing that advertising is geared toward increasing sales.

I am not even saying, by the way, that Ronald should be banned - I was the one who suggested that advertising budgets be shared with government so that healthy eating can be promoted as vigorously as the quick-serve alternatives. I mean, they are already meddling by not allowing prostitutes or lawyers to advertise...

Prostitution is illegal in most places, but where it is legal they can advertise. Lawyers in the US advertise all the time - television, radio, newspaper - all over the place. But, if the point is that the government has restricted advertising in the past - sure it has - that's true.

I disagree with the donation of a percentage of advertising budgets to the government so the government can "promote healthy eating." The government is no good at stuff like that because it becomes highly political. Recall, the "food pyramid" which the government put together, under the influence of influential industries.

We all know what to eat, even those that don't eat right. How many people that you poll do you think will say that a healthy diet consists of cake, cookies, candy, hot dogs, hamburgers, deep fried foods, and soft drinks?

[Trolldor]

Oh I see, you'd rather McDonalds give nothing to charity and just keep all the profits.

I bet you're one of those people who get outraged about businesses moving to third world countries, giving people jobs, BASTARDS! Only paying them $3 a day! Get the fuck out of Indonesia big bad corporation, these people don't want jobs, they want to earn $0 a day.

And I bet you think Corporations give a shit, that they put the time and money and effort they can afford to in to actually improving conditions in these countries.

Whether they care about the conditions of the workers doesn't matter, the corporations get cheaper labour and the workers get a wage to feed themselves, it's win-win.

Besides it's not the responsibility of corporations to improve worker conditions, that's what governments are for.

Except multi-national corporations manipulate Governments to help keep down worker conditions. They tried it in the first world and it didn't work, so they tried it in the third world where it did.

[Coito ergo sum]

Oh I see, you'd rather McDonalds give nothing to charity and just keep all the profits.

I bet you're one of those people who get outraged about businesses moving to third world countries, giving people jobs, BASTARDS! Only paying them $3 a day! Get the fuck out of Indonesia big bad corporation, these people don't want jobs, they want to earn $0 a day.

And I bet you think Corporations give a shit, that they put the time and money and effort they can afford to in to actually improving conditions in these countries.

Whether they care about the conditions of the workers doesn't matter, the corporations get cheaper labour and the workers get a wage to feed themselves, it's win-win.

Besides it's not the responsibility of corporations to improve worker conditions, that's what governments are for.

Except multi-national corporations manipulate Governments to help keep down worker conditions. They tried it in the first world and it didn't work, so they tried it in the third world where it did.

Actually, multinational corporations going to places like,say, India have markedly improved pay and conditions over what domestic Indian employers were providing. The same goes for US and European companies in China.

[Trolldor]

No. What you're seeing is them providing incentive to pull in cheap labour. If they had any interest in improving the economic conditions they would be paying them the same rates they paid American workers. They don't because they can get away with paying them nothing. Again, manipulation. They keep OH&S to a minimum, they keep wages to a minimum, and because conditions in the third world are so fucking shocking first world companies can claim they're "helping". It's hilarious. Billions of dollars in profit andthey pay them $1.20 in stead of $0.30, real fucking noble.

As for India it was the East India Trading Company - an English corporation - which stopped India from exporting a great deal of its goods which is what made it a third world.

[RuleBritannia]

No. What you're seeing is them providing incentive to pull in cheap labour. If they had any interest in improving the economic conditions they would be paying them the same rates they paid American workers. They don't because they can get away with paying them nothing.

No shit they're going for the cheap labour, and in return people in the third world have jobs. Win-win.

Again, manipulation. They keep OH&S to a minimum, they keep wages to a minimum, and because conditions in the third world are so fucking shocking first world companies can claim they're "helping". It's hilarious. Billions of dollars in profit and they pay them $1.20 in stead of $0.30, real fucking noble.

And what would you suggest to rectify the situation? Without the cheap labour, corporations have no incentive to move overseas, resulting in millions more unemployed in the third world.

As for India it was the East India Trading Company - an English corporation - which stopped India from exporting a great deal of its goods which is what made it a third world.

Nice contradiction, a trading company preventing trade in it's own territory, that makes sense.

[Coito ergo sum]

No. What you're seeing is them providing incentive to pull in cheap labour. If they had any interest in improving the economic conditions they would be paying them the same rates they paid American workers.

That makes no economic sense. The cost of living in India is nothing compared to the cost of living in the US, and no Indian employers pay their workers the same rate of pay as American workers. It's no different than the fact that teachers in New York City make 3 times what they make in Florida. India's average annual income per worker is about $1,000 a year. You want American and European companies opening up customer service call centers in India to pay them $20,000 or $30,000 a year?

They don't because they can get away with paying them nothing.

They pay less than they would have to pay workers in Europe or the US, but they don't pay them "nothing." They quite often pay them more than what local businesses pay employees. To pay them what US and Europeans make for, say, an assembly line job would be ridiculous.

Again, manipulation. They keep OH&S to a minimum,

They generally raise OH&S relative to what their domestic standards were. For example, Ford Motor Company auto plants in China are run much safer and with a much greater emphasis on worker safety than Chinese counterparts.

they keep wages to a minimum,

Of course. Have you ever run a business? Try it one day.

and because conditions in the third world are so fucking shocking first world companies can claim they're "helping".

If they are raising the wages, and they are, and if they are creating millions of jobs for people in India who wouldn't have them, and they are, then they are helping. The alternative is for them to remain in the "fucking shocking conditions" you mention.

It's hilarious. Billions of dollars in profit andthey pay them $1.20 in stead of $0.30, real fucking noble.

Yeah - paying someone 4 times more in wages is actually quite good. At that rate it would be $2400 for an Indian worker for the year. The average Indian worker makes about $1000 a year. That's 2.4 times as much. If someone raises your salary 240%, you'd probably like it, I daresay.

[Coito ergo sum]

No. What you're seeing is them providing incentive to pull in cheap labour. If they had any interest in improving the economic conditions they would be paying them the same rates they paid American workers. They don't because they can get away with paying them nothing.

No shit they're going for the cheap labour, and in return people in the third world have jobs. Win-win.

Pay them $25,000 a year, or 25 times the national average salary, to answer phones, and spend all the time and money to set up the call center in India in the first place, thereby making it a losing proposition for the company. Alternatively, just don't move the call center to India, and don't let 'em "take our jobs." That way, SEIU can come in and unionize and require the company to pay $40 an hour for someone to take customer service calls.

Again, manipulation. They keep OH&S to a minimum, they keep wages to a minimum, and because conditions in the third world are so fucking shocking first world companies can claim they're "helping". It's hilarious. Billions of dollars in profit and they pay them $1.20 in stead of $0.30, real fucking noble.

And what would you suggest to rectify the situation? Without the cheap labour, corporations have no incentive to move overseas, resulting in millions more unemployed in the third world.

Require the American and European companies to follow American and European standards, while the Indian companies do not have to.

[RuleBritannia]

[Coito ergo sum]

I'll have what he's getting:

[Trolldor]

Wrong, again. An improvement in third world conditions is easy to accomplish, but the companies are not improving them, they're getting cheap labour. They're not elevating the standards, they're going where it's cheaper. Financial motivation, not a moral one. Corporations are doing nothing good because it is nowhere in their intentions. It's all about making money.