Ban Ronald McDonald?

[RuleBritannia]

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.

It's not the responsability of corporations to inprove working conditions. Corporations exist to make money, that's it. No one is saying corporations are moral, nor are they immoral, they are amoral.

[Trolldor]

It is the responsibility for corporations to improve conditions for workers when they're imploying a significant portion of the population AND attempting to stop them from unionising.

[Coito ergo sum]

Wrong, again. An improvement in third world conditions is easy to accomplish,

It's always someone who doesn't run a business, and simply wants to wave a magic wand, that things it's "easy."

but the companies are not improving them, they're getting cheap labour.

They are doing both. You said yourself that companies were paying $1.20 instead of 30 cents. So, that's quadrupling the salary, and paying workers 240% of the national average. That's a big improvement.

They're not elevating the standards, they're going where it's cheaper.

They are doing both.

Financial motivation, not a moral one.

Regardless of their motivation, the result is that workers are getting jobs, better working conditions, and higher wages, than they would be without the Western companies there.

Corporations are doing nothing good because it is nowhere in their intentions. It's all about making money.

You're confusing intentions with results, a common mishap. If you "intend" only to line your pockets, but also create jobs and increase wages for workers, it's still a good result and better than if you had not started your business there in the first place.

[Coito ergo sum]

It is the responsibility for corporations to improve conditions for workers when they're imploying a significant portion of the population AND attempting to stop them from unionising.

And, the western companies are improving conditions over what the workers, like Indian workers, were traditionally getting from their employers there.

You will need to specify what exactly they need to do to make you happy, I think. You want them, as you already said, to pay them at least 25 times the average annual wage - we know that, because you said that western companies need to pay Indian workers what western companies pay European and American employees. Anything else? Or, are you just going to bitch about western companies, no matter what they do, because you hate them?

Is there any sort of improvement, besides boatloads of money for little or no work, that you need them to do?

[NineOneFour]

This was on the news over the weekend:

http://www.slashfood.com/2010/03/29/act ... tirement/2

This kind of thing just gets me riled up. I have no problem with "activists" stating their opinion, writing articles and books, boycotting what they don't like, and trying to persuade, in the marketplace of ideas, that something like Ronald McDonald is bad. However, inevitably, these pukes try to force their demented "do as I say" mentality down everyone's throats via legislation. They want an outright ban.

They want to make it illegal for McDonald's to use their clown mascot to advertise their product. I mean... WTF? You just knew this road was going to be traveled when we sat back and let these freaks make Joe Camel illegal...

Fuck.

I agree with you on this one.

[Trolldor]

It is the responsibility for corporations to improve conditions for workers when they're imploying a significant portion of the population AND attempting to stop them from unionising.

And, the western companies are improving conditions over what the workers, like Indian workers, were traditionally getting from their employers there.

You will need to specify what exactly they need to do to make you happy, I think. You want them, as you already said, to pay them at least 25 times the average annual wage - we know that, because you said that western companies need to pay Indian workers what western companies pay European and American employees. Anything else? Or, are you just going to bitch about western companies, no matter what they do, because you hate them?

Is there any sort of improvement, besides boatloads of money for little or no work, that you need them to do?

You actually haven't been reading any of my posts at all. I've said it time and time again, that they're not helping these people, they're making money. You keep saying how these companies are helping the third world when they're not. The 'improvements' are beneath what the company can afford to give them and still make a substantial profit, there is nothing moral about their actions.

[RuleBritannia]

You actually haven't been reading any of my posts at all.

Actually, I read them every night, they help me get to sleep.

I've said it time and time again, that they're not helping these people, they're making money.

You saying time and time again doesn't make it true. Western companies pay considerably more than domestic businesses do for the same jobs.

You keep saying how these companies are helping the third world when they're not.

You keep saying how these companies are not helping the third world when they are.

The 'improvements' are beneath what the company can afford to give them and still make a substantial profit, there is nothing moral about their actions.

Businesses exist to make money, no shit Sherlock.

[Svartalf]

No don't ban, that would be a free speech issue. Just ban advertising aimed at kids, including product placement in films and TV. Not all that hard.
If McD's didn't target that demographic, it wouldn't use Ronald, that's for fucking sure.

LOL!

"just ban advertising aimed at kids" - like clowns?

No...... McD use Ronald to sell more shit. Fine. Not a problem. But the advertisements for them were (at least in Britain) aimed squarely at the pre-teen demographic, eg Saturday Morning TV. Over here now, research into the issue has been unclear and contested (surprise surprise, by Advertisers), but from the Ofcom report here:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/research/tv/rep ... od_ads/#36

TV has a "modest" effect on HFSS (High Fat Salt Sugar) product's attractiveness on a child's choice.

You seem to be taking it as a given that it is appropriate for the government to be concerned with the fat, salt and sugar intake of its free citizens....

When said government is using a wad of tax money to finance medical insurance for its citizens, healthy eating becomes more or less a matter of public interest.

and for the record, I am all for general health insurance. If I lived in the US, I'd likely be dead or a complete cripple.

[Coito ergo sum]

This was on the news over the weekend:

http://www.slashfood.com/2010/03/29/act ... tirement/2

This kind of thing just gets me riled up. I have no problem with "activists" stating their opinion, writing articles and books, boycotting what they don't like, and trying to persuade, in the marketplace of ideas, that something like Ronald McDonald is bad. However, inevitably, these pukes try to force their demented "do as I say" mentality down everyone's throats via legislation. They want an outright ban.

They want to make it illegal for McDonald's to use their clown mascot to advertise their product. I mean... WTF? You just knew this road was going to be traveled when we sat back and let these freaks make Joe Camel illegal...

Fuck.

I agree with you on this one.

That's twice in the last few days. Are you sure you don't have a fever?

[Coito ergo sum]

It is the responsibility for corporations to improve conditions for workers when they're imploying a significant portion of the population AND attempting to stop them from unionising.

And, the western companies are improving conditions over what the workers, like Indian workers, were traditionally getting from their employers there.

You will need to specify what exactly they need to do to make you happy, I think. You want them, as you already said, to pay them at least 25 times the average annual wage - we know that, because you said that western companies need to pay Indian workers what western companies pay European and American employees. Anything else? Or, are you just going to bitch about western companies, no matter what they do, because you hate them?

Is there any sort of improvement, besides boatloads of money for little or no work, that you need them to do?

You actually haven't been reading any of my posts at all. I've said it time and time again, that they're not helping these people, they're making money. You keep saying how these companies are helping the third world when they're not. The 'improvements' are beneath what the company can afford to give them and still make a substantial profit, there is nothing moral about their actions.

Just because they could conceivably, or even probably, do more does not mean that what they are doing isn't helping. You, yourself, said that they were paying 4 times what the workers would be able to get without them ($1.20 vs. 30 cents). That is helping. It may not be what you have determined in your own estimation to be sufficient or as much as they could do, but it is still an increase over what was available previously.

[Coito ergo sum]

No don't ban, that would be a free speech issue. Just ban advertising aimed at kids, including product placement in films and TV. Not all that hard.
If McD's didn't target that demographic, it wouldn't use Ronald, that's for fucking sure.

LOL!

"just ban advertising aimed at kids" - like clowns?

No...... McD use Ronald to sell more shit. Fine. Not a problem. But the advertisements for them were (at least in Britain) aimed squarely at the pre-teen demographic, eg Saturday Morning TV. Over here now, research into the issue has been unclear and contested (surprise surprise, by Advertisers), but from the Ofcom report here:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/research/tv/rep ... od_ads/#36

TV has a "modest" effect on HFSS (High Fat Salt Sugar) product's attractiveness on a child's choice.

You seem to be taking it as a given that it is appropriate for the government to be concerned with the fat, salt and sugar intake of its free citizens....

When said government is using a wad of tax money to finance medical insurance for its citizens, healthy eating becomes more or less a matter of public interest.

And, this is one of the things that opponents of national health care systems have been suggesting and objecting to. That once the government is paying for something, then they will exert control over our personal lives. This objection was generally poo-pooed by national health care proponents as alarmist and mythical. However, plainly, as you say, it is absolutely true. The government will try to control what we eat, drink and smoke under the rubric of health care. So, that just leaves the ability to enjoy a cigar up to the persuasiveness of the cigar lobby, and the ability to eat hot dogs and hamburgers up to the persuasiveness of those industries, and the ability to drink alcoholic beverages up to the persuasiveness of the alchohol lobby. Our diets will be down to politics.

and for the record, I am all for general health insurance. If I lived in the US, I'd likely be dead or a complete cripple.

Doubtful. The statistics don't bear you out on that.

[Svartalf]

what stats? Given the kind of health problems I've had since birth (terminal preemie, abnormally low lung function ever since, incapacitating asthma, allergies...) with my host of preexisting conditions, I could never get private insurance, and I can't live half normally without being pumped full of corticoids, antihistaminics and bronchodilators... Unless you can get me a job in a major corp with top health coverage (and I never managed to secure that kind of employment here), I have a fair assessment that living in the US is hell for a guy in my kind of medical situation.

[Tigger]

... and for the record, I am all for general health insurance. If I lived in the US, I'd likely be dead or a complete cripple.

<Major, but important snip>

Er, I think you might find that mandelson didn't say this as it actually involves complete clauses, punctuation and sentence structure.

[Coito ergo sum]

what stats? Given the kind of health problems I've had since birth (terminal preemie, abnormally low lung function ever since, incapacitating asthma, allergies...) with my host of preexisting conditions, I could never get private insurance,

You wouldn't have needed it. As a child, you would have been covered by a government provided health care system such as Medicaid and SCHIP. SCHIP covers uninsured children whose parents don't qualify for Medicaid because they make too much money. So, all the things you had at birth would be covered.

and I can't live half normally without being pumped full of corticoids, antihistaminics and bronchodilators... Unless you can get me a job in a major corp with top health coverage (and I never managed to secure that kind of employment here), I have a fair assessment that living in the US is hell for a guy in my kind of medical situation.

If you don't have an employer that provides health insurance (60% of Americans are covered through employer provided insurance), and you make too much for Medicaid, then your preexisting conditions would allow you to get insurance through State sponsored "risk pools." You'd just look up the available resource in your state and enroll. You'd have to pay for it, but technically you'd be making more than the Medicaid cutoff for an employer that doesn't provide health insurance. You would be able to get coverage.

[maiforpeace]

And, being voted on any day in the county next door to me...

Ban the Happy Meal (listen to the music on the HappyMeal.com website... )

Lawmakers want to ban happy meal toys to curb obesity in California

March 24, 12:25 PM
San Diego County Political Buzz Examiner
Kimberly Dvorak

The ink hasn’t even dried on the new trillion-dollar entitlement health care bill and already lawmakers are gearing up with new legislation to curb societies ills. One lawmaker in California is moving to have toys banned in fast food happy meals.

The proposed law comes from Santa Clara Board of Supervisors, Ken Yeager. “Fast food restaurants spend hundreds of millions of dollars per year to tempt children into eating unhealthy,” he said.

Yeager points to the one in three children in California who are obese as the reason to regulate restaurants and hopefully guide parents to make better decisions about nutritious meals for kids.

"We're finding out more and more that if you're obese as a child, you're going to have health problems your entire life," said Yeager. "Ten out of 12 meals that are associated with the promotional toys are the high-caloric, high-fat and high-sodium meals.”

In other words, we know what’s best for your children. Because one third of children in California are pudgy, two-thirds will have to pay the price, according to Yeager. Most parents choose fast food because it’s a treat or cheaper and the toy is just a bonus, says Maggie Thompson a parent of two children.

Supervisor Yeager says his public health ordinance banning fast-food toy incentives may draw a challenge from the California Restaurant Association, but that it would legally fall under the health and safety codes.

However, Jot Condie, the CEO of the California Restaurant Association says this new proposed ban on toys is overreaching. “When the state is operating in the red are they really going to take on another legal challenge? This is ultimately a parent’s decision.”

If this legislation passes, it would be the first time in the nation that lawmakers regulate how restaurants package meals geared toward children. The Santa Clara board will vote on the ordinance next month.