Branding - stamped by capitalist crooks

I am peacefully resting in your bedroom. It's very comfortable and cozy in here. I love the window view overlooking the lake, and the music from my favourite radio station playing softly in the background. I swear you never turn it off! I'm positive that you're playing it because you know how much I like that music. I'm very happy here with you.  The peanut butter painted walls, welcoming arrangement of flowers, and aroma of cinnamon candles! But I haven't always been here. You don't really have a concept of my journey up to this point. Don't get me wrong, you know where I'm from but don't understand the full context. Although every now and then as you watch the evening news with your 3 course meal you hear a glimpse into where I came from and feel sorry. You make a comment or 2 to your spouse about how horrible that must be, but then the phone rings and you carry on with your usual evening routine. Are you desensitized? Or do you not recognize your role in these situations? Your house is full of things like me...
What am I you ask? I am a "Thneed". A boundary object that everyone needs! I am the sweater hanging in your closet, the jeans folded in your dresser, the I-pad plugged into your wall, and the body lotion you smooth over your skin. I am all the things that you have no involvement in negotiating meaning with the people who produce them. Dr. Seuss' children's book "The Lorax" explores the effects that corporate greed can have on the environment. The Lorax is a character that speaks for the truffula trees that are being chopped down at an alarming rate by the Once-ler's greed to produce more "Thneeds". Pollution and smog begin to have devastating effects on the wildlife that reside in the local habitat.
How does corporate greed relate to the real world? Just look at the tags on your clothes or the stickers on the bottom of your ornaments and you will get a perspective into the amount of boundary objects that we purchase. Contemporary sociological theorist Naomi Klein exposes the hidden exploitation of workers through production by Brand-name Multinationals. These capitalist companies have taken factory jobs from middle class workers in developed countries, and relocated them to underdeveloped and developing countries where these new employees remain in poverty. Big corporations like Nike, Wal-Mart, Gap, and Old Navy engage in hidden exploitation by shifting responsibility to contractors and sub-contractors. This way they can "hide" their involvement in exploitation as sweatshop factories are managed by contractors instead of the Multinational Brand-name. This is a free-trade-zone industry that allocates tax breaks for big companies manufacturing in these low-wage zones. Zero-risk globalization allows companies to ship in materials, assemble, and ship out (no import or export taxes). Poor countries compete with each other for these companies by offering tax breaks, lax regulations and military support to guard factories and keep things in strict order. These desperate countries also continue to lower their minimum wages in an attempt to seal a deal and attract foreign investment making their people remain in poverty. Factories have horrible working conditions for employees with no benefits (no work = no pay). Contracting can be sub-contracted 3 or 4 times with workers' wages getting lower each time as money is sliced to pay all sub-contractors involved. Minimum wage of 87 cents an hour can drop to as low as 13 cents an hour for production workers (Klein, 2000). People purchase Brand-name products as part of an identity. We see sports figures and super models marketing these Brands and feel that we need to "belong". Do we want others to see us wearing a particular Brand-name so that they assume we belong to a specific identity? Bracher expresses that we all want to be desired. Are we more desirable if we wear Versace? Corporations spend as little as possible on production but the sky is the limit when it comes to marketing. A former corporate chairman of United Biscuits stated that: "Machines wear out. Cars rust. People die. But what lives on are the brands." (Klein, 2000, p. 196).

Just last week I bought 2 new dresses for a great price. The first was $20 and the second one was $25. I was extremely excited to purchase clothing at a "good" price. I must admit that I love shopping for deals. The lower the price, the more excited I become. I read articles/ books and watch documentaries by individuals like Naomi Klein who are enlightening society on the ugly truth behind capitalism. So why do I feel pleased to buy things at a "good" price? When a product is very cheap and considered a "good" price to me, then most likely the person who made it wasn't paid very well and probably lives in poverty. Shouldn't a "good" price be a fair price for buyer and producer? But in a capitalist world the "good" is only applicable to buyer and mainly corporate seller or should I say bully.


References:

Bracher, M. (2006). Radical pedagogy: Identity, generativity, and social transformation. New York:
      Palgrave Macmillan.

Klein, N. (2000). No logo: Taking aim at the brand bullies. Toronto: A. A. Knopf Canada.

Seuss, Dr. (1971). The lorax. New York Random House.

Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity (1st ed.). New York:
      Cambridge University Press.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uI0itS3gQFU&feature=player_detailpage