Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: buckshot on October 15, 2015, 03:51:20 pm
-
Here (http://america.aljazeera.com/multimedia/2015/10/bh-workers-claim-discrimination-unsafe-standards1.html) and here (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/14/nyregion/workers-at-bh-photo-video-citing-hazards-move-to-unionize.html).
-
The reports that have been coming out re B+H seem very damning.
If true, which the evidence seems to indicate. Are places like LuLa going to continue to accept their advertising?
-
If true, which the evidence seems to indicate. Are places like LuLa going to continue to accept their advertising?
money don't smell...
-
I think you would be hard pressed to find a warehouse operation that's not basically identical to B&H's.
Why do you think the cameras/books/blenders/auto parts/tomatos are so cheap? Because they're crushing costs up and down the supply chain, and a cost that can be crushed is warehouse workers.
It's us. Ultimately, it's us.
-
There seems to be opposition to trade unions in the US that is so emotionally based as to yield to no logic. Whilst the far Right in Australia (more moderate than the Tea party BTW) continually tries to demonise unions, the fact is that they act as a counterbalance to the immense employment power enjoyed by large businesses. One person against a company the size of B&H? No contest.
Since the concept of structural unemployment is nowadays an integral part of government economic management in many jurisdictions, the “go and get another job” meme becomes a touch laughable.
I have bought from B&H before, but will not again.
-
It's the problem of the expectation of constant growth, with the idea that to keep making a good living out of a business is not enough, you have to grow it!
I don't believe it for a moment. There's nothing wrong with making the same reasonable turnover every year; what is wrong is that prices keep getting shoved north because of the bloody growth concept, and so you have to join in too. It becomes a chain reaction, and you then have to grow to stand still.
I used to enjoy the services of an excellent local photographic dealer near Glasgow. He was a rare outlet for Leica, Hasselblad and Nikon. One day I went to see him about some 'blad stuff I needed. He told me he'd lost them. (500 Series days.) I asked him why, and he said that he couldn't sell enough anymore because the big photo dealers in London and Leeds could sell retail at prices he couldn't buy from Hasselblad. That's crazy. If you are big, then make your profits and price cuts from economies of internal scale, efficiencies; you shouldn't have the manufacturers cutting prices for you. As Hasselblad were the only people making Hasselblads, there was no goddam reason to cut prices for the big guys! A single price would have been fair to all outets, made 'blad more money, and the folks buying would still have been buying.
The bottom line? Greed and Fear.
Rob C
-
Whilst the far Right in Australia (more moderate than the Tea party BTW)
But just as greedy and evil. ;)
-
I've been involved with two companies that eventually blew themselves up due to not knowing when to stop trying to get bigger…and not being able to stop once reality smacked 'em upside the head. This stuff is part of the extremist business ethos we're currently enduring. The pursuit of profit unhindered by ethical or rational restraint or constraint.
This morning I heard a recap of the preliminary findings of an ongoing study of anorexia nervosa. The researchers have found that long-term anorexic behavior is more akin to an addictive habit than a strong-willed refusal to eat healthily. The anorexics know they're doing themselves harm, committing slow suicide even, but can't break free from deeply engrained behaviors.
I suspect runaway greed works much the same way. The question is whether or not we'll be able to figure out how to effectively treat this kind of addiction before its sufferers blow up the entire world economy.
-Dave-
-
It's the problem of the expectation of constant growth, with the idea that to keep making a good living out of a business is not enough, you have to grow it!
If you know some basic maths, you will quickly realise how really dumb the concept of constant growth is.
The metric that only *growth* matters is idiotic nonsense. If you are comfortably making a billion pounds a year or whatever it takes to pay for everyone's wages and future investment, research etc, it is actually OK to not grow. [Not saying one shouldn't protect market share or anything]
This nonsense is a large part of why I loathe shareholders and their stranglehold over companies. If is isn't growing it must be failing, so shares need to be sold mentality is short sighted and usually makes stocks plummet, so undermining the business and possibly causing finance problems that were not there before.
The bottom line? Greed and Fear.
Nope stupidity.
I suspect runaway greed works much the same way. The question is whether or not we'll be able to figure out how to effectively treat this kind of addiction before its sufferers blow up the entire world economy.
Nope stupidity is the same answer. ;)
-
Nope stupidity is the same answer. ;)
I think it's more complex. There's a compulsive aspect to greed whereby people who succumb are carried off by it beyond their own conscious intention or even desire. Just calling it stupidity makes it easy to judge & condemn & feel superior but does nothing about getting to the root of the problem. Now some people are just sociopathic. In these cases resource hoovering is more likely part of a strategy, a means to an end. IMO our oligarchs belong in this category. But in my experience most "greedy people" don't have any end in mind. Nor are they stupid. But they have lost perspective…and control.
-Dave-
-
They are stupid in thinking endless growth and such like is possible.
Nothing to do with feeling superior either, just describing how I see it.
The problem with capitalism [or any other political system] is that they do not take human behaviour into account. Governments trying to prevent boom and bust are to use the S word again stupid. That's simply how unfettered capitalism works when humans get involved with it. Rather than trying to stop crashes happening which only delays the inevitable and now bigger bust, realise that is what is part of the system and try and work with it. A similar example would forest fires. By stopping all the natural small fires, you often end up having a huge conflagration a bit further down the line that is catastrophic.
There's an interesting book [and a film] about business The Corporation, which posits that if you judge businesses like you would a human, they are actually psychopathic.
-
Capitalism requires constant growth. It also requires constant failure and destruction to balance things out. It is the nature of competition.
The second bit is usually left out of the brochures.
-
.... He says he never received any training on how to operate the forklift
You would not be allowed to operate a machine without a licence in Australia.
Doesn't the US have industrial relations laws?
-
.... He says he never received any training on how to operate the forklift
You would not be allowed to operate a machine without a licence in Australia.
Doesn't the US have industrial relations laws?
Not if businesses can help it.
-
The problem with capitalism [or any other political system] is that they do not take human behaviour into account. Governments trying to prevent boom and bust are to use the S word again stupid. That's simply how unfettered capitalism works when humans get involved with it. Rather than trying to stop crashes happening which only delays the inevitable and now bigger bust, realise that is what is part of the system and try and work with it. A similar example would forest fires. By stopping all the natural small fires, you often end up having a huge conflagration a bit further down the line that is catastrophic.
One thing I'd note is that capitalism is a human creation. We didn't find it lying about waiting to be put to use. We made it up. Which means we can modify it. After all, is it an economic system to be deployed & employed—within rational & moral boundaries—or an object of worship to be genuflected in front of? The former, of course. The "unfettered free market" is a utopianist's delusion…no real-world economy does or can work that way. Best to admit this and then get on with setting up well-considered boundaries. This way you can have controlled burns, greatly reducing the possibility of scorched earth outcomes.
-Dave-
-
B&H have had their problems with labor in the past, so I suppose it is coincidence that this set of news stories is associated with a United Steelworkers unionization drive. Whatever the truth of the allegations, weakening a company by alienating its customers is an effective tactic. Already, a number of LuLa
readers have stated their intention to stop buying from B&H.
I'm not sure who is David and who is Goliath here, B&H or United Steelworkers, but at least power and organization are not limited to one side only.
Regards,
Dale
-
The "unfettered free market" is a utopianist's delusion…no real-world economy does or can work that way. Best to admit this and then get on with setting up well-considered boundaries. This way you can have controlled burns, greatly reducing the possibility of scorched earth outcomes.
My point entirely. The issue is that people do not get this fundamental aspect of economics.
-
My point entirely. The issue is that people do not get this fundamental aspect of economics.
Oh, I think that many do; what happens, though, is that for those not actually doing anything on their own, the myth of capitalism, as in the red-toothed, hooded monster, is all they get to know and, consequently, to hate.
One of my pet (but impossible) wishes in the past was that everybody should have the compulsory experience of having to run their own business for a year. The learning curve of how things work would be an eye-opener, especially regarding the concept of the world owing one a living, not to mention lining up behind some union and demanding pay rises.
Alas, the world will forever remain divided between those who tried and those who did not, with all the consequential baggage that decision creates.
The way it is.
Rob C
-
Oh, I think that many do
Really? As I've see very little to no evidence of that.
what happens, though, is that for those not actually doing anything on their own, the myth of capitalism, as in the red-toothed, hooded monster, is all they get to know and, consequently, to hate.
Uh, it's not a myth. That is simply how it works. Even if you do work for yourself.
I think if you were trying to be a pro photographer today, you'd sing a very different story.
One of my pet (but impossible) wishes in the past was that everybody should have the compulsory experience of having to run their own business for a year. The learning curve of how things work would be an eye-opener, especially regarding the concept of the world owing one a living, not to mention lining up behind some union and demanding pay rises.
I agree that many people do not get that working for yourself is not the sinecure they think it is and unions can be self destructive certainly. But without some counterpoint to the goal of making businesses as profitable as possible, people will always be screwed over by 'The Man'. Unfettered capitalism and unfettered union power are both appaling and socially disruptive, albeit in slightly differing ways.
-
Corporations are interested in one thing and one thing only: profit. That's just the nature of the beast, corporations are designed and intended to make profit. Damn the workers, damn the environment, profit comes first!!!
-
Don't forget the shareholders, you must do whatever they demand even if it means the business runs less effectively.
-
Hear my wry laugh re. shareholders. Ever actually been none? Ever watched the family lose the monetary equivalent of a brand new Ferrari and Porsche to a single collapse? I have.
If you're going to talk about shareholders etc. please have the courtesy to know what the hell you're talking about first.
Shareholders are what provide you with a pension; the group that sometimes sits and watches nothing coming in perhaps for some years in a line; the group that's called in to subscribe even more to keep a company from folding altogether at times. In a nutshell, business can't do without 'em. Where the hell do you think the capital comes from to make any of it work, to keep you, your kids and the rest of the bloody world employed? Yes some companies can make you a reasonable return, but just as many can clean you out. It's not for nothing that the basic warning is that it's not an activity for widows and orphans.
Rob C
-
Hear my wry laugh re. shareholders. Ever actually been none? Ever watched the family lose the monetary equivalent of a brand new Ferrari and Porsche to a single collapse? I have.
If you're going to talk about shareholders etc. please have the courtesy to know what the hell you're talking about first.
Why assume I do not know about the subject, simply because I do not view shareholding in a favourable light. It's because I know about such things is precisely why I dislike how companies can be crippled by having to please shareholders.
Also my mum lost £20k+ in a share collapse a while back, couldn't be very sympathetic I'm afraid. Just as she wouldn't be if someone lost money gambling. Oh wait it was gambling, except people do not like to call it for what it is. A finance writer for one of the broadsheets every year had his young son throw darts at the top 100 FTSE index and compare how well those darts did Vs various experts. His son's random choices did better every time I saw him write about this.
Shareholders are what provide you with a pension; the group that sometimes sits and watches nothing coming in perhaps for some years in a line; the group that's called in to subscribe even more to keep a company from folding altogether at times. In a nutshell, business can't do without 'em. Where the hell do you think the capital comes from to make any of it work, to keep you, your kids and the rest of the bloody world employed?
It is not the only way to finance things or to make a pension. Or even a particularly wise way to sort a pension out, just ask all those who lost their pensions in share collapses.
Yes some companies can make you a reasonable return, but just as many can clean you out. It's not for nothing that the basic warning is that it's not an activity for widows and orphans.
Yet idiots who lose money when shares go down complain and whinge. Well of course they do, that's how shares operate sometime up, sometimes down. No different from complaining that your horse didn't win at the derby.
-
'Shareholders' these days means the hard men who run funds of various stripes. They do indeed call the shots, often, for high level strategic things at corporations.
Individuals should almost never own individual stocks. It's not that individuals are stupid, it's that the risk profile is all wrong.
-
Individuals should almost never own individual stocks. It's not that individuals are stupid, it's that the risk profile is all wrong.
Just like playing the Casino, you should never stake more than you can afford to lose.
-
Why assume I do not know about the subject, simply because I do not view shareholding in a favourable light. It's because I know about such things is precisely why I dislike how companies can be crippled by having to please shareholders.
Also my mum lost £20k+ in a share collapse a while back, couldn't be very sympathetic I'm afraid. Just as she wouldn't be if someone lost money gambling. Oh wait it was gambling, except people do not like to call it for what it is. A finance writer for one of the broadsheets every year had his young son throw darts at the top 100 FTSE index and compare how well those darts did Vs various experts. His son's random choices did better every time I saw him write about this.
It is not the only way to finance things or to make a pension. Or even a particularly wise way to sort a pension out, just ask all those who lost their pensions in share collapses.
Yet idiots who lose money when shares go down complain and whinge. Well of course they do, that's how shares operate sometime up, sometimes down. No different from complaining that your horse didn't win at the derby.
You are confusing several things: the private person and the institutional player.
The private investor is usually in it for the long term, with stocks such as M&S, one or other of the banks (until 2007/8!) and some holding companies spreading their portfolio over many companies, industries and countries. In stable times, as from the 60s until perhaps the end of the 90s, this was a perfectly safe way for an individual to keep capital and make some modest interest. Yes, modest. The big money was made on margin (not interest earned), with instant access to brokers and all the services that the ordinary small investor didn't have, the closest access being having the bank sell on your behalf. Brokers had little time for small investors - not hard to understand why.
And what to do when your investment takes a slow dive? Sell? Capital gains and brokerage fees soon make you lose one helluva lot; often safer to hang on in there and pray the tide turns again. Sometimes not. But how do you, the little guy, ever know? Next week can be far too late.
So yes, in troubled times, better out of it, just as amolitor and the proverb say.
But regarding the gamble aspect: there's also the concept that money left lying in a bank is a stinking fish. Today, as you must know, there's only insult in place of bank interest, and you actually lose value on savings as time marches onwards.
-
We are a little off topic. The question is, is B and H violating worker safety requirements? Can NIOSH do anything about it, if allegations are true? Have there been laws broken? I wouldn't mind seeing a real investigation. I can't but help think that al-Jazeera may be a bit prejudiced regarding an Hasidic-Jewish-owned establishment. It would be nice to get new information from another source that is not clearly biased toward either the union or the company (NYT was reporting about the reporting). I am reserving judgement at the moment. Still, I think that any mail-order business is going to have the same tendency to squeeze their warehouse workers. So this puts the buyer in a bit of a quandary. If the local store doesn't carry an item you need and isn't set up to order it, and it is impractical to get to a bricks-and-mortar store that does carry it, where do you shop? 1. big box store (BH or Adorama) or Amazon 2. regional bricks and mortar store that does carry it and will mail it 3. manufacturer 4. flea-Bay, if you want used. Any big box or Amazon operation has the same issues. Manufacturer - who knows? Regional store - may not want to get into fulfilling orders on esoteric stuff.
-
I can't but help think that al-Jazeera may be a bit prejudiced regarding an Hasidic-Jewish-owned establishment.
but of course... muslim owned news outlet attacking jews for exploitation catholic illegal aliens with disregard for the safety laws...
-
You are confusing several things: the private person and the institutional player.
No, that's just your assumption.
The private investor is usually in it for the long term, with stocks such as M&S, one or other of the banks (until 2007/8!) and some holding companies spreading their portfolio over many companies, industries and countries. In stable times, as from the 60s until perhaps the end of the 90s, this was a perfectly safe way for an individual to keep capital and make some modest interest. Yes, modest. The big money was made on margin (not interest earned), with instant access to brokers and all the services that the ordinary small investor didn't have, the closest access being having the bank sell on your behalf. Brokers had little time for small investors - not hard to understand why.
And what to do when your investment takes a slow dive? Sell? Capital gains and brokerage fees soon make you lose one helluva lot; often safer to hang on in there and pray the tide turns again. Sometimes not. But how do you, the little guy, ever know? Next week can be far too late.
The experts know little more. Anything that tends to give you an insight into where stocks are going may well be insider trading knowledge. The way these folk made money is usually by handling other people's money/giving advice.
But regarding the gamble aspect: there's also the concept that money left lying in a bank is a stinking fish. Today, as you must know, there's only insult in place of bank interest, and you actually lose value on savings as time marches onwards.
Why should one even expect your money to gain in value? It'd be nice certainly, but it is never a sure thing. Property long term in the UK is usually safer.
-
A lovely example of why individuals should not own stock. When a stock takes a dive, the answer is almost always "buy more of it" which is psychologically almost impossible when your own money is on the line.
-
Why should one even expect your money to gain in value?
Ah, you mean the banks you trust with it should be the only ones to profit from what's yours, then? Cool. Novel idea, for a depositor.
;-)
Rob C
-
Ah, you mean the banks you trust with it should be the only ones to profit from what's yours, then? Cool. Novel idea, for a depositor.
Not what I said or meant at all.