cheaper goods usually imply negative externalities like pollution and bad working conditions. aside from that consideration I don't care if something comes from the US or elsewhere.
I have a feeling this will end up in the campground or on the soap box.
My two cents, however, that climbing companies should manufacture their products in such a way as to ensure a high level of safety and quality while also balancing costs. A climbing company probably cannot survive for long without an excellent saftey record and competitive prices.
For example, if a score of 90 equals sufficiently safe and:
USA = 98 at a cost of $10 Korea = 94 at a cost of $4
...then the company should feel OK about producing that product in Korea. It is still above the saftey standards and it costs considerably less.
Are there pollution issues? Maybe, but let's remember that the US is still the worlds largest polluter. Are there work conditions to take into consideration? Sure, but can't a company insist on high work standards despite the norm in a particular country? Why do good work conditions have to exist in the developed world alone? How are work conditions going to improve in the developing world if standards aren't exported along with jobs? Blah, blah, blah.
There are a lot of other issues, but few of them are completely unworkable. Most issues can be solved if there are efforts to solve them.
For example, if a score of 90 equals sufficiently safe ...
So, let's just throw the ISO9000 system, Six Sigma , and Three Sigma out the window? Under international standards, and those endorsed by the UIAA (CE anyone?), climbing products should adhere to be at least a 99.73% free of defects.
Gmburns2000 wrote:
but let's remember that the US is still the worlds largest polluter.
I'd like to see these numbers too. Last I looked, China was number 1 on the polluters list.
cheaper goods usually imply negative externalities...
You wrote that as if you believe it's true. I don't.
There are lots of reasons for being cheaper. For instance less waste in the manufacturing process, configuration changes, less overhead in the company, fewer defects due to a good quality program, etc., etc., etc..
For example, if a score of 90 equals sufficiently safe ...
So, let's just throw the ISO9000 system, Six Sigma , and Three Sigma out the window? Under international standards, and those endorsed by the UIAA (CE anyone?), climbing products should adhere to be at least a 99.73% free of defects.
I never said throw the standards out the window. If that was your assumption then it was a dumb one. I was merely creating an easy-to-follow example by suggesting that if quality does not decrease below expected standards then lower costs are a good reason to manufacture a product elsewhere.
In reply to:
Gmburns2000 wrote:
but let's remember that the US is still the worlds largest polluter.
I'd like to see these numbers too. Last I looked, China was number 1 on the polluters list.
For example, if a score of 90 equals sufficiently safe ...
So, let's just throw the ISO9000 system, Six Sigma , and Three Sigma out the window? Under international standards, and those endorsed by the UIAA (CE anyone?), climbing products should adhere to be at least a 99.73% free of defects.
Gmburns2000 wrote:
but let's remember that the US is still the worlds largest polluter.
I'd like to see these numbers too. Last I looked, China was number 1 on the polluters list.
However: but then: "The top twelve spam-relaying countries are as follows: “Responsible for a third of all unwanted email, USA and Russia can be viewed as the two dirty men of the spam generation, polluting email traffic with unwanted and potentially malicious messages,”" [bold added for emphisis]
:)
(This post was edited by sungam on Jul 9, 2008, 8:31 PM)
For example, if a score of 90 equals sufficiently safe ...
So, let's just throw the ISO9000 system, Six Sigma , and Three Sigma out the window? Under international standards, and those endorsed by the UIAA (CE anyone?), climbing products should adhere to be at least a 99.73% free of defects.
Gmburns2000 wrote:
but let's remember that the US is still the worlds largest polluter.
I'd like to see these numbers too. Last I looked, China was number 1 on the polluters list.
[image]http://www.harpercollege.edu/mhealy/geogres/gifs/econgeog/pop-co2-chart.jpg[/image] [image]http://whyfiles.org/200immigration_pop/images/footprint_countries.gif[/image] However: [image]http://www.ldesign.com/Images/Essays/GlobalWarming/Part1/Activities/FourBestGHGEmissionPerformers.jpg[/image] but then: "The top twelve spam-relaying countries are as follows: [image]http://news.soft32.com/wp-content/upload/sophos_spam1.jpg[/image] “Responsible for a third of all unwanted email, USA and Russia can be viewed as the two dirty men of the spam generation, polluting email traffic with unwanted and potentially malicious messages,”" [bold added for emphisis]
:)
Those charts don't even come close to agreeing with each other (notice how Canada comes in second in chart #2...and then doesn't even apear in another of the other charts).
They are fabricated, numbers added up in very different and specific ways. I bet it would be easy to make more charts listing China as number 1 with a little tweaking.
For example, if a score of 90 equals sufficiently safe ...
So, let's just throw the ISO9000 system, Six Sigma , and Three Sigma out the window? Under international standards, and those endorsed by the UIAA (CE anyone?), climbing products should adhere to be at least a 99.73% free of defects.
Gmburns2000 wrote:
but let's remember that the US is still the worlds largest polluter.
I'd like to see these numbers too. Last I looked, China was number 1 on the polluters list.
However: but then: "The top twelve spam-relaying countries are as follows: “Responsible for a third of all unwanted email, USA and Russia can be viewed as the two dirty men of the spam generation, polluting email traffic with unwanted and potentially malicious messages,”" [bold added for emphisis]
:)
Those charts don't even come close to agreeing with each other (notice how Canada comes in second in chart #2...and then doesn't even apear in another of the other charts).
They are fabricated, numbers added up in very different and specific ways. I bet it would be easy to make more charts listing China as number 1 with a little tweaking.
read closely. One is CO2 emmisions, the other is enviromental damage. The second one encompasses other stuff, too (sulphites, nitrites, water pollutions, particular pollutions, CFC's, etc.)
47 /
57%
1
