Nike and Kaepernick

[JSD]

greece666,

What that I said is factually wrong? Nothing you posted seemed relevant to what I said. Workers in those factories make far more than people in their community working on a farm or at the market, to name a few available jobs.

Thanks for the reply JSD, appreciated. I bolded the parts that are wrong IMO.

The reason locals withstand and work in those conditions is because they are getting paid 5 times as much as their neighbor.

Where did you find that they get paid 5 times more than other employees? Nike has about 1 million workers in 785 countries, I am very skeptical of this number you give.

If I were to get $500,000 a year to work in a “sweatshop” I would probably do it for a few years and bank some money.

I bolded the wrong parts.

You totally missed my point. People work in sweatshops because in most cases they make 5X as much money as they working other available jobs. So I applied that to my own situation


Here’s one source https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/international/sweatshops-make-poor-people-better-off?format=amp

Thanks again for the reply JSD.

I didn't miss your point, I disagree with it. Again, where's the evidence that they make 5 times more?

Second, Adam Smith is a libertarian/neoliberal think tank and anything but a neutral source.

What was wrong with the information they gathered for the article? What are neutral sources? I literally do not even know anymore. You want a peer reviewed article or something?

To me this is common sense anyway. What exactly are you disagreeing with? You think people in these locations have no other options? If that’s what you believe, what were they doing before Nike showed up?

[greece66]

Nike’s online sales jumped 31% after the company unveiled Kaepernick campaign.

After an initial dip immediately after the news broke, Nike’s NKE, -0.12% online sales actually grew 31% from the Sunday of Labor Day weekend through Tuesday, as compared with a 17% gain recorded for the same period of 2017, according to San Francisco–based Edison Trends.

https://www.marketw atch.com/story/nikes-online-sales-jumped-31-after-company-unveiled-kaepernick-campaign-2018-09-07?link=sfmw_tw


EDIT: The link isn't working quite right because CB keeps censoring the letters "t w a t" in "market watch" when it's made one word in the link, so if you want to see the page, you'll have to paste the link and reattach.

[greece66]

greece666,

What that I said is factually wrong? Nothing you posted seemed relevant to what I said. Workers in those factories make far more than people in their community working on a farm or at the market, to name a few available jobs.

Thanks for the reply JSD, appreciated. I bolded the parts that are wrong IMO.

The reason locals withstand and work in those conditions is because they are getting paid 5 times as much as their neighbor.

Where did you find that they get paid 5 times more than other employees? Nike has about 1 million workers in 785 countries, I am very skeptical of this number you give.

If I were to get $500,000 a year to work in a “sweatshop” I would probably do it for a few years and bank some money.

I bolded the wrong parts.

You totally missed my point. People work in sweatshops because in most cases they make 5X as much money as they working other available jobs. So I applied that to my own situation


Here’s one source https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/international/sweatshops-make-poor-people-better-off?format=amp

Thanks again for the reply JSD.

I didn't miss your point, I disagree with it. Again, where's the evidence that they make 5 times more?

Second, Adam Smith is a libertarian/neoliberal think tank and anything but a neutral source.

What was wrong with the information they gathered for the article? What are neutral sources? I literally do not even know anymore. You want a peer reviewed article or something?

To me this is common sense anyway. What exactly are you disagreeing with? You think people in these locations have no other options? If that’s what you believe, what were they doing before Nike showed up?

What was wrong with the information they gathered for the article?

They made generalizations based on very thin evidence.

What are neutral sources?

Not the Adam Smith Institute for sure.

You want a peer reviewed article or something?

Here you go. A peer reviewed article arguing that sweatshops are harmful to the people who work there.

To me this is common sense anyway.

If so, why do so many ppl protest sweatshops and have the exact opposite opinion than you?

You think people in these locations have no other options?

Even if I grant you this (that they have other options), this is irrelevant when assessing the moral status of sweatshops. To illustrate how options are irrelevant, consider that prostitutes quite often have alternative employment options, this however does not change the fact that being a pimp is immoral. The same argument can be made about loan sharks too.

If that’s what you believe, what were they doing before Nike showed up?

Again this is irrelevant.

Also, although I'm sure you yourself do not defend such opinions, similar arguments were used to justify slavery, colonialism and all kinds of other evils. (Africans were poor anyway, western civilization was good for non Europeans, if they didn't become slaves they would probably laze around etc)

At the very least you have to concede that the position that sweatshops are bad for the workers and immoral is a defensible one - you obviously don't have to agree with it, and I'm aware that good arguments can be made for the opposite case, but claiming that sweatshops are evidently and commonsensically good for the employees is IMHO not a defensible position.

[Donoghus]

Nike’s online sales jumped 31% after the company unveiled Kaepernick campaign.

After an initial dip immediately after the news broke, Nike’s NKE, -0.12% online sales actually grew 31% from the Sunday of Labor Day weekend through Tuesday, as compared with a 17% gain recorded for the same period of 2017, according to San Francisco–based Edison Trends.

https://www.marketw atch.com/story/nikes-online-sales-jumped-31-after-company-unveiled-kaepernick-campaign-2018-09-07?link=sfmw_tw


EDIT: The link isn't working quite right because CB keeps censoring the letters "t w a t" in "market watch" when it's made one word in the link, so if you want to see the page, you'll have to paste the link and reattach.

I saw that news as well. Nike is probably happy with its decision so far.

I wonder how much Colin K is earning from Nike. Frankly, starring in ads is much better work than risking concussion on the football field.

You can bank on the fact that Nike did some serious cost/benefit analysis of this campaign before rolling it out.    Its apparent that they felt the gain that would come out of this would exceed the detriment and fallout from angry MAGAs & the such.   It certainly appears to be a long term play here. 

[JSD]

Greece666

Here is a video by Professor Matt Zwolinski (University of San Diego) that pretty much captures my understanding. I appreciate the back and forth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxBzKkWo0mo


The Times article he refferences

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/world/africa/27safrica.html?_r=3&scp=1&am

[greece66]

Greece666

Here is a video by Professor Matt Zwolinski (University of San Diego) that pretty much captures my understanding. I appreciate the back and forth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxBzKkWo0mo


The Times article he refferences

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/world/africa/27safrica.html?_r=3&scp=1&am

I enjoy it too. I had a glance at the vid and the article and they look promising.

Do you think we should start a new thread? We are clearly not discussing Kaepernick anymore.

There are various possible titles depending on whether we prefer focusing on sweatshops or more general questions. Just on top of my head:  Tackling poverty in the developing world, Sweatshops: pros and cons, Best ways to deal with poverty (not just in the developing world but in general).

[Celtics4ever]

Nike’s online sales jumped 31% after the company unveiled Kaepernick campaign.

That is false anyways.   If you look at their sales from this time last year it jumped as well and the increase it jumped by was 14% from last year's 17% but this year it historically jumps at this time of year.   So fake news, it has jumped up only 14% from last year, good luck sustaining that, too.

[JSD]

Nike’s online sales jumped 31% after the company unveiled Kaepernick campaign.

That is false anyways.   If you look at their sales from this time last year it jumped as well and the increase it jumped by was 14% from last year's 17% but this year it historically jumps at this time of year.   So fake news, it has jumped up only 14% from last year, good luck sustaining that, too.

I noticed that too. I'm actually not that surprised in the immediate spike, back to school/fall sports is always a busy season. I'm more curious about the long term damage this will do to the brand. Time will tell.

[Moranis]

Nike’s online sales jumped 31% after the company unveiled Kaepernick campaign.

That is false anyways.   If you look at their sales from this time last year it jumped as well and the increase it jumped by was 14% from last year's 17% but this year it historically jumps at this time of year.   So fake news, it has jumped up only 14% from last year, good luck sustaining that, too.

I noticed that too. I'm actually not that surprised in the immediate spike, back to school/fall sports is always a busy season. I'm more curious about the long term damage this will do to the brand. Time will tell.

why would you assume it would damage their brand

[Cman]

Nike’s online sales jumped 31% after the company unveiled Kaepernick campaign.

That is false anyways.   If you look at their sales from this time last year it jumped as well and the increase it jumped by was 14% from last year's 17% but this year it historically jumps at this time of year.   So fake news, it has jumped up only 14% from last year, good luck sustaining that, too.

It's not "false" so much as it is misleading.

But, you make a great point about what happened last year at this time. So, if last year is a guage, then the "counterfactual" is a 17% jump, to be compared to the 31% jump.

Frankly, I wish more of us on here took counterfactuals into consideration.

[JSD]

Nike’s online sales jumped 31% after the company unveiled Kaepernick campaign.

That is false anyways.   If you look at their sales from this time last year it jumped as well and the increase it jumped by was 14% from last year's 17% but this year it historically jumps at this time of year.   So fake news, it has jumped up only 14% from last year, good luck sustaining that, too.

I noticed that too. I'm actually not that surprised in the immediate spike, back to school/fall sports is always a busy season. I'm more curious about the long term damage this will do to the brand. Time will tell.

why would you assume it would damage their brand

As I stated earlier in the thread, I believe the kneeling, among other variables, hurt the NFL, so by extension Nike using Kap could hurt their business.

[Ogaju]

Nike’s online sales jumped 31% after the company unveiled Kaepernick campaign.

That is false anyways.   If you look at their sales from this time last year it jumped as well and the increase it jumped by was 14% from last year's 17% but this year it historically jumps at this time of year.   So fake news, it has jumped up only 14% from last year, good luck sustaining that, too.

I noticed that too. I'm actually not that surprised in the immediate spike, back to school/fall sports is always a busy season. I'm more curious about the long term damage this will do to the brand. Time will tell.

why would you assume it would damage their brand

As I stated earlier in the thread, I believe the kneeling, among other variables, hurt the NFL, so by extension Nike using Kap could hurt their business.

No it wont.. Nike will be fine.

[Moranis]

Nike’s online sales jumped 31% after the company unveiled Kaepernick campaign.

That is false anyways.   If you look at their sales from this time last year it jumped as well and the increase it jumped by was 14% from last year's 17% but this year it historically jumps at this time of year.   So fake news, it has jumped up only 14% from last year, good luck sustaining that, too.

I noticed that too. I'm actually not that surprised in the immediate spike, back to school/fall sports is always a busy season. I'm more curious about the long term damage this will do to the brand. Time will tell.

why would you assume it would damage their brand

As I stated earlier in the thread, I believe the kneeling, among other variables, hurt the NFL, so by extension Nike using Kap could hurt their business.

even if kneeling had an effect on ratings (and I'm not sure it does) that is a vastly different audience then a typical Nike purchaser.  There is almost no correlation to the conservatives throwing a tizzy over the anthem and how little that group actually purchases Nike products

[Big333223]

Nike’s online sales jumped 31% after the company unveiled Kaepernick campaign.

After an initial dip immediately after the news broke, Nike’s NKE, -0.12% online sales actually grew 31% from the Sunday of Labor Day weekend through Tuesday, as compared with a 17% gain recorded for the same period of 2017, according to San Francisco–based Edison Trends.

https://www.marketw atch.com/story/nikes-online-sales-jumped-31-after-company-unveiled-kaepernick-campaign-2018-09-07?link=sfmw_tw


EDIT: The link isn't working quite right because CB keeps censoring the letters "t w a t" in "market watch" when it's made one word in the link, so if you want to see the page, you'll have to paste the link and reattach.

I saw that news as well. Nike is probably happy with its decision so far.

I wonder how much Colin K is earning from Nike. Frankly, starring in ads is much better work than risking concussion on the football field.

You can say that again.

The qualifier that it was "online" sales and thinking about Nike's demo makes me wonder if this wasn't based on some information Nike has about what the youth thinks about Kapernick, versus older/middle aged people.

[miraclejohan]

You don't seem to want to agree or disagree with anything other than systemic racism existing in US being a fact. The problem that you face is that you're taking a theory with no actual evidence and calling it fact. In your first post you and IDreamCeltics (by agreeing with him) state that it's unfortunate that people ignore systemic racism as if it's fact. I asked you for evidence of systemic racism and you immediately balked at the idea of having to give proof of such existence followed up by a study that shows that black people are more poor than white and asian people without giving any actual evidence on it being due to racism of any kind. There are so many factors to what contributes to a person's income level that to blindly state that "it's got to be racism" is disingenuous. In a truly capitalist society with equal opportunity, racist corporations, racist landlords like in Neurotic's example go out of business over time. You can't completely dismiss well qualified minorities just because they're minorities. Your competition will take them. There is nothing stopping a hard working minority in this country from achieving whatever he or she wants. You can literally be the president. I just about thought that this point was hammered in after Obama was elected (was a side hope of mine when I voted for him), but things just seemed to get even worse. The problem with affirmative action is that it inefficiently solves what capitalism already solves. You're forcing people to interact with minorities when capitalism ALREADY DOES IT. A capitalist creates a great idea by incorporating the best minds (regardless of skin color) and sells it to as many people as they can.

If you'd like to argue that the Black culture is the "systemic racism" that leads to Blacks earning less income than their White and Asian counterparts, I will agree with you because I have ACTUAL data to support it:

• single parent households: 70% of black children are born to single mothers (national average is 40% which is ridiculously high as well in my opinion -- thank you social programs).
• violent crime statistics: 13% of the population (blacks) commit 52.5% of the murders in the country
• high school dropout rate: 60% graduation rate in Blacks vs 80% in Whites

Fixing these three things would, in my opinion, all but guarantee that this income inequality is corrected.

In conclusion, you should not get to call people racist without proof. It's a pretty serious allegation. I suggest that in the future if you are prepared to use "the R word" that you are adequately prepared to defend your position.

Hi Erik.  I think we both misrepresented our positions when we began.  I stated that systemic racism exists instead of framing it as my opinion.  You also changed the conversation by asking for how the government specifically creates that systemic racism.  It has taken us a few conversations to start hearing what each other is saying, which is part of the benefit of conversations like these.

I also think I'm leaning pretty clearly on the chicken or the egg fence, not saying one is right and the other is wrong but that they both influence each other.  I.e. your data highlights a disparity between White and Black on the 3 topics you identified as the most important. Why do you think those numbers are so imbalanced? I'm curious about how you suggest fixing these issues without addressing race. 

Yes, I balked when you asked for proof of my opinion that systemic racism exists.  I also balk at the data you provided being wholly divorced from racially-driven factors.  The article I provided was meant to be a conversation starter, not a debate-winner.

I respectfully stand by my opinion that there are behaviors that affect every individual's daily life that are influenced by race, including the benefits and advantages given specifically to white men. 

Happy to keep discussing, truly.