I must follow, if I can: The Moral Implications of Sneakers...

« British response | Main | Shuttle launch cancelled... »

July 13, 2005

The Moral Implications of Sneakers...

This is a follow-up to a post back in May called, "You do what you can...".

It's super, super hot outside. So hot that I was wearing my suede sneakers with no socks and my feet were still hot. So I've decided I'm going to go get some new canvas sneakers today, similar to Chuck Taylor's but not.

Regarding what I said in the previous post, and all the implications of AdBusters and similar companies such as No Sweat, I have done some thinking, and basically everyone's a hypocrite.

I. AdBusters promotes this "Blackspot Sneaker". See this great Slate article by Rob Walker, "It Oughtta Be the Shoes", where he points out that AdBusters isn't really fighting the corporate marketings schemes, but just become one more marketing corporation. It's selling out, really. Walker writes,

But rather than challenge the rules of the advertising game, Adbusters, this time around, is simply playing along. As a result, the plan for the Black Spot does not feel like a triumph for the forces of antimarketingâ€”it feels like a capitulation. This campaign doesn't slow the momentum of the culture of branding; it's merely along for the ride.

In order to sell their $70 shoes, AdBusters is marketing them by appealing to an individual's anti-corporate, anti-label, anti-marketing sentiments, which is hypocritical.

II. The nearest alternative to non-Converse Chucks (because Converse sold out to Nike and their shoes are no longer made in the U.S., but in some sweatshop somewhere), is No Sweat. At first glance, it looks like a good idea. Their website says all their stuff is union-made, after all. Unfortunately, not only are their shoes $10 more expensive than Chucks, but they are made by Indonesian workers who only make $110 a month. That's fine if that's a living wage for Indonesia, but my problem is this: Does each worker make only two shoes a month? No, of course not! Each probably makes at least a dozen shoes a day. So where does all the money go? I could support a deal where the worker got half of what the shoe cost. There is no retail overhead because they sell them from the website, not from a store. But let's give them $10 for profit's sake. Now we have $37. In my opinion, half of this should go to the person who made the shoe, and the other half to the company to pay for factory space, materials, pensions, shipping, etc. So the worker ends up with $18.50/shoe. At this rate, they should be making $6,000/mo., not $110. Alright, so maybe you're thinking that's an absurdly high wage for an Indonesian shoemaker, and maybe you're right. But don't you think this illustration aptly represents how so much money is being wasted and/or given to the wrong people who are taking advantage of overseas poverty?

I like No Sweat's ideals as they are listed on their website. The problem is, in real life, they aren't living up to them. If it's okay to pay someone $110/mo. to make your shoes, shouldn't you be selling the shoes for like 5 bux a pair?

Okay, so I just got back from the shoe store. All of the shoes were made in China, in the whole place. Okay, there were some that were made in England, like the high-end Tred Air, Doc Marten's and Gripfast. But it's 103°F outside. Too hot for boots! Besides, the cheapest of the Made in UK shoes were $110.

So, I got some tennies that were made in China. I know it sucks, but at least I'm not supporting the corporate machine, since TUK is a small, independent, niche company. Well, at least my Docs were made in England!

Posted by aaronlord at July 13, 2005 10:00 AM