Ikea's Third World outsourcing adventure -- in the U.S

whiteonion

Ikea has built it's first factory in the United States, it should come as no surprise since wealthy countries usually ship off their factories to third world nations. This is yet more proof that America is rapidly deteriorating into a third world nation. This factory would not be able to operate in Sweden because it would be illegal to operate that kind of sweatshop in Sweden. http://www.salon.com/technology/how_the_world_works/2011/04/11/ikea_s_third_world_outsourcing_adventure_in_the_united_states You America lovers do you think that Ireland should follow its example and get rid of worker rights and get everyone to work for €6.50 per hour?

Sheeps

Yes, America is a third world country because they have an ikea factory. Well done, you absolute genius.

El Horseboxo

Probably a shít load of people who'd work for 6.50 an hour.

thebigbiffo

i'd hire a contractor at €6.50 an hour to put the stuff together - f'ucking ikea

Hookah

Sheeps wrote: »

Yes, America is a third world country because they have an ikea factory. Well done, you absolute genius.

In Sweden, IKEA plant workers start at $19/hr, get 5 weeks vacation and are unionized. In Danville VA, they start at $8/hr and get 12 days vacation (8 picked by IKEA), have mandatory overtime and required meetings discouraging union membership. (reddit)

I'd imagine this is the reason.

krudler

How much do the people who put the instructions for a tv stand into a bookshelf box get paid?

whiteonion

Sheeps wrote: »

Yes, America is a third world country because they have an ikea factory. Well done, you absolute genius.

If you would read the article you can see that the working conditions are horrible. Would you want the future of your children to be in a sweatshop like that?

Sergeant

It could also be to save on transport costs and allow new products to reach stores as quickly as possible. Zara and H&M are two clothing retailers who manufacture some of their range in Europe for these reasons.

sollar

Very interesting article. $8 per hour and 12 days off a year is brutal.

I notice the staff in sweden get 5 weeks holidays and no less than €19.

Good luck to the US staff i hope they get the union in

Sykk

whiteonion wrote: »

This is yet more proof that America is rapidly deteriorating into a third world nation.

LOL!

whiteonion

sollar wrote: »

Very interesting article. $8 per hour and 12 days off a year is brutal.

I notice the staff in sweden get 5 weeks holidays and no less than €19.

Good luck to the US staff i hope they get the union in

Capitalism is great and Swedish style socialism is horrible. Imagine being able to have 5 weeks off every year, get a decent wage and be treated like a human being at work?

Oh my GOD, THE HORROR, THE HORROR!

lcrcboy

oh great another America bashing thread :rolleyes:

General Zod

Sheeps wrote: »

Yes, America is a third world country because they have an ikea factory. Well done, you absolute genius.

RTFA.

Ikea staff in the US are being treated disparitavely to workers in Ikea Sweden, and the reasons being used to explain this are the same ones that American multinationals use to justify dodgy labour practices in 3rd world countries.

Ikea in the US are trying to prevent their staff organising a union and have 12 vacation days (8 of which are on company specified days)
IKEA in Sweden have a very good union with decent pay and 5 weeks vacation time.

Staff in the US are geing paid 6 dollars an hour (even less for the temp agency staff). Their corresponding staff in Sweden get $19 an hour.


No doubt we'll get the YAY capitalism RUIGHT TO WROK!!!! dimrods along shortly.

Sheeps

Hookah wrote: »

In Sweden, IKEA plant workers start at $19/hr, get 5 weeks vacation and are unionized. In Danville VA, they start at $8/hr and get 12 days vacation (8 picked by IKEA), have mandatory overtime and required meetings discouraging union membership. (reddit)

I'd imagine this is the reason.

If you earn $8/hr and it is considered a low wage because someone else where in the world earns double what you earn for the same job, you are not living in a 3rd world country.

Also they are not outsourcing. The plant in America I would imagine is there because it makes more logistical sense to manufacture and supply the American furniture market in America rather than build in Sweden and ship to America.

whiteonion

Child labour seems to be very common in the agricultural sector of America.
http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/child-labour-us-dangerous-double-standard

Normally Child labour is something that you associate with third world countries.

The collapse of the middle class, the high deficits, the militarism, everything points toward one thing. America is becoming a third world country.

aidan24326

America is hardly a third world country but parts of it are certainly quite poor. Bear in mind that if you meet an American tourist or happen to work with an American that automatically puts them in the minority of Americans who own a passport, and the smaller minority still who actually travel abroad. Which also implies that they're probably middle-class American, reasonably well educated etc. You simply don't get to meet Chuck and Molly Sue from Kentucky because they don't leave the country, and most likely don't even own a passport.

jackiebaron

lcrcboy wrote: »

oh great another America bashing thread :rolleyes:

Well, if they come along and say that America is the land of milk and honey and numero uno and the greatest in the history of the fcuking galaxy and all this other sh!t and all the while their economy is down the crapper, their infant mortality rate is worse than Mexico's, they have more blacks behind bars than were slaves, they're getting their asses handed to them in foreign wars and their labour force is a sweatshop operation then yeah....I think a few uncomfortable facts should be pointed out.

Truth hurts, huh?

Sheeps

jackiebaron wrote: »

Well, if they come along and say that America is the land of milk and honey and numero uno and the greatest in the history of the fcuking galaxy and all this other sh!t and all the while their economy is down the crapper, their infant mortality rate is worse than Mexico's, they have more blacks behind bars than were slaves, they're getting their asses handed to them in foreign wars and their labour force is a sweatshop operation then yeah....I think a few uncomfortable facts should be pointed out.

Truth hurts, huh?

This post is so dumb it actually hurts.

TheZohanS

This might explain some of the difference in wages.

seamus

Not really comparable. Swedish workers on average pay 30% of their salary in tax. Americans pay 18%.

Considerably higher pay rates reflect a much higher cost of living in Sweden than in the US.

Swedish workers get a legally required 25 days.

This is nothing to do with unionism or third-world-ness.

The GDP of the United States is still higher than Sweden's, despite what appears to be very high rates of pay.

Comparing pay rates and employment directly between countries is no basis for any kind of economic comparison. If a piece of toast cost $1,000,000 in Sweden and workers received $50,000,000 per hour, all that would really say is that Americans are getting some really cheap toast.

jackiebaron

Sheeps wrote: »

If you earn $8/hr and it is considered a low wage because someone else where in the world earns double what you earn for the same job, you are not living in a 3rd world country.

Also they are not outsourcing. The plant in America I would imagine is there because it makes more logistical sense to manufacture and supply the American furniture market in America rather than build in Sweden and ship to America.

Wait till that wage hasn't moved upwards in 2 years yet inflation has doubled the price of everything. If it's not 3 rd World now in the US it's headed that was
40,000 below the poverty definitely isn't FIRST WORLD!

aidan24326

Bear in mind also that worker rights in general in the US are nothing like what we have here. I used to work for a US multinational, and when they needed to cut a few thousand from the payroill, they cut most of those staff in the US, even though they have significant operations all over the world. Because US workers do not have any automatic entitlement to redundancy pay, there were people who had worked for the company for as much as 15 years who were just let go, see you and thanks alot. At least here after that long in a company you'd walk away with a nice few quid to tide you over. They also tend to have a much stricter approach to taking sick leave than we do here, you'll get fired much more easily.

whiteonion

seamus wrote: »

Not really comparable. Swedish workers on average pay 30% of their salary in tax. Americans pay 18%.

Considerably higher pay rates reflect a much higher cost of living in Sweden than in the US.

Swedish workers get a legally required 25 days.

This is nothing to do with unionism or third-world-ness.

The GDP of the United States is still higher than Sweden's, despite what appears to be very high rates of pay.

Comparing pay rates and employment directly between countries is no basis for any kind of economic comparison. If a piece of toast cost $1,000,000 in Sweden and workers received $50,000,000 per hour, all that would really say is that Americans are getting some really cheap toast.

Ehm you don't think the Unions had anything to do with making 25 days of holidays a law? The GDP is higher yes, but people on average are better off in Sweden.

seamus

jackiebaron wrote: »

40,000 below the poverty definitely isn't FIRST WORLD!

40,000 below the poverty line in a country of 300 million most definitely is a first world country.

Ehm you don't think the Unions had anything to do with making 25 days of holidays a law?

I don't know the intricacies of Swedish employment history, but I imagine like most countries, unions secured a handful of days back when there was no employment law, but later jumps in the number of days was done without union intervention, in line with similar increases elsewhere in Europe by libertarian party policies.

The GDP is higher yes, but people on average are better off in Sweden.

Proof? Cite?

Hookah

It's a little more than 40,000 I think.

How many people were poor in 2009?

In 2009, 14.3 percent of all persons lived in poverty. In 1993 the poverty rate was 15.1 percent. Between 1993 and 2000, the poverty rate fell each year, reaching 11.3 percent in 2000

http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/

speedboatchase

Aside from a really obtuse way of bashing America and lauding leftist paradise Sweden, why was this thread actually created? There's so much America-bashing in AH these days

Sheeps

jackiebaron wrote: »

Wait till that wage hasn't moved upwards in 2 years yet inflation has doubled the price of everything. If it's not 3 rd World now in the US it's headed that was
40,000 below the poverty definitely isn't FIRST WORLD!

Please, stop posting.

That's 0.013% of the population. In Ireland in 2009 5.5% of the population were in poverty. Ireland is not a 3rd world country.

whiteonion

seamus wrote: »

40,000 below the poverty line in a country of 300 million most definitely is a first world country.
I don't know the intricacies of Swedish employment history, but I imagine like most countries, unions secured a handful of days back when there was no employment law, but later jumps in the number of days was done without union intervention, in line with similar increases elsewhere in Europe by libertarian party policies.
Proof? Cite?

Look at the levels of crime, poverty, obesity, teenage pregnancies, mental health issues and so on. Google it.

I myself have been to America and once you get outside the fancy flashy city centres it's mostly a kip really. Now compare this to Sweden where the people enjoy one of the most highest standards of living in the world.

aidan24326

seamus wrote: »

40,000 below the poverty line in a country of 300 million most definitely is a first world country.

Don't know where he pulled that figure from but I'd bet my bottom dollar that there is a hell of alot more than 40,000 people in the US living in what could be classed as poverty. Hurricane Katrina opened a can of worms in that respect, and showed a side of America that I think they'd rather the world didn't see. The New Orleans area had thousands of people who were very poor, had next to nothing (and no doubt less than nothing afterwards). And that's just one city. What you have in the US is a massive disparity between the small amount of haves and the very large amount of have nots, between Fifth Avenue and the trailer park. I know every country has class divide but I'm not sure there's anywhere that it's more pronounced.

whiteonion

Sheeps wrote: »

Please, stop posting.

That's 0.013% of the population. In Ireland in 2009 5.5% of the population were in poverty. Ireland is not a 3rd world country.

The horses running through council estates and all the poorly built houses make me doubt what you are saying is true.

seamus

Hookah wrote: »

It's a little more than 40,000 I think.

Thanks, I'm guessing he means 40 million, which would be closer to the 10%-ish figure.

No worse than countries like Denmark or the UK.

And whiteonion, claims that Irish council estates are indicator of a 3rd-world country just goes to show what a privileged and blinkered life you've led.

It's an insult to those in real poverty that you consider poor standard council housing, the dole and running around on horses in green fields without fear of persecution or murder to be "poverty".

pimpy_c

I live and work in the US and it's far from poverty stricken. People tend to work harder and they have less rights. I work in a manufacturing facility and a lot of the guys on the floor work two jobs. Do they complain? No they do not. Well, they do sometimes but they still get on with it. I admire the work ethic here because when I worked in Ireland I didn't see a fraction of what I see here. Plus, the boyos here get a lot more than $8 an hour.

Which country is going to be better off in the future? Sweden, who's manufacturing facilities are moving abroad and taking jobs with them? Or America, where the manufacturing facilities are moving to and creating jobs for Americans?

America is a typical capitalist society where there is enormous wealth but it isn't distributed evenly. Sweden is more socialist where the people are taxed heavily and the spoils are passed evenly to everyone, even the people who just don't feel like working. So, in America if you work hard you'll earn plenty of money. In Sweden, if you work hard, everyone else gets your money.

mickydoomsux

So America is becoming a third world country despite having the most millionaires per capita?

As someone else pointed out Sweden and America are two completely different economies. If you suceed in the US you suceed "more" as an individual as it were. If you suceed in Sweden you have to share it. It's arguable which of those situations are better.

This thread was started for the singular purpose of having another "death to capitalism, ra-ra socialism" argument.

InTheTrees

mickydoomsux wrote: »

This thread was started for the singular purpose of having another "death to capitalism, ra-ra socialism" argument.

Well how do you explain mandatory anti-union meetings?

Or does that makes me a pinko commie socialist for asking?

InTheTrees

mickydoomsux wrote: »

This thread was started for the singular purpose of having another "death to capitalism, ra-ra socialism" argument.

It was a 60 Minutes news story on TV last Sunday.

Mike 1972

Hookah wrote: »

In Sweden, IKEA plant workers start at $19/hr, get 5 weeks vacation and are unionized. In Danville VA, they start at $8/hr and get 12 days vacation (8 picked by IKEA), have mandatory overtime and required meetings discouraging union membership. (reddit).

seamus wrote: »

Not really comparable. Swedish workers on average pay 30% of their salary in tax. Americans pay 18%..

Yup those Swedes are getting the ****ty end of the deal there :rolleyes:

lcrcboy

jackiebaron wrote: »

Well, if they come along and say that America is the land of milk and honey and numero uno and the greatest in the history of the fcuking galaxy and all this other sh!t and all the while their economy is down the crapper, their infant mortality rate is worse than Mexico's, they have more blacks behind bars than were slaves, they're getting their asses handed to them in foreign wars and their labour force is a sweatshop operation then yeah....I think a few uncomfortable facts should be pointed out.

Truth hurts, huh?

It does not bother me because Im not obsessed with America, in actual fact I have lived there for a number of years, as I have lived in Africa, the Uk and Ireland and traveled around the world quiet a bit. And I will tell you while America is not perfect and the best country in the world it still sure beats some of the places I have been to in Africa. And while America does have its problems in terms of poverty and education and the likes, then it should be fairly compared against the bad parts of the EU, back end places out in Latvia and Poland can be compared against back end places in Mississippi and Texas and the same goes for good places like New York and San Francisco being compared against London and Paris.

Each State is like a country, for Gods sake Florida is bigger then the UK. And I think if you look at the levels of education or blacks in prison and compare the states you will find that some will fair better then others. Oh and by the way have you ever been to the States??, the reason I ask is that generally people who very rarely leave their home country are ignorant to the outside world and say stupid things about other countries and make stupid threads like this without actually experiencing their culture or society.

lcrcboy

pimpy_c wrote: »

I live and work in the US and it's far from poverty stricken. People tend to work harder and they have less rights. I work in a manufacturing facility and a lot of the guys on the floor work two jobs. Do they complain? No they do not. Well, they do sometimes but they still get on with it. I admire the work ethic here because when I worked in Ireland I didn't see a fraction of what I see here. Plus, the boyos here get a lot more than $8 an hour.

Which country is going to be better off in the future? Sweden, who's manufacturing facilities are moving abroad and taking jobs with them? Or America, where the manufacturing facilities are moving to and creating jobs for Americans?

America is a typical capitalist society where there is enormous wealth but it isn't distributed evenly. Sweden is more socialist where the people are taxed heavily and the spoils are passed evenly to everyone, even the people who just don't feel like working. So, in America if you work hard you'll earn plenty of money. In Sweden, if you work hard, everyone else gets your money.

Have to agree with Pimpy C

pragmatic1

whiteonion wrote: »

Child labour seems to be very common in the agricultural sector of America.
http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/child-labour-us-dangerous-double-standard

Normally Child labour is something that you associate with third world countries.

The collapse of the middle class, the high deficits, the militarism, everything points toward one thing. America is becoming a third world country.

The US is in very big trouble. A large gap between the rich and poor is never a good thing, especially when the middle class buffer is shrinking by the day.

Hookah

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Yup those Swedes are getting the ****ty end of the deal there :rolleyes:

I was just clarifying the story using a thread title from reddit.

gargleblaster

lcrcboy wrote: »

oh great another America bashing thread :rolleyes:

I don't see this as bashing. This is observing the situation in America with respect to the employment conditions for the working class.

lcrcboy

gargleblaster wrote: »

I don't see this as bashing. This is observing the situation in America with respect to the employment conditions for the working class.

There may be actual facts here but the intention of the person who made this thread was to bash the US and some of his friends have joined in in other parts of the discussion, and I have replied already above to this. So Im not going to bother splashing out the same argument again.

InTheTrees

lcrcboy wrote: »

There may be actual facts here but the intention of the person who made this thread was to bash the US and some of his friends have joined in in other parts of the discussion, and I have replied already above to this. So Im not going to bother splashing out the same argument again.

Dude? he's bashing IKEA...

Dont be so sensitive.

gargleblaster

seamus wrote: »

Thanks, I'm guessing he means 40 million, which would be closer to the 10%-ish figure.

It's actually closer to 14%, and in order to compare the situation we'd need to consider how the different countries being compared define poverty.

Guill

whiteonion wrote: »

Ikea has built it's first factory in the United States, it should come as no surprise since wealthy countries usually ship off their factories to third world nations. This is yet more proof that America is rapidly deteriorating into a third world nation. This factory would not be able to operate in Sweden because it would be illegal to operate that kind of sweatshop in Sweden. http://www.salon.com/technology/how_the_world_works/2011/04/11/ikea_s_third_world_outsourcing_adventure_in_the_united_states You America lovers do you think that Ireland should follow its example and get rid of worker rights and get everyone to work for €6.50 per hour?

More?

ejmaztec

Guill wrote: »

More?

He's got the rest of the proof in his head, but I don't know where it was before that.

Gummy Panda

but swedish cuisine looks interesting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCjW0K9sjoc

Overheal

jackiebaron wrote: »

their infant mortality rate is worse than Mexico's

Patently false:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate

Mexico: 16.47/18.2 per 1,000 live births
United States: 6.3/6.26 per 1,000 live births
(Ireland: 4.9/5.05 per 1,000 live births)

they have more blacks behind bars than were slaves

That might have more to do with there being a global population of just over 1.2 billion people in the 1850s, versus 6.5 billion people around today (and US pop of 20 million versus 308 million). If you want to get into more facts and figures, just let me know.

they're getting their asses handed to them in foreign wars

how's that exactly?

and their labour force is a sweatshop operation then yeah

How is the IKEA factory a sweatshop? What difficult, and indeed dangerous conditions exist? You can't exactly classify something as a sweatshop for the employees getting fewer vacation days per year.

Truth hurts, huh?

It might, if you told it.

EverEvolving

pimpy_c wrote: »

I live and work in the US and it's far from poverty stricken. People tend to work harder and they have less rights. I work in a manufacturing facility and a lot of the guys on the floor work two jobs. Do they complain? No they do not. Well, they do sometimes but they still get on with it.


Which country is going to be better off in the future? Sweden, who's manufacturing facilities are moving abroad and taking jobs with them? Or America, where the manufacturing facilities are moving to and creating jobs for Americans?

Is this right though, workers rights are generally introduced for health and safety reasons and so workers aren't exploited, so sweatshop policies are the exception rather than the norm.

And also, what about quality of life. I've worked two jobs previously and had a crap quality of life, I'd much rather work one job and reduce costs than work two and 'have it all' as is the American Dream scenario. What's the point of breaking your back all day and night long if you are too exhausted to enjoy it?

As to which country is going to be better off - well it's a matter of opinion, is wealth the deciding factor or is quality of life?

If Ikea are operating in the American market then it makes absolute sense for them to produce there in order to save on shipping costs, especially in the weight intensive industry they are in. And if they are not paying the going rate then nobody will work for them. It's basic economics.

JuliusCaesar

Reminds me of Nickel & Dimed - Barbara Ehrenreich's book about how it isn't possible to live on a minimum wage job in the USA.

Funny, poignant, and passionate, this revelatory firsthand account of life in low-wage America—the story of Barbara Ehrenreich’s attempts to eke out a living while working as a waitress, hotel maid, house cleaner, nursing-home aide, and Wal-Mart associate—has become an essential part of the nation’s political discourse.

Now, in a new afterword, Ehrenreich shows that the plight of the underpaid has in no way eased: with fewer jobs available, deteriorating work conditions, and no pay increase in sight, Nickel and Dimed is more relevant than ever.

Overheal

EverEvolving wrote: »

Is this right though, workers rights are generally introduced for health and safety reasons and so workers aren't exploited, so sweatshop policies are the exception rather than the norm.

And also, what about quality of life. I've worked two jobs previously and had a crap quality of life, I'd much rather work one job and reduce costs than work two and 'have it all' as is the American Dream scenario. What's the point of breaking your back all day and night long if you are too exhausted to enjoy it?

Retiring @ 65 :pac: