Is it morally wrong to buy a Toyota?

[beth_leonard]

Is it morally wrong to buy a Toyota?

That's the question that's keeping me up tonight. I'm sure most of my friends reading this journal would say "Duh. No." but most of my friends probably don't have grandparents who worked for GM for 30+ years, and weren't raised to believe that American is the greatest country on earth, and one of the things that makes it that way is that we stick up for each other in good times and bad.

My grandfather liked working for GM. He likes getting a pension from GM. I'd like for GM to continue to do well.

The problem is that we need a new minivan. The only two brands recommend by Consumer Reports are Honda and Toyota. We looked at quite a few brands of minivan today, and the Honda and Toyota have much more trunk space, due to where the spare tire is kept, and how the back seat folds down into the well.

I like trunk space. I need trunk space. I put two huge strollers into my car every Thursday when I drive the carpool.

Why don't the GM cars have as much trunk space? Is it a patent issue? I wouldn't be surprised.

I need to look at the Saturn Relay tomorrow, but unless it's very impressive, I think the Toyota will be the car we buy. With the options we want, the MSRP on the 2006 Toyota is $25K. We found a gold brand-new 2005 GM Pontiac SV6 still on the lot that the dealer will part with for $22K.

The Relay is our last hope for an American car. I get the GM Family discount, which is about 10% off the sticker price of a new vehicle (varies by model). Even with the discount, and American car is only a few thousand less than the Toyota. Will I pay $3000 for more trunk space and an 8th seat?

So I guess I'd ask my friends, is there anything about Toyota I don't know? Are they the Walmart of car dealers? Do they treat their employees right? Even the women and the American ones? Am I giving up on my own personal values by buying a Toyota? Or are they just another company that deserves to sell me a product as much as the other guy?

Sincerely,
--Beth
PS. I don't shop at Walmart.

Comments

[patrissimo.livejournal.com]

weren't raised to believe that American is the greatest country on earth, and one of the things that makes it that way is that we stick up for each other in good times and bad

Fortunately, this is completely wrong, at least as applied to economic protectionism. Economic protectionism is a classic example of the power of concentrated/visible interests to screw over distributed/invisible interests. Domestic producers gain, domestic consumers and foreign producers lose, but domestic producers are a concentrated voice who know that they gain. All the people who would have bought the imported product only lose a little bit each, so it's not worth their while to fight back.

America is great because of entrepreneurship and competition, which are diametrically opposed to protectionism. Both your interests and the world's interests are generally served if you buy the best stuff. If you buy anything but the best stuff, you end up with a worse deal, and you reward people who don't make as good stuff. It's a lose-lose.

Actually, it's funny you should mention your grandfather's pension - aren't their overly generous defined-benefit pension plans what have driven GM into the ground?

[beth_leonard]

Economic protectionism is a classic example of the power of concentrated/visible interests to screw over distributed/invisible interests.

This is what I needed to hear. I feel like someone who was raised kosher being asked to eat pork. It just feels so wrong. My family will probably shun me for the decision.

Both your interests and the world's interests are generally served if you buy the best stuff.

Is it possible to take worker standard-of-living into account in this equation?

In a completely free-market free-mobility economy, I'd agree, if workers were free to switch countries easily and follow the best wages and living conditions. But in a world where for various legal and emotional reasons workers can't/don't move between countries, merely buying "the best/cheapest stuff" doesn't encourage proper stewardship of the workers by the corporations.

I am generally speaking against legislating working conditions. Especially world-wide, how could you? I am in favor of consumer punishment of corporations who propagate poor working conditions. I know that GM has taken good care of it's previous generation of American employees. I don't know about Toyota, but it looks like it's not as bad as Mitsubishi (see the Mitsubishi thread above.)

Before I buy I Toyota, I want to make sure it's not a corporate Mitsubishi.

--Beth

[ukelele.livejournal.com]

One thing that I always wonder about with worker standard-of-living is, by what standard?

OK, when we're talking about Japan here, which is also a first-world country, it makes sense to apply whatever minimum standard is consistent with how you'd like to see workers treated in this country. But I tend to see people talking about this in the context of third-world countries, and in particular being irate that these standards of work are often a lot lower than they would be in the US -- without taking into account that, even so, those jobs may be a hell of a lot better than the prevailing wages and working conditions. (A dollar a day isn't such a bad wage if the average in your country is fifty cents, you know?) I strongly suspect that supporting companies whose jobs represent improvements over the prevailing economic condition, whether or not the absolute quality of those jobs is desirable, is the way to ultimately increase third-world standards of living to actually desirable levels.

(Of course, being an ancient historian, my whole perspective is colored by the knowledge that, until recently, more or less nobody had indoor plumbing. Even rich people.)

Anyway. In general, I think "proper stewardship" has to be contextual, and insisting on US-culturally-appropriate worker norms for every job in the world is probably a good way to ensure that people in a lot of the world don't have jobs. But, since you're talking about Japan here, not, say, Botswana, this argument doesn't really apply, and I think it's reasonable to apply whatever consumer incentives in that direction seem morally comfortable :). I mean, clearly part of the value of the car for you isn't just in the cargo space or the gas mileage or whatever, but also in the ethics of the company, and since you value that, may as well be willing to pay for it :).

(NB: I'd say that GM has so far taken good care of its previous generation, but I wouldn't bet that they will continue to do so; GM has had to take on billions of dollars of debt to maintain its pension fund, which is it unable to support from revenue, and is able to play accounting games to cover the full extent of its liability; eg source. Not that GM is alone in this; quite a number of companies and governments have the same problem (*cough* social security), which is one of the things that definitely does not thrill me about the world economy over the next few decades. I expect massive defaults one of these days and correspondingly plan my retirement savings under the assumption social security will not exist when I get there...and am, in the meantime, relieved that my employer does not offer a pension.)

[patrissimo.livejournal.com]

It's worse than kosher/pork. Pork has many more parasites than other meats, avoiding it used to be good health. Nowadays, it's a custom that has outlived its usefulness- but at least it was once useful, unlike protectionism.

Is it possible to take worker standard-of-living into account in this equation?

By buying foreign, you are (on average) helping the poor. More specifically, by lowering trade barriers and buying what is cheapest, you buy things that are made the most efficiently. One of the ways to make something more efficiently is to make it with cheaper labor. If you buy American, you are paying rich people who own cars and computers (and have to make the payments on the cars and computers). If you buy foreign, you are (more likely) paying poor people who walk or take the bus or train. So you are reducing the wealth inequality in the world.

In a completely free-market free-mobility economy, I'd agree, if workers were free to switch countries easily and follow the best wages and living conditions. But in a world where for various legal and emotional reasons workers can't/don't move between countries, merely buying "the best/cheapest stuff" doesn't encourage proper stewardship of the workers by the corporations.

This argument seems very self-defeating to me. If workers can't move, and you won't buy from foreign workers, then how will they ever have good jobs? Aren't you damning them to eternal poverty? The best way for people to get out of poverty is to sell things to rich people in rich countries, so if you won't trade with poor people, they are screwed. These people aren't worried about being stewarded, they are worried about whether they can purchase a full complement of calories for their families. Good working conditions are a luxury of the rich.

Keep in mind that working conditions are relative. It is completely illogical to compare the working conditions in a Chinese factory with those in an American one, because the Chinese don't have the latter option. They are choosing between, say, farming and the factory. Given the vast quantities of them that flock to the factories, the latter is clearly superior. Your "punishment" is negative feedback for something that was making their lives better.

It's the classic liberal conceit to think that one knows better than someone else thousands of miles away how to run their life. Except in the few cases where there is forced or slave labor, the fact that these people are taking the factory jobs instead of alternatives is a signal so strong that it should trump our prejudices about what makes a "good" job. Punishing the corporations that employ them is biting the hand that feeds them, and hurting the poor.

I know that GM has taken good care of it's previous generation of American employees.

It has taken such "good care" of them that it has almost bankrupted itself. Arguably, were it not for it's profitable credit division, the company would be bankrupt, from what I've read. Is it really a good thing to give your employees so much compensation that you can't afford to make a competitive product? It's certainly a sweet deal for former employees, but I'd rather punish that behavior than reward it, myself.

[beth_leonard]

If workers can't move, and you won't buy from foreign workers, then how will they ever have good jobs?

I'm not against buying foreign. (Although it has been a struggle for me to overcome with numbers and logic something that is ingrained with emotion from my early training at home.)

I am against buying from companies that mistreat their workers compared to their competitors in the same class of item, especially for large-ticket items where I feel like it makes a difference.

Before buying a car, I wanted to make sure that Toyota was not Mitsubishi. I couldn't remember and I'm thankful to my friends for pointing out which one is which.

--Beth

[patrissimo.livejournal.com]

Just remember that mistreatment is relative. What would be mistreatment for an American (say, 70 hour weeks for $0.25/hour with no benefits) is the American Dream to someone who is poor enough.

[beth_leonard]

What about women relative to men within the same country? Should that be tolerated and encouraged by the consumers?

[patrissimo.livejournal.com]

Consumers are welcome to boycott / procott whatever makes them happy. Personally, I have mixed feelings. I believe that women and men are different, including in some ways with small effects on their jobs, so I wouldn't expect them to be paid exactly the same. On the other hand, I think that some cultures have very poisonous beliefs about what women can and can't do, which is unfair.

I think it is worth noting that there are powerful financial incentives against discrimination. Namely, if women are being paid less than their value, then a business can make money by paying women slightly more, and getting all the women. For example, if women and men are equivalently useful workers, but women are paid less, then a business would make money by hiring only women. Since people are greedy, the fact that male and female salaries are still different in every country is strong evidence that they are not equivalent.

On the other hand, one should not take this too far - for example, if woman are undereducated (denied schooling, or treated unfairly), they will be underemployed for reasons other than ability. Or if there is a strong culture belief that they are incompetent, they may not get hired even if they should. But again, note that this very irrationality provides a profit opportunity for anyone smart enough to ignore it, since they can snap up cheap, productive female employees.