The No-Logo video that we just watched I think had a lot of good points. I don’t think that it has changed my opinion about Nike factories. All you hear about is Nike. Well what about Reeboks, Adidas, Puma, Jordan’s, etc? You don’t hear much about them mostly just Nike. I sure these shoe and clothing companies are doing the same thing. I think that these Nike Factories do affect the U.S. The way I feel that they affect the U.S., is that we lose a lot of jobs to these factories. If you could get the same product, but pay a smaller price wouldn’t you do it? I don’t think that it’s anything to worry about now, maybe in the future. There are millions and millions of jobs out there. Also I think that we are helping these poor countries out by giving them the opportunity to have a better way of living. The idea of a Mcjob is basically just a job that you don’t plan on really keeping, just something that’s going to bring in some money for now. I have never had a Mcjob, but this summer I will have one.
Are Nike Factories a good way of living?
Are Nike factories a good way of living for those who are in poor countries. I think that it is a better way of living then what they would have if they didn’t have the factories. The first reason why I think that this is good for them, is that it supplies a lot more jobs then what people have. If it was for those factories then there would be thousands of thousand of people out of work. The wages they give them on an average of about fifty-four dollars a month. That is probably a lot more then they would make working out in a field. After so long they are able to buy a bicycle, so they don’t have to walk to work. And if they save longer then they are able to afford a scooter.
Health and safety in the Nike factories. I feel that most Nike factories are a fairly safe and healthy place for these workers. Most factories are well ventilated and have air conditioning. They could be outside working on a farm making as much or even less money. They safety of this factories help keep predators away. Like if you are out working in the field and a lion or something of that natures crosses your path you are going to have a problem. When your in the factory you have a less of a chance of running into a lion, tiger, etc. Health issues are problem the same working in or outside. Working outside in the sun all day is not good for you. And you have bugs and viruses going around that you are more open to. In the factory you may breathe in some harmful chemicals, but that’s the risk your willing to take. Also I think that there is some ventilation in this factories.
Some of this factories are starting to help with education. You wouldn’t get an education outside in the burning sun picking tobacco plants or whatever it is your are doing. I believe they help children with education and older people with training. This makes them better workers for the future. Nike factories are not dumb or they wouldn’t be making millions or billions of dollars a year.
I think Nike goes and puts factories in these poor countries to try and help tem as much as they can. They aren’t going to go and pay them a hundred thousand a year to make shoes. They put them there to help countries get money Helps them bring new machinery to these countries, so they can broaden they resources. Also this brings new technology to these poor countries that cant afford it. Then I believe that the factories help bring management skills and more verity of ideas to these poor countries.
In conclusion these are some points that why I believe that Nike factories are helping these poor countries. With the low wages that’s a problem, nut can be fixed. They help these countries more then money. They give them an education, give them a better work environment. No one wants to work in the burning sun in rice fields for 10 to 14 hours a day when you can be in a nice air conditioned building. Which also provides free medical services.
Globalisation
Anthony Giddens is from England and has a very well educated background. Has a Ph.D form Cambridge. Also he is a professor at many universities around the world. Giddens has written many books on modern social theory. He believes that globalization is a complex set of processes. He uses a lot of information from all over the world. Also I think that he goes into a lot of detail in the things he talks about. He goes on talk ing about a group of thinkers that he calls “sceptics”. Sceptics think that globalisation is talk and only talk. Then there’s the others that he calls “radicals”. These radicals think that globalisation is real and so are there consequences are real also. Gidden states towards about the middle of the reading that how technology has come along throughout the years. First talking about satellites, then going on about Morse code. Also then he says it took 40 years to get an audience of 50 million on the radio. And it only took 15 years for the PC. He states that you can transfer larger amount of money form one side of the world to the other with just a click of a mouse. Globalisation is becoming more de-centered, it effect are felt just about all over. These changes are creating something called a global cosmopolitan society. We are the first generation to live in this society, and its shaking up our way of life where we are.
The Global Village Finally Arrives
After reading “The Global Village Finally Arrives” by Pico Iyer I think that it is true of what’s going on in the world today. Pico is English but with Indian parents, both whom are professors at Oxford, and Harvard Universities. He has written many travel books, essays, and fiction. Pico writes for Time Magazine. Seems like he has a lot of success in his time of writing. In this reading it talks about how the world is becoming more alike. It talks about how other countries in the world are becoming more multi-cultural like America. He makes the statement “what is in California today is in America tomorrow, and next week around the globe.” Also he talks about how you can be in like Italy or Europe and be watching a baseball game in South America. Pico then moves on to how different cultural foods are in other cultural restaurants. For example he says that in that you can find enchiladas in every menu in Nepal. I don’t think that is a total true fact, but I get his point. Towards the end of the reading Pico goes on saying that “the world will not become America, but America may still, if only symbolically, be a model for the world. I believe what he is trying to day is that the world is not going to be exactly like America but it is going to try to resemble America as much as it can. But also the other cultures are not going to give up their own beliefs to become more like America.
Critical Thinking
I think that this is a very important piece of information to read. It gives you three different view points of where he is coming from. Also he gives many examples to follow up on his opinions. First Friedman starts to try and explain the difference between the world now and how it was before the 1980’s. He refers to the earlier world as “the cold war system” and now as “globalization”. A good example that Friedman uses is in the cold war system was based on the one word wall or the Berlin Wall. This was basically saying our world was divided up. Now Friedman say the world today is based on one word web or the internet. An example that he uses to get this across is that someone in another country can be as close to you as someone in the next dorm-room. A second balances that Friedman talks about is Supermarkets, and the Electric Herd. The Electric Herd is just millionaires that have nothing else to do with their money besides to invest it into these “Supermarkets or global markets” all over the world. I think that these can have a big influence in our world, because they don’t kill people, but they can have a big affect on our economy. The third balance that Freidman refers to is “super-empowered individuals”. He gives the example about Bin Laden and the war he declared on the United States. He got one country to fire seventy-five missiles that cost one million dollars a piece at one man.
Should performance enhancing drug users be band from sports?
Most all sports have a require drug test. Some of the athletes are using these performace enhacing drugs to get bigger, stronger, faster,ect. This also harms them alot more then they think. They use this drugs insted of steriods to try and beat the system. Basically this is cheating and i think that they should be band from sports for life.Do you think that these users shold be band from sports for life?
Hello world!
Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!
