Left In Lowell

Toys Imitating Life

by Lynne at 12:16 pm.

Irony. Or something.

Update: Unbelievable. Even worse. That’s IT! I am not buying my nieces anything from the toy store for Christmas. You can’t trust any of them! Either they contain lead which will damage their brain, or a date-rape drug to make them comatose. Forget it. The toy industry is not getting any money from us this year.

Nope, it’s going to have to be something else…maybe I’ll make them something, like a homemade teddy bear. Or else find a local craftsperson who does toys out of wood or something.

[Filed under Bush Administration] [link]

31 Responses to “Toys Imitating Life”

GOP Footsoldier Says:
November 9th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
I’d love to be a fly on that wall on XMAS (little girls opening gifts….)

Niece: “WOW a wooden horse!!! But I wanted Curious George!!!”

Lynne: “Well honey, the Chinese are having a tough time not poisoning the little ones here in America. Now run along and play with your wooden horse on a string with wheels for feet! You’ll thank me when you’re older… and alive!”

Priceless!

Now in all seriousness can we all agree that there is a possibility of China doing this….. ON PURPOSE!!!!

Who are the most vulnerable among us?

Answer- Kids, Pets, and the Elderly.

So we’ve had poisoned dog food and toxic dolls already but we’re supposed to believe these are all just unhappy coincidences? Maybe some people over in China are testing some stuff out on our weakest members of society in some really ingenious ways and filings those results away for future reference? It’s sick and twisted, and I hope not true. But does anything shock any of us anymore…
Lynne Says:
November 9th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
That’s crazy…honestly, it’s all about (American companies) turning a buck, real quick, going as cheap and taking as many shortcut as they can.

AND I’ll have you know that my niece was thrilled with the handpainted rainbow fish plaque I made for her when we took her to Plaster Fun Time. (She reciprocated, so we are now proud owners of a very abstract and colorful plaster castle which resides on my mantle.)

Also, she loved the old-fashioned wooden blocks that my sis-in-law got her last year.

Nope, my niece has good standards. Plus, I don’t think she’s got the consumer bug yet. She watches mostly PBS as is befitting a child of her age, so no Barbie or video game commercials. She doesn’t yet covet things, though is excited to receive them.

And maybe I can make her a Curious George doll, didcha ever think about that?
GOP Footsoldier Says:
November 9th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Count your blessings then, kids today know what they like and usually aren’t afraid to voice it.

Yeah yeah corporate greed, right. But I seem to remember something about tanks rolling through a square. THAT was crazy honestly. You don’t think that somewhere someone’s not taking note of the amount of effected people and pets from all this?
Lynne Says:
November 9th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Why do you think it’s so easy for our companies to get cheap goods there? Because there’s an oppressive government, a huge neverending supply of the rural population of desperate and poor, and now, an “open trade” agreement that they can ship their goods straight to the big US market. No incentive for them to change, is there?

That’s why I oppose the notion of simple “free trade.” All things being equal, our companies will do business with places that will benefit their bottom line the most - countries that oppress their people, don’t bother with environmental standards, and as soon as they race to the bottom with one country, there’s always another, poorer one willing to suffer more to get the corporations attracted to their economy. The “rising tide lifts all boats” meme is a myth, without regulation and trade laws to incentivize that behavior.
Shawn Says:
November 9th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Ah, but the “rising tide” metaphor is working.

The source of the current energy/oil crisis is the fact that China is fairly quickly coming up in terms of economic development across their country.

Roads, rail, air traffic has grown throughout their country and they are becoming more market and consumer oriented.

They are finding they have millions of people looking to better themselves.. a modern economy is bringing them more into a modern trade partner.

Individual companies are being held accountable when caught (face it, a lot of this stuff is in the pipeline for a year or two before the problem is found) and managers/owners are being held responsible.

There’s plenty of incentive for them to change too, because they are having to swallow the costs of all these recalls.

But, on the other hand.. I also recommend art projects and hands-on toys (lincoln logs, lego) for young children. They are much more inventive at that age and these toys make for hours and hours of intense enjoyment.. compared to a plastic toy that they lose interest in after 1/2 hour.
Lynne Says:
November 9th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
“Plenty of incentive to change” - how many dogs and kids have to die for that calculation to be made?

Ug, I hate the coldness of the faith-based free traders. It’s like, “well, it’ll all turn out OK in the end, so if a few billion people have to live with miserable conditions, death, dismemberment, poisoning of their bodies and environment…well, it’s all good.”

Feh. I prefer a more moral, rewards-based system. You comply with basic human and environmental rights, you’re rewarded with more trade.
Lynne Says:
November 9th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
By the way, the rising tide isn’t lifting all boats in China, as it has not liberated them one iota from the oppressive government they live under, which is going to make darned sure that their competitive edge isn’t messed with - ie, the government are not interested in spreading the wealth so the rural areas can participate in the economic “boom.” Because if they did, everyone would start demanding better wages, costing companies more to produce there, because there’s no more source for cheap labor…so corporations are fine with moving on to the next cheapest country they can exploit. If that happens, the country they left eventually experiences falling wages, and eventually they will fall to a point of being attractive again…but there’s no rising boats. Only exploited ones.

That’s what I mean, free trade incentivizes the worst in trade rather than the best.
joe Says:
November 9th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
That’s a special kind of crazy, footsoldier.

The Chinese have seen economic development in their country over the past 20 years comparable to what took most European countries over a century to do, and they did it by selling cheap plastic junk to us Yankees.

They’re not about to endanger all that just to prove that housepets can be killed by poisoned pet food. Didn’t you read recently that they executed - executed! - their consumer product safety director for stuff like this?

And Lynne, there are plenty of Chinese corporations just looking to make a buck, too.
joe Says:
November 9th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Lynne, you vastly overstate your case.

There are millions of people in China with full bellies and sound housing who would otherwise be going to bed hungry in huts, because of the money brought into that country by the Cheap Plastic Crap industry.
Tim Little Says:
November 9th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Some reports on the condition of Chinese workers:

Conditions at Chinese toy factories called ‘brutal’
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/21/business/toyside.php

China’s rural workers “vote by foot” for better payment
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200506/30/eng20050630_193185.html

I think the case can be made that quality of life is not necessarily improving in line w. rapid economic development. (And don’t even get me started on Tibet….)

As for the toys themselves…:

Don’t parents have an obligation not determine what sort of toys their kids play with? Just because Suzie has been mesmerized by the latest “Tranformannhilators” ad she saw on TV doesn’t mean mom and dad need to kowtow to her every whim. What ever happened to setting limits? The kid will get over it.

Speaking of wooden toys, a couple of weeks ago NECN had a feature on a toymaker in Norwich, VT, who’s having a tough time keeping up with demand:

http://www.boston.com/partners/worldnow/necn/landingpage.html?clipId=1849335&topVideoCatNo=83459′,110123079

And, of course, Treehugger is good for a few suggestions:

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/05/how-to-green-your-kids-toys.php
Prince Charming Says:
November 9th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
Lynne: try books instead.
joe Says:
November 12th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Sounds a lot like the US in 1850. Care to argue that industrialization didn’t raise living standards in the US over the 19th century?

Observing that working conditions in factories are not what they should be is an important point, but it doesn’t tell us anything about what’s happening to a society’s material well being.

Two different, though related, issues.
Tim Little Says:
November 12th, 2007 at 11:09 am
More on China today from the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7083387.stm

Joe: I guess that begs the question of whether the supposed increase in living standards actually lives up to expectation. Sure we — and now the Chinese — have more stuff than we did before, but has that actually improved our quality of life? We often confuse the two, but I think it’s quite likely that increased material wealth is NOT the same as increased quality of life. Certainly studies that compare wealth to happiness in more recent times bear that out.
Mr. Lynne Says:
November 12th, 2007 at 11:30 am
I wouldn’t wax nostalgic over the second half of the 19th century like it was some kind of golden age,… for robber barons maybe, but not for Americans as a whole.
Tim Little Says:
November 12th, 2007 at 11:42 am
… especially African-Americans south of the Mason-Dixon line.
Tim Little Says:
November 12th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
… Er, of course, my previous post would be mostly in reference to Joe’s comment about the US in 1850 rather than Mr. Lynne’s comment about the second half of the 19th century — although certainly life for African Americans during the Reconstrcution (and thereafter) was no walk in the park either.
joe Says:
November 12th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Tim Little,

You could choose to live in the conditions that passed for middle-class in 1820, but you don’t. If you think we’d be better off with that level of economic development, fine. You first.

As far as “African-Americans below the Mason-Dixon Line,” you think there were better off in the first half of that century?

Mr. Lynne,

The last half of the 19th century seems horrible compared to how we live today. Compared to how people lived 100 years previously, however, it was material abundance on an unheard-of scale.
Mr. Lynne Says:
November 12th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Ok… lets take a tally, shall we:

1850
Child labor, rampant racism, majority without indoor plumbing or electricity, no middle class to speak of, class struggle, outrageous distribution of wealth, massive political unrest.

1900
Child labor, rampant racism, majority without indoor plumbing or electricity, no middle class to speak of, class struggle, outrageous distribution of wealth, massive political unrest.

Add too that… urban overcrowding, urban disease, and all of the sanitary gifts of the ‘modern’ food supply.

Like I said, if you’re a robber baron, the world came up roses, but for the average American, living standards didn’t make an appreciable uptick until the 30’s at the earliest. These trends didn’t solidify until 1947.
joe Says:
November 12th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Mr. Lynne,

Why do you suppose all of those people from farming families moved to the cities during those decades to work in mills?

Herded at gunpoint? Brainwashed? A liklier explanation is that material conditions and opportunity were greater in the modern economy - sort of like what’s happening in China right now. People are moving by the millions from the countryside to the city, and enduring what we’d consider intolerable povery, because it is EVEN WORSE out in the villages. Are you actually telling these people they are wrong?

Look, this is very easy. There is widespread malnutrition in rural China, an easy fact to look up. There has always been widespread malnutrition in rural China.

There is virtually no malnutrition in the cities. Millions of Chinese who would have otherwise been in those villages have been able to upgrade to a modern standard of living, with such niceties as full bellies and heat.
joe Says:
November 12th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Mr. Lynne, Tim Little,

You’re talking about the distribution of wealth and political power, and important subjects they are. Just as important as overall economic growth, every bit.

But if there isn’t wealth being created, we aren’t going to have to worry about distributing it.

There’s never been a universal health care system in an agrarian society. They can’t afford it, no matter how enlightened the leadership.

Capitalist trade and industry generates wealth. No, that’s not enough to create a decent society, but it’s a necessary condition.
Mr. Lynne Says:
November 12th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Nobody was buying this 19th century technology until the social policies stabilized a middle class that could afford them.

What I’m saying is that this raising of the standards of living for average Americans in the latter half of the 19th century simply didn’t happen. There are many reasons. But my statement that 1850 to 1900 doesn’t represent itself as a golden age of rising standards for most Americans.

Did technology ever have a role in rising standards? I’d say yes, of course. But they conditions that enabled it to do so didn’t arise just because technology advanced. It took social institutions that built a middle class to enable technology to be mass marketed and affordable.
Mr. Lynne Says:
November 12th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
“Why do you suppose all of those people from farming families moved to the cities during those decades to work in mills?”

It wasn’t because of higher standards of living in the cities, I can assure you. At least not in 1850 to 1900.

Incidently, if the opportunities are truly in the urban areas of China, then it should be noted that China keeps tight controls on who gets to live and sell in urban areas. This usually takes the form of severely limiting such migration. This has the effect of keeping labor very very cheap in the countryside. Thus is why most new factories in China are not being built in the cities. By all means, the Chinese are right to want to migrate. For the most part the government isn’t letting them. Thus, much like earlier periods in America but for very different reasons, not all boats are rising at the same rate. The comparison of the reasons for this to 1950 to 1900 America are not apt.

The big difference is that China need not really develop a large domestic middle class because it has ready made access to large middle class consumers via the international market. Thus, if it could be said (and I’m not necessarily saying it) that the industrialization created pressure for the creation of consumers that can afford the fruits of such an economy, it isn’t clear that such pressures exist in China.
Mr. Lynne Says:
November 12th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Also… I’m not a demographer, but I’d bet if you look at the numbers 1850 to 1900, you’d find that the population growth in cities is probably mostly accounted for in immigration, which was much less restricted back then. I’d further bet that urban growth based on flight from rural areas to urban areas is probably negligable in comparison to immigrant stance. Actually going one step further, if you take out the immigration of former slaves (who had no rural resources from which to earn a living by definition), I’d be less still.
joe Says:
November 12th, 2007 at 11:39 pm
I’m perfectly happy to stipulate that the technological progress and the generation of wealth via industrialization weren’t enough, by themselves and without progressive political policies, enough to create the mass middle class.

And believe me, I’m not defending the government in Beijing, or its policies. Not my intent at all.

As for the immigration to American cities, that too largely represented people from rural villages moving to city. Consider the Irish in the 1800s. American urbanization was a global phenomenon.

But why would we ignore the migration of former slaves to the cities? Every society had more and less disadvantaged groups among its rural poor, and those groups were probably more likely than most to seek opportunity in the cities.
Mr. Lynne Says:
November 12th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
To say that slaves, who had no personal stake in the agrarian rural places of their slavery, nor any realistic opportunity to obtain land for an agrarian existence anywhere else, migrated to the cities, is not a comment on the relative opportunity of cities in general, rather a comment on the lack of opportunities for former slaves anywhere else. Since the point trying to be made is about the opportunity in cities in general, I disregard the migration of former slaves because the particulars of their situation do not do much to back up that point. Even poor opportunity is better than none.

The poor of other demographics had the opportunity of inheritance or division of land they previously owned, or to take advantage of western expansion.

Again, I’m not a demographer, but my understanding of the Irish immigration wave is that those who didn’t stay in the eastern cities (a sizable number) that did migrate west availed themselves of two opportunities… squatting opportunities of western expansion and the opportunities of western cities. The southern and eastern European wave that came after saw most rural opportunities already claimed and it resulted in a largely urban population. Given the sheer amount of immigration in the late 1800’s, I’d be surprised if that alone didn’t account for most of urban growth,… at least in the east.

My only point was to dispute the idea that 1850 to 1900 was some kind of era of rising standards of living. The growth of urban populations during this time is only evidence of standards rising if you assume that city living was better, which I’d also dispute.
joe Says:
November 13th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
But, you see, every agrarian society is going to have a class of agricultural laborers who have little or no opportunity to better their lot in the country, whether they’re American slaves, Russian serfs, or Latin American sharecroppers. That’s the nature of a pre-industrial economy. There’s just so much to go around, so some group ends us being repressed. Ergo, these people packkng up for the city does represent an acknowledgement that there is more opportunity in the modern economy than in the pre-modern economy.

I thought of the point of the unique American situation of the “open west” increasing the opportunity available to the rural poor after my last post, too. I think you’ve got that about right.
Mr. Lynne Says:
November 13th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
The disparate nature of the 19th American agrarian situation also contributes to the picture here. Post revolution in the north most farms were family affairs, as such your average farm laborer was in fact in line to inherit in all likelihood. Non-entitled labor such as you describe was largely a feature of the south, hence their propensity toward slavery. Later, when Pennsylvanian Germans migrated to Texas it lead to an interesting dichotomy there, particularly with the divergent ideas about the nature of how to cultivate wealth. For a fascinating look at this situation see Made in Texas by Michael Lind. Ostensibly its a commentary about GWB, but I learned a lot about the Texas and its history. It just so happens that the divergent natures of agrarian economies of the north and the south play a major role in the history of Texas.
Mr. Lynne Says:
November 13th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
The migration as economic opportunity only applies to the laborers that you describe. I would make the assertion that slaves account for almost the entirety of such a population. I would guess that the opportunities for farmers that were not in such a situation were (in order of probably preference): 1) to inherit land (in whole or in part), 2) to claim land out west, 3) to create business opportunities of specialized services to new landowners out west or in cities (new general stores and such), and then only city industrialized laborer.
joe Says:
November 13th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
But getting back to China, Mr. Lynne, which doesn’t have the unique situation of a large frontier for farmers to settle and improve their lot, your opportunities #1-3 simply do not exist there. Maybe a little bit of #3, but we’re talking about a tiny fragment of the overall farming population.

And it is beyond dispute that Chinese people who’ve left the country for the city enjoy much greater material wealth, so much so that there are “illegal internal migrants,” comparable to our own Paperwork-Deprived America-Joiners (heh) coming up from Mexico, who find the opportunity so much greater that they are willing to live illegally, subject to arrest if they are found.
Mr. Lynne Says:
November 13th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
“And it is beyond dispute that Chinese people who’ve left the country for the city enjoy much greater material wealth….”

Simply put, there are not that many people who have migrated to the Cities in China because China strictly controls who is allowed to work and live in her Cities. Sure there are people who come into the city to do business illegally anyway, but these people are not being lifted out of poverty for their efforts, although granted that they are not starving.

Either way, I think I’ve established that the original point I was refuting: “Sounds a lot like the US in 1850. Care to argue that industrialization didn’t raise living standards in the US over the 19th century?” has been refuted. Living standards were not raised much during industrialization in the US in the 19th century. Surly China has been doing what it can to raise standards through industrialization, but the spoils have been going to a precious few. Not that this can be avoided given the demographics involved. But I worry that China has a vested interest in keeping labor cheap much like US industrialists did in the late 19th and early 20th century. Because they sell primarily to foreign markets, they are not generating anything like the self-reinforcing growth that came with the wage increases for industrial workers that took place in the early 20th century in the US that allowed more people to become the capitalist US consumers that we see today. Your average factory worker in China is hardly a consumer at all. To the extent that migrants from the countryside turned into industrial workers can be said to have gained living standards at all can be mostly summed up as an understatement not because of the vast opportunities, but because of the vast poverty they are leaving. In this way they are indeed similar to the urban migration of US slaves… moving from nothing to a pittance not able to sustain what any lower class American would call a ‘life’. Add to this that China severely limits the availability of the real opportunities for rising standards to the already urban.

I’m not saying growth isn’t happening to the Chinese population due to industrialization. What I’m saying is that fruits of that growth are not really trickling down… at least not in any way that can be said to provide rural migrants anything that can really be called ‘opportunity’ so much as providing a ‘bad’ choice as opposed to a ‘worse’ choice. Much like the US in 1850 to 1900,… any economic benefits to the system of industrialization will take a re-thinking on their part about the policies that result in such stratified wealth. This stratification in wealth is why in both cases it is a hard sell to argue that standards have risen.
Tim Little Says:
November 14th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Fiore’s take (courtesy of the Sierra Club): http://www.sierraclub.org/healthycommunities/lead/flash/lead.html

November 9, 2007

Toys Imitating Life

31 Responses to “Toys Imitating Life”

Leave a Reply

LeftinLowell Tweets

Pages:

Recent Posts

Search

Categories:

Archives:

Other:

Email us!

Lowell Area Bloggers/Forums

Lowell Politics

Mass Bloggers

Media in Lowell

Media in MA

Other Daily Reads

Politics Online

Progressive Local Orgs

Snark and politics

The Arts in Lowell

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Oct				Dec »
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30