You are correct, but I was working on net price not gross so as not to complicate matters. The figures are unimportant as they were merely examples to illustrate the principle, the principle applies whatever figures you wish to use.

So, basically you're saying that, because most of the retail cost is in overheads, you could double the pittance paid to the machinist in Vietnam and/or provide him/her with better working conditions without doubling the retail price at this end..

Deleted.

Yes in certain sectors you could, no doubt about that, in others you couldn't. It wouldn't make much of a difference to higher end retailers who are buying jeans for £3 and selling for £75, but it would make a difference to Primark-type retailes who buy for £1 and sell for £5.

But again the retailer works on a target profit margin so any increase would be passed on to customers which would create the inflation I mentioned some time back. Unless the retailer is prepared to absorb the extra cost (which is unlikely) then somebody else in the chain has to pay it, and that would be the consumer.

Whilst not specific to Bangladesh, I've just arrived back in Bangkok for the next 6 months and local labour rates plays some part in my day to day role. At the beginning of this year, the Thai national minimum wage increased to 300 THB per day (current r/e approx 41THB http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-26/thai-bankruptcies-rise-as-minimum-wage-rolls-out-southeast-asia.htmlrl

A living, minimum wage should be an objective everywhere, but it needs to be managed and implemented in such a way as to reduce any impact - a staged approach may be the best long term solution.

Regarding safe conditions, this should be a pre-requisite: if a suppliers' premisies and working conditions are not safe, then any discerning business should not buy from that supplier.

Nice.

How would you define 'pittance', then, Standee?

Agreed.
I don't know if that Thai rice is for export or for domestic consumption but I would say that, if and where the goods are for export, I think the minimum wage could be imposed faster and more effectively if, say, the EU used judicious import restrictions unless fair wages in decent workplaces are proven.

But that competetive edge is only gained by exploiting the work force.

But is it exploiting the workforce if the national minimum wage at the time was being applied?

The rice is for both domestic and export - Thailand is pretty much the largest rice exporter in the world.

Western business have some degree of blame, but the fact remains that there is a difference between a living wage and a nationally adopted minimum wage: the same is true in the UK

Paying the national minimum wage means you are 1p the right side of illegality. It has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of exploitation.

I found a book in a charity shop yesterday a large-format paperback that cost me more than the 1968 cover price of 12 shillings and 6 pence (I paid 69p). It's the history of the TUC from 1868 to 1968 and the first part is available to read online rlHERErl.

I suggest people should read it, British working conditions 150 years ago are very similar to those we pay to make our throwaway items

An increase in the labour cost to produce a t-shirt in Bangladesh has absolutely zero effect on the fixed and variable costs of a UK (or other Western developed nation) retailer.

The TUC has determined that a doubling of the rate paid to Bangladeshi garment workers would add all of 2p to the cost of a t-shirt rlLINKrl. Of course you could argue that the TUC are taking a simplistic view and are not factoring in the applied percentage profit margins at each stage of production, distribution and sale. But I would counter that with: other than "that's the way it's always worked", why should that be the case? There is simply no sensible reason, other than sheer greed, why those workers wages cannot be doubled.