The Tragedy of Toms Shoes
thepublicqueue.com
thepublicqueue.com
The author claims that it is morally wrong to spend more flying to give charity then you spend on the charity itself.
Then claims it is morally wrong to give handouts (which somewhat complicates the pervious moral belief, since you shouldn't give handouts what does it matter if potential handouts are wasted flying?)
Then claims it is morally wrong to make a profit attempting to do good.
And finally that it is morally wrong to have consumerism masking as charity (despite the fact that the author claims that may forms of charity are morally bankrupt anyway).
I am absolutely aware that there are many cases of 'charity' that have very negative consequences. But I don't actually care about 'morality' at all, what I care about is measuring positive or negative consequences. I'll even take a qualitative anecdote (ie "here's a story of how this person's life became worse because of Tom's shoes"). After all not all experiences fit nicely into a spreadsheet.
Reasoning through moral appeal only makes any sense at all if everyone shares your same moral system as a basis. For example it is legitimate to make moral arguments to members of a religious group you belong to that all share the same moral beliefs and assumptions, that's in part what theology is.
There is absolutely no substance to this piece other than the author espousing their moral system, which, at least from the information presented, don't sound any more founded on reality that moral beliefs of purchases of Tom's shoes.
It's a demonstration of precisely what Rob Malda described to the Washington Post on Aug. 7 when he said that HN was getting too big.
If given the alternative between two courses of action, one of which puts shoes on peoples' feet through "imperialism" and one of which results in them getting Guinea worm, morally serious individuals should not have one iota of doubt as to which is the correct course of action.
However, looking through the wikipedia page on guinea worm [1] it seems that people are infected by drinking contaminated water and most of the prevention revolves around filtering water. Its true that part of the worms lifecycle involves infected people stepping in drinking water, but owning shoes is unlikely to prevent that.
0: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schistosomiasis
1: http://www.givewell.org/international/top-charities/schistos...
Wikipedia said that guinea worm is in water. People drink the water, and the parasite makes its way to the leg or foot, and bursts through the skin, causing a burning sensation.
People put their foot or leg in water to cool the burning, and eggs enter the water. Cycle repeats.
I don't more about it than what I just googled (of course) but it seems to me that the primary cause of contamination is drinking contaminated water, so I'm not sure why it's relevant here. I understand your point though, but is it the best example of disease?
I'm pretty sure it's contracted from water, not being barefoot.
Having shoes helps stop parasites like hookworm from entering your body by being stepped on, since they can't just burrow through the skin of your foot.
You probably don't want to look up hookworm pics either; parasites are scary disgusting things.
Plus, patio11 is well-known here.
Guinea worms enter the body by drinking bad water. You wear Tom's shoes on your feet not on your fucking mouth!
Please take the time to do some research before you tell everyone here you have Tom's Shoes.
The founder Blake Mycoskie also got caught partnering up with the American group Focus On the Family which sponsors all sorts of anti-gay legislation in Africa. He said that he didn't know all of the awful things they do, which I find really hard to believe.
People like a story that let's them shop and make them feel like they are making a difference in the world.
I read his book, Start Something That Matters, and found it to be full of bullshit marketing speak.
http://jezebel.com/5819435/why-is-toms-partnering-with-an-an...
Edit: Just to expand a bit. They have a term called "One-for-One" which I absolutely hate. It basically says that if you buy a pair of shoes, a pair of shoes will be given to a kid in need. The problem with it is that these shoes are made for a couple of dollars. They make it so you perceive that they are spending $50 on the pair of shoes that they give to the child. When in fact these shoes are being made for a few dollars. Seriously. Just check them out on Alibaba. They are the exact same things, just minus the Toms logo. If they really wanted to make a difference they could give 9 or 10 pairs of shoes away for each pair of shoes you buy. This is a for-profit business, and I don't have a problem with that, what I do have a problem is their sleezy marketing. They are shameless.
Had they never offered up free shoes, this article wouldn't have been written and you wouldn't be vilifying them. Nike has huge profit margins, as does Apple and just about every cosmetic brand you know of, and yet where is the disdain for their greedy tactics? Oh wait, they never offered to give anything away so let's give them a pass.
Have they never offered free shoes we wouldn't be talking about them. They make it seem like they are giving away a pair of shoes worth $50, when they are really just spending a couple of dollars on a marketing expense. I bet they pass the cost of giving away a "free" pair of shoes onto their customer.
I can't speak for OP, but I have no disdain for Apple or Nike in terms of their markup because they are not masquerading as some sort of quasi-charity that is supposedly helping people in need. Also, they make good products.
This actually isn't a fact, it's an opinion. After all, what makes something a "shitty product?" If we are measuring value based solely on build quality, I have to tell you that most designer shirts you pay $70+ for in the mall fail this test, while polyester shirts that go for $14.99 at Wal-Mart will probably last you most of your adult life. While we're at it, try sprinkling a few drops of water on your MacBook keyboard then take it to your local Apple store and see how much they stand by their build quality when it is determined that you will need a new logic board in your $1400 computer.
Quality is a subjective matter. Who can say that somebody who feels good about their purchase of some horribly made shoes shouldn't if they like the way look and the way those shoes make them feel when they take them out of the box and put them on?
One of the biggest issues is the displacement of local business. There are much better ways to empower and provide aid to the poor.
Also, I don't know if TOMS does shoe drops in SE Asia, but in Cambodia I have been apart and seen endless groups give families/kids shoes only to see the same kids walking around without shoes the next day. Here most of these aid gifts end up at the local market.
In ten years, yes. It might be hard for the local shoe maker to compete. But I am talking about today. If today the local shoe store owner woke up and his entire neighborhood was wearing free shoes, what type of effect does it have on his business?
Also by dropping 10,000 shoes into a country they bypassing the local market vendors who would normally supply these families shoes.
I can only speak to Cambodia, but looking at their giving report, they do send shoes here. The other issue is culture, Cambodians don't typically wear western shoes and the TOMS shoes are all fabric. Most Cambodians wear sandals or flip-flops, something that can handle the water. The shoes they are dropping here don't seem very practical.
I guess the biggest issue I see here is that the families end up selling them or trading them to the market, which doesn't help the issue the TOMS is trying to prevent.
If they do exist, why haven't the poor people in their area purchased their wares? It's not like TOMS is giving shoes out to people who have them. They're probably not wearing them because it's not economically feasible. So, the author thinks that the vast majority of the population in their area should be shoeless so that one person can keep a probably struggling business afloat? Makes no sense.
Even further, it seems having shoes would lead to positive economic effects. The recipients will probably be able walk further, stay healthier, and generally lead better lives. That seems like a longer term net positive than someone's small shoe shop that may or may not exist and may or may not have actually been impacted by this.
These shoes are made in Argentina, for example. http://www.paezshoes.com
It seems pretty obvous to me that a local shoemaker earning $1-2/hr stands a fair chance of competing with imported chinese shoes at $5/pair... but not with free shoes.
Ten years from now, after earning a decent living wage for 10 years and acquiring experience and reputation, the same shoemaker could add a bit of mechanisation and still compete with $5 chinese shoes.
I also believe based on much observation that the difference between $1-2/hr and $<<1/hr that the out-of-work shoemaker in poor countries might be earning is enormous... literally the future of your children.
Still, I would like to understand the effectiveness of these drops. How do you get the kids/families keep the shoes on their feet?
Social enterprise is a relatively new concept so its understandable that not everybody has got a full grasp on it. And there are others who have got a good grasp on it, and don't like it, and that's fine too. But let me emphasise one point which underpins SE for those who haven't heard it before:
The commercial success of a social enterprise directly controls the amount of the funding they can give. A lot of people criticise that they use the banner of charity to make a whole lot of money - which is half true. They inform consumers that a portion of what they pay for that product will help in some social cause, hopefully ethically, and if that brings about more sales, then great - that's more funding available.
If you have five dollars to give, then please give it to a charity! Never be under the impression that you have to buy these products because it is the only/most efficient way to help the world. It isn't. Your five dollars will go much further in the hands of a charity, and every social enterprise should be transparent about that. However, in the example of my social enterprise, the other fifty dollars you spend a week on food/sanitary products/bottled water (if you're a bottled water buyer) - we give you the option of having part of that additional $50 go to projects also.
Please fire any questions you might have about social enterprise my way :)
The story is a bit silly for me in that it is shooting down a company for being imperfect when the company isnt trying to be the 100% perfect cure-all mentioned in the article. Corps helping third world countries is a GOOD thing - I see TOMS as a nice, fuzzy-feeling-in-your-stomach addition to the relatively large amount of money US citizens donate to charities around the world. A person wishing to be an agent of change can either fight the hard battle and start educating (or sometimes just annoying) people in to donating MORE money, or they can design some ugly shoes that cleverly coerce said US Citzens into giving a few more bucks to people that really need it.
Tom (if thats the name of the guy who made TOMS), could've just done what the author is suggesting to her readers and donate a large chunk of his meager sum of money after college, and then he would've contributed about twenty dollars and fifty cents to suffering children instead of being a catalyst for millions of dollars of aide through his company TOMS.
I have no problem with a for-profit having a separate charitable entity. But they clearly make it seem as if they are all one giant non-profit org.
Add that to the fact that they make absolutely terrible shoes. The copycat shoes that Keds make are much better and about 1/3 of the price.
- Taxation laws haven't quite caught up to social enterprise. Social enterprises are set up this way to enable the charitable entity to be tax-exempt (the rest of the business is not). I'm not sure of the ins-and-outs, but I believe it allows tax breaks on the donations from the enterprise entity to the charitable one. In short, it makes the whole thing more efficient.
- Most of a social enterprise runs like a traditional company, and you generally want a managing director at the helm. However I don't think it's a good idea to have the same person creating the funding and distributing the funding. In my SE, the charitable trust is managed by an entirely unpaid board, which encourages unbiased distribution.
Even if you go to a area of poverty you have ethical dilemmas, Should I give to this beggar? If yes, then will that just encouarge more beggars? If no, this person standing in front of me will go without...
Is there a mechanism by which US decisionmakers become more hostile to your preferred policy if we increase the number of shoes in the world? If so, can you identify which decisionmakers those are and, let's say for a minimum, how they measure the number of extant shoes as their KPI for "must increase the extent of our damaging policies?" How sensitive to that KPI are they? Can we maybe get a thousand shoes without them tightening the screws? How about a million? Where is the red line where "one more shoe causes unnamed policymaker to adopt my disfavored policy?" If we can find that red line, that would be great, because we should produce shoes right up to it.
+ I tend to think that the reason people do not have shoes is that Mk 1 humans are not born equipped with shoes and that shoes do not exist in the state of nature. The state of "I am a kid, I have no shoes, WTF" predates the existence of the US, imperialism/capitalism/etc, by thousands of years.
(The newfangled innovation from capitalism isn't lack-of-shoes-for-poor-people, it is presence-of-shoes-for-some-poor-people. That's not as optimal as presence-of-shoes-for-all-poor-people but I have not heard a convincing rationale on why abandoning capitalism gets us that transition.)
Having shoes throughout childhood will have longer term effects than just giving a kid some new kicks. I think probably living in a society where having shoes is rarely questioned it's hard to understand how not having them can negatively affect your life. I don't mean to insinuate that you're not empathetic to their situation, but likewise, I think it's hard for any of us to really understand the impact that something like that can have.