I think this is more about (personal) perception and expectation than anything else, and quite frankly - I can pretty much relate to that - although not with Louis Vuitton, as when I started purchasing from this brand, LVMH pretty much already was what it is today. That said, I enjoy the fact that my beloved Keepall 45 DG Band. and brand heritage/signature item was in fact Made in France. But if I had wanted a waterproof Keepall it wouldn't have bothered me that it is (was?) Made in Germany. And likewise for Made in USA, Made in Spain products.
I like high quality tools as I use them around the house, sometimes car, and backyard. Beside wanting highest quality tools possible, for a large part it's a purely/highly romanticized dream that got me into tools from US brand Snap-On.
Now Snap-On, like Louis Vuitton or better, LVMH, over time developed from a solely national manufacturer into something way more by buying other brands/manufacturers and overall globalization. Which brings me back to the point of heritage/signature products that I want to be Made in USA referring to Snap-On. Others come from Spain, Ireland, China - and I'm totally OK with that - as I know Snap-On backs this products, just as LV backs theirs.
Another hobby of mine are (handmade/ custom) knives. One of my early purchases was a Randall knife model #25. Randall knives are known world wide, if you want to buy one new from the factory you're de facto waiting for years before that order will be fulfilled - buying on the 2nd market fetches a hefty premium, not to speak of their vintage knives, sometimes fetching close to ridiculously insane prices. This brand lives of their heritage, fame & quality product: Made in Orlando, Florida - USA. Would they go the route that Snap-On and Louis Vuitton went, everything vintage/ neo-vintage Made in USA would increase in price, everything newer, then Made in *where ever", would need to be heavily discounted to be marketable. Not (necessarily) because of the quality of product, but because of buyers perception of the brand.
Louis Vuitton/LVMH chose this route and they are, very obviously, highly successful with it.
I do believe LV(MH) when they say they are aware of their social responsibility and act based on it/ base decisions on it. However, one can assume that such decisions are never purely based on altruistic motives.
And that is all I'm going to say, I guess we all read news.
When it comes to working as an employee, some of you know I was employed in "big/ stock noted corporate world" for a rather short time, and I always refer to this as my "crazy vacation into employment". I feel safe to say that a very big factor is if an employee can actually identify with his/her employer. I've especially experienced this with my American friends & colleagues, as they basically introduced me to this as it is way, way less noticeable/common in Germany. It's also something that I miss dearly in Germany, the lack of being proud to be part of a company or group/trade. I really don't want to get caught up in generalization, that's neither my intention nor does it belong to me to say that but it was very noticeable - and I think that is a good thing, it is - in a healthy dose - very empowering. And makes one live a happier life than an extra dollar would. (Please take/read with a grain of salt.)
What I want to say is, the minimum/ living wage discussion aside - and although I'm a firm believer that anyone working 8/9/10 hours a day must earn enough to make a living that is actually worth living, period. I can definitely see that people might be proud to work for Louis Vuitton, have a (highly?) stable job, and don't need a superb résumé to start - can even enroll without any prior experience, to be trained from scratch. I think that is a good thing and - depending on the person - might weigh way more than another dollar on top, that can still be made further down the road.
I fail to see any gross wrongdoing on LV(MH)'s part here. If there's one thing recent years taught me, it's stability/ dependability over (high) volatility for some quick extra bucks.
What I want to say: I'd rather work for 13$/hr plus benefits for LVMH, as for some crazy CEO promising "toast, and milk and honey" to go with a working class revolution at 25$/hr + benefits, only to be fired a couple of months down the road because the company ran out of money, needs to be bailed out, and the revolutionary CEO suddenly only has eyes for his pay out, cashing out and leaving the company in the hands of those who bailed it out. Cutting jobs, pay and benefits. (Resemblances of current events purely coincidental! Fictional story! Fictional data!)
Kind regards,
Oliver