NY Times Op-Ed asks: Are Sweatshops Necessarily Bad?

[Morfin]

This is an interesting perspective on sweatshops, with a possible solution for Africa, by Nicholas Kristoff, in the NY Times. Basically, he argues, sweatshops may not be ideal, but they are better for the workers than not having them.

Before Barack Obama and his team act on their talk about “labor standards,” I’d like to offer them a tour of the vast garbage dump here in Phnom Penh.

This is a Dante-like vision of hell. It’s a mountain of festering refuse, a half-hour hike across, emitting clouds of smoke from subterranean fires.

The miasma of toxic stink leaves you gasping, breezes batter you with filth, and even the rats look forlorn. Then the smoke parts and you come across a child ambling barefoot, searching for old plastic cups that recyclers will buy for five cents a pound. Many families actually live in shacks on this smoking garbage.

Mr. Obama and the Democrats who favor labor standards in trade agreements mean well, for they intend to fight back at oppressive sweatshops abroad. But while it shocks Americans to hear it, the central challenge in the poorest countries is not that sweatshops exploit too many people, but that they don’t exploit enough.

Talk to these families in the dump, and a job in a sweatshop is a cherished dream, an escalator out of poverty, the kind of gauzy if probably unrealistic ambition that parents everywhere often have for their children.

“I’d love to get a job in a factory,” said Pim Srey Rath, a 19-year-old woman scavenging for plastic. “At least that work is in the shade. Here is where it’s hot.”

Another woman, Vath Sam Oeun, hopes her 10-year-old boy, scavenging beside her, grows up to get a factory job, partly because she has seen other children run over by garbage trucks. Her boy has never been to a doctor or a dentist, and last bathed when he was 2, so a sweatshop job by comparison would be far more pleasant and less dangerous.

I’m glad that many Americans are repulsed by the idea of importing products made by barely paid, barely legal workers in dangerous factories. Yet sweatshops are only a symptom of poverty, not a cause, and banning them closes off one route out of poverty. At a time of tremendous economic distress and protectionist pressures, there’s a special danger that tighter labor standards will be used as an excuse to curb trade.

When I defend sweatshops, people always ask me: But would you want to work in a sweatshop? No, of course not. But I would want even less to pull a rickshaw. In the hierarchy of jobs in poor countries, sweltering at a sewing machine isn’t the bottom.

My views on sweatshops are shaped by years living in East Asia, watching as living standards soared — including those in my wife’s ancestral village in southern China — because of sweatshop jobs.

Manufacturing is one sector that can provide millions of jobs. Yet sweatshops usually go not to the poorest nations but to better-off countries with more reliable electricity and ports.

I often hear the argument: Labor standards can improve wages and working conditions, without greatly affecting the eventual retail cost of goods. That’s true. But labor standards and “living wages” have a larger impact on production costs that companies are always trying to pare. The result is to push companies to operate more capital-intensive factories in better-off nations like Malaysia, rather than labor-intensive factories in poorer countries like Ghana or Cambodia.

Cambodia has, in fact, pursued an interesting experiment by working with factories to establish decent labor standards and wages. It’s a worthwhile idea, but one result of paying above-market wages is that those in charge of hiring often demand bribes — sometimes a month’s salary — in exchange for a job. In addition, these standards add to production costs, so some factories have closed because of the global economic crisis and the difficulty of competing internationally.

The best way to help people in the poorest countries isn’t to campaign against sweatshops but to promote manufacturing there. One of the best things America could do for Africa would be to strengthen our program to encourage African imports, called AGOA, and nudge Europe to match it.

Among people who work in development, many strongly believe (but few dare say very loudly) that one of the best hopes for the poorest countries would be to build their manufacturing industries. But global campaigns against sweatshops make that less likely.

Look, I know that Americans have a hard time accepting that sweatshops can help people. But take it from 13-year-old Neuo Chanthou, who earns a bit less than $1 a day scavenging in the dump. She’s wearing a “Playboy” shirt and hat that she found amid the filth, and she worries about her sister, who lost part of her hand when a garbage truck ran over her.

“It’s dirty, hot and smelly here,” she said wistfully. “A factory is better.” Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/15/opinion/15kristof.html?ref=opinion)

[Stax]

The "sweatshops give people jobs, even if they are crappy jobs" is an old argument, hardly groundbreaking. Heck, not to go all taters here but wasn't that a classic pro-slavery argument, "we're putting a roof over their heads and putting food in their mouths"?

Doing some good doesn't mean that in sum total what you are doing is good. If I give a hobo some bread and then shoot him in the foot I did a good thing (the bread) but in sum total what I've done is still bad.

[Morfin]

The slave argument is the one that occurred to me: We are abusing these people, we are helping them -- see how much better it is to work in a factory for a dollar a day than in the smoking, filthy dump? Like justifying or assuaging their guilt by telling themselves that they aren't taking advantage, they're "helping" them.

Given that, the point he also makes, which I agree with is that these factories do pump money into these extremely poor areas, which while one would argue it is blood money, is money nonetheless.

[Stax]

The slave argument is the one that occurred to me: We are abusing these people, we are helping them -- see how much better it is to work in a factory for a dollar a day than in the smoking, filthy dump? Like justifying or assuaging their guilt by telling themselves that they aren't taking advantage, they're "helping" them.

Given that, the point he also makes, which I agree with is that these factories do pump money into these extremely poor areas, which while one would argue it is blood money, is money nonetheless.

But again, that's a very old sweatshop argument. They could be pumping just as much (likely even more) cash into those local areas if they respected any kind of sane labor standard.

[Morfin]

This may be where the blood money aspect comes in. To the extent that Cambodia charges $3/day with better (more expensive) conditions, why not to go China where the pay is $1/day with poor conditions.

There is no question that Kristoff is spinning the argument that sweatshops are not so bad and the corporations that use them are not really so bad, but, to me, the bottom line is the social conscience of the corporation and the buyer. Until the U.S. public stops buying sweatshop-produced goods just because they are cheap -- or to put it a different way: are willing to pay a premium to businesses not using sweatshops -- the corporations will be faced with a difficult decision. And until the corporate leadership has the courage to stand up to its shareholders and say, "Yes, this is more expensive, but it is the "right" thing to do," and be willing to be ravaged by the financial analysts, then it is going to continue.

[redsox39]

Please...he who is without sin.


Are you wearing clothes today that WEREN'T made in a sweatshop? All of them? Any of them?

Don't cry about it while you shop at Wal-Mart.

[Stax]

Please...he who is without sin.


Are you wearing clothes today that WEREN'T made in a sweatshop? All of them? Any of them?

Don't cry about it while you shop at Wal-Mart.

I don't shop at Wal-Mart.

There you go. And the one pair of athletic shoes I've got are New Balance, don't think they have a sweatshop (though feel free to prove me wrong).

[Claydon]

We once had sweatshops, so did Europe, Japan, Korea and all the industrialized nations. Who are we to judge and or prevent a nation that is industrializing from going through the same period of development? What....so we have ours and they can't get into the game?

[Stax]

We once had sweatshops, so did Europe, Japan, Korea and all the industrialized nations. Who are we to judge and or prevent a nation that is industrializing from going through the same period of development? What....so we have ours and they can't get into the game?

The US had them for that brief McKinley-FDR period and quickly ended up ashamed of them and banning them through every means of law possible. The British had them and Dickens exposed for all the country (and world) to see. If you want to argue that near-slave labor is ok or a necessary step, fine do it, but don't disguise it under some nice words claiming you're just trying to help (as Kristoff did).

[freegood]

This is an interesting argument to support for those who believe that immigration in general is driving down domestic wage prices for manual or unskilled labor.

I'm all about logical consistency or people realizing the exceptions to their ideals...

[redsox39]

I don't shop at Wal-Mart.

There you go. And the one pair of athletic shoes I've got are New Balance, don't think they have a sweatshop (though feel free to prove me wrong).

And New Balance just switched over due to enormous pressure. And they still have a few sweat shops factories, but over half over their products are domestic now. Here is a list of thing I am sure you never buy:
Abercrombie & Fitch
Adidas
American Eagle
Ann Taylor
Bugle Boy
Calvin Klein
Disney
GAP
Guess?
Hanes
J.C. Penney
K-Mart
Levi
Mattel
Nike
Pier 1 Imports
Polo Ralph Lauren
Sears
Tommy Hilfiger
Wal-Mart

And many more I am sure if you look.

[Stax]

And New Balance just switched over due to enormous pressure. And they still have a few sweat shops factories, but over half over their products are domestic now. Here is a list of thing I am sure you never buy:
Abercrombie & Fitch
Adidas
American Eagle
Ann Taylor
Bugle Boy
Calvin Klein
Disney
GAP
Guess?
Hanes
J.C. Penney
K-Mart
Levi
Mattel
Nike
Pier 1 Imports
Polo Ralph Lauren
Sears
Tommy Hilfiger
Wal-Mart

And many more I am sure if you look.

Occasionally my 'rents get stuff from JC Penny and I'm sure I have some Levis jeans. That'd be it though.

[Morfin]

We once had sweatshops, so did Europe, Japan, Korea and all the industrialized nations. Who are we to judge and or prevent a nation that is industrializing from going through the same period of development? What....so we have ours and they can't get into the game?

Why, we are GMF. There are no glass houses here.

[redsox39]

We once had sweatshops, so did Europe, Japan, Korea and all the industrialized nations. Who are we to judge and or prevent a nation that is industrializing from going through the same period of development? What....so we have ours and they can't get into the game?


Its the same thing with standard of living. Some countries are just starting to be more mobile and electronic. they are starting to used indoor plumbing and Airconditioning. But, now, We ban CFC's, Carbon outputs, and all cheap forms of power.

Once again, it is a "we got ours, but now we know it was bad, so you can't have yours".

It is the way to keep these other countries poor and needy.

[Stax]

Its the same thing with standard of living. Some countries are just starting to be more mobile and electronic. they are starting to used indoor plumbing and Airconditioning. But, now, We ban CFC's, Carbon outputs, and all cheap forms of power.

Once again, it is a "we got ours, but now we know it was bad, so you can't have yours".

It is the way to keep these other countries poor and needy.

The pollution stuff is one thing, there does need to be some acceptance of developing nations, but comparing the industrial age of the US or Great Britain, brought on and sustained by their own people, to Wal-Mart installing a sweatshop is rather silly.

[redsox39]

Not really, where else are these people going to learn about business? Gathering plastic in a smoking toxic dump?

Its not ideal, but it is also not the worst job you can half in the 3rd world.

I am torn on this. If you take away the sweat shop, then what? What do these people do? Starve to death with a smile knowing the man wasn't holding them down?

[Stax]

Not really, where else are these people going to learn about business? Gathering plastic in a smoking toxic dump?

Where did the US, Britain, etc learn it from in your example? Either all nations are the same and your example stands and we should GTFO and let them run themselves or they aren't all the same and your example is stupid and we shouldn't treat them as the ass of the world to be abused at our will.

Its not ideal, but it is also not the worst job you can half in the 3rd world.

Return to the slavery argument. It's not perfect, but it's better than nothing.

I am torn on this. If you take away the sweat shop, then what? What do these people do? Starve to death with a smile knowing the man wasn't holding them down?

Or don't treat people as a separate species simply because they live in some distant "-odia" or "-istan" and establish some kind of standards. Pure capitalism's problem will always be with the front end of the bell curve abusing the back end if there isn't someone to smack them on the nose with a newspaper.

[Pox]

I don't really see how sewing Jordans for 12 hours a day teaches a kid anything about business, but whatever. There is no point in arguing something impossible, but if the global economy disappeared, these peoples best bet would be to go back to farming and sustainable living rather than being wage slaves.

[freegood]

Not really, where else are these people going to learn about business? Gathering plastic in a smoking toxic dump?

Its not ideal, but it is also not the worst job you can half in the 3rd world.

I am torn on this. If you take away the sweat shop, then what? What do these people do? Starve to death with a smile knowing the man wasn't holding them down?

Those are really good questions. Kristol might paint his pig with capitalist lipstick, but moral considerations are valid factors in product value.

If you object to the lifestyle and environment of a sweatshop, you don't need to feel like a socialist who doesn't financially support socialist regimes. You can still be a capitalist who financially supports socialist regimes.

[redsox39]

I don't really see how sewing Jordans for 12 hours a day teaches a kid anything about business, but whatever. There is no point in arguing something impossible, but if the global economy disappeared, these peoples best bet would be to go back to farming and sustainable living rather than being wage slaves.

SO they should slash and burn the forests and wetlands to provide areas for crops then? Isn't that what we stopped them from doing before because we know better then they do?

[redsox39]

Those are really good questions. Kristol might paint his pig with capitalist lipstick, but moral considerations are valid factors in product value.

If you object to the lifestyle and environment of a sweatshop, you don't need to feel like a socialist who doesn't financially support socialist regimes. You can still be a capitalist who financially supports socialist regimes.


In fact, unless you are trying to starve out the Socialists...you have to be.

[Yelram]

I like how rich people always think the best way to get people out of poverty is to somehow wave a magic wand, and make everything better. And the actual systems that get people out of poverty are demonized as exploitation, when they are paying more than a living wage in these countries. The best way to lift the third world out of poverty, is to patronize their goods. Then more sweatshops, which equals an upward mobility of the lower class, as more people become established, and can build a tax base, the standard of living raises. You cant just throw money at it, it has to build itself to be self sustaining, and the only source of capital, is the civilized nations of the world. For them, if they cannot outsource a job for much cheaper than what it pays to keep the work domestically, they wont do it. Ironically enough, poverty attracts sweatshops like a fly to fly-paper. And the second that the level of poverty changes (and therefore, the price of labor) they move on to the next poorest place. Keep in mind, less than 50 years ago, most trinkets were made with "sweat shop" labor in JAPAN, a country that is now about out pacing the US. Its like letting the neighbor kid mow your yard for 5 dollars. He may be out there for a couple hours, and so he really didnt make much money, but for him, that 5 bux is alot.

[Yelram]

The pollution stuff is one thing, there does need to be some acceptance of developing nations, but comparing the industrial age of the US or Great Britain, brought on and sustained by their own people, to Wal-Mart installing a sweatshop is rather silly.


Unless you've actually read history, and then it makes perfect fucking sense.

[Rover]

All industrialized nations went through a period where their manufacturing sector was composed of sweatshops. Why is this step supposed to skip 3rd world shit holes? Because we've become outraged at the practice? I hope the 3rd world poor are able to feed and clothe themselves with our self-righteous indignation.

Sweatshops allow the people to move up the economic ladder. I know it may be hard to understand this, working from the comfort of your ergonomic cubicle chair, but working at a sewing machine for 14 hours/day is better than slaving away at a toxic dump for the entire day and still starving.

3rd world countries just can't start out with the unionized manufacturing/government sector jobs. There isn't a magic "Advanced industrialized economy with union labor. Now with stable supply of capital." wand to wave.

EDIT: and what Yelram said.

[Phil Theehor]

The "sweatshops give people jobs, even if they are crappy jobs" is an old argument, hardly groundbreaking. Heck, not to go all taters here but wasn't that a classic pro-slavery argument, "we're putting a roof over their heads and putting food in their mouths"?

Doing some good doesn't mean that in sum total what you are doing is good. If I give a hobo some bread and then shoot him in the foot I did a good thing (the bread) but in sum total what I've done is still bad.


Stax, you did indeed go full taters with that. The difference here is choice. Slavery was forced upon slaves. They hade no choice in the matter. People who work in sweatshops do so under their own free will (wait, don't shit) because it is the best option available to them.

And "crappy jobs" is both relevant and subjective. The subjects of the op-ed piece didn't seem to think they were crappy at all. And the "shoot in the foot" is a bit silly too, no? A factory owner is giving people an option. He doesn't do anything to people.

[redsox39]

Damn, you went "Full Taters"...

Is there a cure, Doctor?

[kid_vidrio]

It wouldn't be impossible to imagine slightly higher wages, safer working conditions and perhaps some infrastructural development (schools, hospitals, drainage,) health care, etc. You know, share the wealth with the people making you wealthy. If the top took just 5% and directed it downstream it could help.
With that said, trying to impose our standards on other countries is fucked.
In the absence of schools, 10 years olds help out in uncle's store. That's life, not child labor.
The article makes some good points, but un-checked exploitation is never justifiable.

[satandole666]

The only comparative advantage countries like this have is labor cost. They don't have high tech manufacturing, skilled workers, or educated businessmen. What they do have is tons of cheap labor.

If we limit that using any method we aren't doing them any favors. You have to have money to make money.

Sure...that kid who sews for 12 hours a day doesn't learn anything about business, but over time the money he earned will be taxed and spent on a better infrastructure, better schools, and overall community improvement.

They only thing they have to bring to the global market is cheap labor. It sucks for both sides, but if its all they have and they want to be a part of the market that's their choice...not ours.

EDIT: What would really help countries like this out would be local entrepreneurs who are interested in helping out the community at the same time. It shouldn't be a fat-cat in the US or Europe building these countries...they should have some drive to do so on their own.

[redsox39]

No, Throw Money at the problem! It has worked every other time...

[Phil Theehor]

And New Balance just switched over due to enormous pressure. And they still have a few sweat shops factories, but over half over their products are domestic now. Here is a list of thing I am sure you never buy:
Abercrombie & Fitch
Adidas
American Eagle
Ann Taylor
Bugle Boy
Calvin Klein
Disney
GAP
Guess?
Hanes
J.C. Penney
K-Mart
Levi
Mattel
Nike
Pier 1 Imports
Polo Ralph Lauren
Sears
Tommy Hilfiger
Wal-Mart

And many more I am sure if you look.

Actually, Gator, the folks you list aren't the bad guys. I haven't looked at every company you list, but I have looked at:

Nike
Walmart
Disney
Mattel
The Gap
Levi Strauss

First thing to note is this: These companies generally don't own factories overseas. They usually contract out the work to overseas factories. So, it's not a Mattel, Inc. factory that produces your toys. It's a Long Duck Dong, Plc. factory that Mattel buys from that produces your toys.

This is a double-edged sword. It allows them the freedom to pull up stakes and take their business elsewhere if a factory fails to maintain product quality or worker treatment. However, it also makes it difficult for them to enforce worker treatment standards, because, well, it's not their factory.

HOWEVER (yes, I went there, caps for emphasis) each one of these companies maintains a stringent code of vendor conduct that mandates that vendor factory owners do not use child labor or slave labor, maintain health & safety codes, pay fair market wages, limit hours worked per week, protect the environment and allow the workers representation. Beyond stipulating this, each of the companies I listed have massive vendor audit teams that perform spot checks on vendors to ensure they comply.

Now, can you find abuses? Shit, yes. I am sure that lots of stuff gets by. However, the US companies that I have studied are all doing what they should to prevent foreign worker exploitation.

You can read about each company's vendor conduct codes and enforcement in their annual reports. The ones I read were from couple years ago:

Gap (http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/IROL/11/111302/reports/AR_05.pdf)
Walmart (http://walmartstores.com/Files/2006_annual_report.pdf)
Wal-Mart Stores Global Procurement (http://walmartstores.com/GlobalWMStoresWeb/navigate.do?catg=337),
Gap Inc.-Social Responsibility-Where our Clothes are Made (http://www.gapinc.com/public/SocialResponsibility/sr_fac_wwf_where.shtml),
Levi Strauss & Co. (http://www.levistrauss.com/Downloads/AR_2005.pdf)
Nike (http://www.nike.com/nikebiz/investors/reporting_sec/ar_06/docs/10k.pdf)
Nike Inc. Sourcing Disclosure List 2005-2006 (http://www.nike.com/nikebiz/gc/mp/pdf/disclosure_list_2005-06.pdf),
Play to win. Mattel 2005 Annual Report (http://www.shareholder.com/mattel/downloads/2005_Annual.pdf),
M-Spin Industries, Inc. (http://www.meatspin.com)
The Walt Disney Company 2006 Annual Report (http://corporate.disney.go.com/investors/annual_reports/2006/index.html),
The Walt Disney Company-International Labor Standards (http://corporate.disney.go.com/corporate/intl_labor_standards.html)

[Claydon]

The US had them for that brief McKinley-FDR period and quickly ended up ashamed of them and banning them through every means of law possible. The British had them and Dickens exposed for all the country (and world) to see. If you want to argue that near-slave labor is ok or a necessary step, fine do it, but don't disguise it under some nice words claiming you're just trying to help (as Kristoff did).

complete fail, we had sweatshops in this country dating back to the mid and early 19th century.

[Claydon]

Christ sakes, my great grandfather immigrated to the US from Italy in 1890 and worked in a textile mill at age 14.

[redsox39]

Christ sakes, my great grandfather immigrated to the US from Italy in 1890 and worked in a textile mill at age 14.


How dare you allow your great Grandfather to be exploited like that!

[Rover]

He probably didn't even finish 8th grade. How is he supposed to have survived without a college education?

[redsox39]

Actually, Gator, the folks you list aren't the bad guys. I haven't looked at every company you list, but I have looked at:

Nike
Walmart
Disney
Mattel
The Gap
Levi Strauss

First thing to note is this: These companies generally don't own factories overseas. They usually contract out the work to overseas factories. So, it's not a Mattel, Inc. factory that produces your toys. It's a Long Duck Dong, Plc. factory that Mattel buys from that produces your toys.

This is a double-edged sword. It allows them the freedom to pull up stakes and take their business elsewhere if a factory fails to maintain product quality or worker treatment. However, it also makes it difficult for them to enforce worker treatment standards, because, well, it's not their factory.

HOWEVER (yes, I went there, caps for emphasis) each one of these companies maintains a stringent code of vendor conduct that mandates that vendor factory owners do not use child labor or slave labor, maintain health & safety codes, pay fair market wages, limit hours worked per week, protect the environment and allow the workers representation. Beyond stipulating this, each of the companies I listed have massive vendor audit teams that perform spot checks on vendors to ensure they comply.

Now, can you find abuses? Shit, yes. I am sure that lots of stuff gets by. However, the US companies that I have studied are all doing what they should to prevent foreign worker exploitation.

You can read about each company's vendor conduct codes and enforcement in their annual reports. The ones I read were from couple years ago:

Gap (http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/IROL/11/111302/reports/AR_05.pdf)
Walmart (http://walmartstores.com/Files/2006_annual_report.pdf)
Wal-Mart Stores Global Procurement (http://walmartstores.com/GlobalWMStoresWeb/navigate.do?catg=337),
Gap Inc.-Social Responsibility-Where our Clothes are Made (http://www.gapinc.com/public/SocialResponsibility/sr_fac_wwf_where.shtml),
Levi Strauss & Co. (http://www.levistrauss.com/Downloads/AR_2005.pdf)
Nike (http://www.nike.com/nikebiz/investors/reporting_sec/ar_06/docs/10k.pdf)
Nike Inc. Sourcing Disclosure List 2005-2006 (http://www.nike.com/nikebiz/gc/mp/pdf/disclosure_list_2005-06.pdf),
Play to win. Mattel 2005 Annual Report (http://www.shareholder.com/mattel/downloads/2005_Annual.pdf),
M-Spin Industries, Inc. (http://www.meatspin.com)
The Walt Disney Company 2006 Annual Report (http://corporate.disney.go.com/investors/annual_reports/2006/index.html),
The Walt Disney Company-International Labor Standards (http://corporate.disney.go.com/corporate/intl_labor_standards.html)

So these companies aren't bad because they buy from the sweatshops and then resell it to us under their brand names? Come on!


And they are the ONLY reason those sweatshops are still there, lol. If Nike quits buying the "Long Duck Dong" shoe (which somehow has the Swoosh and Nick imprinted in the sole) Long Duck Dong is out of business!

I am not really all that against sweatshops, I like my shoes and jeans and Mickey Mouse Knick-Knacks, but if you want to rally against sweat shops, you can't say these guys are dirt free because they only contract these sweatshops to make their products, and they don't actually own them. You know damn well the only reason they DON'T buy them is because it gives them that PR of "not owning the sweatshops".

Basically to repeat myself, you think these guys are scot free because the products they sell might be MADE in sweatshops, but at least they don't own the sweatshops?

[redsox39]

He probably didn't even finish 8th grade. How is he supposed to have survived without a college education?

It is sad, but their was a time where a White italian couldn't get a good education and was forced to work hard labor...

[Rover]

It is sad, but their was a time where a White italian couldn't get a good education and was forced to work hard labor...Preposterous! Receiving a solid education in all the classics was always the prerogative of the white ruling class. I have to call shenanigans on the idea that a white immigrant from Italy was not immediately enrolled in Harvard, or allowed to finish his college prep at a boarding school.

[Phil Theehor]

You daigos had it easy. Paddy O'Theehor, my great grandad, walked from sweatshop to sweatshop in Worcester, MA around the turn of the century seeking work, only to find "No Irish Need Apply" signs hanging in shop windows.

[redsox39]

So then he became a cop and thus we have racial profiling still today

[Stax]

Stax, you did indeed go full taters with that. The difference here is choice. Slavery was forced upon slaves. They hade no choice in the matter. People who work in sweatshops do so under their own free will (wait, don't shit) because it is the best option available to them.

Really? Sweatshops aren't forced on a country and it's people? They aren't the product of an entirely outside international company that leaves absolutely no prosperity in their wake other than insufficient, meager paychecks and hazardous conditions to boot?

Once again, there is a difference between a natural progression of a country's economic, social, and technological development going through a tumultuous time (not our business) and our own companies jumping in and using the people, landscape, and local resources for all they are worth at a fraction of the cost for entirely their own gain.

To switch from one shitty GMFer (taters) to another (Face), think of it as the Prime Directive from Star Trek. The Prime Directive wasn't "Don't interfere with the development of other societies, unless you guide them down the same path we've taken then it's totally cool." It was simply "Don't interfere with the development of other societies."

[Stax]

Christ sakes, my great grandfather immigrated to the US from Italy in 1890 and worked in a textile mill at age 14.

And McKinley was elected in 1896 making my estimation roughly correct... (a better start date would be closer to the end of the Civil War, I spose).

And, once again, you are ignoring that that was a self-made revolution, not a giant international and outside force coming in, plopping down factories, and using up our citizens. Heck, those guys were perfectly unscrupulous but they DID do most of the things suggested in this thread. They built towns, schools, churches, etc. Henry Ford (later on, but still) understood the need to have workers with sufficient wages to participate in the economy.

[redsox39]

So Stax, your plan is to close up all the sweat shops and let them feed on national dignity?

[redsox39]

And McKinley was elected in 1896 making my estimation roughly correct... (a better start date would be closer to the end of the Civil War, I spose).

And, once again, you are ignoring that that was a self-made revolution, not a giant international and outside force coming in, plopping down factories, and using up our citizens. Heck, those guys were perfectly unscrupulous but they DID do most of the things suggested in this thread. They built towns, schools, churches, etc. Henry Ford (later on, but still) understood the need to have workers with sufficient wages to participate in the economy.


and if you don't think that America is the result of Billions of dollars from foreign interests, you are crazy. You think everything here was for America and America only since 1776? lol

[Stax]

So Stax, your plan is to close up all the sweat shops and let them feed on national dignity?

No, it's that ideally they wouldn't be treated as a lesser breed of human being. The very fact that wage and labor laws exist in civilized nations but can be easily and simply avoided (and locals with no other options exploited) defeats (to some degree) the purpose of those wage laws in the first place.

If your mother tells you don't eat the cookies before dinner and points at the cookie jar that doesn't mean you should go down the street and buy a cookie somewhere else and eat it. If logic and decency (or, in this case, law) tells you you can't exploit Americans, or Brits, or Germans, or whatever to this degree that shouldn't just translate into "Oh, we'll go down to [insert generic banana republic island nation] and do our shit there."

[Stax]

and if you don't think that America is the result of Billions of dollars from foreign interests, you are crazy. You think everything here was for America and America only since 1776? lol

Did I say that? No. But we weren't, especially in our developmental period when we loved the Monroe Doctrine so much, a nation effectively funded and run by international business interests in the way that a sweatshop-laden nation/city is.

[redsox39]

No, it's that ideally they wouldn't be treated as a lesser breed of human being. The very fact that wage and labor laws exist in civilized nations but can be easily and simply avoided (and locals with no other options exploited) defeats (to some degree) the purpose of those wage laws in the first place.

If your mother tells you don't eat the cookies before dinner and points at the cookie jar that doesn't mean you should go down the street and buy a cookie somewhere else and eat it. If logic and decency (or, in this case, law) tells you you can't exploit Americans, or Brits, or Germans, or whatever to this degree that shouldn't just translate into "Oh, we'll go down to [insert generic banana republic island nation]" and do our shit there.

Well then, why not keep all the jobs in your home country and let the poor starve. From what I hear, once again, we are ignoring the very people we are trying to protect. They WANT more sweatshops, and smarter white people like Stax are telling them it will be better if you go back to farming even though you don't know how and you own no land. Your babies (the ones that survive the famine) will thank you.

[Void]

complete fail, we had sweatshops in this country dating back to the mid and early 19th century.And from what I understand, we still have them now.

But these days they tend to operate covertly, worked by illegal immigrants from Mexico and C. America, all trying to pay off their debts to the "coyotes" who brought them over the border. Damn close to slavery, apparently.

[Swurgen]

I've never understood why sweatshops are so bad. They are unfortunate but they are more a product of the shithole country they are in rather than the always evil US. If the shithole was moderately less of a shithole then people wouldn't work for 14 cents a day. Forced labor in these factories or anywhere else is a different story. That's all bad.

Who the hell are we to deny these people a slightly better living because we're too high and mighty to allow it? Whatever it is they are making at the sweatshop is more than they would have made without it and millions of people throughout history have had it a lot tougher than sitting at a sewing machine all day long. Why should we artificially raise wages just because our society is more advanced than theirs? Our country had to go through it's shithole era and then we worked hard to advance past that. So too will they eventually. It's just a stepping stone.

[Phil Theehor]

Really? Sweatshops aren't forced on a country and it's people? They aren't the product of an entirely outside international company that leaves absolutely no prosperity in their wake other than insufficient, meager paychecks and hazardous conditions to boot?

No taters Stax, sweatshops aren't forced into a country. If you read up on this stuff, you'll see that developing nations compete like hell with each other to bring manufacturing operations into their countries. The reason? Because the jobs and their wages (that you scoff at) are a great deal better than what they have been able to generate on their own.

We're not invading Lesotho and forcing the residents out of their cushy office jobs to work in our dirty factories. They're lining up for those jobs because its the best option available to them.

To go back to your original analogy, we're not giving a bum a sandwich and then shooting him in the foot. We're giving him a sandwich and then listening to people who hate free markets (probably baseball, Dutch, Santa, porn & puppies, too) bitch that we didn't give him a seven course meal.

[mongo]

who the fuck cares? like us bitching about it on an internet forum is going to change dick.

[redsox39]

I know, let's just shut down all the blogs and Forums!

[Claydon]

And McKinley was elected in 1896 making my estimation roughly correct... (a better start date would be closer to the end of the Civil War, I spose).

And, once again, you are ignoring that that was a self-made revolution, not a giant international and outside force coming in, plopping down factories, and using up our citizens. Heck, those guys were perfectly unscrupulous but they DID do most of the things suggested in this thread. They built towns, schools, churches, etc. Henry Ford (later on, but still) understood the need to have workers with sufficient wages to participate in the economy.

actually, 'sweatshops' were alive and well in this country as the US began to industrialize prior to the civil war.

[Whiffleball]

It's better to suck a fat biker's dick than it is to fuck a giant fly-like creature, become pregnant with maggots, and then have those maggots force themselves out of your body until your flesh becomes sustenance for their growing bodies

I'd still prefer to have a milkshake though

"Yeah, it's exploitative, but at least it's work" is the most worthless argument I have ever heard, and unsurprisingly it's most usually uttered by those who have never had to work a day in their lives

"it's better than slavery because slavery was forced upon people"

so slavery would be OK if people allowed themselves to be abused and work for no money? No, treating people as property is just as morally bankrupt as it is with consent as it is without it. we should helping these people to live better lives with dignity and actual futures, not to be exploited without conscience

"every nation went through a period of sweatshops, it's only natural"

It also used to be common practice for white countries to invade and colonize places full of brown and black people. that doesn't make it OK today. there were sweatshops in the past because there wasn't much of a labor movement, collective bargaining didn't exist, etc. it is absolutely retarded to believe that you can't have free enterprise in these poor countries while also having labor standards at the same time. You can treat people like human beings with basic rights and still run a profit

[kid_vidrio]

who the fuck cares? like us bitching about it on an internet forum is going to change dick.
First, gtfo or contribute. Making holier than thou "what's the difference on a forum" as if none of us were ever intelligent enough to consider why we're posting here is a waste of bandwidth. Perhaps we enjoy the mental masturbation. What we don't need is some halfwit suggesting to anyone else that they may be wasting their time.
Nextly, if you think that one person, inspired and motivated by something that sparked their imagination never changed anything, then you have been asleep since birth, which, given the person to whom this retort is directed, is entirely possible.
Basically, it's what we do here. Contemplate and bitch and argue. It might be fruitless, it might not be. Either way, no tard anywhere is in the position to pontificate on the uselessness of us excercising our right to free speech or what may come of it.

With that said, Whiffleball pretty much owned you all in his last post. Just because buggering the house boy was A-OK in merry old Enland at some point doesn't mean it's OK today, even for Claydon! Most people have a moral compass, and that compass is set by society's norms and mores. Rationalizing based on cultural relativity will only take you so far, then you have to ask for whom the bell tolls....it tolls for thee.

[taters]

I have trouble with any subjective argument made by a comparison. A is bad. B is a bit worst, therefore its ok to see A as good on some level? I see the ideal, but dont buy it. You can justify just about any wrong that way.

Some kid on the other side of the world gets to starve a few more days before dying so I can pay 1 less at Walmart for my T shirt. Seemingly ok, unless you count the fact that that 1 dollar more would keep 10 kids here in America from living off ramen and school lunches. I take the former over the latter.

You get burnt in the frying pan and the friar, only different ways. The only way not to is to turn off the heat.

[Claydon]

Moral compass?

wow....that is mighty extreme right of you kidvidiro.

[kid_vidrio]

Moral compass?

wow....that is mighty extreme right of you kidvidiro.
The concept or a moral compass is neither right nor left.
In the conceptual sphere in which social norms exist, such base theories of conscious behavior leading to political classifications of 'right', 'left', 'neo-con', 'LIBERAL' etc are of no consequence.
I know without being told that putting a cap in some guy for cutting me off in traffic is wrong. I also know that letting you put your dick up my ass because it will make you happy is wrong since it is something I don't like and have the power to prevent it. These things don't need legislation.
Sadly, some people will exploit the weak, and hopefully, in the course of history, someone will come along and step up to protect them as has been the case throughout time in most Western nations.

[Phil Theehor]

With that said, Whiffleball pretty much owned you all in his last post.

Oddly, I still feel largely unowned. I think what you meant to say, Kid, was "I think Whiffleball's post was really good because I entered this thread already agreeing with his position."


"Yeah, it's exploitative, but at least it's work" is the most worthless argument I have ever heard, and unsurprisingly it's most usually uttered by those who have never had to work a day in their lives

Whiffleball, you are a bright guy and I generally look forward to your input-- even if I sometimes disagree.

So, let me ask you this: I don't see how you, Walmart shopper, is exploiting third world laborers. Our companies purchase goods from factories (often sponsored by local government) because those factories sell the best product for the price. Those factories then pay their workers the local prevailing wage (read: compensation that suitable workers in those markets are willing to work for).

I just don't see the problem (especially since so many of our companies have been vigorously enforcing codes of vendor conduct that prevent the real bad stuff).

The factory is willing to pay x. The worker is willing to work for x. Where is the exploitation?

[kid_vidrio]

Oddly, I still feel largely unowned. I think what you meant to say, Kid, was "I think Whiffleball's post was really good because I entered this thread already agreeing with his position."
No, I meant to say he owned you. The fact that you feel 'unpwnt' is because you subscribe to fundamental Control Theory. That is your right, but that does not make it right.


Whiffleball, you are a bright guy and I generally look forward to your input-- even if I sometimes disagree.

So, let me ask you this: I don't see how you, Walmart shopper, is exploiting third world laborers. Our companies purchase goods from factories (often sponsored by local government) because those factories sell the best product for the price. Those factories then pay their workers the local prevailing wage (read: compensation that suitable workers in those markets are willing to work for).

I just don't see the problem (especially since so many of our companies have been vigorously enforcing codes of vendor conduct that prevent the real bad stuff).

The factory is willing to pay x. The worker is willing to work for x. Where is the exploitation?
'really bad stuff'? By whose definition?
If you don't know you are eating shit because you have been told you whole life you are eating caviar, does that make it OK that the shit shovelers are laughing at you?
You probably missed my first post where I pointed out, having spent much time in similarly depressed areas including parts of Africa, South America, the Asian sub-continent I don't personally favor indignant liberal Americans squawking about child labor and such. In the absence of our system, the kids have to go somewhere, and if they are working in the shop, it is systemic, part of the culture.
Nevertheless, for the margin on their labor, enlightened business people might share the wealth, thereby producing a system of education that, as has been the case in every country whose education has increased, their fertility rate has decreased putting a lesser strain on teh Earth in general.
Exploiting them ultimately damages us in more ways than one.

[Debo]

They are bad if you live in the US and are looking out at the rest of the world. But remember that we had sweatshops here 100 years ago. The problem is that we are 100 years ahead of certain parts of the world, yet feel good tree huggers want to hold the rest of the world to a standard that they cannot possibly comply with.

Here is another good read on the subject:
http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2008/Powellsweatshops.html#affiliation

People in these countries are willing to work for a dollar a day because that is the best option available to them. If you take away their dollar a day job, where are they going to work?

[Phil Theehor]

Nevertheless, for the margin on their labor, enlightened business people might share the wealth, thereby producing a system of education that, as has been the case in every country whose education has increased, their fertility rate has decreased putting a lesser strain on teh Earth in general.
Exploiting them ultimately damages us in more ways than one.

Oy vay.

Your notion of "enlightened business people paying more than the market commands for the well being of the workers" is beautiful-- and I say that without sarcasm. It's a great idea, yes, but the reality is that your enlightened business person would soon be an out-of-business-person because competition would kill him. Quickly. (See: Detroit).

Now the natural response to my statement is "well, we need to regulate every factory in every country in the world so that nobody is paid what we, as Americans, deem to be shitty wages. We, as the enlightened ones, must make choices for other people".

Again, that's a beautiful idea-- level the field and raise everybody up. Beyond the impossibility of doing that, though, is the fact that it wouldn't actually accomplish anything. I hate to break out Econ 101 on you, but if you somehow enforce a global minimum wage, all you would do is inflate currency everywhere. The workers you seek to protect wouldn't see any jump in their buying power.

And lastly, Kiddo, a quick check on the own-meter still has me quite unowned. There's a difference of opinion, philosophy, perhaps, but it’s difficult to say that the efficacy of command-control economics has, right here in this thread, been proven and that proponents of free markets have been forever discredited.

[kid_vidrio]

People in these countries are willing to work for a dollar a day because that is the best option available to them. If you take away their dollar a day job, where are they going to work?
Or, keep paying them $1 and take $3 from the $13 profit you are making on the pair of shoes and contribute toward infrastructural development such that they contribute more than cheap labor in 30 years.

[kid_vidrio]

And lastly, Kiddo, a quick check on the own-meter still has me quite unowned. There's a difference of opinion, philosophy, perhaps, but it’s difficult to say that the efficacy of command-control economics has, right here in this thread, been proven and that proponents of free markets have been forever discredited.

Oy vay's and kiddos notwithstanding given my probable ability to out age and out oy vay you, I would submit that differences of opinion are moot where life, as in living, is concerned.
If we want or need to have a depressed class somewhere on earth that can always do our shit work, then lets own up and say 'we want a depressed class to do our shit work.'
But if we actually adhere to a system of morals, mores, values and norms that most major religions would try to claim as their own, then there is an ethical responsibility to at the very least make some effort to assist them in improving their standard of living.

[Debo]

Or, keep paying them $1 and take $3 from the $13 profit you are making on the pair of shoes and contribute toward infrastructural development such that they contribute more than cheap labor in 30 years.

That doesn't answer my question. Where are these people going to work when you take away their $1 a day job because you don't think that it pays enough.

Does this (http://www.panda.org/news_facts/newsroom/index.cfm?uNewsID=104940) mean that Coke can pay people less and still be a good corporate citizen?

[kid_vidrio]

That doesn't answer my question. Where are these people going to work when you take away their $1 a day job because you don't think that it pays enough.

Does this (http://www.panda.org/news_facts/newsroom/index.cfm?uNewsID=104940) mean that Coke can pay people less and still be a good corporate citizen?
As I said before, keep paying the $1 so as not to disrupt their current system, but put a portion of your profit into development to produce a systemic improvement.

[Hanover Fist]

So wait a second, we shouldn't force our culture, our form of government, or basically anything else whatsoever on foreign countries, but we should dictate how they should run their businesses? Who the fuck cares what they pay their people, it's none of our business.
When they start exporting terrorism, that's when we need to step in and bitch slap them.

[Phil Theehor]

Oy vay's and kiddos notwithstanding given my probable ability to out age and out oy vay you, I would submit that differences of opinion are moot where life, as in living, is concerned.
If we want or need to have a depressed class somewhere on earth that can always do our shit work, then lets own up and say 'we want a depressed class to do our shit work.'
But if we actually adhere to a system of morals, mores, values and norms that most major religions would try to claim as their own, then there is an ethical responsibility to at the very least make some effort to assist them in improving their standard of living.

I can't argue with your sentiments. But what I can argue against is that we somehow have the ability (or the right, for that matter) to dictate wages in foreign countries.

[riseabove!]

every country goes through a period where sweatshops are the backbone of their infrastructure.

[kid_vidrio]

I can't argue with your sentiments. But what I can argue against is that we somehow have the ability (or the right, for that matter) to dictate wages in foreign countries.
You don't seriously think we don't?

[kid_vidrio]

So wait a second, we shouldn't force our culture, our form of government, or basically anything else whatsoever on foreign countries, but we should dictate how they should run their businesses? Who the fuck cares what they pay their people, it's none of our business.
When they start exporting terrorism, that's when we need to step in and bitch slap them.
Wha? Who do you think is paying their peoples? It's not like Nike shoes and Wal-mart clothing just magically shows up in San Pedro (LA Harbor) and we have no idea who is paying what to whom....

[Hanover Fist]

Wha? Who do you think is paying their peoples? It's not like Nike shoes and Wal-mart clothing just magically shows up in San Pedro (LA Harbor) and we have no idea who is paying what to whom....

Of course. Our companies pay their companies to manufacture products for sale in the US. What the owners of those companies choose to do with the money we pay them is irrelevant to us as long as they meet the terms of the contracts. Whether they pay their workers a suitable wage (which is really subjective anyway) or not, should be of absolutely no concern to us. The only thing that should concern us is that those products are safe for consumption inside our borders, and we already have a Government agency tasked with that endeavor.

[Phil Theehor]

You don't seriously think we don't?

This going way off-topic (apologies), but no, I don't. I say we have no business telling any country, anywhere, any time what to do. What goes on inside your borders is your business. The citizens of each country, not the all-knowing US, are responsible for their government, their goverment's actions, and the rules by which they live.

Only when guns (or planes) are pointed in our direction (or that of an ally) do we have the right to intervene.

[Whiffleball]

The factory is willing to pay x. The worker is willing to work for x. Where is the exploitation?

Just because someone is willing to be your slave doesn't make it morally right for you to treat a human being like a piece of property as opposed to a, well, human being. Just because the alternative to exploitative work is unemployment and poverty isn't good enough to justify exploitative work. You can have labor standards in place that ensure a living wage, safe working conditions and other laws that look for the worker without it being terrible for the employer.

They are bad if you live in the US and are looking out at the rest of the world. But remember that we had sweatshops here 100 years ago. The problem is that we are 100 years ahead of certain parts of the world, yet feel good tree huggers want to hold the rest of the world to a standard that they cannot possibly comply with.

This argument assumes that the production costs associated with creating a safe workplace and paying a living wage will drive foreign investors out of developing nations and back to more developed nations. Naysayers rarely back up these claims with empirical data. In actuality, the proposed improvements are changes at the margin, making it possible to improve working conditions without sacrificing employment. For example, in the Dominican Republic, where workers are paid 8¢ for a hat that sells for $19.95, even doubling the wage would be a small change. Economist Richard Rothstein has written that in Bangladesh, wages could "easily be doubled without undermining the profitability of Bangladesh garment manufacturers or reducing the (already negligible) reinvestment of profits in capital development (http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_global_hiring_hall)."

[Debo]

As I said before, keep paying the $1 so as not to disrupt their current system, but put a portion of your profit into development to produce a systemic improvement.

Isn't it the government's job to do that? The problem with most fucked up countries is that the government is corrupt and a bulk of the tax revenue seems to end up in the ruler's pockets instead of into the basic infrastructure that you are talking about.

[kid_vidrio]

This going way off-topic (apologies), but no, I don't. I say we have no business telling any country, anywhere, any time what to do. What goes on inside your borders is your business. The citizens of each country, not the all-knowing US, are responsible for their government, their goverment's actions, and the rules by which they live.

Only when guns (or planes) are pointed in our direction (or that of an ally) do we have the right to intervene.
So....how do you equate being American with the fact that America does what you don't approve of? We regularly tell other countries what to do in exchange for UN votes, cash, or just because we can.

[Whiffleball]

So wait a second, we shouldn't force our culture, our form of government, or basically anything else whatsoever on foreign countries, but we should dictate how they should run their businesses? Who the fuck cares what they pay their people, it's none of our business.
When they start exporting terrorism, that's when we need to step in and bitch slap them.

Prohibitions on child labor and forced labor, the right to unionize, and the other provisions of the proposed anti-sweatshop codes can actually be found in the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the conventions of the International Labor Organization, and the law books of many developing nations. These protections are regularly subverted by foreign companies who either run their own factories or sub-contract to local manufacturers.

[Whiffleball]

every country goes through a period where sweatshops are the backbone of their infrastructure.

Many developed countries have gone through a "sweatshop phase," but this doesn't mean that every country has to. Anti-sweatshop activists are not calling for an end to foreign investment or low-skill labor, which may be an important factor in normal development trajectories, just an end to avoidable exploitative labor practices.

A corollary to this argument is that sweatshop conditions will disappear on their own as an economy develops. But in most instances, exploitative labor practices have ended because of political movements, not because benevolent governments and charitable manufacturers have willingly improved conditions. Governments in countries with export-led economies are even less likely to enforce labor standards unilaterally for fear of losing business to other countries: this is why a company-wide measure, like an anti-sweatshop code, is particularly appropriate.

[Debo]

Prohibitions on child labor and forced labor, the right to unionize, and the other provisions of the proposed anti-sweatshop codes can actually be found in the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the conventions of the International Labor Organization, and the law books of many developing nations. These protections are regularly subverted by foreign companies who either run their own factories or sub-contract to local manufacturers.

So, like most things associated with the UN, nobody gives a shit about what the UN says.

[Whiffleball]

Isn't it the government's job to do that? The problem with most fucked up countries is that the government is corrupt and a bulk of the tax revenue seems to end up in the ruler's pockets instead of into the basic infrastructure that you are talking about.

You'd think that that the USA, champion of human rights, would therefore put pressure on the governments that allow these exploitative practices to go on. However, the U.S. gives humanitarian and other types of aid to countries whose poverty is, in part, a result of unscrupulous U.S. business operations. The U.S. government gives lip-service to workers' and human rights while promoting the business climates most conducive to sweatshops, namely, through NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement) and the U.S.'s "laissez-faire" attitude towards the growing markets in East and Southeast Asia.

[Phil Theehor]

So....how do you equate being American with the fact that America does what you don't approve of? We regularly tell other countries what to do in exchange for UN votes, cash, or just because we can.

Well, I don't agree with that either. Last time I checked, I was just some jack-off typing on a forum (instead of catching up on work), not the guy running the show.

Dissent (and the competition of ideas) is one of the cornerstones of our democracy. I would do some things differently, yes, but all-in-all I'm pretty happy with the US.

[Whiffleball]

So, like most things associated with the UN, nobody gives a shit about what the UN says.

No matter what you think of the source, that doesn't change the fact that the international community (supposedly) acknowledges that all human beings deserve not to be exploited.

[Hanover Fist]

Prohibitions on child labor and forced labor, the right to unionize, and the other provisions of the proposed anti-sweatshop codes can actually be found in the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the conventions of the International Labor Organization, and the law books of many developing nations. These protections are regularly subverted by foreign companies who either run their own factories or sub-contract to local manufacturers.

Well then it's up to the governments of those countries to prosecute the evil foreign companies that are subverting their laws, not ours. I don't give a fuck what our companies do in foreign countries. If they are allowed to do it, then that's their problem. At the same time, they also assume the risk of fuckheads like Chavez nationalizing their companies at any time for an almost total loss.
Our problem is making sure foreign countries operating within our borders aren't fucking us over, we have no say inside their borders.
As far as the UN goes, LOL, they can go have a vote for everyone to ignore as usual, they aren't really relevant in the real world where grown up decisions need to be made.

[kid_vidrio]

Of course. Our companies pay their companies to manufacture products for sale in the US. What the owners of those companies choose to do with the money we pay them is irrelevant to us as long as they meet the terms of the contracts. Whether they pay their workers a suitable wage (which is really subjective anyway) or not, should be of absolutely no concern to us. The only thing that should concern us is that those products are safe for consumption inside our borders, and we already have a Government agency tasked with that endeavor.
Ninja PLEASE!
I care what they pay because:
1) If I vacation there adn they are underpaid, my safety is threatened
2) If they pay shit and finally the people burn down teh factory, my product doesn't show up
3) I'm part of the human race, and somewhere there is a kid living on dirt floor that could be living in dirt on a floor instead if the worker was paid more
4) Often the factory is a foreign subsidiary. It's not like the first time we hear of them is when they get to America.
5) Like it or not we live in a global economy. When you strip your house of products made overseas, then you can get on our high horse and say 'who gives a shit what happens there, so long as I get my stuff.'

The 'export terror' thing you want to bitch slap them for? That is teh result of exploitation, but that concept might be a wee bit lofty for you to grasp.

[Whiffleball]

Well then it's up to the governments of those countries to prosecute the evil foreign companies that are subverting their laws, not ours. I don't give a fuck what our companies do in foreign countries. If they are allowed to do it, then that's their problem. At the same time, they also assume the risk of fuckheads like Chavez nationalizing their companies at any time for an almost total loss.
Our problem is making sure foreign countries operating within our borders aren't fucking us over, we have no say inside their borders.
As far as the UN goes, LOL, they can go have a vote for everyone to ignore as usual, they aren't really relevant in the real world where grown up decisions need to be made.

Um... It is our business, because when the U.S. government or U.S.-based corporations make trade agreements, they have at the very least a moral if not legal obligation to make sure they are not contributing to the very global poverty that our government at least bemoans.

Your attitude is akin to that of the neighbor who just tunes out the domestic abuse next door. "I'm sure there's another side to this!"

And I actually think it's a good thing when countries come together and acknowledge that there are certain rights that are true for all of humanity and that those rights should be acknowledged. It is relevant, because if you're going to declare that all American citizens have the right to speech, gather, worship, etc., why can't we work toward that (peacefully) throughout the world? Instead you put the blinders on and say it's not our problem. By that argument, you might as well say that if a minority is the victim of genocide, it's tragic but that we shouldn't do anything about it because that's just how the cookie crumbles.

[Debo]

You'd think that that the USA, champion of human rights, would therefore put pressure on the governments that allow these exploitative practices to go on. However, the U.S. gives humanitarian and other types of aid to countries whose poverty is, in part, a result of unscrupulous U.S. business operations. The U.S. government gives lip-service to workers' and human rights while promoting the business climates most conducive to sweatshops, namely, through NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement) and the U.S.'s "laissez-faire" attitude towards the growing markets in East and Southeast Asia.

Sanctions don't work unless everyone agrees not to trade with fucked up country X. Just look at Cuba, Iran, Syria, etc. At some point, the only way to get ride of a shitty government is to use military force. Hell, people in Zimbabwe are begging the U.K. to invade (Some politician there was begging Gordon Brown to send in the troops) since it is the only way, outside of an assassination on Mugabe, that anything is going to change there.

So the North American Free Trade Agreement promotes sweatshops in East Aisa? Or just in Mexico and Canada (I never trusted the Canadians and now I know why).

[Debo]

No matter what you think of the source, that doesn't change the fact that the international community (supposedly) acknowledges that all human beings deserve not to be exploited.

And that doesn't change the fact that nobody gives a shit about what the UN says...not even the UN. When is the last time that the UN enforced one of their sanctions that didn't have anything to do with Israel?

[Hanover Fist]

Ninja PLEASE!
I care what they pay because:
1) If I vacation there adn they are underpaid, my safety is threatened
2) If they pay shit and finally the people burn down teh factory, my product doesn't show up
3) I'm part of the human race, and somewhere there is a kid living on dirt floor that could be living in dirt on a floor instead if the worker was paid more
4) Often the factory is a foreign subsidiary. It's not like the first time we hear of them is when they get to America.
5) Like it or not we live in a global economy. When you strip your house of products made overseas, then you can get on our high horse and say 'who gives a shit what happens there, so long as I get my stuff.'

The 'export terror' thing you want to bitch slap them for? That is teh result of exploitation, but that concept might be a wee bit lofty for you to grasp.

1) so show your solidarity with those workers by not going there and rather go somewhere they treat workers to your approval

2) A new one will open up somewhere

3)So donate all your money to charity you philanthropic softy

4&5) It is a global economy, which means we buy and sell goods from countries all over the world. It doesn't mean we can tell foreign companies how they should treat their employees. We can say we don't like it and ask them to change and we can use our pocketbooks to try and influence them by not buying those products.

The places that we are engaged in war with didn't harbor sweatshops for the US. I don't see India, Taiwan, Mexico, Malaysia, Philipines etc.. as being hotbeds for anti-American behavior.
I haven't seen any Made in Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Pakistan, Jordan, Somalia tags on anything I own at least.

[Phil Theehor]

You'd think that that the USA, champion of human rights, would therefore put pressure on the governments that allow these exploitative practices to go on. However, the U.S. gives humanitarian and other types of aid to countries whose poverty is, in part, a result of unscrupulous U.S. business operations. The U.S. government gives lip-service to workers' and human rights while promoting the business climates most conducive to sweatshops, namely, through NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement) and the U.S.'s "laissez-faire" attitude towards the growing markets in East and Southeast Asia.

I'm retracting my "you are a bright guy" statement. You are a filthy communist.

Jokes aside, the solution to your problem has been unfolding for a while. See my post a few pages back and read what the companies I cited are doing.

What you have here is the markets working (don't shit, I'll explain). The companies I cited have caught grief in the past from US consumers for bad conditions in their vendors' factories. As a result (and fearing a market backlash), they've made real progress in ensuring fairer treatment of workers in the areas of child labor, coerced labor, health & safety codes, work hours and environmental protection.

I won't argue with you on the wage issue, because ultimately that's determined by the local market. We could argue about that point for days, but won't agree. I think that's right. You don't.

[Whiffleball]

Sanctions don't work unless everyone agrees not to trade with fucked up country X. Just look at Cuba, Iran, Syria, etc. At some point, the only way to get ride of a shitty government is to use military force. Hell, people in Zimbabwe are begging the U.K. to invade (Some politician there was begging Gordon Brown to send in the troops) since it is the only way, outside of an assassination on Mugabe, that anything is going to change there.

This is where something like that dreaded UN comes in, where you use your influence to push for an agreement to include labor standards in trade agreements, which is something you'd think most Western powers would cotton to, seeing as how they're most democracies and thus sympathetic to things like human rights.

It'd also be nice to see these governments requiring the multinationals based in their countries to not engage in exploitative labor practices just because they can get over it in Fucked Up Country X, another thing you'd think democratic governments would agree with

Setting up democracies through military force doesn't really work, although I can't think of any possible attempt at spreading democracy via rifle point that involves the USA at the moment, sorry

So the North American Free Trade Agreement promotes sweatshops in East Aisa? Or just in Mexico and Canada (I never trusted the Canadians and now I know why).

I think you missed an important conjunction in the post you're making reference to

[Whiffleball]

And that doesn't change the fact that nobody gives a shit about what the UN says...not even the UN. When is the last time that the UN enforced one of their sanctions that didn't have anything to do with Israel?

I remember a lot of my fellow tree huggers whining about the sanctions on Iraq and Iran, perhaps we could meet halfway and agree to not do exploitative trade agreements with other white countries

[kid_vidrio]

4&5) It is a global economy, which means we buy and sell goods from countries all over the world. It doesn't mean we can tell foreign companies how they should treat their employees. We can say we don't like it and ask them to change and we can use our pocketbooks to try and influence them by not buying those products.

The places that we are engaged in war with didn't harbor sweatshops for the US. I don't see India, Taiwan, Mexico, Malaysia, Philipines etc.. as being hotbeds for anti-American behavior.
I haven't seen any Made in Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Pakistan, Jordan, Somalia tags on anything I own at least.
Foreign subsidiary. That means we dictate what they do. We can tell them what to do.

I guarantee you have Paki product in your house. As for the other countries, I'm really not sure what your point is. If we 'allow' them to be our sweatshop laborers then they won't be terrorists? Sweatshops aren't teh only means of exploitation. And this is a red herring anyway. Syria has nothing to do with the fact that we are socially and morally complicit when we vote with our dollar.

[kid_vidrio]

I'm retracting my "you are a bright guy" statement.

I won't argue with you on the wage issue, because ultimately that's determined by the local market.
Do you not see teh humor in this?

[Whiffleball]

I'm retracting my "you are a bright guy" statement. You are a filthy communist.

t:mad:

:o

Jokes aside, the solution to your problem has been unfolding for a while. See my post a few pages back and read what the companies I cited are doing.

What you have here is the markets working (don't shit, I'll explain). The companies I cited have caught grief in the past from US consumers for bad conditions in their vendors' factories. As a result (and fearing a market backlash), they've made real progress in ensuring fairer treatment of workers in the areas of child labor, coerced labor, health & safety codes, work hours and environmental protection.

A bunch of self-righteous liberals aren't going to affect a shit-ton of change when it comes to monolithic multinationals. Corporations aren't intimidated by unwashed college students posing as anarchists, they're afraid of regulations and lawyers. I think it's cool when people make a principled stand, but as long as there are poor people here in the U.S. or just greedy people, people are going to take low, low prices over their ideals, assuming they even give a shit enough to have ideals.

I won't argue with you on the wage issue, because ultimately that's determined by the local market. We could argue about that point for days, but won't agree. I think that's right. You don't.

Fair enough, but I maintain that, when the alternative is unemployment, people will work for pennies if it provides them with food, shelter, health care, etc. Then it doesn't become a matter of competition, unless you see basic survival as a competition

[Hobnail_Boot]

This is an interesting perspective on sweatshops, with a possible solution for Africa, by Nicholas Kristoff, in the NY Times. Basically, he argues, sweatshops may not be ideal, but they are better for the workers than not having them.

Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/15/opinion/15kristof.html?ref=opinion)
That's crazy as hell. That's like saying "the slaves were better off before they became free because massah gave them two meals a day and a shack to live in."

[Debo]

This is where something like that dreaded UN comes in, where you use your influence to push for an agreement to include labor standards in trade agreements, which is something you'd think most Western powers would cotton to, seeing as how they're most democracies and thus sympathetic to things like human rights.

It'd also be nice to see these governments requiring the multinationals based in their countries to not engage in exploitative labor practices just because they can get over it in Fucked Up Country X, another thing you'd think democratic governments would agree with

Setting up democracies through military force doesn't really work, although I can't think of any possible attempt at spreading democracy via rifle point that involves the USA at the moment, sorry



I think you missed an important conjunction in the post you're making reference to

Not it doesn't. We have had a trade embargo on Cuba since the 1960s and they are still pinko commies. Granted, their comrades the U.S.S.R., and more recently their comrades in Venezuela, helped keep them afloat since their economy sucks.

We have been trying to get serious trade sanctions on Iran for years now and Germany, Russia and others continue to trade with them despite our use of different channels in the UN.

Democracy can be imposed by military force, just look at Japan and Germany. And I am willing to bet that Iraq will be a thousand times nicer place to live in 10 years than Iran, Syria or Palestine.

Please explain to me how anyone is exploiting these workers. Paying them a different wage than we pay in the US is not a good example. Go read the link from my first post. It does a good job of comparing wages in different third world countries.

[Phil Theehor]

Fair enough, but I maintain that, when the alternative is unemployment, people will work for pennies if it provides them with food, shelter, health care, etc. Then it doesn't become a matter of competition, unless you see basic survival as a competition

And I don't argue with that. The onus, though, is on Country X to provide their people with better opportunity. If your country is failing economically (current hiccups aside) and does not offer your citizens a better alternative, your problems don't start or end with the wages in your rubber dogshit factory. They are, almost certainly, systemic.

[kid_vidrio]

And I don't argue with that. The onus, though, is on Country X to provide their people with better opportunity. If your country is failing economically (current hiccups aside) and does not offer your citizens a better alternative, your problems don't start or end with the wages in your rubber dogshit factory. They are, almost certainly, systemic.
Wow. I refuse to believe that you think it is as neatly compartmentalized as all that. 'The onus is on country X'? For reals? Like the economic superpower has no bearing?

[Phil Theehor]

Wow. I refuse to believe that you think it is as neatly compartmentalized as all that. 'The onus is on country X'? For reals? Like the economic superpower has no bearing?

For reals, indeed. It fits pretty well into my overarching philosophy of "what goes within your borders..."

[kid_vidrio]

For reals, indeed. It fits pretty well into my overarching philosophy of "what goes within your borders..."
Darien? Stamford?

[Phil Theehor]

Darien? Stamford?

You're in the ballpark. Now let me guess: Village?

[kid_vidrio]

You're in the ballpark. Now let me guess: Village?
Norwalk then.

I'm on Long Island - straight across from you - Bayville/Mill Neck.
Moving into the City though - Battery Park it would appear, unless they take my lowball offer on Central Park West.

[Phil Theehor]

Norwalk then.

I'm on Long Island - straight across from you - Bayville/Mill Neck.
Moving into the City though - Battery Park it would appear, unless they take my lowball offer on Central Park West.

Not far off.

Enjoy your fancy new neighbors.

[Debo]

You're in the ballpark. Now let me guess: Village?

You are a Greenwich guy. Fucking hedge funds!

[Mustard]

Sweatshops to me imply poor working conditions along with poor pay. Some companies may be able to deny their humane conscience when it comes to making a profit, and if that is how they decide to do business, then that is their decision. But, then again, I have to wonder if the conditions and the wages (which would be considered poor here) would be tolerable or moderate there. If they aren't, then I would have a problem with it, and wouldn't choose to do business with companies that didn't respect the humanity of the people they employ. However, if they are, then it fits a status quo mentality, which I wouldn't have a problem with. Heck, if it gives their citizens money and the nations get revenue from it, then we all profit in the long run.

[kid_vidrio]

Sweatshops to me imply poor working conditions along with poor pay. Some companies may be able to deny their humane conscience when it comes to making a profit, and if that is how they decide to do business, then that is their decision. But, then again, I have to wonder if the conditions and the wages (which would be considered poor here) would be tolerable or moderate there. If they aren't, then I would have a problem with it, and wouldn't choose to do business with companies that didn't respect the humanity of the people they employ. However, if they are, then it fits a status quo mentality, which I wouldn't have a problem with. Heck, if it gives their citizens money and the nations get revenue from it, then we all profit in the long run.
Thank you, Sir Rationale! Thank you.

[Das Kahlua]

Sweatshops to me imply poor working conditions along with poor pay. Some companies may be able to deny their humane conscience when it comes to making a profit, and if that is how they decide to do business, then that is their decision. But, then again, I have to wonder if the conditions and the wages (which would be considered poor here) would be tolerable or moderate there. If they aren't, then I would have a problem with it, and wouldn't choose to do business with companies that didn't respect the humanity of the people they employ. However, if they are, then it fits a status quo mentality, which I wouldn't have a problem with. Heck, if it gives their citizens money and the nations get revenue from it, then we all profit in the long run.

You clearly have never worked in a restaurant.

[Claydon]

You clearly have never worked in a restaurant.

Their inventory would vanish if he did.

[freegood]

Well, let's say that with the recession double downing on us, there will be less sweatshops operating around the world...


A corollary to this argument is that sweatshop conditions will disappear on their own as an economy develops. But in most instances, exploitative labor practices have ended because of political movements, not because benevolent governments and charitable manufacturers have willingly improved conditions.


Those political movements are more likely homegrown than a handful of people from far off countries fighting for change. And if the locals have enough time and energy to protest, then the standard of living they see around them is comparatively better than the workshop conditions they're fighting against.

I think you're advocating a governmental level intervention, but it's not realistic or efficient in today's globalized world.

Governments in countries with export-led economies are even less likely to enforce labor standards unilaterally for fear of losing business to other countries: this is why a company-wide measure, like an anti-sweatshop code, is particularly appropriate.

And those governments would have their say in the UN or WTO bargaining agreements. You're not going to get a multinational consensus unless those developing nations have a clear alternative path to industrialization. They're going to think that rich countries are eliminating their competitiveness through cultural moralizing in order to protect those rich nations' own unskilled labor workforce.

[Morfin]

I think Sink is heading in the right direction. We have two issues here, not one. There is the pay issue and there is the working conditions issue.

I, as a free market-leaning capitalist, have little problem with the wages being paid and I agree with Kristoff and find little problem with this.

However, to the extent that these people are having to work in conditions that are truly sweatshops a la Charles Dickens, then I don't care if these people are being paid $100/hour, it isn't right. I do believe that corporations using this low-cost labor source have an obligation to ensure that the working conditions are healthy and safe.

[redsox39]

No matter what you think of the source, that doesn't change the fact that the international community (supposedly) acknowledges that all human beings deserve not to be exploited.


Which is complete "Nirvana" bullshit. Name a country that doesn't exploit or profit off of some "exploited" people?

You can't because it doesn't exist. Now go float back up to your cloud.

Not saying it is right or wring, and not saying your version isn't ideal (it is). But in dealing with reality, what are we going to do? Go in and take out the government and set up a puppet government? go back to Colonialism? Make a bunch of tiny Iraq's?

[redsox39]

I think Sink is heading in the right direction. We have two issues here, not one. There is the pay issue and there is the working conditions issue.

I, as a free market-leaning capitalist, have little problem with the wages being paid and I agree with Kristoff and find little problem with this.

However, to the extent that these people are having to work in conditions that are truly sweatshops a la Charles Dickens, then I don't care if these people are being paid $100/hour, it isn't right. I do believe that corporations using this low-cost labor source have an obligation to ensure that the working conditions are healthy and safe.

To be fair, someone in Cambodia would probably cut chucks of flesh off of his body to feed to aligators for $100 a hour.

[redsox39]

Well, let's say that with the recession double downing on us, there will be less sweatshops operating around the world...



Those political movements are more likely homegrown than a handful of people from far off countries fighting for change. And if the locals have enough time and energy to protest, then the standard of living they see around them is comparatively better than the workshop conditions they're fighting against.

I think you're advocating a governmental level intervention, but it's not realistic or efficient in today's globalized world.



And those governments would have their say in the UN or WTO bargaining agreements. You're not going to get a multinational consensus unless those developing nations have a clear alternative path to industrialization. They're going to think that rich countries are eliminating their competitiveness through cultural moralizing in order to protect those rich nations' own unskilled labor workforce.


I would throw this out since you somewhat brought it up. Do you think this recession, while bad for the whole world, might give some of the 3rd world countries a chance to take stock and maybe make some steps forward?

[Archangel]

Fuck this shit, I'm paying $200+ for my Jordans already; what am I supposed to pay if the people making them go to union meetings instead of working? $2,000?

[redsox39]

Great, people are going to be killed for their shoes again in bad nieghborhoods...

[freegood]

I would throw this out since you somewhat brought it up. Do you think this recession, while bad for the whole world, might give some of the 3rd world countries a chance to take stock and maybe make some steps forward?

If they do move forward, they'll move forward without us. Globalization makes everyone t3h d00m3d.

[redsox39]

Dude, I am already calling Tina Turner and we are building a Dune Buggy of destruction!