TheAgitator.com
Sweatshops, Ct’d…
Friday, May 7th, 2004Reaction to my Fox piece over at the Mises Institute’s blog:
So what is the humanitarian to do, if he wishes to alleviate the plight of the downtrodden masses? The answer is simple: shift the demand curve for the downtrodden masses’ labor services. How does one do this? Again, the answer is simple: think globally and act locally. In other words, put down your “living wage” picket sign and actually go into the Wal-Mart you hate so much. Buy as much sweatshop clothing as you can fit into your car. Convince all your friends to do the same. The evil capitalists will get the signal: “produce more cheap, high-quality goods because it’s astonishingly profitable.” Translation: build another factory in Bangladesh and hire some people. Of course, you’re going to have to give them an incentive to work for you instead of somebody else, which means that you will have to…increase wages and improve working conditions.So what does the humanitarian get at the end of the day? He gets better working conditions and higher wages for the allegedly downtrodden masses. And he doesn’t even need an “uprising of the proletariat” to do it.
Similar thoughts at Catallarchy:
Luckily, when it comes to issues like sweatshop labor, there is something we, as private individuals, can actively do to solve the problem. Instead of boycotting products made with sweatshop labor as some would propose, we should purchase as many of these products as humanly possible.
Pete Johnson has it backwards. It’s the availability of “sweatshop” jobs that gives third world workers an option to *avoid* becoming prostitutes.
Can anyone provide a decent argument against the points in this article? If not, then stopping “sweatshop” labor is an intellectual bankrupt activity, at heart — like much contemporary activism — more about making the activist feel good about himself that actually helping the intended “victims”.
How naive of me, I had expected the post that Radley linked to disagreeing with him to at least attempt some sort of rational argument.
That’s what I’m wondering, Ben — if there even *is* a good argument against “sweatshop” labor.
It’s interesting that instead of saying, “Radley’s article is wrong, and here’s why…” these writers seem intent on saying, “this is disgusting and cruel, and Radley is evil, so there.” Some arguments would be nice.
Of course sweatshops are often disgusting and cruel. But so are the countries in which those sweatshops are based. I’d like to see some of the people whining about how evil globalization is actually try to live in some of the places they don’t want to see globalized. Live in Thailand or Nepal for a few months, and try to make a living and support a family by doing anything other than working for a multinational, then see whether you still think people should be forced to live that way.
What’s wrong with sweating a little while you work? It builds character.
“Of course sweatshops are often disgusting and cruel.”
You know, there are a lot of disgusting and cruel jobs right here in the US. Jobs that, while disgusting and cruel, have to be done.
Has anyone here worked in an animal shelter? I have. I was covered in dog shit and piss all day. I have scars where I’ve been bitten and scratched. I had to heave 60lb bags of dog food around in a swealtering warehouse. I had to carry garbage bags of dead animals to the freezer. And I wasn’t exactly saving any money for retirement.
Where were all the anti-globos for me? Maybe they could have taken that job away from me. Of course, then I’d be unemployed, poor, and hungry. I would have had find some other, cheaper place to live - probably in a dangerous neighborhood. Gee, thanks, anti-globos!
“Slavesourcing”? How the fuck am I supposed to take someone’s argument seriously, if they don’t even know the definition of “slavery”?
Good GOD! My mind is reeling, reading that post over and over, trying to comprehend what sort of logical functions could lead someone to such inane shit. The verdict: unsurpisingly, logic has nothing to do with it.
The first definition for “slavery”:
The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household.
I think Mr. Johnson needs to brush up on his dictionary readin’ before he tries to engage in debate. Unless these corporations are kidnapping foreigners and forcing them to work in their factories, then they are not slaves.
Secondly, he says, “Yes, and I suppose those perverts who frequent the brothels of Asia are being kind to the children they molest. After all, without prostitution, they’d have nothing.”
So what does this moral relativism tell us? We could take it one step further. If Pete wants to equate child labor in third world “sweatshops” to child prostitution, then why not extrapolate even further? For example, I could claim that working here in my cozy office for fair living wages is “slavery”. And I could say, “Yes, and all those evil property owners who come into our firm looking for architectural services, they’re just contributing to my slavery!”
Where, and how, does Mr. Johnson draw the line? Relatively speaking, to God, the position of billionaire CEO would suck. Relatively speaking, to the billionaire CEO, my situation would suck. Relatively speaking, to me, a minimum wage janitor’s position would suck. Relatively speaking, to that janitor, an immigrant farmer’s position would suck. Relatively speaking, to that immigrant farmer, a third-world Nike sweatshop would suck. Relatively speaking, to that third-world Nike sweatshop worker, prostitution would suck. Relatively speaking, to that prostitute, begging on the street would suck. Relatively speaking, to that beggar on the street, starving to death would suck.
And there you have it. Fucking socialists. No matter what your lot in life is, there’s always someone better off and someone worse off than you. That’s how it goes. When Nike sets up a factory in Indonesia and pays 10 times the average Indonesian wage, they are offering a better life for Indonesians. If we demand that they offer Indonesians the same wages & conditions we get, then there’d be no reason for Nike to build that factory there, and then…well, everyone loses. Sure, prostitution sucks. Child prostitution sucks even more. But we’re certainly not going to stop child prostitution in Indonesia by prohibiting Nike from opening a factory there. Quite the opposite. We’re giving them a chance to move up the ladder.
You know, there are a lot of disgusting and cruel jobs right here in the US. Jobs that, while disgusting and cruel, have to be done.
Exactly. It is all relative to your perspective (see my previous post). These people really have no concept of logic. What logical basis do you have to say that third-world sweatshops are evil, but working at a ghetto-ass McDonalds for minimum wage is acceptable? Again, it’s all about perspective. Remember the old adage, “one man’s trash is another man’s treasure”? If I make $150,000/year, and I want to buy a new Lexus, and there’s someone who makes $15,000/year and they want to buy my old Ford, does it make sense for me to deny him the sale, because he “deserves” a Lexus too? Of course not. Would I be helping him by denying him the sale? If I refuse to sell him the Ford, does that bring himi any closer to owning a Lexus? Obviously not. So why deny him the sale? Sure, to me, that old ford sucks. But to him, it’s a great new car! So, why deny third-world workers the opportunity to have a better life, simply because we feel that that opportunity isn’t good enough, by our standards?
This is the same logic that drives foolish min wage laws in this country…and as you would expect, those laws do nothing but hurt the lowest workers.
Prepare to vomit when you read
this garbage, says Brandon over at The Red Pill.
Interestingly, he doesn’t offer any rebuttals, any arguments, any points, anything at all, other than “it’s garbage”. This is a sure sign of a true intellectual powerhouse, my friends.
The kicker? In his very next post (wherein he is referring to illegal immigrants’ unborn children qualifying for government-funded prenatal care), he says (get ready to laugh), “Socialism sucks… I want my tax money back!” Whuh-whuh-WHAT? In one post, Brandon, you’re blasting capitalism, in the next, you’re blasting socialism. So, what’s your solution? Socialism is OK when it comes to saving those poor sweatshop workers, but it’s not ok when it comes to paying for immigrants’ prenatal care? Ugh. Why bother having a blog if you’re just going to make an utter fool of yourself?
One more…
At the top of The Red Pill’s homepage, it has this Ben Franklin quote: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Hmmm. That’s an odd quote to have at the top of a page in which you refer to Radley’s article, an article that praises the virtues of the essential liberty of free trade, as “garbage”.
So, I guess, according to you, an “essential liberty” is only essential if you agree with it.
I wonder if this guy knows what a fool he is making of himself.
Probably not, but you’re doing a decent job showing him.
I just posted this over at Pete Johnson’s website. Should I feel bad?
Why do I feel good instead?
*****
Pete Johnson writes:
“Oh yes, those Western corporations are so kind to have moved to slave labor locations in the third world.”
Again, you miss the difference between “slave labor,” which is coerced by force, and low-paying jobs, to which people are attracted by wages — wages that might seem paltry to Pete Johnson living in Houston, but are enormous to a Cambodian factory worker. Indeed, they may very well mean the difference between life and death for his family alive.
“You aren’t even considering that if that if we were to ban those products, the greedy corporations might consider paying the third world workers a decent livable wage so that they can have a market for their products in the third world. I guess paying a decent wage is out of the question huh? Say no more.”
This is sort of embarrassing to have to explain to you, Pete, but if you “ban” — ah, screw it. I don’t normally engage in ad hominem attacks, but Pete, you’re really a dumbshit. If you want to help people in the Third World, just shut the fuck up.
Sorry. That was wrong. But true.
How kind of all of you people who have never been to a third world to tell us how wonderful it is to work in a sweatshop and invite us to visit the third world. Thank you. But honey, I’ve been there. My husband was raised there.
You people don’t have a clue what a sweatshop really is. You think there aren’t slave workforces in third world countries? Let me tell you about slave labor. Women and children who are OWNED, that’s right, OWNED by their factory owners. Locked in their factory. Forced to produce goods all day and prostituted out at night.
Men who travel for a job because they believe it will pay enough to feed their family. Only to find themselves deeply in debt to a guide and locked in a production plant until they pay off their debt. Fed one or two meals of gruel, yes, literally gruel, each day, and never seeing the sunlight, except maybe through barred windows or cracks in painted windows or cracks in boarded windows.
Not one single person on this board has any idea what it is like to live in a third world country. Not one single person on this board has any idea what it is like to live in a world where slavery is all around you.
But you sit and judge. And you invite people to go see what you have never seen. While you sit in your ivory tower, I invite each of YOU to go see the third-world for yourself.
Don’t do my family any favors by giving them any more slave jobs.
Dawn Teo
Dawn, it’s nice to see that you’re every bit as coherant on this board as you are on the Americanjoblog.
Why not just phone your family and plead with them not to accept work from a multinational, or do any kind of work for anyone who does. That would pretty much solve your problem in a nutshell.
I hate to monopolise, but I really do need to post this.
This is a post from Dawn on the Americanjoblog.
See if any of you can spot one or two holes in it.
~~~~~~~~~
Dawn:
Quoted: “What gives you the right to force an employer to hire you over someone else, especially when that someone else is much poorer than you and needs the job much more than you do? Why be so selfish?”
He already answered that point. Because the U.S. does not have enough wealth to spread around the world. We do not have enough jobs to spread around the world. And because we should not be giving away what we’ve got and making ourselves poor in an effort that will not help other countries. America’s standard of living should be the bar, the goal, of globalization around the world. Other countries should be working to raise their standard of living up to ours. We should not be working to give ours away in an effort to bring the bar down.
Quoted: “According to a 1978 article in American Economic Review, the American Economic Association’s main journal, fully 90 percent of the economists surveyed agreed that the minimum wage increases unemployment among low-skilled workers.”
This point has been argued to death by economists, sociologists, government agencies, etc. But it cannot be boiled down to one Association or one group of economists because there are too many out there who argue about it. And it cannot be boiled down to your simple one-sentence statement about it. The more appropriate (but still nowhere near complete) statement should have said that increases in minimum wage increase unemployment initially, but in a consumer economy lower unemployment in the long run due to higher spending in the consumer sector. But even that is not a good analysis. It is too simplistic and leaves out many details and points that should be made.
Ok, from reading the board where you came from, I see where you are going with the “buy more from the sweatshops” angle. You are presuming that by buying MORE sweatshop products, demand for workers in those countries will rise, thus creating better working conditions and better salaries.
What you are forgetting is that America only makes up 4% of the world population. By the time we create enough demand for jobs around the world in every third-world nation that we can purchase labor from, we will have entirely decimated the U.S. There will no longer be a consumer economy in the U.S. to support the demand that you are trying to create.
Your theory only works if we target a couple of countries at a time, not if we open our doors to the entire third-world, which is exactly what we are on the path to today.
~~~~~~~~~
I’d been manfully debating until here, but I was laughing too much after reading this to carry on. It’s reassuring to discover the intellectual calibre of the opposition on this issue.
The Mysticism Of Collective Action
At Catallachy Micha Ghertner prescribes collective consumer action to solve the problem of third world poverty:Luckily, when it comes to issues like sweatshop labor, there is something we, as private
Radley,
Your piece is fine, but do you really agree with the proposals you cite here? Carden might be joking, but Ghertner is not.
Well if Dawn can do it…
I grew up in Saudi Arabia, where slavery was still going strong, even though it had been outlawed a whopping 30 years earlier.
Instead of sweatshops though, these men were put to work pushing carts through the street on sanitation crews and in schools and offices as - that’s right - sanitation workers. And these are just the foreign workers I was actually exposed to. There were tens of thousands more hard at work in the kingdom doing all the things that Saudis refused to do.
At least in the US, there are actually Americans who do much of the menial work. There, the citizens patently refuse.
Sure, the men may be paid a pittance, but they send it all home to their families. They can’t leave because their passports are confiscated by their ‘employers’. Some of these men were actually somewhat educated and could have done clerical work, at least, if not something other than walking the asphault streets in the Saudi noonday sun.
All of this to say. . . well not much. But then, Dawn didn’t say much, either.
Sorry. Didn’t mean to sound nasty there.
MattG, we don’t agree much but I love you man!
The more I read about free trade, the more I am sold. HOWEVER, one problem I do have is that the people in America who are pro free trade tend to be the same people who will vote against any government assisted program, be it welfare, student loans, or job training. You can’t simply eliminate American jobs and claim free trade creates new jobs, without providing a way for those displaced workers to obtain new job skills to get those better jobs.
Matt:
Western corporations pay those children locked in sweatshops two to three times what they would get on the local market. Aren’t Western corporations kind humanitarians?
Westerners perverts pay those children they molest in the brothels of Asia two to three times what they would get on the local market. Aren’t they kind humanitarians?
Slavery is slavery. Whether a person is locked in a sweatshop or brothel in Asia, or forced to build pyramids by pharos, that person is a slave. If the person is 10 years old and under those conditions, that person is a child slave.
Now go ahead and make your argument that those children are better off because of the benevolance of their Western slave master or at the hands the humanitarian pervert who molests them and pays them a little more.
Think about it.
Pete, you’ve already had this comprehensively answered for you. Child prostitution is reprehensible, and China and India have far fewer westerners go there seeking than Cambodia do. Care to hazard a guess why?
Hint: Dirt poor kids still need to earn a living, even when they’re not working in a factory.
“Sweatshops” are one thing, but slavery is another.
I don’t see the connection.
If the people are forced to work at the point of a gun, no I would not want to buy clothes from that manufacturer.
If they are not forced to work, but simply work there, of their own volition, for the wage (which may be a pittance, but they CHOSE to work there nonetheless) then that seems fine with me.
Voting with the wallet is all that is needed. No need for GATT, G8, or NAFTA, to bureaucrat it all to hell.
Am I missing something?
Right Bobbo, you are missing something. How about child labor? Who told you that the 10 year old child gave his/her consent?
Evan — or anybody else:
In an earlier post, Radley’s article was mentioned. Has anybody read Radley’s “The Road From Serfdom” at:
http://www.techcentralstation.com/042903C.html
Please read it and then post what’s glaring detail is missing. I’d be interested in seeing if any of you pick up on it.
Bzzzzzzt:
Time’s up. And the answer is: Nobody asked the child if she liked working in the sweatshop getting her hands stabbed through with needles and working like a slave. The first person I would have asked is the child.
I gave Radley’s article a read and think that the talk about exploitation of foreign labor (in the sense of unsafe & unhealthy working conditions) is beside the point. The primary complaint against outsourcing and corporate managed trade policy (alleged to be “free trade”) is not focused on whether the people of the developing world are “exploited”.
The widespread middle class job losses in the U.S. is the issue. The manufacturing/industrial jobs are moving offshore and now the services/technology/high tech jobs are departing. No new middle class jobs are being created in the U.S. to replace these jobs. It appears that many corporations are in a great rush to slash labor costs but they fail to see that the cumulative effect of their U.S. job eliminations is to sharply cut the U.S. middle class and the consumer’s disposable income. In a sense then, many people believe that corporations have declared a state of “class warfare” on middle class American workers and the broader society.