With the Christmas shopping seasonal in full swing, it's easy to be scared away from buying perfectly good gifts because some activist has told you they were produced by sweatshop labor. For a long time, I thought that's a good caution to factor in. Like most people, I had never heard what economists had to say on the matter, and was unaware that my "moral" position wasn't merely wrong, but harmful as well.
I'd love to be able to punch out the perfect post on why sweatshop labor is the best thing to happen to the people of poor nations, but Paul Krugman already wrote the definitive short essay back in 1997.
Go on, read it. I'll wait right here.
Krugman convincingly states that as bad as sweatshop labor is from our perspective, it's better than the inhumane labor alternatives the workers would otherwise be doing. It also has the unintended consequences of improving the standard of living for the poorest of the world's poor - something foreign aid has failed to do.
Krugman isn't alone in this view. Other liberal econ bigwigs such as J. Bradford Delong and Jeffrey Sachs have not been shy about the positive effects of sweatshops, although Krugman has the harshest words for the opposition.
The Nicholas D. Kristof piece from the Delong link probably has the best introduction line for sweatshops:They should start an international campaign to promote imports from sweatshops, perhaps with bold labels depicting an unrecognizable flag and the words "Proudly Made in a Third World Sweatshop!"
I've seen plenty of liberal churches host bazaars selling handmade third-world crafts, such as wicker baskets and wooden bookends, with the intention of drumming up business for the impoverished artisans. However, the same feeling of generosity isn't there when someone buys a top-notch pair of GAP Original Khakis. Still, the money is going to help the same sort of person, although perhaps one who was not blessed with artistic talents.
On that subject, Krugman closed his aforementioned 1997 piece with the following:...as long as you have no realistic alternative to industrialization based on low wages, to oppose it means that you are willing to deny desperately poor people the best chance they have of progress for the sake of what amounts to an aesthetic standard--that is, the fact that you don't like the idea of workers being paid a pittance to supply rich Westerners with fashion items.
Couldn't have said it better (or as harshly) if I wanted to. Happy holiday shopping, and please remember to buy global.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Feel good about buying from sweatshops
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Interesting perspective. As you know, I try to remain open to learning and understanding new perspectives. Taking any given perspective on as my own however is alot less likely. This primarily stems from knowledge of my own ignorance. I would hate to sport a viewpoint that is missguided. I struggle alot with the idea of when it is or isn't appropriate for government to intervene and this is one of the topics that brings in that argument.
ReplyDeleteI realize that there are conditions in many sweatshops across the world that are less than what I would take as ideal. I also understand that there are different cultural lenses through which we look at reality and create values.
Ultimately I do think that we are not only lucky, but we are granted what we have at the expense of a corporatocracy that isn't based on cultural or political lines. I don't even believe we have separate economical units anymore. The world's central government is not at all based on politicians perse but those who make the money go around. The politicians just do the marketing or try to effect change when they really hardly have any world power beyond their relationship with the global money makers.
With this all in mind...I can't say I support sweatshops. I don't know what it IS that I DO support, but I do think that perhaps there needs to be a bit more regulation of these "sweatshops" to make sure that there is atleast some quality of life that these workers can enjoy.
I suggest looking further into the issue from both sides...maybe watch some videos or read some information on some of the conditions reported in these sweatshops.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing that these individuals are employed when they otherwise wouldnt' be, but I do feel that the companies chose to employ them not out of the good of their tender little company heart but because they saw it as cheap...near slave labor where they could profit.
Have you ever read "confessions of an economic Hitman" by John Perkins?
You've made a lot of points and I want to do my best to address them as concisely as possible without changing the subject.
ReplyDeleteNo, I have not read that book.
I do, however, wholeheartedly agree with your penultimate statement - that the companies were motivated to make a buck off of cheap labor, and all the good things have been just been side effects of that greed.
I wrote this piece under the assumption that the reader would stop to read Paul Krugman's article that I linked, and then recommended reading. Krugman already covered this case in depth - about how enforcing minimal standards would destroy any motive to bring jobs to poor nations.
He also said the following, which is crucial to understanding the pro-sweathshop position. The final sentence is the one that counts, but I made sure to include the context.
"A country like Indonesia is still so poor that progress can be measured in terms of how much the average person gets to eat; since 1970, per capita intake has risen from less than 2,100 to more than 2,800 calories a day. A shocking one-third of young children are still malnourished--but in 1975, the fraction was more than half. Similar improvements can be seen throughout the Pacific Rim, and even in places like Bangladesh. These improvements have not taken place because well-meaning people in the West have done anything to help--foreign aid, never large, has lately shrunk to virtually nothing. Nor is it the result of the benign policies of national governments, which are as callous and corrupt as ever. It is the indirect and unintended result of the actions of soulless multinationals and rapacious local entrepreneurs, whose only concern was to take advantage of the profit opportunities offered by cheap labor."
My only questions are... Where does human rights come into play and if so aren't there any policies that you can think of that would help raise the standards of work environment? I'm at work right now so I gtg... but I like the concepts you make me ponder. I'm still not in "support" of sweatshops.
ReplyDeleteHuman rights are already present. The question I have posed is; what is the best way to help the poor in impoverished countries? Direct foriegn aid hasn't helped. Relying on the local government hasn't helped. The only thing that has improved the quality of life has been allowing greedy corporations to offer jobs in poor countries.
ReplyDeleteOpposing sweatshops means robbing those people of the choice in taking those jobs. You have to remember that the alternatives to working in a sweatshops are usually worse and more dangerous - child prostitution, risky agriculture and garbage foraging.
You ask what policy I believe will help improve the work standards, and I don't expect you to like the answer: Allow the free market without regulations or minimal standards.
You have to remember sweatshops are their industrial revolution. The wages and living stanards rise over time, and they will only happen if companies are allowed to pay low wages.
I just wonder if these corporatins will really pack their bags if there are some regulations put in place. Are there any examples you have of this occuring and the economic ramifications thereafter? I understand the idea of the free market and I'm relatively in support of that idea..., but I think perhaps the economy and politics are more of an art form than a scientific methodology. I also believe that many philosophies don't universally apply or ethically apply. Ethics is subjective however, but I do believe that the majority of people in this world would not agree with 8 year olds working a hundred or more hours in a factory. Alot of that's been phased out from what I know and I think that it's our job to continually be watch dogs for this kinda thing and work on improving standards universally by communicating with as many different governments as we can in what creative ways we can. I don't believe we can blindly support something.
ReplyDeleteI'm also not saying there is an answer to this dilemma, but that I fully support those who are looking for an answer to improve these conditions in a way that works economically. I also think it's really hard to predict what will happen economically and that it almost seems more dogmatic and religious than scientific at this point. There are so many people spouting out information that it based on a few things they read here and there.
I brought this argument up with this conservative guy that I work with and although he has some pretty extreme views on the free market he even believes that there needs to be something done about the sweatshop issues. It actually kinda makes me feel ill. I feel it's a form of slavery. It's like how slave owners felt they were taking care of their slaves because there was no possibility of a better life for them....and many of the slaves couldn't see an alternative.
ReplyDeleteAs for revolution... do you really think so? Doesn't a revolution imply some sort of an improvement? It says here that these slaves who are forced to work or die (or die at work at an ever increasing rate) don't have the opportunity to save money in order to become free of this power structure. And of course, noone wants them to become free because if they were the whole structure of the economy would have to be reorganized.
And I think it should be reorganized. Not socialized, but atleast ethically humanistic and environmentally sustainable. And to heck with the companies that don't comply. When they fall to ruins, even if many people have to die in the process perhaps something better can be created. Out with the Bullshit I say! And implement a moderate and balanced strategy of intervention that holds businesses accountable.
And as for communism, as long as we support the structure of this globalized economy we are no better than those within the chinese government that allow this. We are already part of a communist structure...and we thrive on it.
http://ihscslnews.org/view_article.php?id=57
Just not right. I'd rather die and be free. And perhaps so would others if they had a choice. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6733564947664645042#
In your first comment, you asked how we know imposing labor standards would drive these jobs out of poor countries. Krugman said it best. These standards would raise the cost of hiring third-world labor, and cheap labor is the only selling point they have to attract these jobs. Take that away, and the jobs go away. Then once again, you have the poor of the world with no good options. It's that simple.
ReplyDeleteYou take a moral high ground, but I haven't heard you respond to the larger moral issue - that the actions you propose, well intentioned as they are, would only result in keeping poor people poor.
In your second comment you glossed over one crucial detail - you moved the discussion away from sweatshops and into slavery. The two are not the same thing. Sweatshops involve voluntary labor and have standards below that of rich nations.
Those low standards and low wages attract a lot of hostility from consumers in rich countries, but they are usually better standards than what the workers would otherwise be doing.
I know. I just don't like any of it at all. This world just seems so hostile and unfair sometimes. I don't think we should be the world police at all when we should prioritize our issues at home, however I do think these conditions need to be advocated against EVERYWHERE so that they can't just pack their bags and go elsewhere where workers will comply. I don't believe the government should decide on all wages, however I do believe there needs to be better standards in place. Everywhere. And from what I've learned unfortunately these standards are in place...it's just the companies that are continually not complying and fabricating information.
ReplyDeleteI guess I am just not as sure as you seem to be that there isn't another option to both improve their working conditions and advocate for their ability to work as well in a way that encourages companies to not just pack their bags. I bet there's a creative economical genius that might be able to figure this seemingly impossible situation out. I don't certainly have time to be that person or advocacy group, but I do hope that something is changed because it really just seems far too hostile for me to ever support. I don't "support" something unless it comes from what I subjectively perceive as pure goodness. So no, I really don't think I could feel "good" about buying from sweatshops. The whole dynamic is unsatisfactory in my opinion.
Emily, I agree with a lot of what you are saying, especially in your last post from 12/11/09 at 12:49am. I watched that whole 33 minute movie—thanks for sharing that. I also like what you said in your first post, about the idea of a corporatocracy:
ReplyDelete“The world's central government is not at all based on politicians per se but those who make the money go around.”
Yes! That is so true! You’re right, also, that workers’ rights need to be advocated for everywhere, so corporations can’t just go elsewhere when workers are given more rights. It would be nice if all the world’s countries enforced a living minimum wage, and ideally even a min. wage that afforded a few (what we would consider) basic luxuries, such as a home with indoor plumbing and maybe even access to a computer (things most Americans take for granted).
But what Michael is saying is true. The plain fact of the matter is, without even these extremely poor working environment and low-paying jobs the sweatshops provide, these people would be much worse off—there would be much higher rates of disease, malnutrition, starvation and death. Children and babies, much less women and men, would die—at least, many more than otherwise. This is just a simple fact that we can’t ignore, however much the sordid conditions of these sweatshops offend our privileged Western sensibilities.
I also agree with Michael’s comment 12/7/09 at 11:32:
“You have to remember sweatshops are their industrial revolution. The wages and living standards rise over time, and they will only happen if companies are allowed to pay low wages.”
These sweatshops give women jobs with much better pay than any others available to them. This in turn gives women greater freedom and power. When women are thus enabled, they have few children, and the ones they do have, they are able to support much better. This in turn leads to the benefit of the entire society, breaking the cycle of poverty at its source.
As for possible solutions, I think one is just for the governments of the industrialized nations to continue to do what they can to put pressure on the less developed nations to improve their citizens’ rights and workers’ conditions. Although it would be nice to be able to force our country’s companies to pay workers in other countries what we consider a living wage, it is not our right, much less in our power, to do so, for that would entail telling THAT country what their minimum wage should be. All we can do is advocate for that country to treat their people in a way which we consider decent and fair. We can do this through citizen action groups, charitable foundations, and political pressure. It may not be much, but at least it’s something.
Emily, you're saying that you agree sweatshops are the best solution we have to pull people out of poverty, but you wish someone would think of a better solution because this one has a harsh edge to it.
ReplyDeleteI think everyone agrees with that, but it's akin to wishing for a Deus Ex Machina to solve poverty. We may get a better solution one day, but we shouldn't sit ideally by in the meantime when we could be doing what we can to help.
However, both you and Jenn want to impose international minimum wages and standards. This is an economic blog, and minimum wages are a hot topic with economists for good reasons, but I want to stay on topic.
Emily stated we should not be the world police. However, if we pressured or forced other countries into minimum standards, that's exactly what we'd be.
In addition, there is a flaw in your plan. I said minimum standards hurt the poor by robbing them of their only selling point - cheap labor. You're correct that if all of the countries had the same minimums, then they wouldn't have another place to go for cheap labor.
But removing cheap labor from the world would simply decrease corporations' insentive to go to poor countries. That means jobs could also move to rich countries. The same products could be produce with automated machines or first-world workers.
It was cheap labor that brought corporations - and the jobs that come with them - into the third world. Eliminating cheap labor would send the jobs back to rich countries.
Oops—I forgot to add/rewrite & delete that last part of my last comment, and posted it by mistake. The corrected version of my entire comment should have been as follows:
ReplyDeleteEmily, I agree with a lot of what you are saying, especially in your last post from 12/11/09 at 12:49am. I watched that whole 33 minute movie—thanks for sharing that. I also like what you said in your first post, about the world being a corporatocracy:
“The world's central government is not at all based on politicians per se but those who make the money go around.”
Yes! That is so true!
But what Michael is saying is also true. The plain fact of the matter is, without even these extremely low-paying and poor working environment jobs the sweatshops provide, these workers’ lives would be much worse off—there would be much higher rates of disease, malnutrition, starvation and death. Children and babies, much less women and men, would die—at least, many more than otherwise. This is just a simple fact that we can’t ignore, however much the sordid conditions of these sweatshops offend our privileged Western sensibilities.
As for possible solutions, Emily is right, also, that workers’ rights need to be advocated for everywhere, so corporations can’t just go elsewhere when workers are given more rights. Governments of the industrialized nations should continue to do what they can to put pressure on the less developed nations to improve their citizens’ rights and workers’ conditions.
Although it would be nice if all the world’s countries enforced a living minimum wage, and ideally even a min. wage that afforded a few (what we would consider) basic luxuries, such as a home with indoor plumbing and maybe even access to a computer (things most Americans take for granted), this is alas not realistic-we simply do not have the right, much less in our power, to do so. Furthermore, we can’t even force our own country’s companies to pay workers in other countries what we consider a living wage, as those companies are only subject to the laws of the land of the countries that they reside in, and we can’t force that country to have what we consider a minimum wage should be. All we can do is advocate for that country to treat their people in a way which we consider decent and fair. We can do this through citizen action groups, charitable foundations, and political pressure. It may not be much, but at least it’s something.
I also agree with Michael’s comment 12/7/09 at 11:32:
“You have to remember sweatshops are their industrial revolution. The wages and living standards rise over time, and they will only happen if companies are allowed to pay low wages.”
These sweatshops give women jobs with much better pay than any other jobs available to them. This in turn gives women greater freedom and power. When women are thus enabled, they have few children, and the ones they do have, they are able to support much better. This in turn leads to the benefit of the entire society, as it breaks the cycle of poverty at its source.
I didn’t say I thought we should impose a minimum wage of any sort on all the world’s countries—just that it would be NICE. I said I thought workers’ rights should be advocated for; however, I conceded that it was just not possible, as it is not our right, much less within our power, to do so. This is a solution that, as Michael says, is “akin to wishing for a Deus Ex Machina.” Very true! But this doesn’t mean that we can’t enact some changes and improvements through citizen action groups which advocate for our government, as well as the rest of world’s, to enact and enforce, or at least encourage, greater workers’ rights, as well as basic human rights, for all the world’s people.
ReplyDeleteJenn, there's no need to post a lengthy "corrected version." Just say what you meant to say different.
ReplyDeleteI did not say advocating for the rights of workers would be like wishing for divine intervention. I was referring to Emily's desire for someone to come up a new solution to world poverty that isn't foreign aid, a domestic solution or sweatshop labor.
The idea of simply building a western-style factory in a poor nation is an obvious solution. Unfortunatly, that didn't work so well in 1977 with the Morogoro Shoe Factory in Tanzania. Scottish Economist John Kay said the culture needs to grow organically around the factory, like what happens with sweatshops, instead of thrusting one in.
http://books.google.com/books?id=0scDdmDwC6wC&pg=PA280&lpg=PA280&dq=Morogoro+shoe+factor+John+Kay&source=bl&ots=hnKXDyVC2P&sig=F2LoOwAzkHctp2sFuWbyZTWUR34&hl=en&ei=1d8jS6_-ENS6lAe3k_T4CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false
This is going to sound strange, coming from me, so prepare yourselves. I have come to the conclusion, after much pondering (largely induced by this article and discussion, I might add—thank you), that perhaps the best solution, at least at this point in time, is not only for the businesses of the world's developed countries to employ workers in undeveloped countries for their labor, but for them to do so as much as possible.
ReplyDeleteThe reason I believe this, however, is only because I believe doing so will eventually lead to, or at least help to achieve, the real solution: democracy.
Democracy is the only true solution to the problem in undeveloped countries of lack of workers’ rights, and to improving the condition/quality of life for all their citizens. Yes, sweatshop workers’ conditions are pretty bad to downright horrible. But having learned so much more about the reality of them lately, I have to say that they are actually not as bad as I feared, at least overall. Yes, workers have to handle scorching hot items, and breathe in noxious fumes at times, at least in some of the worst ones. But have you ever worked at Burger King? Working at a fast food joint is not much worse. I have stood over steaming hot fryolators, waiting to taking fries out of vats of boiling fat, scrubbed dishes for hours on end, and swept and mopped floors that had to be mopped every night, even if it wasn’t until four o’clock in the morning when I finally got done, feeling like a steamroller had just ridden over me, or at least wished it would. But at least I had a job. And for me, at the time, I felt it was a damn good one. I was very happy to be delivering pizza and making more than 10 bucks an hour, even if it meant doing all that grunt work in between runs and at the end of the night.
If businesses in developed countries were encouraged to employ workers in undeveloped countries to the maximum level, then those businesses would soon find themselves with major competition from each other. More citizens of those countries would have jobs, employees would get scarcer, and the worker pool would gradually get tighter. This would drive up workers’ wages, and lead to other improvements in job conditions. This in turn would lead to the lives of the people of those undeveloped countries to gradually, if not very rapidly, improve. It would also have as a side benefit of the continued empowerment of women, with the reduction in number of children born to them, resulting in the breaking of the cycle of poverty that this leads to.
Well it's good to see I've brought you over to my side.
ReplyDeleteThe expected criticism is for American industries to cry out that we're outsourcing jobs. This is just simple Luddite fears - that if we send jobs overseas there will be no jobs left for Americans. That's a pretty ignorant, although common, view. The money we save through outsourcing can then be spent to create jobs in America.
So after reading it all I agree with you Michael. While I don't agree with the treatment of the workers. I realize that what a person considers a good wage is different everywhere. Even in different parts of our own country. While 40 cents an hour would never help anyone in America. In third world countries, it can and does. These jobs help the employees feed their families. Isn't that what working is all about?
ReplyDelete