New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof is consistently excellent on the topic of sweatshops in poor countries. Here's the ending of yesterday's column:
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.
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.”
Share
{ 46 comments }
So the NY Times has decent OP-Eds after all.
While I don't disagree with Kristof's assessment, I do feel it's necessary to point out that picking through garbage or working in a sweatshop should really not be a child's only two choices.
I know all the arguments about sweat shops, rising tides, blah blah blah. Doesn't make the situation any less depressing.
Depressing or not if you're poor work is a great way to not be so poor.
One of the best articles about this issue is from Paul Krugman, in 1997 (maybe a little gem): http://www.slate.com/id/1918.
You missed this gem:
"Yet sweatshops are only a symptom of poverty, not a cause, and banning them closes off one route out of poverty."
Depressing or not if you're poor work is a great way to not be so poor.
I don't question that one bit, and that's not what's depressing. Quite frankly, in a competition between a garbage dump and sweatshop as choice for a 13 year-old (amongst other, less seemly choices, even), the sweatshop is the best way to climb out of poverty. No question.
What's depressing is the ability for a sweatshop to somehow exonerate us of any responsibility for our fellow human beings. Much like many suburban households somehow think that the magical act of recycling somehow makes them environmentally responsible.
Employment in sweatshops can be an important step in breaking the poverty cycle. I would hate to imagine, however, that we would then have the permission to slap our hands together after the construction of a sweatshop and say "well, at least we've solved poverty in this region" and never give it a second thought.
Because, quite frankly, if sweatshops were the solution to poverty we'd have a very long list of "Nike" success stories. I haven't seen that list.
Countries with the highest living stantdards don't have sweatshops or use sweated labor. One conclusion that may be reached is that the high standards of living in these rich countries are due, in part, to the exploitation of poor countries and their poor, uneducated populace. Does that strike you as an ethical way to get rich, if that's your goal?
Noob Goldberg: "the ability for a sweatshop to somehow exonerate us of any responsibility for our fellow human beings."
Please explain what responsibility I have for my fellow human beings. I agree that I should not kill them , beat them, or eat them. But why would someone else's child on the other side of the globe be my responsibility?
It turns out that I can best help that child and millions of others is not by taking responsibility for him and them. Rather it is by pursuing my own self-interest – by seeking out through my retailer the best value in goods – that I have the best chance if helping some child out of poverty. Sending money to the child won't do it. Lowering my productivity by quitting my American job and rushing overseaes to build him a house won't do it. Giving money to his government won't do it.
The way to help impoverished people all over the world is by doing business with those people who would hire them or hire their reatives. Sweatshops do not exonerate me of a dmned thing – because there was nothing from which to be exonerated. But sweatshops do accomplish what foolish leftists would seek to accomplish through "charitable" means.
TrUmPiT,
"One conclusion that may be reached"?
There are more false conclusions that may be reached with a limited set of evidence than true. With scant enough evidence, I can reach the conclusion that you are a clever, well-informed, and wise.
Taiwan and Hong Kong are just two examples of places that were once giant sweat shops. I'm not sure about the numbers on Taiwan, but if trends continue, Hong Kong will pass the US in GDP per cap. probably in the next 10-15 years. Not bad for a place that use to produce our plastic toys.
Noob Goldberg,
"What's depressing is the ability for a sweatshop to somehow exonerate us of any responsibility for our fellow human beings."
Hate to be the one to break it to you, but there is no such responsibility. The idea is a combination of religious myth and political propaganda. Am I my brother's keeper? Perhaps… if he asks, but even then it depends on circumstances. And the idea that I am the keeper of every human being on the planet, while I'm sure that many find it appealing in a prayerful, musical, emotional kind of way, is clearly absurd.
I do feel it's necessary to point out that picking through garbage or working in a sweatshop should really not be a child's only two choices.
The way to a wealthy populace is to build a healthy economy. This is something that can only be done by those that participate, we cannot do it for them.
After they build a healthy economy, there will be better choices.
The usual impediment to a healthy economy is a cabal of thieves often called government.
One conclusion that may be reached is that the high standards of living in these rich countries are due, in part, to the exploitation of poor countries and their poor, uneducated populace.
It is the attack on profit making that has condemned so many to a life of poverty.
Useful Idiot #2:
"Does that strike you as an ethical way to get rich, if that's your goal?"
Hmm. When our poor people shop at WalMart to get more clothing value manufactured by even poorer people in other countries, are you saying their living standard is higher than they deserve, or that it's unethical for them to live that well? Or are you saying it would be ethical as long as someone at WalMart wasn't making money in the process? Do you even know what your point really is???
Do you believe the children described are better off in garbage dumps? Exactly how do you propose to lift them out of poverty — through liberalism??? LOL!
What's ethical about using the poor as a cover for one's envious desire to tyrannize others?
We have modern "sweatshops" in the United States. Places like slaughterhouses have horrific working conditions and mainly employ illegal aliens and other minorities. However, you can't just hand a 6-figure salary to anyone. They have to earn it.
cpurick – the liberals would say that we have to send more of American wealth over to 3rd world countries to improve their working conditions or give them cushy desk jobs.
180 years ago, the US was full of sweatshops.
"Please explain what responsibility I have for my fellow human beings. I agree that I should not kill them , beat them, or eat them. But why would someone else's child on the other side of the globe be my responsibility?"
So what rule of thumb does one use when faced with a choice between furthering oneself at the expense of others, vs respecting others while decreasing your own well-being? I can recognize that injuring my fellow man by driving down the sidewalk in order to avoid a traffic jam is a very selfish act; what about other, more greyish areas?
I recognize that it is much easier to divorce oneself from all altruistic thought and operate on a purely selfish basis; however, a world without such moral quandries is a bit bland, in my opinion.
"The way to a wealthy populace is to build a healthy economy. This is something that can only be done by those that participate, we cannot do it for them."
Bah, this is nothing but a rhetorical way to extract oneself from a difficult problem. For those countries with low education levels who don't have the experience to understand such a system, are they doomed to live in poverty for eternity? Populist governments rein in areas where education levels are lower, no? Politically, how does one move from a socialistic populist government to a "healty economy"?
"Hmm. When our poor people shop at WalMart to get more clothing value manufactured by even poorer…"
Since when do "our poor people" belong to you, and since when do you care a whit about them? One conclusion that MAY be reached is that you shop at Wal-mart and buy stuff made by sweated labor. I can understand why you don't want your supply of cheap goods cut off: you are "our poor" of whom you speak. Maybe if you spent less of your (or is it "our"?) hard-earned dough on cheap Cambodian goods, you'd be able to save a litte money to start your own Cambodian sweatshop and become a rich Asian tycoon. But, no, you can only think about buying a pair a cheap sneakers at Wal-mart. My advice to you is to think big, not in the small, smelly-tennis-shoe way that you are accustomed too.
180 years ago, the US was full of sweatshops.
180 years ago you had to take a boat for international travel, communication took days, not an instant, and there actually was *real* slavery in the USA.
I hope not every poor country has to follow the same path as the USA.
LOL @ your projection.
Your first comment suggests you never read the article, and your rebuttal to my comment suggest you never read that, either.
Exactly whose artificially high standard of living do you hope to address by ending sweatshops — WalMart's owners, or its employees, customers and "exploited" foreign manufacturers?
I think you should do it — put an end to sweatshops. I can afford designer clothes, and I already know who to vote for. God knows you Democrat voters can always use the economics lesson.
Bah, this is nothing but a rhetorical way to extract oneself from a difficult problem.
So you assert, but you also managed to avoid addressing the point thus relieving yourself of the necessity of thinking about it and the implication for your own vague proposal that "we" should "take responsibility" for people in far away lands.
What, exactly, do you propose?
For those countries with low education levels who don't have the experience to understand such a system, are they doomed to live in poverty for eternity?
I think not, unless efforts to help them continue to ignore reality.
noob goldberg: "I recognize that it is much easier to divorce oneself from all altruistic thought and operate on a purely selfish basis;"
You do-gooders just amaze me. You have not a clue about how little good you do, and not a clue about how much you harm the welfare of the very folks you would hope to save.
Yes, noob, I choose to act selfishly – and try to obtain the most value for the least money – because I know that's the only way the world can become efficient in allocation of resources. It is only through efficient allocation of resources that the welfare of humans can truly be raised.
noob goldberg: "how does one move from a socialistic populist government to a "healty economy"?"
Oh, just wake up, dude! What do you think has been happening in China? What do you think has been happening in Eastern Europe the past two decades? Globalization works. Free markets work. Comparative advantage works. That is, as long as we can keep the do-gooders and market interventionists from screwing up the works, the poor people of the world will be fine.
Noob Goldberg,
"…this is nothing but a rhetorical way to extract oneself from a difficult problem."
Its not my problem. You can make it yours if you wish. And I no more buy the guilt trip scam than I would pay for an indulgence.
The question for me isn't what underlies poverty but what underlies horrible living. I've visited 37 countries and I have seen all sorts of people who live on a dollar a day. Some of them are in a miserable state scrounging through dumps every day (Manila, Mexico City), and their every waking minute is filth. Others, with the same income, might live on a boat (Mekong River) or in a hut, but keep their world clean, orderly and often well-decorated and they are far happier.
The common thread that I've seen is that where poverty meets the middle class and the wealthy (cities mostly), the poor live horribly.
I'll leave others to decide why that is, and I'm not advocating anything here…just making an observation.
michael623: "The common thread that I've seen is that where poverty meets the middle class and the wealthy (cities mostly),"
If you observe people scrounging through dumps in cities, but not in rural areas, why do you assume that has anything at all to do with the middle class and the wealthy? Is it possible that only cities have the critical mass necessary to provide homeless shelters? and law enforcement protection from predators?
But let's assume you are correct. Let's assume there is a valid cause and effect relationship between the locations of the middle class/wealthy and the locations of bums. Is it possible that people who are incapable of taking care of their basic needs find more edible wastes in the vicinty of the middle class and the wealthy? or that such edible wastes are more concentrated in cities where the homes are more concentrated?
michael623: "and they are far happier"
How do you measure the happiness of the many thousands or perhaps millions of people you have seen in the 37 countries you have visited? Did you count the number of smiles you observed?
Since when do "our poor people" belong to you, and since when do you care a whit about them?
Wow did you ever just back yourself into a corner: next time you go to employ that BS paternalistic jive, we'll be all over you. BTW, I think that, in context, you blew all that out of proportion. Now it's going to be an avenue that you'll not try to go down unless you want it thrown back in your face.
Pretty tough tactic to try so as to avoid answering a question ot two. It'll cost you. Of course, though, you are of the caring sort so you must be used to getting the free-pass for good intentions even though those intetions result in failure whenever/wherever tried.
One conclusion that MAY be reached is that you shop at Wal-mart and buy stuff made by sweated labor.
Yeah, that really answered a question.
I can understand why you don't want your supply of cheap goods cut off: you are "our poor" of whom you speak.
I can see why you'd prefer to see them cut off: you'd rather limit choices and economic freedoms of everybody involved in the supply chain. Probably would rather the laborers in these 'sweatshops' to go to the next best alternative, prostitution. Certainly you're not opposed to an expansive government that crowds out the private sector and nationalizises entire industries so that supply chains are completely managed by government to produce 'fair' outcomes.
Maybe if you spent less of your (or is it "our"?) hard-earned dough on cheap Cambodian goods, you'd be able to save a litte money to start your own Cambodian sweatshop and become a rich Asian tycoon.
Private ownership of anything? Certainly can't have that with 'our' money, now, can we? Besides, hard-earned dough needs to be redistributed so as to level playing fields…to each according to his needs, right?
But, no, you can only think about buying a pair a cheap sneakers at Wal-mart.
Oh the horrors. It would be much better to have them government issued while standing in a line outside a warehouse where workers have been hand-selected from an early age to be trained in the fine art of manufacturing after primary school.
My advice to you is to think big, not in the small, smelly-tennis-shoe way that you are accustomed too.
Yes, let's think big. Nationalize and centrally plan these things since individual choice produces undesirable results.
John Dewey:You do-gooders just amaze me. You have not a clue about how little good you do, and not a clue about how much you harm the welfare of the very folks you would hope to save.
I was not, I repeat–not–making a policy recommendation with that comment. I know that a market-oriented economic solution has the greatest probability of success in addressing the problem of poverty; certianly forced government solutions have the greatest probability of failure. While you may think it pointless, some of us actually do wistfully hope–like the dreamers we are–that some progress will be made toward this problem within our lifetime. Don't crush my dreams, man, even if I know the process can't really be sped up.
Oh, just wake up, dude! What do you think has been happening in China? What do you think has been happening in Eastern Europe the past two decades? Globalization works. Free markets work. Comparative advantage works.
Did you just put forward China as some sort of example of free trade and effective globalization? Really? China has entered the trade arena on their own terms. Do you really think that you could enter into China, start up a company with the sole purpose of competing with a chinese steel firm, for example, and export all of the profits back to whichever country you started from? Do you think you can import some sort of agricultural commodity into China, like pork, that directly competes with Chinese farms? What kind of bureaucratic barriers do you think you'd face?
There are despots all over the world who can only dream of having the carrot of one billion "consumers" by which they could coerce any western country into giving them virtually total market access while requiring next to nothing in return. All the while, maintaining state control over virtually anything of value. China is a terrible example, and you should probably stop using it. Eastern Europe is probably a better example, but it really is too early to tell at this point. A lot of it could easily be attributed to either resource wealth or the immediate effects of EU integration. Both of those advantages are probably going to be tested over the next couple of years during this global slump.
That is, as long as we can keep the do-gooders and market interventionists from screwing up the works, the poor people of the world will be fine.
…and as long as greed can be kept in check and there is access to perfect information, communism is a viable economic policy. I'm sorry, I live in the world of the real, not some fantasy make-believe place.
Free market systems *are* the most effective method of enhancing overall wealth; of that there is no question. Trade *is not* a zero-sum game…it really does work. You're preaching to the choir here. But blindly pushing over-arching economic policy irrespective of the political climate is a recipe for disaster. I've seen a few decent economic policies become absolutely neutered during the political process; to wish away that type of intervention is lunacy. Instead, it must be recognized and built into the policy suggestion put in front of politicians and voters. Otherwise we end up with what we have now: a set of half-assed policies that were implemented up until the point in which they caused someone a bit of pain, and then stopped. Most of these half-implemented policies are worse than if nothing had been done at all. If you know of a way to get a voter to accept a policy that is going to negatively affect them, please let me know. It would make my life much easier. Because, let me tell you, informing said voters that this will benefit them "at some possible point in the future in some vague and undefinable, but most likely good way" really doesn't get very far, and usually gets a person voted out.
Randy:Its not my problem. You can make it yours if you wish. And I no more buy the guilt trip scam than I would pay for an indulgence.
You misunderstood me: this was not a policy recommendation, it was a personal choice. You are free to do as you please, I wouldn't dream of interfering with that. Government's involvement in foreign aid usually results in exacerbating the problem; in any event, forced altruism defeats the purpose of charity to begin with. Even if you see it as foolish, I can personally retain the right to add additional qualities to my list of requirements on the purchase of any good or service; I won't necessarily choose a product with the lowest price if I require other attributes in my decision. That's the whole purpose of product differentiation! I agree, guilt on its own is a useless emotion. But altruism can be exceptionally powerful if harnessed, both for the purposes of good and evil. Bill Gates personal war on Malaria may end up being the former; donating used clothes is almost assuredly an example of the latter.
A more likely reason you don't see sweatshops in the West can probably be more attributed to labour laws and minimum wage laws. If there were no inhibitions to the labour market then sweatshops would exist and there'd be zilch unemployment in the West.
Still does it matter where our sneakers come from? Whethet it's made by slave labour or poor free labour if the cost price is the same? Most people don't 'buy responsibly' and choose the products of cosy well-paid manufacturing labour.
Hey I'll agree to ending sweatshops in India if the liberals will agree to end government unions here in America where we don't have sweatshops.
Noob Goldberg,
"…this was not a policy recommendation, it was a personal choice."
Then I am impressed. I so seldom encounter those who are willing to rely on the strength of their arguments, but rather those who turn immediately to the use of state force to achieve their objectives, that I simply assumed you were one of the latter.
So, my opinion of sweatshops, having worked in a slaughterhouse, is that they suck. I worked there because at that time I didn't have better options. Nor did my time there produce any better options – it just kept me alive – and provided a bit more pocket money than most of the other options. I am also aware, having just read Marx, that there is a potential problem with a combination of sweatshops and a political system that promotes forced labor. People being forced to work in sweatshops is a much different problem than the existence of sweatshops. But, I also have little doubt that a political system that forces me to buy from local sweatshops will eventually force me to work in one of its own sweatshops. So, what's the answer? My answer is to oppose the political class at every turn, to hinder its ability to exploit, and to encourage others to do so as well.
noob goldberg: "Did you just put forward China as some sort of example of free trade and effective globalization?"
I simply implied that globalization and free trade – more free trade than pre-1990, if you insist – has improved the welfare of poor people in China.
The standard of living in China has greatly increased the past 20 years as they increased their trade with capitalist nations. Of that there should be no doubt. Especially important has been the foreign direct investment in China. But China's standard of living has not increased as fast as it could. They still need to end some harmful protectionist policies – particuarly the manipulation of their exchange rates.
John Dewey – I don't think the Chinese literally choking on black smog will agree with you that their standard of living is better then in 1989.
John Dewey: The standard of living in China has greatly increased the past 20 years as they increased their trade with capitalist nations. Of that there should be no doubt. Especially important has been the foreign direct investment in China. But China's standard of living has not increased as fast as it could. They still need to end some harmful protectionist policies – particuarly the manipulation of their exchange rates.
Of this there is no question; of those I know who live in China, or have family still living in China, none would trade 2009 for 1989. All feel that their lot in live is dramatically improved over the past 20 or 30 years, even with pollution and other problems currently existing. There are few who would argue otherwise.
I recognize the value trade has provided China; I was just noting that the path they've taken to get there is very much different than the path being prescribed (or which used to be prescribed) by institutions like the World Bank and WTO. China's only been a member of WTO for a few years, but they've been the recipient of the benefits of globalization for considerably longer. As far as I'm concerned, China is an outlier in the way they were able to dictate terms of trade to the rest of the world, and therefore not a useful example for other poverty-stricken countries to follow. Mezzanine is wrong, the Chinese gladly accept the current pollution problems in exchange for the benefits they've received over the past few years.
Randy: Then I am impressed. I so seldom encounter those who are willing to rely on the strength of their arguments, but rather those who turn immediately to the use of state force to achieve their objectives, that I simply assumed you were one of the latter.
I appreciate your comments; just like I though garbage dump should not be the opposite of sweatshop, so government intervention should not be the opposite of third-world poverty. Perhaps it's best to interpret my comments as bemoaning a lack of creativity at addressing the problem. I like approaches such as kiva.org, although I can see the difficulty they would have in scaling such initiatives.
There seems to be an initiation problem: people existing in poverty do not have the resources to pay a risk premium I would demand to compensate me for operating in a risky environment such as the Sudan, or Somalia. Of course establishing property rights, with the requisite legal framework necessary for enforcing those rights, would go a long way in enhancing that capability. But without some sort of effective political roadmap, such prescriptions are just pie-in-the-sky dreaming, in my opinion. How does one reduce the dampening effect of power-hungry warlords and return that power to its citizens? I know that implementing such a policy half-way is probably a design for disaster. I thoroughly enjoyed Peter Griffith's "The Economist's Tale", a story set in Sierra Leone in the 80's. A sage reminder that economists, even when they are prescribing a policy that is in a country's best interest, are capable of inflicting great harm as they muddle through implementation.
As an aside, I've spent my share of time around slaughterhouses as well; but not in a killing or dressing capacity. There certainly are still western examples of sweatshops!
Quote from noob goldberg: " But altruism can be exceptionally powerful if harnessed, both for the purposes of good and evil."
Altruism is a dead end. What happens after you've given away all of your wealth and you are equally poor with all those you've tried to help? Will that be your utopia? Or will your plan only work when you've "harnessed" the whole world into your altruistic crusade? Then who gets to decide if it was good or evil?
Why would I give away all of my wealth so that I'm equally poor with everyone I treat altruistically?
Altruism is doing someone a favor without expecting a commensurate favor in return, not taking a vow of poverty. You haven't argued against altruism here. You've only constructed a false choice.
The whole world is already harnessed into an altruistic crusade, requiring that we respect countless forcible proprieties regardless of any benefit to ourselves.
Even so-called altruistic behavior springs from some self-interest.
Helping each other is mutually beneficial and improves the social environment in which we live. I do enjoy the benefits.
Nobody's saying that sweatshops are a good thing (heck, sometimes they're down-right rotten), or that they are the be-all and end-all of economic progress in the developing world. We're just asking people to stop billowing and blustering about the evil sweatshops, the evil Wal*Mart, and the evil people who buy the evil things at the evil Wal*Mart made in the evil sweatshops for a few seconds to consider some things.
1)Historical Perspective: As little as a hundred years ago, working conditions here in the States were probably worse then they are today in Asia and South America. Change comes gradually because that's the only way truly lasting change can come about.
2)Freedom: All the high-minded platitudes about helping the "poor exploited workers" in Bangladesh can not disguise the basic truth of what many are asking, which is to have the government bring down the hammer of law on peoples personal choices simply because their neighbors don't approve. That a person would support such a position and have the gall to continue calling them selves a liberal, quite frankly, makes my teeth itch.
3)Really Helping People: It's natural and good to want to help those who are struggling, but it's important to ask one's self "Am I really helping anyone, or just trying to assuage my misplaced guilt?" How exactly is bitching about companies "exploiting" some unfortunate circumstances really change them. That sweatshops are the best choice for people with so few of them is not Wal*Mart's (or America's) fault. Poor countries aren't poor because wealthy countries "took something from them", and they won't become better off if we "stop taking from them".
Well Mezzanine, I'm a liberal, and if I ever heard someone say something even close to that, I would administer a well deserved verbal beat-down. So there.
Audrey – kudos to you if you actually mean that. I come from an immigrant family, just happen to know be upper middle class and I don't think I have any moral obligations to 3rd worlders for ANYTHING.
Aw come on Mezza. Doesn't it at least make you wonder why some countries continue to languish whilst don't? The easy answer is – guvmint, however a lot countries also have similar government interventions and don't languish. Maybe people have to think that which is unthinkable to Liberals – some cultural and religous mindsets are primitive and barbaric. Maybe the Western Expansion in which Western Imperialists forbade ancient barbaric traditions to the point where natives forgot them and started to practice civilised ways was ultimately beneficial.
Gil – I honestly don't care about the 3rd world hellholes. They can languish forever as far as I care. I just want them and big govt libruls here to leave me the hell alone.
I don't know Mezzanine, we might be missing something in our attitudes.
If we ship lots of food and aid to third world countries and get them lazy and fat, when the aliens come they will eat the third worlders first, which will give us time to organize our own defenses.
Just saying ya know, a nice plump buffer between us and the bug eyed monsters would be nice.