Here’s a short clip of Cato’s Sallie James debating – on Stossel – Columbia University professor Marc Lamont Hill. Sallie does a superb job addressing arguments that are largely incoherent.
It’s interesting to note that, according to the logic of Prof. Hill’s argument, Nike and other multinational corporations “exploit” workers in developing countries if these corporations give these workers employment options that are more attractive than these workers would otherwise have but nevertheless not as attractive as Prof. Hill feels they should be. So, by implication, corporations that never enter developing countries – and, hence, never expand and improve, even in the slightest, the employment options of poor-country workers – are not guilty of “exploitation.”
Let’s assume that Prof. Hill personally purchases each year woven baskets, wall-hangings, and other products made by poor people in sub-Saharan Africa. If so, I’m certain that he could afford to pay a bit more than he actually pays for these items. Does he, in this not-so-unrealistic hypothetical, “exploit” poor workers in developing countries?