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.Not that I'm a fan of sweat shops, but any trade agreements in the west need to be careful not to stunt the growth of the manufacturing sector of the east. It takes time for economies to grow, and we can't expect the people of China to enjoy the living standards of the west over night simply because we say they should. Sweatshops existed in the west once, too, and they built a lot of the wealth and capital we've been enjoying for the past century.
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.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Apparently Perspective Matters
Nicholas Kristof, of the leftist New York Times, has written a piece on sweatshops in developing countries and the lift out of poverty they provide their people. From the article:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
The "leftist New York Times"! LOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.
That's rich.
How are the workers going to gain the same wealth when they are not allowed to unionize? Western corporations threaten to pull out of China when talks of unionation occur. Moreover, how many domestic corporations do think can develop with Western multi-nationals producing in the country? The Japanese and Korean economies are strong economies SPECIFICALLY because they protected their industry from Western competition within Korea.
You don't argue that the manufacturing jobs have improved the quality of life, but then you are quick to assume that they will not help their quality of life improve any further. As if they've his some obscure ceiling that only unionization can break through.
It's called the ceiling of profits. Higher wages mean less profits. It's just that simply/. Western capitalists were and are viciously opposed to unionization, because they knew/know the latter gives the people the power to drive up their wages, which would otherwise - without political action - be a little bit more than than the minimum needed to reproduce the worker, like in 1929.
This completely ignores the affects of competition, supply and demand in the labour market.
"This completely ignores the affects of competition, supply and demand in the labour market."
There can only be so many employees who are better. That's the way the ladder works. Most people have to be on the bottom, or competition is equality.
Please, Josh, don't make your silly arguments to me. They don't work. In a large labor pool, the effects of competition and competency will be minimal. In short, there will be 10 on top, the professional class in between, and a thin layer of "the best" workers under them. The results of the current higher education drive prove this.
"The results of the current higher education drive prove this."
Unfortunately, all results today exist within a society whose currency is controlled by a central bank.
"In short, there will be 10 on top, the professional class in between, and a thin layer of "the best" workers under them."
I do not believe this is inevitable in a free society.
"Unfortunately, all results today exist within a society whose currency is controlled by a central bank."
Yes, but even before the recession there was clear evidence that there is a limit to the upward push on wages due to education.
"I do not believe this is inevitable in a free society."
Well, as someone who doesn't counter-argue points made by his opponent, I'm not surprised that you have been forced to make argumentless response.
"Yes, but even before the recession there was clear evidence that there is a limit to the upward push on wages due to education."
Did the central bank come around just as the depression began? Am I missing something?
"Well, as someone who doesn't counter-argue points made by his opponent, I'm not surprised that you have been forced to make argumentless response."
I don't always have the knowledge to fully support an argument I stand by. This does not simply mean I will agree with another argument simply because you say so. It means I have more reading to do. I have no reason to think this is an inevitable outcome. I'm simply disagreeing, if you would like to back it up and help me understand feel free.
"Did the central bank come around just as the depression began? Am I missing something?"
Are you suggesting that the 1990s were not a stable period?
"I don't always have the knowledge to fully support an argument I stand by. This does not simply mean I will agree with another argument simply because you say so."
You have no argument. You have an assertion. There's a difference.
"It means I have more reading to do. I have no reason to think this is an inevitable outcome. I'm simply disagreeing, if you would like to back it up and help me understand feel free."
It's pretty simple. If we ignore monetary-inflation, the average price of educated labor does not increase the overall wage once the demand for educated labor has been exhausted.
"Are you suggesting that the 1990s were not a stable period?"
I might suggest 10 years isn't long enough to determine the success of a philosophy.
"I might suggest 10 years isn't long enough to determine the success of a philosophy."
I think it is pretty clear that there are average incomes for the different trades and professions over the long-term. Are you denying this?
"I think it is pretty clear that there are average incomes for the different trades and professions over the long-term. Are you denying this?"
No, my point is that you cannot take any economic evidence since 1913 and use it to validate or invalidate free-market capitalism because it hasn't been there. The short periods of time it has existed it has only ever brought growth to the average person's purchasing power.
"No, my point is that you cannot take any economic evidence since 1913 and use it to validate or invalidate free-market capitalism because it hasn't been there. The short periods of time it has existed it has only ever brought growth to the average person's purchasing power."
Actually, by your argument, you can't point to any evidence since anytime, because there has always been a central bank, right? Since this is true, I can only point out that there are average incomes.
There have been times in the history of the US that the dollar was not controlled by a central bank.
"There have been times in the history of the US that the dollar was not controlled by a central bank."
WHEN? I hope you are not going to erroneously argue that early America was industrial or even dominantly capitalist. That's why Hamilton was hated. His Federalism represented the government of the burgeoning industrialism as opposed to their small-land-owner-work-hard-be-equal utopia.
I'm gonna hold off on this argument until I've been better able to study history.
Post a Comment