msommer
Footballguy
Sure. For how long? They'll wait out the outrage and keep on keeping on. That powerful feeling of deja vu you're having? We've actually been here before
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Defending Sweatshops - What Do You Think? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Joe Bryant
- Start date
Max Power
Footballguy
It's probably going to take another high dollar documentary (like a Michael Moore) to shed more light on the situation. It is one thing to read about it. People tend to be more outraged and vocal when they actually see the workers and conditions.
But unfortunately we have other people in this world who are more excited to buy Nike products now because of the whole Betsy Ross thing. Apparently the slavery that happened 200 years ago which we can't do anything about now is a bigger issue than modern day slavery we could actually affect.
msommer
Footballguy
IMHO it will take a seismic change in consumer behaviour to affect change here. Just as unlikely is a change in corporate behaviour as alluded to above by @Godsbrother.
IMHO, the shortest path to change i creating more jobs, making the workforce a scarce resource. Although by no means "mission accomplished" China, particularly the economic zones around Hong Kong, is an example of that change, where labor shortages (despite the migrant worker system) have meant real changes in living wages and as a byproduct a move up the technological ladder of production output.
ETA: Obviously this flies in the face of efforts to reshore jobs in the western world. Also, I am not proposing we should abandon efforts to shame corporations into better behaviour. Nor am I advocating we shouldn't work on a kinder form of capitalism, that takes into account the worker, society and the environment when maximizing, but those are not exactly low hanging fruit
Last edited by a moderator:
rockaction
Footballguy
This is almost an intractable problem. I've given it lots of thought, and it's akin to the problems that America faced with child labor back at the turn and into the 20th century. There are just too many options for companies to go where they can benefit from pauper labor and consumers lack a collective conscience in denying their dollar to the corporations and companies that benefit from this labor. It would be nice if companies not only did not do this but consumers acted collectively in order to have a positive net effect to cause a changing dynamic, a dynamic that supports livable wages and safe working conditions for those that produce our essentials. That's my hope for the future. That said, there is an argument that each country or nation that wishes to industrialize and have industrial standards of living must go through this transition period of economic colonialism and wage shock.
This is as old as the movement away from skilled guilds and apprenticeships and the movement of industrialized processes and unskilled labor into factories and oversight. An aside: Melville sent up factory processes in one of his more effective short stories.
Back to the topic: It -- sweatshops and our present mode and rate of consumption -- is a mess, but nobody needed me to tell them that.
What I can say is that I'm as guilty as the next person, and i wince whenever I read the labels on my clothing or when I see products made in China or another command economy. I can only hope that if there is a God that he or she is kind to me when I pass for my consumption habits, the rich man and the eye of the needle and heaven and all...
As far as individual corporations go, the older I get, the more liable I hold them both as moralist and as consumer. I try not to buy Nike or other brands where sweatshop conditions exist. I do not always succeed, but I have begun to try.
That's my two cents.
This is as old as the movement away from skilled guilds and apprenticeships and the movement of industrialized processes and unskilled labor into factories and oversight. An aside: Melville sent up factory processes in one of his more effective short stories.
Back to the topic: It -- sweatshops and our present mode and rate of consumption -- is a mess, but nobody needed me to tell them that.
What I can say is that I'm as guilty as the next person, and i wince whenever I read the labels on my clothing or when I see products made in China or another command economy. I can only hope that if there is a God that he or she is kind to me when I pass for my consumption habits, the rich man and the eye of the needle and heaven and all...
As far as individual corporations go, the older I get, the more liable I hold them both as moralist and as consumer. I try not to buy Nike or other brands where sweatshop conditions exist. I do not always succeed, but I have begun to try.
That's my two cents.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
We only care about the well being of poor people in other countries when they get here and have family members that vote.
Da Guru
Fair & Balanced
This is actually a situation where it should be pretty easy for the average American consumer to make a positive difference in the world.
If a pair of Nike shoes costs $50 currently but would cost $60 if all their factories provided wages and working conditions you’d like to see, you can either:
(a) lobby Nike to raise their prices by $10 and pass the extra revenue on to poor people in third-world countries (possibly to their own employees, although if we’re going strictly by need, they should give it to people not fortunate enough to get jobs in their factories); or
(b) buy the $50 shoes and take it upon yourself to send your $10 savings as a donation to GiveDirectly or something similar. (You don’t actually have to buy any shoes to do this.)
Between those two options, the second one seems more effective. There’s no reason you can’t do both, but doing only the first without doing the second seems like a feeble strategy. (More precisely, it seems like prioritizing signaling over genuine altruism.)
If a pair of Nike shoes costs $50 currently but would cost $60 if all their factories provided wages and working conditions you’d like to see, you can either:
(a) lobby Nike to raise their prices by $10 and pass the extra revenue on to poor people in third-world countries (possibly to their own employees, although if we’re going strictly by need, they should give it to people not fortunate enough to get jobs in their factories); or
(b) buy the $50 shoes and take it upon yourself to send your $10 savings as a donation to GiveDirectly or something similar. (You don’t actually have to buy any shoes to do this.)
Between those two options, the second one seems more effective. There’s no reason you can’t do both, but doing only the first without doing the second seems like a feeble strategy. (More precisely, it seems like prioritizing signaling over genuine altruism.)
Last edited by a moderator:
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
I don't know, this seems like the argument that low-tax advocates often make in debates: "if you think taxes should be higher, why don't you voluntarily pay extra taxes every year?"
Sure, a consumer sending a little bit of charity to help impoverished people is a net positive and I'm not trying to discourage it. But making a significant dent in this problem requires actions by big players like governments and large multi-national corporations. Anti-sweatshop advocates don't just want Nike to raise THEIR prices by $10 and pass that to poor workers, they want Nike to raise everybody's prices.
The main difference, I think, is that a single person volunteering to pay extra to the U.S. Treasury isn’t going to accomplish anything. It’s not going to fund a worthwhile program. It’s not going to cause changes to the next budget that passes. To fund a new government program, or to expand one, or to maintain one that would otherwise shrink or cease, we need systematic changes to the budget, which requires systematic changes to the tax code. A single person can’t donate anything that would make a difference.
Charity isn’t like that. A mere $25 sent to GiveDirectly can do real, significant good in a person’s life. Coordinated action (beyond the infrastructure that GiveDirectly already provides) is not needed. There’s no big threshold that has to be reached before positive change is tangible.
Last edited by a moderator:
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Sure, I'm not telling anyone to withhold charity to people in developing countries. I'm just saying that $25 is nothing compared to the resources that Nike or the U.S. government has at their disposal. If forced to choose only one option, putting pressure on large institutions to make changes might ultimately make a much larger impact for these communities than sending $25.
I am rather skeptical that a non-celebrity can exert influence on an international corporation that is worth anywhere near $25 in expected outcome (at least using tactics that don’t cost far more than $25).
msommer
Footballguy
What change will it effect in the recipient market, e.g. will the recipients of "your" charity want to continue to receive handouts forever or ?
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
A company with revenue of 9.8 billion dollars last year can't pay more than $2/hour. But $2 is better than nothing so we should applaud them.
rockaction
Footballguy
The thing about the cost of Nike shoes is that I don't think that it's the labor costs keeping the cost of the shoes down, it's the trademark branding and goodwill that consumers are paying for that keeps the price where it is. Look at Lacoste back in the late eighties when it ceased to be "cool" anymore. Then look at it in the aughts, once the "cool" kids had started wearing it ironically and driving the demand up again. It's all about the label for the most part with clothing, and though differences in quality between brands surely exists, that difference is not drastic enough where they make up for a flat input cost increase in the production of the good.
timschochet
Footballguy
Not only that- what would those workers do with that money? The creation of consumers is what makes a society prosperous. By paying those workers more you’re actually creating wealth,
Encumbrance
Footballguy
Corporations and paramilitaries are now the ones that play the role of our neo-colonials. Got it.
Da Guru
Fair & Balanced
What would be considered a decent wage in those countries? If they are making one dollar an hour would 2 dollars an hour be a good wage? Nike can certainly afford that.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
An interesting discussion.
msommer
Footballguy
Honestly I think it is less wage related than working conditions. If the sweatshops cease being sweatshops (thus having decent working condidtion and other terms) and people are earning a wage they can live on, what's not to like? Also, given there are a lot of countries with differing prices your question is very hard to answer.
The big question is - would the consumer accept paying more for a product that is ethically produced? Historically that has been answered "not in sufficient quantities to make an impact". Perhaps things are changing
adonis
Footballguy
I think we have a hard time accepting truths that include or hint at injustice.
Sometimes local injustices lead to broader justice. Sometimes injustice is just injustice. Sometimes injustice is the only possible outcome.
I think the more we care about justice, the harder it is for us to accept that a world with so many moving variables may require injustice on its path to a more just future.
Sometimes local injustices lead to broader justice. Sometimes injustice is just injustice. Sometimes injustice is the only possible outcome.
I think the more we care about justice, the harder it is for us to accept that a world with so many moving variables may require injustice on its path to a more just future.
