The Sweatshop Thread

[Pasi Nurminen]

A poll is coming.

The question is rather simple, but the dilemma great. Do you, as a consumer whore in a modern capitalist society, a 'civilization' obsessed with buying useless and utterly unneeded junk by the truckload, choose to support your favourite trendy companies who participate in sweatshops, often employing children who must lie about their age in order to obtain work? Do you use the rationale when buying your $250 sneakers that you're paying to put some food on some Vietnamese ex-prostitute's table every night? Do you fancy the thought that by buying a $100 shirt that you're helping to develop a nation where there is no economy, and people exist on whatever means they can manage to get?

Or do you refuse to participate in such immoral activities as much as possible, realizing that it is immoral for our corporations to employ children and parents while paying them $45 a month, less than you or I make in a few hours? Do you understand that regardless of whether or not better work is available in such countries, it is immoral to force children into such work, when the government there is such a failure it does not even provide education of any kind? Maybe you liken the situation to that of the Americans in the mid-1800s, when the Southern states argued that abolition of slavery would ruin their economy? Some things must be done not because they will earn someone some money, but because they are the moral thing to do, and abolition of sweatshops and child labour IS one of those things.

I feel I have made my position clear.

Moderator Action: Warned for trolling. Eyrei.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[newfangle]

I support all those things you mentioned and then some! Why? Because I know it will annoy lots of people.

In fact, I am thinking of opening up some sort of shop of sweat myself. Imagine the profits! 5 cents an hour labour! I'd be stupid not to be eating a chunk of that pie.

To summerize:



Moderator Action: Warned for trolling. Eyrei.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Mise]

Luiz and I have already come up with a solution satisfactory to both the kapitalizt exploiters of the proletariat and the bleeding heart Rik-off-the-young-ones-wannabe anarkyste liberals -- give tax breaks to corporations who ensure their third world workers' welfare*.

Now all we need to do is sell it to our governments. Well, mine more than his.

* This is a deliberately vague term which basically means that the big mean multinationals will make their workers lives better, to the extent that their conditions are statisfactory enough so that our hearts stop bleeding for them.

 

[MajII]

I have a stance but it does not correspond with any of the options on this fixed poll.

I'd have to live naked in the woods to claim righteously that I am obeying my moral duty by not procuring goods linked in some way to the exploitation of labour or the waging of wars.

 

[stormbind]

Those kinds of sweatshops are illegal in the UK. Such places are immoral.

I would imagine that most international organisations (EU, Commonwealth, etc.) try to eliminate such establishments.

However, $45 per month in some places (i.e. Sudan) is probably a decent living. It's the working conditions that I disaprove of the most. I would like to think people take employment to pay for better lives, but the reality is that many are effectively forced into misserable slave labour

 

[eyrei]

Moderator Action: Though I'm tempted to close it, let's give this thread a chance. The topic of the effect of 'rich' capitalist societies on less sophisticated economies might actually be interesting if people can discuss without trying to be smartasses. Let's also keep in mind that I'm likely going to ban the person whose fault it is I have to close the thread. Eyrei.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Japher]

It does suk that capitalist pig dogs will use such labor in order to curb costs. Yet, that is capitalism. I don agree that if it weren't for the compaines involvement there would be nothing for that person; no job, no food, no suffering.

I'm for using foreign labor, but I think that there should be laws in the US that if a product is to be made in a foreign country and sold in the US the work area must meet certain conditions set by OSHA. They need not be strict, at first, but getting such an agree, raising the standards, will most likely raise the standards of the companies hiring such people with causing an immediate hit to the wallet. The FDA did it, and I think should go further into manufacturing, but should not be so drastic as to make that company pull out of whatever country they are in.

Moderator Action: Warned for flaming. Eyrei.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[ainwood]

Well, I put the 'blame' firmly at the feet of the governments of the 'exploited' countries for having labour laws which allow these types of situations to arise. If I were a nike or a reebok, I would want some assurances that the factories operated within international child exploitation laws and within the local laws of the country - it is actually good business for them (PR-wise) to do so.

I have no problem at all with companies going to other countries for their manufacturing if the labour is cheap. You will always see the statistics reported that "they ony get $0.50 / hour" or similar, but what you almost never see is what the cost of living in those countries is.

 

[Fetus4188]

The labor and wages that the corporations provide the otherwise jobless regions of the world is valuable, what needs to be done is the world puting pressure on raising the quality of the work environment they provided for their employees.

 

[zeon252]

The labor and wages that the corporations provide the otherwise jobless regions of the world is valuable, what needs to be done is the world puting pressure on raising the quality of the work environment they provided for their employees.

I agree, but it also depends on the living conditions in the area. If you gave people in a poor South East Asian country what the average white collar US worker makes now in USD than after a year that person would never have to work again. I do disagree with the explotation of some workers and children but there is some progress from these corporations who create jobs.

 

[Double Barrel]

This is free trade!

Nobody ever said it would be fair!

One of the chief concerns I've always expressed about the global movement of labor under existing "free" trade laws is the exploitation of labor and the environment. I've supported the concept of "free" trade, but only when the playing field is leveled by FAIR trade.

 

[De Lorimier]

Like on most occasions, I fully agree with DB!
No free trade without fair trade. Inequalities and exploitation of people under the false promises of opportunities and advancement will only lead to troubles.

 

[luiz]

Regardless of how bad the conditions of those workers in sweatshops is, one must always keep in mind that they are better-off then they were before the "exploitation" started. Otherwise they would continue with their traditional jobs.

And I agree with Mise. If the governments of the First-World care about the labourers of the Third, they can make that sort of deal.

 

[amadeus]

Do you [buy stuff from companies] employing children who must lie about their age in order to obtain work?

Yes, it's the children that lie about their age, not the company.

Do you use the rationale when buying your $250 sneakers that you're paying to put some food on some Vietnamese ex-prostitute's table every night?

I don't buy $250 sneakers. I only own one good pair of shoes (a second pair of old worn out ones is used for yard work.) -- I probably paid about an eighth of anything like you mention.

Do you fancy the thought that by buying a $100 shirt that you're helping to develop a nation where there is no economy, and people exist on whatever means they can manage to get?

The shirt I'm wearing now is from Bulgaria. The reason they have a poorer economy than some nations should be pretty obvious.

Or do you refuse to participate in such immoral activities as much as possible,

How is it immoral? They're being paid to feed and clothe themselves by the company. They aren't slave workers, they have the option to work or not, and they have the choice of where to work -- liberties that were not extended to people in your utopic Soviet Union.

Maybe you liken the situation to that of the Americans in the mid-1800s, when the Southern states argued that abolition of slavery would ruin their economy?

Slavery ruined the Southern economy, not enhanced it. Slavery prohibited competition in the labor market.

Slavery was really the earliest form of socialism. Regardless of your skill or lack thereof, you received the same treatment from an autocratic authority. The only way to enhance your standing was to be a part of the right group. In 1857, it was by being white. In 1957, it was by being white and loyal to the Communist Party (after all, name one high-ranking non-Slavic Soviet official...)

Some things must be done not because they will earn someone some money, but because they are the moral thing to do, and abolition of sweatshops and child labour IS one of those things.

Just to make it clear: what is a sweat shop? I know lots of people who do hard work and sweat, does that mean they're sweat shop workers? Or does it just mean low wages, and if it's low wages, how do you increase your wage? You do it by increasing your abilities.

 

[delsully]

Moderator Action: Message deleted. There were probably an infinite number of other ways to get your point across. Choose another one next time or you will be banned. Eyrei.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[samildanach]

If the nations that have the lax labour laws chose not to allow these sweat shops then how are the children who work in them supposed to get the money to live?

Its all very well getting on ones high horse about the sweat shops but you seem to be proposing that we end their exploitation in favour of starvation.

You seem to be the type of individual who likes to take the moral high ground and puts little thought into the consequences that may derive from your ability convince others to adopt the same posture.

I'm quite happy that you feel that your argueing positions make you superior to other posters. You have a right to happiness after all. Just try not to let your right to happiness infringe on other peoples right to life.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

If the nations that have the lax labour laws chose not to allow these sweat shops then how are the children who work in them supposed to get the money to live?

Its all very well getting on ones high horse about the sweat shops but you seem to be proposing that we end their exploitation in favour of starvation.

You seem to be the type of individual who likes to take the moral high ground and puts little thought into the consequences that may derive from your ability convince others to adopt the same posture.

I'm quite happy that you feel that your argueing positions make you superior to other posters. You have a right to happiness after all. Just try not to let your right to happiness infringe on other peoples right to life.

Or, maybe I'm determined that the right thing must be done regardless of the costs involved, because as long as we do that which morality demands we do, we cannot fail.

 

[Elgalad]

Luiz and I have already come up with a solution satisfactory to both the kapitalizt exploiters of the proletariat and the bleeding heart Rik-off-the-young-ones-wannabe anarkyste liberals -- give tax breaks to corporations who ensure their third world workers' welfare*.

Now all we need to do is sell it to our governments. Well, mine more than his.

* This is a deliberately vague term which basically means that the big mean multinationals will make their workers lives better, to the extent that their conditions are statisfactory enough so that our hearts stop bleeding for them.

Wow, I'd even be for that here in the good old US of A.. if I didn't already support a flat tax without loopholes or breaks.

Still, I think this is something that should be examined by America as well.

As for the Poll, I can't honestly choose any of those options. I fully support the economic benefits to the third world that multinational investments represent and at the same time I am sickened by the abuses practiced by many of these very same companies. I am also heartened strongly by the possibility of a free market promoting competition in American industry to improve or lose its base overseas, and at the same time I dread the loss of manufacturing jobs this represents. I am not on the fence on this issue and it is not that I am unable to decide which is worse; Rather I think it's important to look at each individual company and their business practices and weigh Those, rather than to make a "one size fits all" assessment about the benefits or drawbacks to overseas outsourcing.


-Elgalad