[gvg]

So i was watching a show on youtube, Penn and Teller's 'bullsh*t.' this particular episode was about walmart. In that show, Penn brought up that many people don't like Walmart cause of sweathshops (he had brought up other reasons in the show as well). then, he went ahead and defended sweatshops, using a bunch of statistics and such. i was shocked; i had actually never seen anyone do that before. i immediately headed to Google to see what he was talking about. I found:

http://www.cracked.com/funny-5759-sweatshops/

http://www.fundamentalfinance.com/blogs/sweatshops-child-labor.php

http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2008/Powellsweatshops.html (This guy was interviewed in the show)

http://library.thinkquest.org/17749/gather/cgi-bin/rnix.html

http://www.independent.org/publications/working_papers/article.asp?id=1369

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1517

And all the others: http://www.google.com/search?q=do+sweatshops+help+thrid+world+nations%3F%5C&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7ADRA_en

I couldn't believe it. Penn seemed to be right. And he had facts. A political view supported by facts is shocking in itself, but when the facts are so conclusive and well known... Well, i took the plunge. I really don't think sweatshops are that bad anymore. i can't believe i'm saying that, but facts are facts.

What does everyone else think?

(Note: if you only read one or two sites, don't make any of them the first one, as it is a comedy website. i just inlcuded it cause it was on the google search page.)

[Thalia]

I don't know that much about sweatshops but I think the problem is that they pay such low wages not because it's what the company can afford but because they can get away with it because they know the people are desperate. Lets say that a clothing company decides to employ people in Honduras (just because it happened to be in the link that I clicked). Any numbers at this point are completely made up and may or may not be realistic. The average "employed" person makes $1 a day because that's what their employer can afford (?). This clothing company can pay a lot more than a $1 a day per person but only pays $1.50 because it is higher than the average "income" and the company knows that the people will take what they can get. The people work in terrible conditions because the company can get away with this too. What choice do they have? They can't just demand better conditions because there would be another person willing to take that job with those conditions. Yes. Sweatshops provide income for people who really need it but it seems to me that sweatshop owners are exploiting the desperate.

EDIT: Like I said, I don't know much about sweatshops so this might all be wrong.

Edited September 2, 2011 by Thalia

[Quag]

gvg yeah i don't like sweatshops but i admit i think a lot of that is due to bad connotations associated with the term "sweatshop" I know they lead to better conditions for the people working there and all, Korea is a great example but it is just such a negative term.

BTW most minimum wage in Canada and the US would be considered sweatshop wages in Switzerland so everything is relative. When you hear someone making 1$ a day you think that is wrong and evil but if they only spend .10$ a day on food it isn't so bad. We always associate things in our monetary values and our comprehension of costs. I remember last time i was in England (15 yrs ago) all the prices for everything was the same as here in Canada, only they were in pounds not $ which at the time was roughly 2x the price. Made for easy math but dang did England seem expensive. France was different i cant remember the exchange rate but it was enough to make me not bother trying to figure out the cost of most things in Canadian dollars (though wine was cheaper than coca-cola)

[Thalia]

If they only spend 10 cents a day, a dollar isn't bad, but somehow I got the impression that $1 wasn't much for them. Just an impression so could be mistaken.

[gvg]

Thalia: It points out in the article that half the population in those countries lives on less than a $ a day, and almost all less than 2. That's why it's the best job for them, since some clothing things pay them $3.10 (notice what I said before about 2$) and in bangladesh, some get free healthcare.

[Thalia]

OK. Didn't go through all of the articles. I see your point.

Wikipedia: The U.S. Government Accountability Office defines a sweatshop as an employer that violates more than one federal or state labor law governing minimum wage and overtime, child labor, industrial homework, occupational safety and health, worker’s compensation or industry regulation.

I guess it depends on the violation and the situation. Some people in Bangladesh get free healthcare. That's great. What about everyone else? If money isn't really the issue, are the working conditions acceptable? Is the place they are working in a threat to their health? I'm sure my view is skewed by the media but I'd be interested in actually seeing one and what it is like.

[gvg]

OK, from reading the articles, here is your answer:

1. Of course it violates those laws. No one is doubting that. Few bathroom breaks, cramped conditions, etc. But the point of it is, that's what the US went through over 130 years, and what Asia went through over 30. It is the beginning of industrialization, and always leads to better conditons over time (bascially, the more work they do as they get more machines/experience, the more pay and benefits they get, which gets them to do more work, and so on). so in actuality, supporting sweat shops would lead to an end to sweatshops. And no, that isn't a paradox.

2. You are viewing it from a western standpoint. but what's going on where they live? For instance, over cries of child labor, 50000 children were fired by a compnay. What happened to them? Well, most ended up as prostitutes. So yes, here in the west, we went through that, we built up the labor, etc. and we have a responsibility to make sure people do as well as possible. but there, sweatshops ARE as well as possible. And closing down sweatshops would get them less money, less opprotunity, less benefits (besides sweatshops, they have farming. not a big money maker there, and no benefits), etc. They don't have education, they don't have what we have. That's basically it. To get there, we went through this. Here we are. If we want the third world to join us, we have to support these things. i think the best thing to read of these articles is with the one with the interviewed guy. he did the data collecting. (Though i suggest reading all of them, as they have different viewpoints politically i think.)

And yes, your view, like mine was, was altered by the media (always is). That's why i did some snooping. And in fact, they are the best thing for third world workers.

Edited September 2, 2011 by gvg

[gvg]

If they only spend 10 cents a day, a dollar isn't bad, but somehow I got the impression that $1 wasn't much for them. Just an impression so could be mistaken.

And also, once again, realize that sweatshops to them are like if you got 10 promotions in a day and are suddenly in the top 1/3 of the population income wise. To see how it will eventually turn out, just look at 19th century America (those countries now) vs Modern America (their future). And it'll be even faster for them, since they have the support of an already industrialized world (for instance, it took 130 years for the US/britain, but only 30 years for places in Asia (like japan i think), which went through it afterwards)

[Guest]

I haven't read the articles, but I think that the counter argument is not to shut down sweatshops, but to insist that, in the 21st Century, mulit-billion dollar companies (particularly American and European companies) shouldn't be forcing workers to work in sweatshop conditions, even if it's better than the workers' regular alternatives. Wages shouldn't necessarily be the issue so long as they are at or above the regional average, but Nike couldn't open a factory in the US where workers had long, grueling shifts with limited (if any breaks) in cramped quarters with any significant risk to life and limb. So why would it be okay for them to do it in Bangladesh or the Philippines?

A lot of these countries don't have a concept of "Workers' Rights" and American companies exploit that to create relatively better paying, but more dangerous jobs. This is from a year ago (and I think that there was more recent incident that was very similar). The factory in the article made clothes primarily bought by Gap Inc., but if Gap tried to buy clothes from an American factory that killed 28 workers due to inadequate safety procedures, they would be flayed alive. Since it happened in Bangladesh, they are "terribly saddened." How much profit would Gap Inc. lose if they insisted on buying clothing made in factories that don't routinely lock the fire escapes to prevent workers from getting breaks?

Edit: The point is not so much that sweatshops are improving the conditions of the people in those countries. In so far as that is the case, that is good, but really, why do the factories need to be built that way in the first place? US companies have the capability to make factories that are much safer and they certainly couldn't do it over here, so why should we give them a pass when they cut corners somewhere else in the world?

Edited September 2, 2011 by dawh

[Guest]

I agree that sweatshops are the means by which poorer countries can elevate their living standards, so they are not simply a bad thing. Rather than "say no to sweatshops", there is a moral duty for corporations who use sweatshops to actively involve themselves in change so that the factories they use provide better workers rights, safety and wages. That change won't happen otherwise, typically people in these factories have no choice and no voice, and often there is no enforcement from local government. We need to ensure that where our money gets spent, it gets spent responsibly and not exploitatively. Even though sweatshops may be a force for positive change, it is important that the media continue to report and shock us with stories of working conditions that we should not tolerate, and important that we associate these with the brands that are using these factories. That puts pressure on those brands to actively improve workers rights themselves. Enforcement has to come from the same place as the money. Even if it means implementing standards way ahead of the norm for that country, we should demand that our money goes to factories that elevate their workers' standard of living. There's no reason why sweatshops can't improve. The cost is ridiculously cheap from our point of view. Can we afford to give someone a lunch break when they are making $3 for a 10 hour day? I think we can, all it takes is some economic pressure from our end. To make things better, we need systems of accountability, so consumers can easily associate brands with the worst of the conditions they tolerate for their workers.

So... anyone know any good internet resources to that end? A comprehensive, concise, up to date listing of corporate social values would be really useful, to help everyone identify the "bad guys".