4 ms·
Because it is unfair -- we require companies to treat their workers like human beings and ban certain forms of exploitation, abuse, etc. Facing reality and acce
by wfo 11y ago
Because it is unfair -- we require companies to treat their workers like human beings and ban certain forms of exploitation, abuse, etc. Facing reality and accepting that if workers can be abused, they will be abused so we might as well be the abusers is one way to deal with this fact. Another would be, for example, to ban all imports made under conditions which don't meet U.S. human rights standards and remove the economic inventive, but instead we go the opposite direction, the direction of "free trade" which is great for people who can afford to spend capital and move operations to countries where they can abuse workers, but not so great for American workers -- we aren't even allowed the opportunity to be abused and exploited.
- chronic40 11y agoNo one said life (or laws) had to be fair.
- mc32 11y agoI think you have a point with > "Another would be, for example, to ban all imports made under conditions which don't meet U.S. human rights standards" but it can be interpreted as a "trade barrier, if it's unilateral --you'd need a global enforceable framework, for it to work. Still, even with that, there'd be offshoring just because cost of living can be much cheaper... And people in third world economies still deserve to have a job. If the fist world monopolized good jobs, we would not bee seeing the record reductions in abject poverty world-wide. Yes, a side effect is the first world will see some loss in income but not as much as gained by the third world economies. Without some of this offshoring, first world economies would see much larger waves of economic refugees.
- wcummings 11y agoThe alternative to being "abused and exploitive" is an agrarian economy with an even lower quality of life. People work in sweatshops because it's their best option. As their economy develops they'll improve working conditions. How does sanctioning them help them improve their lot?
- zaccus 11y agoI care about other Americans more than I care about Indians, and I don't see anything wrong with that. Let Indians worry about improving their lot. We need to get over this White Man's Burden bullshit. It's condescending, paternalistic, and subtly racist.
- bko 11y ago> ban all imports made under conditions which don't meet U.S. human rights standards and remove the economic inventive Different countries have different standards as they are developing. The US had different standards years ago and some attribute the higher standards to our relative economic wealth. I'm sure the US will have higher standards in the future as well as it grows wealthier. But the US wouldn't have gotten that wealthy were those same high standards enforced in the past. Imagine that you think paying a living wage is a moral imperative. In the US, this may include enough money to live in an apartment with air conditioning and a fridge. If you were to impose those same living wage standards to some employer who would normally hire in a poorer country, that employer might as well hire someone in a richer country. Because those in a poorer country never get the opportunity to accumulate any wealth and pass it on to make future generations wealthier (as many American families did), they will never be able to progress. If they remain poor, they demand less from their institutions. Many of the things that Americans demand, like environmental standards and a relatively less corrupt political process, are a direct result of our wealth. You can't just mandate higher wages and better living conditions. If you try, unintended consequences are sure to result.