6 ms·

This is a delicate topic. "In the United States, Dodd–Frank Act required manufacturers to audit their supply chains and report use of conflict minerals", see ht

This is a delicate topic. "In the United States, Dodd–Frank Act required manufacturers to audit their supply chains and report use of conflict minerals", see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_minerals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_minerals. The problem here is that cobalt is not included in the list of conflict minerals. For one point of view, you may want to read "Why Cobalt Is Not a Conflict Mineral": https://agmetalminer.com/2011/06/06/why-cobalt-is-not-a-conflict-mineral/ https://agmetalminer.com/2011/06/06/why-cobalt-is-not-a-conf...

owenversteeg 9y ago
Agreed. A lot of things seem black and white on the surface. A lot of articles seem to imply "think of the children, make cobalt a conflict mineral!" but this would have some insane destabilizing effects. The story has a lot of parallels to the story of the Harkin Bill. For those that don't know, I've paraphrased the Wikipedia article below: "Based on the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics Labor Force Survey estimated there were about 5.7 million 10- to 14-year-old children engaged in Child labour in Bangladesh. This number may have been as high as 15 million children." ... "In 1993 employers in Bangladesh' ready-made garment (RMG) industry dismissed 50,000 children (c. 75 percent of child workers in the textile industry) out of fear of economic reprisals of the imminent passage of the Child Labor Deterrence Act" ... "The act which banned "importation to the United States of products which are manufactured or mined in whole or in part by children" would have resulted in the loss of lucrative American contracts. Its impact on Bangladesh's economy would have been significant as the export-oriented ready-made garment industry represents most of the country's exports." ... "UNICEF sent a team of investigators into Bangladesh to learn what came of the children who were dismissed from their factory jobs. UNICEF's 1997 State of the World's Children report confirmed that most of the children found themselves in much more deplorable situations, such as crushing stones, scavenging through trash dumps, and begging on the streets. Many of the girls eventually ended up in prostitution." I highly recommend everyone read the full Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Labor_Deterrence_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Labor_Deterrence_Act - - - - For anyone who skipped to the bottom for a TL;DR: Bangladesh had millions of child laborers, US Senator Harkin proposed a bill that would ban importing products made with child labor, and Bangladesh's garment industry (which was most of the country's exports) fired 75% of the children. As a result most children found worse work: crushing stones, scavenging trash, and prostitution.
- andrepd 9y ago
  Then the problem lies with the employers, the government, the system. Not with someone who tried to put pressure on the right side.
  - westmeal 9y ago
    I think he was trying to point out that even if you are putting pressure on the right side unfortunate side effects can still be seen. Not that it's anyone's particular fault.
    - kobeya 9y ago
      If you apply pressure and bad things happen unilaterally as a result of that pressure, yes it is your fault. Cause and effect, whether you intended for it or not. Denying that is simply not taking responsibility for your actions.
      - ptaipale 9y ago
        Indeed. Good intentions do not justify means. You cannot escape responsibility of the bad consequences of your actions, even if you say the consequences are "unwanted", not what you intended. Particularly if you know those consequences were going to happen. "The misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all." - economist Joan Robinson, 1962
  - ChuckMcM 9y ago
    > Then the problem lies with the employers, the > government, the system. I see it differently. There is insufficient economic activity to employ these people. Since the government is funded by economic activity (and taxing it) they are not in a position to create a welfare system. Because employers are not competitive if they raise prices while others keep their prices low, they aren't in a position to pay additional wages. Because the system relies on actual economic activity in order for capital to flow, and they have disabled a chunk of that economy by fiat (no child workers) they have essentially removed from the economy jobs for those children. You can do what the Chinese did and essentially print money to pay people for public works jobs which then enables more non-subsidized economic activity, but that boot strapping is difficult and needs you to start with a stable government base.
gwenzek 9y ago
The main reasons your article cites are: 1. Cobalt doesn't come from the part of the RDC considered at war 2. There is no proof that cobalt finances the Congo war 3. We like cheap cobalt 1 and 2 seems good reason to not classify it as "conflict mineral" but there should be other laws that would force US compagnies to look at wether they are financing child labor or not.

owenversteeg 9y ago

Agreed. A lot of things seem black and white on the surface. A lot of articles seem to imply "think of the children, make cobalt a conflict mineral!" but this would have some insane destabilizing effects. The story has a lot of parallels to the story of the Harkin Bill. For those that don't know, I've paraphrased the Wikipedia article below: "Based on the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics Labor Force Survey estimated there were about 5.7 million 10- to 14-year-old children engaged in Child labour in Bangladesh. This number may have been as high as 15 million children." ... "In 1993 employers in Bangladesh' ready-made garment (RMG) industry dismissed 50,000 children (c. 75 percent of child workers in the textile industry) out of fear of economic reprisals of the imminent passage of the Child Labor Deterrence Act" ... "The act which banned "importation to the United States of products which are manufactured or mined in whole or in part by children" would have resulted in the loss of lucrative American contracts. Its impact on Bangladesh's economy would have been significant as the export-oriented ready-made garment industry represents most of the country's exports." ... "UNICEF sent a team of investigators into Bangladesh to learn what came of the children who were dismissed from their factory jobs. UNICEF's 1997 State of the World's Children report confirmed that most of the children found themselves in much more deplorable situations, such as crushing stones, scavenging through trash dumps, and begging on the streets. Many of the girls eventually ended up in prostitution." I highly recommend everyone read the full Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Labor_Deterrence_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Labor_Deterrence_Act - - - - For anyone who skipped to the bottom for a TL;DR: Bangladesh had millions of child laborers, US Senator Harkin proposed a bill that would ban importing products made with child labor, and Bangladesh's garment industry (which was most of the country's exports) fired 75% of the children. As a result most children found worse work: crushing stones, scavenging trash, and prostitution.

andrepd 9y ago
Then the problem lies with the employers, the government, the system. Not with someone who tried to put pressure on the right side.
- westmeal 9y ago
  I think he was trying to point out that even if you are putting pressure on the right side unfortunate side effects can still be seen. Not that it's anyone's particular fault.
  - kobeya 9y ago
    If you apply pressure and bad things happen unilaterally as a result of that pressure, yes it is your fault. Cause and effect, whether you intended for it or not. Denying that is simply not taking responsibility for your actions.
    - ptaipale 9y ago
      Indeed. Good intentions do not justify means. You cannot escape responsibility of the bad consequences of your actions, even if you say the consequences are "unwanted", not what you intended. Particularly if you know those consequences were going to happen. "The misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all." - economist Joan Robinson, 1962
- ChuckMcM 9y ago
  > Then the problem lies with the employers, the > government, the system. I see it differently. There is insufficient economic activity to employ these people. Since the government is funded by economic activity (and taxing it) they are not in a position to create a welfare system. Because employers are not competitive if they raise prices while others keep their prices low, they aren't in a position to pay additional wages. Because the system relies on actual economic activity in order for capital to flow, and they have disabled a chunk of that economy by fiat (no child workers) they have essentially removed from the economy jobs for those children. You can do what the Chinese did and essentially print money to pay people for public works jobs which then enables more non-subsidized economic activity, but that boot strapping is difficult and needs you to start with a stable government base.

gwenzek 9y ago

The main reasons your article cites are: 1. Cobalt doesn't come from the part of the RDC considered at war 2. There is no proof that cobalt finances the Congo war 3. We like cheap cobalt 1 and 2 seems good reason to not classify it as "conflict mineral" but there should be other laws that would force US compagnies to look at wether they are financing child labor or not.