3 ms·

I'd be curious to hear from the people on HN: In your opinion, is there a valid moral/ethical argument for buying products "Made in the USA" that doesn't fall

I'd be curious to hear from the people on HN: In your opinion, is there a valid moral/ethical argument for buying products "Made in the USA" that doesn't fall apart when expanded to include other countries?

Filligree 9y ago
As someone living in another country: Not really.
throwawayjava 9y ago
Yes, when the working conditions in other countries are worse to the point of cruelty. The justification is not nationalism, but rather directing consumption toward production that is labor-friendly. So not so much "Made in the USA" as much as "made by workers who feel good about their current situation". But then one could ask whether certain parts of Europe enjoy the same moral prerogative wrt the US?
- dgut 9y ago
  How does that help them? Pretty sure those working under "cruel" conditions would rather keep their jobs. Also, European regulations are the strictest and labor unions the loudest in the world, so it's unlikely any meaningful quantity of goods produced under cruel conditions make their way into the European market. At least we believe that.
  - throwawayjava 9y ago
    The assertion that all such labor is a voluntary choice on the part of laborers is... depressingly naive, to say the least. And even in cases where it's true, ignores the fact that many may have preferred not to have had the choice imposed in the first place. E.g. subsistence farmers forced off their land and into cities, either by mandate or through unchecked externalities (aka the polluting plant next door). And purchasing from these manufacturing operations helps spread that misery. I'm not saying it's an easy calculus, but your characterization is surely reductive.
    - dgut 9y ago
      > [...] ignores the fact that many may have preferred not to have had the choice imposed in the first place. E.g. subsistence farmers forced off their land and into cities, either by mandate or through unchecked externalities. Do you have any sources for these claims?
  - jordanb 9y ago
    It's a leveling down of standards. The new global standard for the conditions a factory worker may expect is that they'll work 12 hour days, live in a barracks, get paid every three months and suffer routine exposure to dangerous amounts of Benzene---to say nothing of the wages. And if you can't or won't work under these conditions then you're non-employable. So American worker gets thrown out because he's suddenly insufficiently downtrodden to be a competitive worker in his former line of work. And maybe the Benzene is worth it to the average Chinese worker. I can't speak for him. But I can say that if it's not, he'll lose his job like the American did and they'll find someone even cheaper somewhere else. PS: I guarantee you that there are no separate factories in China for export into the EU where workers receive EU-level protections. Don't be daft. The European markets are full of goods produced in horrible conditions.
    - dgut 9y ago
      The question is whether the Chinese would be better off without, or would it make them unable to sustain themselves? All nations went through horrible things to reach the high standard of living we take for granted today.
stonogo 9y ago
As I'm familiar with the labor laws in the US, it's the easiest rubrick for me to find products that don't employ sweatshop conditions. To be honest, I tend to stick more to "union made" lists like this one: http://getitunion.com/buyunion.asp http://getitunion.com/buyunion.asp because then I know that the price I pay is going toward protecting labor conditions... or at least it has a chance. If you know of a better way to quickly filter out "made by kids," "made by people who are about to be killed in a factory collapse," and "made by indentured servants (or 'third party nationals' as the UAE styles them)" then I'd be interested to know what it is.
ggg9990 9y ago
It's taking care of your own before taking care of others. Same reason I'd rather save my son's life rather than a million babies who are equally valuable and deserving of life.
- Roodgorf 9y ago
  That doesn't really sound like an ethical argument so much as the impetus for it.
- Aloha 9y ago
  this is a great way of putting it.
- Veratyr 9y ago
  OP is asking for a moral/ethical argument though, not an emotional one. Saving your son's life is emotionally justified but unlikely morally and certainly not ethically.
33W 9y ago
The primary argument in my mind is that the US has known standards for labor conditions. While they may not always be perfectly adhered to, the assumption is that labor standards (wherever set) are not adhered to worldwide. Therefore, the higher initial standard in the US (and other developed countries) leads to a better working conditions for that product.
username223 9y ago
I don't understand what you mean by "when expanded to include other countries," but historically, the US has had better wages and labor protections than the countries manufacturing many consumer goods. Those protections and wages were bought with blood (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre).
convolvatron 9y ago
I wrote a smug detailed answer about this, but replacing it with a summary. The only ethical choice to to buy as little as possible, with an eye towards how long it will last. make whatever you can yourself. buy or scavenge used whenever possible. try to minimize your participation in the culture of waste. thats got to be worth something. doesn't really support the narrative of supporting local industry or the idea of eternal market growth.
rdtsc 9y ago
> is there a valid moral/ethical argument for buying products "Made in the USA" that doesn't fall apart when expanded to include other countries? Logically it will fall apart. You can say "but isn't citizen of country X just as worthy of a making a good living?" and in a general logical sense, yes they are. However from a practical point of view, choosing to buy something made locally is appealing. Countries and nations are here to stay for a while. Only the super-wealthy get to be citizens of the world and enjoy globalization in its positive PR-sense. They can live in South America, fly to New York to shop on the weekend, take the yacht to Seychelles for vacation. Borders mean nothing for them. Funny enough many developers on HN here also get to enjoy that if they don't have to work in an office. They can be nomads and borders are just minor annoyances for them. But Most people are stuck in their countries, and so it makes sense for them to care and worry about the people from the same country a bit more. Buying locally is a manifestation of that.

Filligree 9y ago

As someone living in another country: Not really.

throwawayjava 9y ago

Yes, when the working conditions in other countries are worse to the point of cruelty. The justification is not nationalism, but rather directing consumption toward production that is labor-friendly. So not so much "Made in the USA" as much as "made by workers who feel good about their current situation". But then one could ask whether certain parts of Europe enjoy the same moral prerogative wrt the US?

dgut 9y ago
How does that help them? Pretty sure those working under "cruel" conditions would rather keep their jobs. Also, European regulations are the strictest and labor unions the loudest in the world, so it's unlikely any meaningful quantity of goods produced under cruel conditions make their way into the European market. At least we believe that.
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  The assertion that all such labor is a voluntary choice on the part of laborers is... depressingly naive, to say the least. And even in cases where it's true, ignores the fact that many may have preferred not to have had the choice imposed in the first place. E.g. subsistence farmers forced off their land and into cities, either by mandate or through unchecked externalities (aka the polluting plant next door). And purchasing from these manufacturing operations helps spread that misery. I'm not saying it's an easy calculus, but your characterization is surely reductive.
  - dgut 9y ago
    > [...] ignores the fact that many may have preferred not to have had the choice imposed in the first place. E.g. subsistence farmers forced off their land and into cities, either by mandate or through unchecked externalities. Do you have any sources for these claims?
- jordanb 9y ago
  It's a leveling down of standards. The new global standard for the conditions a factory worker may expect is that they'll work 12 hour days, live in a barracks, get paid every three months and suffer routine exposure to dangerous amounts of Benzene---to say nothing of the wages. And if you can't or won't work under these conditions then you're non-employable. So American worker gets thrown out because he's suddenly insufficiently downtrodden to be a competitive worker in his former line of work. And maybe the Benzene is worth it to the average Chinese worker. I can't speak for him. But I can say that if it's not, he'll lose his job like the American did and they'll find someone even cheaper somewhere else. PS: I guarantee you that there are no separate factories in China for export into the EU where workers receive EU-level protections. Don't be daft. The European markets are full of goods produced in horrible conditions.
  - dgut 9y ago
    The question is whether the Chinese would be better off without, or would it make them unable to sustain themselves? All nations went through horrible things to reach the high standard of living we take for granted today.

stonogo 9y ago

As I'm familiar with the labor laws in the US, it's the easiest rubrick for me to find products that don't employ sweatshop conditions. To be honest, I tend to stick more to "union made" lists like this one: http://getitunion.com/buyunion.asp http://getitunion.com/buyunion.asp because then I know that the price I pay is going toward protecting labor conditions... or at least it has a chance. If you know of a better way to quickly filter out "made by kids," "made by people who are about to be killed in a factory collapse," and "made by indentured servants (or 'third party nationals' as the UAE styles them)" then I'd be interested to know what it is.

ggg9990 9y ago

It's taking care of your own before taking care of others. Same reason I'd rather save my son's life rather than a million babies who are equally valuable and deserving of life.

Roodgorf 9y ago
That doesn't really sound like an ethical argument so much as the impetus for it.
Aloha 9y ago
this is a great way of putting it.
Veratyr 9y ago
OP is asking for a moral/ethical argument though, not an emotional one. Saving your son's life is emotionally justified but unlikely morally and certainly not ethically.

33W 9y ago

The primary argument in my mind is that the US has known standards for labor conditions. While they may not always be perfectly adhered to, the assumption is that labor standards (wherever set) are not adhered to worldwide. Therefore, the higher initial standard in the US (and other developed countries) leads to a better working conditions for that product.

username223 9y ago

I don't understand what you mean by "when expanded to include other countries," but historically, the US has had better wages and labor protections than the countries manufacturing many consumer goods. Those protections and wages were bought with blood (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre).

convolvatron 9y ago

I wrote a smug detailed answer about this, but replacing it with a summary. The only ethical choice to to buy as little as possible, with an eye towards how long it will last. make whatever you can yourself. buy or scavenge used whenever possible. try to minimize your participation in the culture of waste. thats got to be worth something. doesn't really support the narrative of supporting local industry or the idea of eternal market growth.

rdtsc 9y ago

> is there a valid moral/ethical argument for buying products "Made in the USA" that doesn't fall apart when expanded to include other countries? Logically it will fall apart. You can say "but isn't citizen of country X just as worthy of a making a good living?" and in a general logical sense, yes they are. However from a practical point of view, choosing to buy something made locally is appealing. Countries and nations are here to stay for a while. Only the super-wealthy get to be citizens of the world and enjoy globalization in its positive PR-sense. They can live in South America, fly to New York to shop on the weekend, take the yacht to Seychelles for vacation. Borders mean nothing for them. Funny enough many developers on HN here also get to enjoy that if they don't have to work in an office. They can be nomads and borders are just minor annoyances for them. But Most people are stuck in their countries, and so it makes sense for them to care and worry about the people from the same country a bit more. Buying locally is a manifestation of that.