6 ms·

you can't expect less developed economies to meet the standards of ours. Its not as if some "sweatshops" avoid healthcare provisions, sanitation. They exist in

you can't expect less developed economies to meet the standards of ours. Its not as if some "sweatshops" avoid healthcare provisions, sanitation. They exist in economies where it doesn't make sense to provide this, if they were to have full benefits as we have it wouldn't scale with their cost and they would either go out of business or not be able to employ as many people, thus some people would be unemployed while some would enjoy great benefits, which seems even more "unfair"

seasick 19y ago
> you can't expect less developed economies to meet the standards of ours If a wealthy multinational corporation can afford to build a factory overseas, it can afford to implement health and safety regulations that protect the workers. It's not like a country has to be ultra-rich to provide a safe, clean workplace. As for actual sweatshops, let's not pretend they are bestowing some great benefit upon the poor who they ruthlessly exploit. They use people up and spit them out. In this country people fought long and hard for the workplace rights we have today. The higher-wage jobs depend on the lower-wage jobs like an ecosystem. Shift away the foundation and everything collapses. Offshoring is like economic global warming.
- jamiequint 19y ago
  > If a wealthy multinational corporation can afford to build a factory overseas, it can afford to implement health and safety regulations that protect the workers. It's not like a country has to be ultra-rich to provide a safe, clean workplace. They could afford to, but think about the labor problems that would result in such a market with some jobs that pay way way more than others (in terms of benefits and working conditions). Corruption run rampant, unrest, etc. Its just not viable to put the standards of a more developed economy on a lesser developed one. > As for actual sweatshops, let's not pretend they are bestowing some great benefit upon the poor who they ruthlessly exploit. They use people up and spit them out. The people wouldn't take the jobs if they didn't derive a greater economic benefit from such a job than other alternatives they have. In most cases this isn't slave labor. I want better for all these people, but it has to happen sensibly, and in a way that is economically viable.
  - deleted 19y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 19y ago
    [deleted]
  - seasick 19y ago
    > but think about the labor problems that would result in such a market ...you'd attract the best people. Give me a break about unrest -- that's great, because it will pressure other employers to improve at the same time! > The people wouldn't take the jobs if they didn't derive a greater > economic benefit from such a job than other alternatives they have. That's only thinking short-term. It's what a lot of people would like to believe, but they are making an assumption that misses out on something -- these aren't the safe, Western-style jobs you're accustomed to thinking about. The economic benefit is frequently a net negative. What happens when you get injured in a place with lax safety regulations and no good or affordable hospitals? Or a job that involves lead dust inhalation? Asbestos? Pesticide exposure leading to birth defects? The list goes on and on. Sweatshops chew up human beings and spit them out. The wage only seems better if you don't consider the true cost. Additionally, importing these outside industries can be just as disruptive as handouts, because it unbalances the playing field so homegrown efforts at business can't even get off the ground. Or even worse if they get too many people accustomed to abusive treatment. Not to mention the lethal union-busting, environmental degradation, and bribing the local authorities to get rid of any native competition. New Guinea tribesmen spend something like 4 hours a day providing for their needs. Would it be better to clearcut their forests for paper so they could have factory jobs, and pour out the toxic waste into their rivers?

seasick 19y ago

> you can't expect less developed economies to meet the standards of ours If a wealthy multinational corporation can afford to build a factory overseas, it can afford to implement health and safety regulations that protect the workers. It's not like a country has to be ultra-rich to provide a safe, clean workplace. As for actual sweatshops, let's not pretend they are bestowing some great benefit upon the poor who they ruthlessly exploit. They use people up and spit them out. In this country people fought long and hard for the workplace rights we have today. The higher-wage jobs depend on the lower-wage jobs like an ecosystem. Shift away the foundation and everything collapses. Offshoring is like economic global warming.

jamiequint 19y ago
> If a wealthy multinational corporation can afford to build a factory overseas, it can afford to implement health and safety regulations that protect the workers. It's not like a country has to be ultra-rich to provide a safe, clean workplace. They could afford to, but think about the labor problems that would result in such a market with some jobs that pay way way more than others (in terms of benefits and working conditions). Corruption run rampant, unrest, etc. Its just not viable to put the standards of a more developed economy on a lesser developed one. > As for actual sweatshops, let's not pretend they are bestowing some great benefit upon the poor who they ruthlessly exploit. They use people up and spit them out. The people wouldn't take the jobs if they didn't derive a greater economic benefit from such a job than other alternatives they have. In most cases this isn't slave labor. I want better for all these people, but it has to happen sensibly, and in a way that is economically viable.
- deleted 19y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 19y ago
  [deleted]
- seasick 19y ago
  > but think about the labor problems that would result in such a market ...you'd attract the best people. Give me a break about unrest -- that's great, because it will pressure other employers to improve at the same time! > The people wouldn't take the jobs if they didn't derive a greater > economic benefit from such a job than other alternatives they have. That's only thinking short-term. It's what a lot of people would like to believe, but they are making an assumption that misses out on something -- these aren't the safe, Western-style jobs you're accustomed to thinking about. The economic benefit is frequently a net negative. What happens when you get injured in a place with lax safety regulations and no good or affordable hospitals? Or a job that involves lead dust inhalation? Asbestos? Pesticide exposure leading to birth defects? The list goes on and on. Sweatshops chew up human beings and spit them out. The wage only seems better if you don't consider the true cost. Additionally, importing these outside industries can be just as disruptive as handouts, because it unbalances the playing field so homegrown efforts at business can't even get off the ground. Or even worse if they get too many people accustomed to abusive treatment. Not to mention the lethal union-busting, environmental degradation, and bribing the local authorities to get rid of any native competition. New Guinea tribesmen spend something like 4 hours a day providing for their needs. Would it be better to clearcut their forests for paper so they could have factory jobs, and pour out the toxic waste into their rivers?