3 ms·

Child labor is probably not caused by the demand for clothes, though. On the contrary, without those jobs, the situation of those families would be even more pe

Child labor is probably not caused by the demand for clothes, though. On the contrary, without those jobs, the situation of those families would be even more perilous.

lotsofpulp 6y ago
Perhaps we can institute a tax in higher income/wealthier countries and transfer that straight to the poorer countries.
- vrperson 6y ago
  That would be idiotic. We are well off because we can make cheap things (including food). To make things arbitrarily more expensive would make everybody worse off. Likewise clinging to inefficient means of production. The poor countries in Africa are poor because they can not produce as efficiently as other countries. Not because other countries give them cheap stuff. I mean we would be making things more expensive via taxes, and give the tax money to Africa so that they can buy things more cheaply. Why not just sell them cheaply to Africa to begin with? Cut out the middle (tax) man.
  - throw_m239339 6y ago
    > That would be idiotic. We are well off because we can make cheap things (including food). To make things arbitrarily more expensive would make everybody worse off. It would make the ultra rich a tiny less richer, but hey you can't have that. There is wealth in this world so that every single kid on that planet can go to school instead of working at the factory, it's just insanely badly distributed.
- neilparikh 6y ago
  People in rich countries are (mostly) very nativist, so I doubt this kind of think would be popular. For whatever reason, people tend to value the lives of those in their country many times more than those in other countries. So unfortunately, buying their labor at cheap rates seems to be the best way to transfer wealth right now, at least a big scale [0]. [0] - On a smaller scale individuals can donate to charities like Against Malaria Foundation or GiveDirectly, which I highly recommend everyone does if they have excess wealth.
- csomar 6y ago
  You are already doing that to some extent and in my opinion it has the reverse effect. That money will go to the government which is quite corrupt in these countries and will stronghold more authoritarian regimes. Child-labor is bad but it helps some families make money, and many of them break the poverty chain this way. It's not the best/most ethical way to do it, but let's not pretend that a few random folks on HN have the solutions for these third-world countries.
  - neilparikh 6y ago
    > in my opinion it has the reverse effect. That money will go to the government which is quite corrupt in these countries and will stronghold more authoritarian regimes. This is not the only option, and this defeatist attitude is dangerous. There are many charities operating in third-world countries that are incredibly efficient and are delivering real impact right now. Here’s a few: https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities Now, obviously scaling it up will be difficult, but all these charities are currently cash constrained, so there’s still some room to grow, and after that point, I’m sure it’s not an intractable problem to figure out a working model. The “corrupt government” excuse is common one to justify inaction, but given the existence of so many organizations doing good work, I don’t it’s applicable anymore.
mellavora 6y ago
Is HN being invaded by trolls? I see more comments like the above than I used to.
- ummonk 6y ago
  It's probably true though? Refusing to use child labor is not going to help those kids.
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    Have you accounted to imoact on theur future earnings from missing on education, from work-related accidents and injuries, trapping them in an eternal cycle if poverty?
  - throw_m239339 6y ago
    > It's probably true though? Refusing to use child labor is not going to help those kids. the "at least the slaves aren't starving" argument. Maybe if westerners paid them a bit more, which they can afford, their parents would send these kids to school instead.
    - ummonk 6y ago
      The alternative that most people go for is generally to pay people in higher wage economies - worsening the lack of opportunity in low wage economies.
      - throw_m239339 6y ago
        "low wage" is meaningless. Parents need to be able make a living wage so that they don't have to send their young kids to the factory instead of school.
  - 3131s 6y ago
    I live in a poor country like this -- it's odd to me that there is a huge stigma against giving even a few dollars directly to beggar children, but if it's a factory paying them the same amount for a day's work then it's ok for you as the consumer to indirectly pay that wage through your purchase.
throw_m239339 6y ago
> Child labor is probably not caused by the demand for clothes, though. On the contrary, without those jobs, the situation of those families would be even more perilous. Well maybe if the parents would be paid a bit more these kids would be given a chance to fair better in life by going to school. What is that comment? demand for lower priced clothes, "infinite growth" and investors always demanding higher returns absolutely causes all that child exploitation. Your comment is either ignorant or downright dismissive of a problem directly caused by us, western consumers. It's akin to saying "at least the slave is fed", exact same puritan mindset.
LockAndLol 6y ago
Did you just justify buying clothes made by children? What is it you're saying here?
- neilparikh 6y ago
  Their point is, we (western countries as a whole) have the following options: - Buy clothes made using child labour, the children and their families get a bit of additional income. - Don't buy clothes made using child labour, the children and their families don't get a bit of additional income. Most likely, these children are working because without this income, it's difficult for them to meet their needs for survival. Given that, the choosing option 2 will clearly leave this children and their families worse off. I'm not sure how that's a controversial statement, it's simply describing the situation as it is. Denying harsh realities doesn't make things better for those children. Now, the ideal situation is just a direct wealth transfer from rich countries to poor countries, and I would be in favor of that. But people in rich countries value the lives of people in their countries many times more than those in poor countries, so I doubt this will happen anytime soon.
  - LockAndLol 6y ago
    That's a false dichotomy used to justify child and slave labor as well as absolve yourself of responsibility. Here's a few options: 1. buy second hand Cheapest and best for the environment 2. buy local stimulates local economy, doesn't give money to another big corporation ready to exploit another country 3. buy fair trade 4. stop buying so many things It really isn't that difficult. ------------ The harsh reality is that we all are to blame for the predicament of those countries and we try to brush it off, just like you just did. We choose to buy cheap without checking where things are from. We choose not to support local industries. We choose politicians that choose not to prosecute companies for crimes in other countries. We choose to give big companies money which they then use to corrupt foreign countries in order to exploit them. We choose to justify our consumerism with "at least I'm giving them a job". You really think that those countries would be in such disarray without our involvement? Do you think if multi-nationals had less power, the support of their western politicians and populace, that they'd be able to mess around in foreign countries and take away opportunities for the foreign populace?

Child labor is probably not caused by the demand for clothes, though. On the contrary, without those jobs, the situation of those families would be even more perilous.

lotsofpulp 6y ago

Perhaps we can institute a tax in higher income/wealthier countries and transfer that straight to the poorer countries.

vrperson 6y ago
That would be idiotic. We are well off because we can make cheap things (including food). To make things arbitrarily more expensive would make everybody worse off. Likewise clinging to inefficient means of production. The poor countries in Africa are poor because they can not produce as efficiently as other countries. Not because other countries give them cheap stuff. I mean we would be making things more expensive via taxes, and give the tax money to Africa so that they can buy things more cheaply. Why not just sell them cheaply to Africa to begin with? Cut out the middle (tax) man.
- throw_m239339 6y ago
  > That would be idiotic. We are well off because we can make cheap things (including food). To make things arbitrarily more expensive would make everybody worse off. It would make the ultra rich a tiny less richer, but hey you can't have that. There is wealth in this world so that every single kid on that planet can go to school instead of working at the factory, it's just insanely badly distributed.
neilparikh 6y ago
People in rich countries are (mostly) very nativist, so I doubt this kind of think would be popular. For whatever reason, people tend to value the lives of those in their country many times more than those in other countries. So unfortunately, buying their labor at cheap rates seems to be the best way to transfer wealth right now, at least a big scale [0]. [0] - On a smaller scale individuals can donate to charities like Against Malaria Foundation or GiveDirectly, which I highly recommend everyone does if they have excess wealth.
csomar 6y ago
You are already doing that to some extent and in my opinion it has the reverse effect. That money will go to the government which is quite corrupt in these countries and will stronghold more authoritarian regimes. Child-labor is bad but it helps some families make money, and many of them break the poverty chain this way. It's not the best/most ethical way to do it, but let's not pretend that a few random folks on HN have the solutions for these third-world countries.
- neilparikh 6y ago
  > in my opinion it has the reverse effect. That money will go to the government which is quite corrupt in these countries and will stronghold more authoritarian regimes. This is not the only option, and this defeatist attitude is dangerous. There are many charities operating in third-world countries that are incredibly efficient and are delivering real impact right now. Here’s a few: https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities Now, obviously scaling it up will be difficult, but all these charities are currently cash constrained, so there’s still some room to grow, and after that point, I’m sure it’s not an intractable problem to figure out a working model. The “corrupt government” excuse is common one to justify inaction, but given the existence of so many organizations doing good work, I don’t it’s applicable anymore.

mellavora 6y ago

Is HN being invaded by trolls? I see more comments like the above than I used to.

ummonk 6y ago
It's probably true though? Refusing to use child labor is not going to help those kids.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  Have you accounted to imoact on theur future earnings from missing on education, from work-related accidents and injuries, trapping them in an eternal cycle if poverty?
- throw_m239339 6y ago
  > It's probably true though? Refusing to use child labor is not going to help those kids. the "at least the slaves aren't starving" argument. Maybe if westerners paid them a bit more, which they can afford, their parents would send these kids to school instead.
  - ummonk 6y ago
    The alternative that most people go for is generally to pay people in higher wage economies - worsening the lack of opportunity in low wage economies.
    - throw_m239339 6y ago
      "low wage" is meaningless. Parents need to be able make a living wage so that they don't have to send their young kids to the factory instead of school.
- 3131s 6y ago
  I live in a poor country like this -- it's odd to me that there is a huge stigma against giving even a few dollars directly to beggar children, but if it's a factory paying them the same amount for a day's work then it's ok for you as the consumer to indirectly pay that wage through your purchase.

throw_m239339 6y ago

> Child labor is probably not caused by the demand for clothes, though. On the contrary, without those jobs, the situation of those families would be even more perilous. Well maybe if the parents would be paid a bit more these kids would be given a chance to fair better in life by going to school. What is that comment? demand for lower priced clothes, "infinite growth" and investors always demanding higher returns absolutely causes all that child exploitation. Your comment is either ignorant or downright dismissive of a problem directly caused by us, western consumers. It's akin to saying "at least the slave is fed", exact same puritan mindset.

LockAndLol 6y ago

Did you just justify buying clothes made by children? What is it you're saying here?

neilparikh 6y ago
Their point is, we (western countries as a whole) have the following options: - Buy clothes made using child labour, the children and their families get a bit of additional income. - Don't buy clothes made using child labour, the children and their families don't get a bit of additional income. Most likely, these children are working because without this income, it's difficult for them to meet their needs for survival. Given that, the choosing option 2 will clearly leave this children and their families worse off. I'm not sure how that's a controversial statement, it's simply describing the situation as it is. Denying harsh realities doesn't make things better for those children. Now, the ideal situation is just a direct wealth transfer from rich countries to poor countries, and I would be in favor of that. But people in rich countries value the lives of people in their countries many times more than those in poor countries, so I doubt this will happen anytime soon.
- LockAndLol 6y ago
  That's a false dichotomy used to justify child and slave labor as well as absolve yourself of responsibility. Here's a few options: 1. buy second hand Cheapest and best for the environment 2. buy local stimulates local economy, doesn't give money to another big corporation ready to exploit another country 3. buy fair trade 4. stop buying so many things It really isn't that difficult. ------------ The harsh reality is that we all are to blame for the predicament of those countries and we try to brush it off, just like you just did. We choose to buy cheap without checking where things are from. We choose not to support local industries. We choose politicians that choose not to prosecute companies for crimes in other countries. We choose to give big companies money which they then use to corrupt foreign countries in order to exploit them. We choose to justify our consumerism with "at least I'm giving them a job". You really think that those countries would be in such disarray without our involvement? Do you think if multi-nationals had less power, the support of their western politicians and populace, that they'd be able to mess around in foreign countries and take away opportunities for the foreign populace?