3 ms·

The thing is that as long as people don't see the suffering and exploitation, they'll just turn the blind eye and buy if it is cheap enough. This is very unfort

The thing is that as long as people don't see the suffering and exploitation, they'll just turn the blind eye and buy if it is cheap enough. This is very unfortunate. I am not sure also why the tech world seems to be approving this, as whenever I express an opinion that maybe we should step back and rethink what's going on with China, I get a rain of downvotes. Really people are that low? Doesn't matter that someone on the other side of the world is treated worse than animals as long as the money is alright? Such a two faced community - here they pretend to be the champions of equality, employee rights and so on, and then pretend they don't see what's going on elsewhere.

whatshisface 6y ago
If I was a Chinese farmer who greatly increased my income by moving to the city, while I would rather have more pay than I have now, would definitely not want my employer to go out of business because their customers moved their money back to the US. How anyone thinks that diverting manufacturing away from China is going to help the humanitarian cause of Chinese workers is beyond me...
- varispeed 6y ago
  The same argument could be said about children forced to work in sweatshops - "If we ban sweatshops, how those children are going to make money for their family?" There is no clean and nice way out of this, because their government will be kicking and screaming, but we simply can't have that in the world. The trade should resume once China change their ways and those workers will have enough free time to end it - in the end their whole society is responsible for this and they should take that responsibility and sort themselves out. Why the EU could say to the UK that there will be no trade agreement until we (the UK) agree to follow the EU standards so there is a level playing field? No such talk towards China.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    > There is no clean and nice way out of this A wealth transfer from developed countries to developing countries is clean and nice, as long as the people in the developing countries don’t mind their above average quality of life going down so that those with below average quality of life can go up. All the money for extra large vehicles, housing, TVs, laptops, phones, vacations, etc going to assist poor families around the world so the children don’t need to work and the parents can get weekends off, etc.
    - octopoc 6y ago
      Except it almost never works out that way. Foreign aid goes to the foreign government, which uses it to stay in power (e.g., giving food only to loyal supporters). Since the problems of developing countries are usually related to tyrannical governments, foreign aid is a way of ensuring that the people cannot topple their tyrannical governments.
      - lotsofpulp 6y ago
        I guess I could have been clearer if I wrote "A wealth transfer from developed countries directly into accounts of people in developing countries, that their governments somehow can't take away". And I don't mean people specifically in developing countries, the gist of my comment is that there are people who live above average quality of life, and people below, and much of the tension in the world is that you can't just bring people up the quality of life ladder in a short enough timeframe without also bringing others down the ladder. An intractable problem, if you will.
  - whatshisface 6y ago
    >If we ban sweatshops, how those children are going to make money for their family? That kind of sounds like a good point to me... if I was going to ban child labor in my hypothetical country, I wouldn't do it until I had school lunches or some other child aid program set up to start at the same time. Banning survival techniques without offering alternatives sounds like a way to make people's lives worse with good intentions.
    - varispeed 6y ago
      That is supposed to be one of the pillars of communism, but they have no incentive to do it. If we don't stop trade, they will not stop sweatshops. Someone's got to make a move.
platinumrad 6y ago
You talk about banning Chinese products specifically as if China is the only country that has committed human rights violations in recent times. Should we (who is "we" anyway?) also ban products from the United States due to its aggressive foreign policy that has resulted in a much higher death toll than any reasonable estimate from Xinjiang? Do you also support the BDS movement against Israel which is similarly criticized for its alleged oppression and abuse of the Palestinian people (and similarly denies wrongdoing)?

whatshisface 6y ago

If I was a Chinese farmer who greatly increased my income by moving to the city, while I would rather have more pay than I have now, would definitely not want my employer to go out of business because their customers moved their money back to the US. How anyone thinks that diverting manufacturing away from China is going to help the humanitarian cause of Chinese workers is beyond me...

varispeed 6y ago
The same argument could be said about children forced to work in sweatshops - "If we ban sweatshops, how those children are going to make money for their family?" There is no clean and nice way out of this, because their government will be kicking and screaming, but we simply can't have that in the world. The trade should resume once China change their ways and those workers will have enough free time to end it - in the end their whole society is responsible for this and they should take that responsibility and sort themselves out. Why the EU could say to the UK that there will be no trade agreement until we (the UK) agree to follow the EU standards so there is a level playing field? No such talk towards China.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  > There is no clean and nice way out of this A wealth transfer from developed countries to developing countries is clean and nice, as long as the people in the developing countries don’t mind their above average quality of life going down so that those with below average quality of life can go up. All the money for extra large vehicles, housing, TVs, laptops, phones, vacations, etc going to assist poor families around the world so the children don’t need to work and the parents can get weekends off, etc.
  - octopoc 6y ago
    Except it almost never works out that way. Foreign aid goes to the foreign government, which uses it to stay in power (e.g., giving food only to loyal supporters). Since the problems of developing countries are usually related to tyrannical governments, foreign aid is a way of ensuring that the people cannot topple their tyrannical governments.
    - lotsofpulp 6y ago
      I guess I could have been clearer if I wrote "A wealth transfer from developed countries directly into accounts of people in developing countries, that their governments somehow can't take away". And I don't mean people specifically in developing countries, the gist of my comment is that there are people who live above average quality of life, and people below, and much of the tension in the world is that you can't just bring people up the quality of life ladder in a short enough timeframe without also bringing others down the ladder. An intractable problem, if you will.
- whatshisface 6y ago
  >If we ban sweatshops, how those children are going to make money for their family? That kind of sounds like a good point to me... if I was going to ban child labor in my hypothetical country, I wouldn't do it until I had school lunches or some other child aid program set up to start at the same time. Banning survival techniques without offering alternatives sounds like a way to make people's lives worse with good intentions.
  - varispeed 6y ago
    That is supposed to be one of the pillars of communism, but they have no incentive to do it. If we don't stop trade, they will not stop sweatshops. Someone's got to make a move.

platinumrad 6y ago

You talk about banning Chinese products specifically as if China is the only country that has committed human rights violations in recent times. Should we (who is "we" anyway?) also ban products from the United States due to its aggressive foreign policy that has resulted in a much higher death toll than any reasonable estimate from Xinjiang? Do you also support the BDS movement against Israel which is similarly criticized for its alleged oppression and abuse of the Palestinian people (and similarly denies wrongdoing)?