3 ms·

>$1000 in safety equipment isn't a big deal in the US, but it could be more than a third world-worker makes in entire year. We're not talking $1 a day subsista

>$1000 in safety equipment isn't a big deal in the US, but it could be more than a third world-worker makes in entire year. We're not talking $1 a day subsistance farmer when we talk free trade agreements. We're talking about the standards billion dollar multinational companies must comply with to do business between countries. Indeed, $1000 in safety equipment means almost nothing to these companies, but they'll only do it if we force them to. Our efficient free market system favors those that can reduce their costs of operations to the minimum level possible. If we don't make the rules of the playing field encompass these standards, everyone will be beholden to the guy that meets only the bare minimums, because he can sell his stuff the cheapest.

maratd 14y ago
> We're not talking $1 a day subsistance farmer when we talk free trade agreements. Yes, you are. He is part of the same local economy and by placing a cost on those higher up the chain, you will affect him just as much. > Indeed, $1000 in safety equipment means almost nothing to these companies, but they'll only do it if we force them to. If that was the case, they wouldn't have out-sourced the manufacturing to begin with. They wouldn't be buying expensive robots to replace that minimal-cost labor as we speak. Every penny counts. > Our efficient free market system favors those that can reduce their costs of operations to the minimum level possible. This is true, but to a point. > If we don't make the rules of the playing field encompass these standards, everyone will be beholden to the guy that meets only the bare minimums, because he can sell his stuff the cheapest. Frequently, consumers take many other factors into a purchase decision. Not just the price. If I know that a product was manufactured in a responsible manner, I'm willing to pay more for it. If this wasn't the case, the organic movement wouldn't exist. Neither would the local-food movement. People are willing to pay for higher quality goods and even identical goods that were manufactured in a more responsible manner.
Symmetry 14y ago
Why would you insist that those workers who happen to be working in jobs associated with export be treated differently than those workers who don't? If a worker spends all day in a Nike factory, or if we succeed in getting that factory shut down for not complying with our ideals of safe operation and he goes back to work on the farm then it's tempting to say that their poverty in the first case was our fault but not in the second. But really, it's just as much our responsibility in the second case as in the first. If we really find their poverty intolerable we should do our best to fix that via foreign aid, rather than demand all the responsibility for dealing with situation fall on the only party which is already help, but giving the worker a job which is marginally better than was otherwise available.

maratd 14y ago

> We're not talking $1 a day subsistance farmer when we talk free trade agreements. Yes, you are. He is part of the same local economy and by placing a cost on those higher up the chain, you will affect him just as much. > Indeed, $1000 in safety equipment means almost nothing to these companies, but they'll only do it if we force them to. If that was the case, they wouldn't have out-sourced the manufacturing to begin with. They wouldn't be buying expensive robots to replace that minimal-cost labor as we speak. Every penny counts. > Our efficient free market system favors those that can reduce their costs of operations to the minimum level possible. This is true, but to a point. > If we don't make the rules of the playing field encompass these standards, everyone will be beholden to the guy that meets only the bare minimums, because he can sell his stuff the cheapest. Frequently, consumers take many other factors into a purchase decision. Not just the price. If I know that a product was manufactured in a responsible manner, I'm willing to pay more for it. If this wasn't the case, the organic movement wouldn't exist. Neither would the local-food movement. People are willing to pay for higher quality goods and even identical goods that were manufactured in a more responsible manner.

Symmetry 14y ago

Why would you insist that those workers who happen to be working in jobs associated with export be treated differently than those workers who don't? If a worker spends all day in a Nike factory, or if we succeed in getting that factory shut down for not complying with our ideals of safe operation and he goes back to work on the farm then it's tempting to say that their poverty in the first case was our fault but not in the second. But really, it's just as much our responsibility in the second case as in the first. If we really find their poverty intolerable we should do our best to fix that via foreign aid, rather than demand all the responsibility for dealing with situation fall on the only party which is already help, but giving the worker a job which is marginally better than was otherwise available.