3 ms·

I appreciate your point and over simplification doesn't make any argument better- but I have often heard the counter argument of "choice" as one that rationali

I appreciate your point and over simplification doesn't make any argument better- but I have often heard the counter argument of "choice" as one that rationalizes horrific conditions. If the choice is between dangerous working conditions or a job that does not pay enough to give your children opportunities many (if not most) people will choose to sacrifice during this generation for the next, it is clear that the financial incentives for every group (manufacturers, laborers, and consumers) and yes standards of living are better but consumers at a minimum should be informed that their is a hidden cost to the cheaper goods... and that they could make different choices or pressure their companies to improve conditions.

mseebach 13y ago
Many western consumers seem to struggle with the incrementalism of improving quality of life in (what used to be) the third world. The choice is very real, we just didn't see the horrors of subsistence farming that's been the only possible way of life in these countries, literally forever. It'd be great if the choice included a completely safe and healthy job for everyone, but if we knew how to create those at scale at the drop of a hand, we'd make some of them at home, in our unemployment-stricken economies. Demanding that Apple/Nokia/whoever pay a little better and improves health and safety measures makes you feel nice, but it's only going to affect a dizzyingly small fraction of the workforce. China is improving at an insane rate on practically all indicators. Of particular interest, wages in the costal cities are exploding, causing factories to move inland, ie. bring progress to the previously underdeveloped rural regions.