3 ms·

I would willingly look a 9 year old child laborer in the eye each time I buy a cheaply made T-shirt, and I would feel good about myself. Consider: most people

I would willingly look a 9 year old child laborer in the eye each time I buy a cheaply made T-shirt, and I would feel good about myself. Consider: most people in developing countries are able to choose which job they will do. It is true that some (far too many) are held in debt bondage, but the vast majority are not. Therefore, if the 9 year old child laborer is working to make cheap T-shirts, they're doing that because it's the best option available to them. If I refuse to purchase these T-shirts on principle, I'm denying them an income. I would much rather deny the income of first-world manufacturers who don't need my money.

mrow84 13y ago
Markets "decide" what is best by responding to price signals. If you buy a cheap T-shirt then you are saying to the market that you value low price over an ethical supply chain. Buyers from first world countries do not (in general) deal first-hand with the labourers, they deal with factory owners who have the capital equipment necessary to do the manufacturing at the required scale. All the while that there is price pressure from the market (from you), the buyers will be pushing that price pressure onto the factory owners. As long as there is one factory owner who is willing to take that low price then all factory owners who want the same (or similar) contracts have to take that price, otherwise they are out-competed in the free market. They, in turn, push that price pressure onto their workers, preventing increases in wages. The rest of what you said is correct: the workers take the jobs not because they want to work for such low wages, but because they are the best wages they can obtain given their skill levels. Buying cheap clothes almost directly contributes to the continuation of poverty. As an aside, you mentioned child labour. A not uncommon strand to discussions on these issues is that people should "act more responsibly" and "choose" to get educated when they are young rather than waste their time for the short-term benefits of working. People send their children to work because they can't bring in enough money themselves, for reasons like disability (there are a lot more workplace accidents in countries with poor labour protections!) or plain poverty. How does the hypothetical 9 year old improve their lot if the best thing they can do at the age of 9 is get a job manufacturing clothes?
- chad_oliver 13y ago
  Let me respond to your final paragraph first. I actually don't agree with the idea that people should "act more responsibly" and "choose" to get educated. Or rather, I think they are never given the choice. Children working are forced to do so by the poverty of the parent, who were in turn forced into their life path by poverty. Of course this is not always the case, but what I have seen indicates that economic poverty is primarily due to a poverty of choices. Economic poverty flows from that. That said, I stand by my belief that the free market is an effective way (and perhaps the most effective way) to lift people out of poverty. It's cruel, slow, and painful, but it also produces long-term improvements at a scale that mere charity cannot match. I think targeted aid is great, and I expect that it would be far more effective on a per-dollar basis, but cheap labor has a greater impact simply because the world economy throws a lot of money at it. I disagree with your assessment that "buying cheap clothes almost directly contributes to the continuation of poverty" (However, see my caveat below). I just had a chat about this with my flatmate, who is an economist and has a much better grasp of the topic than I. He pointed out that, historically, sweatshops are only the first stage of economic development. Sweatshops provide a better (but still bad) income to unskilled laborers, which gives them enough free income to invest in their own human capital. Greater human capital attracts other investors, and the country pulls itself up by the bootstraps. South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan have built developed economies by starting with sweatshops. China is in the process of doing this. In contrast, India has more restrictions against foreign investment and sweatshops, and their economic growth has lagged behind countries with less restrictive laws. Or, to put it more simply: sweatshops are an important stage on the road to a developed economy, because initially cheap labor is the only thing that an undeveloped country can offer to investors. If you don't allow sweatshops, you don't get any investment, and the development process stops before it truly started. There's a lot of inefficiencies, and a lot of greedy people (including us as consumers) taking bites out of the pie, but it works better than anything else we've tried. As I mentioned above, my position is tempered by an important caveat. You point out that some countries have an ethical supply chain. I initially discarded this based on the assumption that 'ethical' usually just means 'first world', but I realize now that you are correct. I haven't yet come across a garment manufacturer with a truly ethical supply chain, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. I will make it a priority to search out such a supplier, and provide them with my patronage. If you have any suggestions, I would be happy to hear them.

mrow84 13y ago

Markets "decide" what is best by responding to price signals. If you buy a cheap T-shirt then you are saying to the market that you value low price over an ethical supply chain. Buyers from first world countries do not (in general) deal first-hand with the labourers, they deal with factory owners who have the capital equipment necessary to do the manufacturing at the required scale. All the while that there is price pressure from the market (from you), the buyers will be pushing that price pressure onto the factory owners. As long as there is one factory owner who is willing to take that low price then all factory owners who want the same (or similar) contracts have to take that price, otherwise they are out-competed in the free market. They, in turn, push that price pressure onto their workers, preventing increases in wages. The rest of what you said is correct: the workers take the jobs not because they want to work for such low wages, but because they are the best wages they can obtain given their skill levels. Buying cheap clothes almost directly contributes to the continuation of poverty. As an aside, you mentioned child labour. A not uncommon strand to discussions on these issues is that people should "act more responsibly" and "choose" to get educated when they are young rather than waste their time for the short-term benefits of working. People send their children to work because they can't bring in enough money themselves, for reasons like disability (there are a lot more workplace accidents in countries with poor labour protections!) or plain poverty. How does the hypothetical 9 year old improve their lot if the best thing they can do at the age of 9 is get a job manufacturing clothes?

chad_oliver 13y ago
Let me respond to your final paragraph first. I actually don't agree with the idea that people should "act more responsibly" and "choose" to get educated. Or rather, I think they are never given the choice. Children working are forced to do so by the poverty of the parent, who were in turn forced into their life path by poverty. Of course this is not always the case, but what I have seen indicates that economic poverty is primarily due to a poverty of choices. Economic poverty flows from that. That said, I stand by my belief that the free market is an effective way (and perhaps the most effective way) to lift people out of poverty. It's cruel, slow, and painful, but it also produces long-term improvements at a scale that mere charity cannot match. I think targeted aid is great, and I expect that it would be far more effective on a per-dollar basis, but cheap labor has a greater impact simply because the world economy throws a lot of money at it. I disagree with your assessment that "buying cheap clothes almost directly contributes to the continuation of poverty" (However, see my caveat below). I just had a chat about this with my flatmate, who is an economist and has a much better grasp of the topic than I. He pointed out that, historically, sweatshops are only the first stage of economic development. Sweatshops provide a better (but still bad) income to unskilled laborers, which gives them enough free income to invest in their own human capital. Greater human capital attracts other investors, and the country pulls itself up by the bootstraps. South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan have built developed economies by starting with sweatshops. China is in the process of doing this. In contrast, India has more restrictions against foreign investment and sweatshops, and their economic growth has lagged behind countries with less restrictive laws. Or, to put it more simply: sweatshops are an important stage on the road to a developed economy, because initially cheap labor is the only thing that an undeveloped country can offer to investors. If you don't allow sweatshops, you don't get any investment, and the development process stops before it truly started. There's a lot of inefficiencies, and a lot of greedy people (including us as consumers) taking bites out of the pie, but it works better than anything else we've tried. As I mentioned above, my position is tempered by an important caveat. You point out that some countries have an ethical supply chain. I initially discarded this based on the assumption that 'ethical' usually just means 'first world', but I realize now that you are correct. I haven't yet come across a garment manufacturer with a truly ethical supply chain, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. I will make it a priority to search out such a supplier, and provide them with my patronage. If you have any suggestions, I would be happy to hear them.