3 ms·

These ethical factors are, of course, a trade-off with the others. Sweatshops and child labor are immoral, we will not tolerate that. If we don't tolerate thos

These ethical factors are, of course, a trade-off with the others. Sweatshops and child labor are immoral, we will not tolerate that. If we don't tolerate those, then we don't tolerate giving them the best alternative possible. Asking for more would make it uneconomical, and thus, economically destructive.

netrus 13y ago
Do I understand you correctly, you suggest child labor should be legal, because a ban on child labor would limit their freedom, and they had to choose a worse alternative? If so: Lat me tell you that 1) people are bad at evaluating their alternatives. Thats why we force our children to attend school as well, because our children might underestimate the long term positive effect school education might have for them, and 2) a child in a sweatshop might not have taken the decision to work for itself - it might rather work for the immediate benefit of their family, while taking the long term loss alone.
e12e 13y ago
> If we don't tolerate those, then we don't tolerate giving them the best alternative possible. Well, if we're talking about giving away stuff, like freedom: How much could we help these people if we gave away, say 15% of the combined military budgets of the EU, Russia, China and the US?
furyg3 13y ago
There are many, many more alternatives. Finding them starts with society saying "I am not ok with this, we must stop it, how can we do that?" From there we get creative. We pay more to implement better working conditions, we provide aid to areas to send kids to school instead of to the factory, etc...
flaviusb 13y ago
The fact that, if sweatshops are allowed, sweatshops will be the best option people can find, does not entail that if sweatshops are not allowed, the best option people will be able to find will be worse than sweatshops. This is because markets are not magic, and the conditions of employment don't come 'ex nihilo', but are rather a function of (amongst other things) what employers are able to offer; so, changing what employers are able to offer changes what alternatives are available. 'Able' here is a complex thing; to look at just two countervailing parts, how little can employers get away with paying, but also how much can they afford to pay? If the sweatshops do more than break even, then the employers can afford to pay more and have better conditions for their employees - but they won't if sweatshops as they are now are legal, common, and accepted. Most sweatshops do a lot better than breaking even, so if we got rid of them, a better alternative would be able to exist. (If you believe in General Equilibria, a better alternative would be forced to exist).

netrus 13y ago

Do I understand you correctly, you suggest child labor should be legal, because a ban on child labor would limit their freedom, and they had to choose a worse alternative? If so: Lat me tell you that 1) people are bad at evaluating their alternatives. Thats why we force our children to attend school as well, because our children might underestimate the long term positive effect school education might have for them, and 2) a child in a sweatshop might not have taken the decision to work for itself - it might rather work for the immediate benefit of their family, while taking the long term loss alone.

e12e 13y ago

> If we don't tolerate those, then we don't tolerate giving them the best alternative possible. Well, if we're talking about giving away stuff, like freedom: How much could we help these people if we gave away, say 15% of the combined military budgets of the EU, Russia, China and the US?

furyg3 13y ago

There are many, many more alternatives. Finding them starts with society saying "I am not ok with this, we must stop it, how can we do that?" From there we get creative. We pay more to implement better working conditions, we provide aid to areas to send kids to school instead of to the factory, etc...

flaviusb 13y ago

The fact that, if sweatshops are allowed, sweatshops will be the best option people can find, does not entail that if sweatshops are not allowed, the best option people will be able to find will be worse than sweatshops. This is because markets are not magic, and the conditions of employment don't come 'ex nihilo', but are rather a function of (amongst other things) what employers are able to offer; so, changing what employers are able to offer changes what alternatives are available. 'Able' here is a complex thing; to look at just two countervailing parts, how little can employers get away with paying, but also how much can they afford to pay? If the sweatshops do more than break even, then the employers can afford to pay more and have better conditions for their employees - but they won't if sweatshops as they are now are legal, common, and accepted. Most sweatshops do a lot better than breaking even, so if we got rid of them, a better alternative would be able to exist. (If you believe in General Equilibria, a better alternative would be forced to exist).