3 ms·

If you saw a drowning person, would you ask them to be your slave forever in exchange for throwing them a life preserver? That's a voluntary exchange too, but y

by neilk 17y ago

If you saw a drowning person, would you ask them to be your slave forever in exchange for throwing them a life preserver? That's a voluntary exchange too, but you're still a dick for doing it. Yes, most of these jobs are better than the alternative, namely, starvation in the countryside where there are no jobs. In the worst cases, (not all) these jobs pay so little that the workers can't accumulate capital, can't send their kids to school, etc. And due to the magic of subcontracting, the large Western employers have no long term investment in the country -- they'll pick up and leave when the next country over offers them a slightly better deal. In Thailand I met a woman who was working for a private museum. She had figured out that her boss had basically made his fortune through selling slaves. Voluntary indentured servitude for several years, sold out of villages. And this isn't just some backwater, Thailand is where a lot of manufacturing is happening lately.

biohacker42 17y ago
If you saw a drowning person, would you ask them to be your slave forever in exchange for throwing them a life preserver? How do you suggest we remedy this? The OECD gets together and forces a minimum wage on the developing world? That might work, but I think the shortest, fastest and simplest way out hell is let their economies grow as fast as they can.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
potatolicious 17y ago
Modern, first-world standards cannot be applied to the third world - I am a prime example of this. I owe my life to child labor and sweatshop labor, allow me to explain. My family is originally from Taiwan, and both of my folks grew up when Taiwan was still an inconsequential tropical island consisted mostly of fishing villages and a hodgepodge government-in-exile. Both of them are beneficiaries of the "abusive" practices of foreign businesses. My father worked in a plastics plant, and once had to outrace a cloud of deadly chlorine gas, and survived by the grace of a low wall surrounding the factory (chlorine crawls along the ground). Safety practices were almost non-existent - my mother is still missing a small chunk of her right index finger (and she was lucky). My mother's family was desperately poor - my grandfather eventually succumbed to years of breathing in coal dust with no protective equipment, and all of his children worked from as young as 10 years-old to put themselves through school. But here's the thing: people in that country could not afford to educate themselves, and if it were not for the willingness of employers to hire child labor and form sweatshops, they would never have had the opportunity to climb out of that hole. If you had insisted on no child labor, minimum pay standards, and rigorous safety adherence, there would have been no reason to set up shop in a backwater island like Taiwan, and then where would we be? My family would likely still be living in the jungles up on some mountain somewhere, starving.
- iamelgringo 17y ago
  Modern, first-world standards cannot be applied to the third world... That's part of the problem, though, isn't it? The tremendous migration of manufacturing jobs to third world countries has been in large part because they are not limited to a 40 hour work week and first world safety standards. Of course it's cheaper to manufacture in China, their regulations are a lot more lax than ours, although that may be changing. I, too grew up in a Third World country. My parents were missionaries in Central America in the 80's. I grew up playing soccer with children who's bellies were bloated from parasites and could not afford shoes. I've worked in communities that were essentially indentured servants to the tomato packing industry. The tomato company owned the housing, ran the schools, provided plumbing, etc.. to their workers. The employees were willing to put up with indentured servitude, because on a certain level because it was better than starving. It was better for their children to get a 6th grade education and then go off to pick tomatoes than to have no education at all. Why did that happen? So we can have tomatoes at our local grocery store for $1 a pound. I agree that it is better for the people in the third world to have jobs rather than not have jobs, but I'm pretty conflicted about the entire situation. Starving children, vs children working 16 hours a day in a tomato field? That's not a good choice to have to make.
  - Tichy 17y ago
    It certainly is not all clear cut to decide, but I tend to think that competition is the only way to solve these things. If the economy where stronger in 3rd world countries, there would be more competition for workers. Therefore the companies hiring would have to offer better conditions to keep the workers. I guess that is assuming an open market, too. It does not quite apply to dictatorships and slavery. Unless you count "flee to a neighboring country" as an option, which it probably isn't in most cases. Edit: I guess even slavery does not completely invalidate the concept. If demand was high enough, prices for slaves would rise. Eventually it would be high enough for slave owners to sell, and effectively the new owners would have to offer freedom as a price. Also neighboring countries would be willing to accept refugees if they had a high demand for labor.
    - 17y ago
philwelch 17y ago
I can afford to throw a life preserver with no real cost. When there are entire countries or continents of starving people to be saved though, it's not economically sustainable to just give them a first world standard of living from scratch. It has to be built up over time by progressively improving the standard of living. Indentured servitude is prominent in American history too--it's how many of our ancestors got passage to the New World. And now here we are with air-conditioned offices, OSHA regulations, and paid leave.
Devilboy 17y ago
If you saw a drowning person, would you ask them to be your slave forever in exchange for throwing them a life preserver? Not the same thing at all. To make this analogy work the choice would be 1) LET THE PERSON DROWN. 2) Help him by letting him work for you until the next ship comes around.
Tangurena 17y ago
> If you saw a drowning person, would you ask them to be your slave forever in exchange for throwing them a life preserver? That's a voluntary exchange too, but you're still a dick for doing it That's a pretty reasonable analogy for the cycle of debt that one can get stuck in with "payday loan" stores.

by neilk 17y ago

biohacker42 17y ago

If you saw a drowning person, would you ask them to be your slave forever in exchange for throwing them a life preserver? How do you suggest we remedy this? The OECD gets together and forces a minimum wage on the developing world? That might work, but I think the shortest, fastest and simplest way out hell is let their economies grow as fast as they can.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

potatolicious 17y ago

Modern, first-world standards cannot be applied to the third world - I am a prime example of this. I owe my life to child labor and sweatshop labor, allow me to explain. My family is originally from Taiwan, and both of my folks grew up when Taiwan was still an inconsequential tropical island consisted mostly of fishing villages and a hodgepodge government-in-exile. Both of them are beneficiaries of the "abusive" practices of foreign businesses. My father worked in a plastics plant, and once had to outrace a cloud of deadly chlorine gas, and survived by the grace of a low wall surrounding the factory (chlorine crawls along the ground). Safety practices were almost non-existent - my mother is still missing a small chunk of her right index finger (and she was lucky). My mother's family was desperately poor - my grandfather eventually succumbed to years of breathing in coal dust with no protective equipment, and all of his children worked from as young as 10 years-old to put themselves through school. But here's the thing: people in that country could not afford to educate themselves, and if it were not for the willingness of employers to hire child labor and form sweatshops, they would never have had the opportunity to climb out of that hole. If you had insisted on no child labor, minimum pay standards, and rigorous safety adherence, there would have been no reason to set up shop in a backwater island like Taiwan, and then where would we be? My family would likely still be living in the jungles up on some mountain somewhere, starving.

iamelgringo 17y ago
Modern, first-world standards cannot be applied to the third world... That's part of the problem, though, isn't it? The tremendous migration of manufacturing jobs to third world countries has been in large part because they are not limited to a 40 hour work week and first world safety standards. Of course it's cheaper to manufacture in China, their regulations are a lot more lax than ours, although that may be changing. I, too grew up in a Third World country. My parents were missionaries in Central America in the 80's. I grew up playing soccer with children who's bellies were bloated from parasites and could not afford shoes. I've worked in communities that were essentially indentured servants to the tomato packing industry. The tomato company owned the housing, ran the schools, provided plumbing, etc.. to their workers. The employees were willing to put up with indentured servitude, because on a certain level because it was better than starving. It was better for their children to get a 6th grade education and then go off to pick tomatoes than to have no education at all. Why did that happen? So we can have tomatoes at our local grocery store for $1 a pound. I agree that it is better for the people in the third world to have jobs rather than not have jobs, but I'm pretty conflicted about the entire situation. Starving children, vs children working 16 hours a day in a tomato field? That's not a good choice to have to make.
- Tichy 17y ago
  It certainly is not all clear cut to decide, but I tend to think that competition is the only way to solve these things. If the economy where stronger in 3rd world countries, there would be more competition for workers. Therefore the companies hiring would have to offer better conditions to keep the workers. I guess that is assuming an open market, too. It does not quite apply to dictatorships and slavery. Unless you count "flee to a neighboring country" as an option, which it probably isn't in most cases. Edit: I guess even slavery does not completely invalidate the concept. If demand was high enough, prices for slaves would rise. Eventually it would be high enough for slave owners to sell, and effectively the new owners would have to offer freedom as a price. Also neighboring countries would be willing to accept refugees if they had a high demand for labor.
  - 17y ago

philwelch 17y ago

I can afford to throw a life preserver with no real cost. When there are entire countries or continents of starving people to be saved though, it's not economically sustainable to just give them a first world standard of living from scratch. It has to be built up over time by progressively improving the standard of living. Indentured servitude is prominent in American history too--it's how many of our ancestors got passage to the New World. And now here we are with air-conditioned offices, OSHA regulations, and paid leave.

Devilboy 17y ago

If you saw a drowning person, would you ask them to be your slave forever in exchange for throwing them a life preserver? Not the same thing at all. To make this analogy work the choice would be 1) LET THE PERSON DROWN. 2) Help him by letting him work for you until the next ship comes around.

Tangurena 17y ago

> If you saw a drowning person, would you ask them to be your slave forever in exchange for throwing them a life preserver? That's a voluntary exchange too, but you're still a dick for doing it That's a pretty reasonable analogy for the cycle of debt that one can get stuck in with "payday loan" stores.