4 ms·

I didn't say that the other parts of the process had no value, I said that the relative return to people at the bottom of the labour chain is low. My claim is t

• pdonis 13y ago
  > the relative return to people at the bottom of the labour chain is low...they are getting paid proportionally less for the work that they do. If this is true, then based on the cost breakdown (which is all the evidence we have in this case), it's also true for the people who do order fulfillment and shipping/handling. Are all of those people also "at the bottom of the labour chain"? > poor people have less bargaining power, because they have less to bargain with (e.g. poorer health, less education, less to fall back on) It's true that poor people have worse health, education, etc., but that's not why they have less bargaining power. They have less bargaining power because they cannot perform higher-value work. Improving their health, education, etc. helps because it makes them capable of doing higher-value work, not because it magically increases the value of the same work they were doing before. A T-shirt doesn't become more valuable because the person making it is healthier or has a better education; but if better health and education enables the person to operate a T-shirt making machine that makes 10 shirts per hour, instead of making 1 shirt per hour by hand, then that person is doing higher-value work and should be paid accordingly (and will be, in a competitive free market). So if people want to have more bargaining power, they need to bring more value to the bargaining table. Helping people to do that is certainly worth doing. But it's no use pretending that just improving people's health, education, etc. is enough. It isn't.
  • mrow84 13y ago
    I'm not suggesting that "just improving people's health, education, etc. is enough." I'm suggesting that people aren't being paid enough because, structurally, they are in a poor bargaining position, and thus can't command higher wages, and so have worse outcomes, which perpetuates their position (that being the structural part). Lots of things go into it, and looking at individuals doesn't really address the wider problem. The only reason that people accept the low wages is because they have nothing else, and once things improve enough to drive wages up the industries that rely on low-wage labour move on. Now, you can take that two ways, and I see both as true (whereas you might only see one). Firstly, the jobs have (eventually/sometimes) improved conditions, up to the point where people demand too much, and the manufacturers have to move on. Note that this wasn't a benevolent act on the part of the manufacturers - they came there because that was where they could get the best return on their investment. It isn't quick, and the manufacturers have absolutely no interest in making it quicker - uprooting an industry is expensive, so they are incentivised to stop people attaining economic independence. The other way to look at it is that the only reason that the manufacturer could extract such a low price is because the people they came to employ were in such a desperate position that they had no other choice. The only argument is that it is still fair, because it was a mutual agreement, a point which I addressed in another sub-thread: it is not fair, because it relies on coercion. We go around the world, coercing people into doing work for us for as little pay as we can get away with. I don't know if you listened to it, but the NPR t-shirt podcasts had some of this stuff in there - including a guy from the t-shirt industry saying precisely that they go to wherever the poverty is, because it's cheaper (which makes sense!) The typical refrain is that, as I already mentioned, it makes things better. Yes, sure, it sometimes does, only much slower than it could do. There are also a host of other positive and negative effects that aren't covered by these ridiculous generalisations I'm making, that can make things either much better, or much worse, for the people involved. My belief is that we should use our combined wealth to mitigate the risks of uncertain negative events, and that it doesn't cost very much to do so for people who are poor. edit: I've enjoyed the discussion btw! :)
    • pdonis 13y ago
      > I'm suggesting that people aren't being paid enough because, structurally, they are in a poor bargaining position But how do you define "paid enough"? Enough for what? I'll agree that they aren't being paid enough to improve their situation materially, but that doesn't mean they aren't paid enough for the value they actually create, doing the work they're actually doing. > The only reason that people accept the low wages is because they have nothing else Yes, but again, that doesn't mean the low wages aren't an accurate reflection of the value those people are currently creating. > once things improve enough to drive wages up the industries that rely on low-wage labour move on Yes, by automating their processes so that a single worker is much more productive and therefore can command higher wages. Not by paying people higher wages for doing the same work they were doing before. > uprooting an industry is expensive, so they are incentivised to stop people attaining economic independence This is true, but note that it only actually works if the manufacturers have no competition. Which basically requires governments to be complicit in stopping their people from attaining economic independence. If there is free competition, then there is economic value to be captured in helping people become more productive, because the limiting factor in how much wealth can be created is almost always human productivity. So the manufacturer that comes to a poor country and builds a factory where people make T-shirts by hand won't last very long in free competition with another manufacturer that comes to that country and builds a factory where people make T-shirts by machine...and then builds a factory where people make trousers by machine...and then builds a factory where people make bicycles by machine...and so on, and so on; and thereby makes much more profit than the manufacturer who couldn't be bothered to invest in increasing workers' productivity. > I've enjoyed the discussion btw! :) So have I. :)