ho hum

[lauralh]

"For example, in Honduras, the site of the infamous Kathy Lee Gifford sweatshop scandal, the average apparel worker earns $13.10 per day, yet 44 percent of the country's population lives on less than $2 per day."

Comments

[tyrven.livejournal.com]

That's an interesting article. Good counter-point to the typical attacks against sweatshops.

[velvet.livejournal.com]

Pepsi machines instead of Coke?

[herbaliser.livejournal.com]

what.

[lemur68.livejournal.com]

But the columnist would have us believe that it's some big humanitarian effort, on the part of corporations, to open factories in third world countries so workers there won't have to resort to "scavenging through trash, prostitution, crime, or even starvation" (yeah that's a fuckin' improvement), when really that's just an unintended consequence. A positive one, maybe, but you can't convince me that that's why they're doing it. It's because they figured out they can really fatten up those profit margins by paying some foreign brown people 13 bucks a day instead of paying 13 bucks an hour to workers at home.

And while it may be true that "This is the same process of economic development the US went through, and it is ultimately the way third-world workers will raise their standard of living and quality of life," again, it's not like raising the standard of living in 3rd World nations is in these companies' mission statments.

[tyrven.livejournal.com]

Of course they're not doing it for humanitarian purposes! What a ridiculous proposition. I hardly expect humans to be altruistic without some ulterior motive; I certainly don't expect entities defined by profit motives to act any different (you might use the term "better").

Who cares WHY people do the things they do? We're striving for "progress" not some absolute moral standard of intent.

Any system or ideology based on how people "ought" to be instead of acknowledging how people are is bound to be disappointed.

[lemur68.livejournal.com]

I certainly don't expect entities defined by profit motives to act any different

Well me neither, but I don't have to be happy about it either.

Who cares? I care, for one.

[tyrven.livejournal.com]

Do you expect anything more of humans? Why would corporations behave any less selfishly than the components that make them up?

Of course you're not happy about it. That's the problem with ideology that I was getting at. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that but it's bound to result in disappointment.

You can't change human nature. Why try?

[chris.livejournal.com]

thats kind of a fatalistic argument. human nature does change over time. consider just the value of life. in the civil war we lost like x000,000 soldiers, now its upsetting when we've lost around 2000. in past cultures if a slave or serf or some other lower class fell ill or was injured, they'd just let them die. now even the poorest person is entitled to emergency medical care. consider how just a couple generations ago it was pretty acceptable for people to beat their wives and/or children like they were property. (if not accepted, it was certainly overlooked, and you sure didn't get involved in their business about it).

there's no reason to expect that people (as a society) can't or won't improve over time, unless of course, nobody tries to.

[tyrven.livejournal.com]

This isn't meant to be fatalistic nor is it to deny the purpose or benefit of "improvement" (by whatever yardstick a culture determines). The point is to challenge the role of intention or innate morality in that process. For instance, governments are not necessarily any more "moral" than they were two hundred years ago, but there are public relations issues due to how much we've brought the war to the living rooms of Americans; this accountability creates a consequence which yields a change in behavior. I don't think this invalidates the benefit of this change at all, but I think it's naive to mistake it with morality.

[chris.livejournal.com]

I'm sure if they could start up a draft, pay soldiers 1/4 of what they make now, and increase casualties about 500% they would (lives are cheap, bombs and missles are not). but as you say the circumstances of accountability are much higher now. its obviously not the government's morality that is changing the situation, but what the people will find acceptable.

[lemur68.livejournal.com]

Maybe I can't change anything, but just accepting all behavior, good and bad*, as "people: they do stuff" doesn't absolve the bad (you might use the term "different").

So you think I'm setting myself up for disappointment if I think that way, but I'm not going to acquiesce to the (supposed) immutability of man's nature just so I can be a little more happy. I'm neither a Buddhist nor an Objectivist.

*I'm being subjective here, I'm not some moral absolutist like you seem to think I am; but I'm not going to avoid calling something out if I'm not happy about it.

[tyrven.livejournal.com]

My point was not to promote acceptance of behavior. I think what we call morality is largely a result of rewards and consequences. Upholding and reinforcing boundaries is how we create change. That's different than holding people to a yardstick of morals which we expect to be genuine and selfless in nature, however. I think that people will follow what they perceive to be in their best interest; there are plenty of laws which I have very little investment into but I choose to follow because the perceived consequences outweigh the benefits of breaking them. I believe this is true of most change in the world.

This is, of course, largely philisophical in nature which I apologize for. There is only limited benefit to such discussion.

[chris.livejournal.com]

there's a lot of semantics at issue here when you talk about "sweatshops". i think its pretty well understood that people work in these factories because its a decent job comparitively, but that doesn't mean its ok to take advantage of people who have few or no other options. $13 a day isnt bad in some places, yeah, but more of the issue has to do with mandatory overtime, lack of breaks, and unsafe working conditions.

[tyrven.livejournal.com]

Are end consumers willing to invest into fair work conditions? This is why we regularly vote against local labor.

[chris.livejournal.com]

i'd pay more for a pair of shoes if i knew the working conditions that made them were fair. I know your average wall mart shopper wouldn't though.

[tyrven.livejournal.com]

Would you really? It's easy to say that. When your cost of living doubles or triples, however, and you find yourself opting between your values and a different socioeconomic status altogether it becomes a bit more difficult. Would you choose to live in effective poverty rather than support any product made by unfair work conditions (if such a standard were possible)?

[chris.livejournal.com]

first off, i'm not trying to be judgemental here. there are obviously a lot of people who shop at wal mart because thats all they can afford, and though i dislike them as a business entity, they do fill a pretty serious need in our society. but personally, i can afford to shop elsewhere, so I do. for most people, myself included, its going to be a compromise and not an "all or nothing" type of thing. socioeconomic status proportionally is going to dictate how many "fair labor" goods one can purchase. at some point yes, you have to decide between your value system and basic survival, or even comfortable survival.

and then obviously this is all a personal choice to be made. some people aren't going to find any value in how their goods are produced, regardless of their income.

[herbaliser.livejournal.com]

I just wish they'd actually pass the savings onto the consumer. Fucking Nike.

[tyrven.livejournal.com]

I could care less about the consumer. I wish they'd pass the savings onto ME.

[herbaliser.livejournal.com]

maybe if you bought their shoes they would!

[tyrven.livejournal.com]

Or better yet, their stock.