|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
you make some interesting points (Reply to this comment)
by colonialpara
but also neglect to address the fact that U.S. multinationals partake of this system while shipping former American jobs to these 3rd World locations at the cost of the future economic viability of the middle class.
No argument you can make that is pro-capitalist excuses that. I am a conservative with strong libertarian tendencies, but American corporations with their constant need to impove stock prices makes them economic traitors.
Some day, it is the USA that will have become a Third World country when we lose ALL of out hi-tech and manufacturing expertise.
|
Apr 15 '07
2:25 pm PDT
|
|
An excellent essay-- (Reply to this comment)
by gaviidae
--and an interesting and provocative view of "sweatshops" and "greedy capitalists!"
Congratulations, also, for the VERY interesting discussion you stimulated in this comment thread! I'm late discovering this, because your essay was written at a time I was traveling with my Alerts on hold.
"Greedy capitalism" is of course the greatest creative force the world has ever known. Greedy capitalists are driven to produce more and more of what people want, need, and will buy, and to do so at the lowest cost possible---so that they can sell more and more at lower prices than their competition and still make a profit.
And the profit largely goes to expansion and production of more and more products, and creation of more and more JOBS for more and more people, and in more and more destitute, third world nations, replacing agriculture (or making it more efficient) and eliminating starvation and hunger.
The greatest engine for social and economic progress ever known! But of course no one favors hazardous or unsafe working conditions, and there needs to be constraints on the greedy capitalists to ensure safe working conditions.
A global minimum wage sounds appealing to "progressives" but it's clearly the wrong answer, for the reasons you have clearly articulated.
Thanks for your great essay, and for sharing your obvious knowledge and interest in this subject! Your best offering since your essay on the national debt!
Regards,
Gavia
|
Apr 09 '04
9:00 am PDT
|
|
Safe, Comfortable Working Conditions!!! (Reply to this comment)
by AinsleyJo
All I would ask would be that the working conditions for these third-world people be safe and comfortable!
If they're willing to work for less than we do, that simply means that our less is their more.
And we need to remember that there wouldn't have been the need for so many jobs to go overseas in the first place had we not kept listening to left-wing-stanced unions and their propaganda that WE were slaves working in sweatshops!!!
A wonderful, nearly-new factory has closed right here in Anderson, Indiana USA because the demands of workers just kept becoming more and more unreasonable until they could no longer afford to be kept on.
There just so happen to be people in the third-world who know the REAL meaning of nasty working conditions and slavery (for instance, prostitution), and what we cushy ones have turned up our noses at is something they're running in the direction of.
Uncle Finley had a favorite expression: You never miss the water 'til the well runs dry!
I was here a long time ago and rated this piece VH but, for some reason, didn't leave a comment at the time (I think one of those site bugs happened about that time, then, I got distracted).
However, my view on this hasn't changed, and I think that you're pretty close to 100% accurate in your stance!
Write On!!!
AJ :o)
|
Apr 02 '04
1:24 pm PST
|
|
Hey... (Reply to this comment)
by crypticcradle
Here comes a view from an extreme progressive (I'll keep it respectful though...this was very well written)...
The socialist in me says that no matter what you say, people living in squalor should not be made slaves to capitalistic 1st world countries. But you've heard that several times already...
The (not so proud) American in me says that a world minimum wage would be good because then our own people might not be losing as many jobs due to production moving to where the ultra-cheap labor is (though that would still probably be cheaper)...
And then, the I don't know, scholar in me agrees with you that it seems the mass production in sweat shops does help pull countries into 1st worlddom (can I use that word...ahh I just did). The USA did it, right? But then again the USA made their economy on the backs of slaves. But maybe that's what our companies are doing now in the third world. I mean, is their productivity benefitting them in necessary goods as our sweat shops did in the colony/country's infancy? Again, as you said, questions but no answers.
Well, I'm going to stay anti-sweat shop pro-world minimum wage based on my principles.
------------------
Take my comment for what it's worth. It seems the opposite sides of the political realm argue and bicker to each other more than converse. I'm progressive but definitely anti-USA major parties - I dislike the whole aristocracy that we live in now. But take that for what it's worth too - just wanted to let you know where I'm coming from since I've never dropped you a line before. Peace...
|
Apr 01 '04
6:38 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I am very surprised.. (Reply to this comment)
by aashok
As interesting as this Bhopal discourse has been, it is beside the point as Bhopal wasn't a sweatshop- which is the focus of mnehr's essay.
Sweatshops all over the world, AND the tragedy at Bhopal are all due to the unbridled greed of western companies. They set up manufacturing and assembly plants in third world countries, so they can minimize costs and maximize profits by violating the human rights of (as Arthur puts it) "the natives".
Corporate negligence is hardly the province of the third world but is a universal issue.
True dat...however it is the discriminatory practices such as reduced safety standards and poor working conditions, that devalue a human life in a third world country.
Ash
|
Feb 16 '04
3:12 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I am very surprised.. (Reply to this comment)
by munkus
As interesting as this Bhopal discourse has been, it is beside the point as Bhopal wasn't a sweatshop- which is the focus of mnehr's essay.
Corporate negligence is hardly the province of the third world but is a universal issue.
|
Feb 15 '04
5:17 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I am very surprised.. (Reply to this comment)
by Arthur.Rubin
Then why did UC agree to a $470mm settlement in 1989?
Probably because an Indian court would not recognize liability for actions of the Indian government. As you note later, the class action suit in US courts was thrown out.
The Indian government did not mandate reduced safety standards and reduced training of the NATIVES.
No -- they mandated that the natives be employed in production -- before their training was completed.
...
I assume you are talking about accident reports issued by UC.
Actually, I was referring to the accident reports in the Indian OSHA-equivalent files. They are obviously based on UC memos and reports, and show that there was an alarm on the mixing tank, and that the employees didn't take the indicated corrective action. The reason for that failure must be sabotage, incompetence, or failed equipment (i.e., they tried to close the value or open the spill value, and it didn't work). The UC record shows that the employees on duty at that station hadn't completed their training, but were put in place to comply with a government mandate.
The records could have been falsified, but so could the Indian government records.
It may also be the case that the tank explosion would have been contained if US confinement standards had been in place. Whether that would affect liability is best left to the lawyers, but it wouldn't have protected the workers inside the plant.
No -- a reasonable court would find, if UC didn't have an obligation to shut down the plant when it was made unsafe by actions of the Indian government, that they were at most responsible for a small fraction of the damage. Whether that would or should make them liable for the entire damage is best left to British legal scholars.
|
Feb 15 '04
12:18 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I am very surprised.. (Reply to this comment)
by aashok
As I said -- perhaps UC should have pulled out of India. But they have no obligation to maintain US safety requirements when the contrary was mandated by the Indian government.
The reduced safety in question is in regard putting native employees in place before their training would have been complete under US standards. That reduction was mandated by the Indian government. UC's alternative would have to shut down the plant until the training was completed -- if the training could be done with the plant shut down.
Then why did UC agree to a $470mm settlement in 1989? The Indian government did not mandate reduced safety standards and reduced training of the NATIVES. Rather they insisted that if UC intends to sell their product to Indian farmers, then they should produce that product in India. Also that at least 25% of the investment be raised from the local markets. It was UC equipment, UC discrimination, UC profits, and UC greed, which was to blame for the Bhopal tragedy. Dows continued indifference to (third world) human life by not cleaning up the plant and just abandoning it, is claiming hundreds of new lives every year.
Furthermore, the reports clearly indicate that an alarm was ignored -- and that, if the tank was shut down in response to the alarm, as mandated by the training the employees received, the accident probably would not have happened. The telemetry data indicates that a value was turned the wrong way for normal processing -- that value being inaccessible under normal operating conditions suggests sabotage. But, if the native employees had followed the procedures they were trained to do, the accident still probably wouldn't have happened.
I assume you are talking about accident reports issued by UC. These UC reports are all suspect considering the past and future liability of the company. The previous settlement of $470mm, plus a possible expense of over $500mm in cleanup costs, plus the 1999 class action lawsuit, are all a strong incentive for UC to hide the facts. In the 1999 case, the court forced the release of internal UC documents, which indicate the following:
1) The company (UCIL) did not raise enough money ($28mm)in it’s IPO, to maintain a controlling (50+ percent) interest in UC India Ltd. So the company instead, reduced its investment in the project ($20MM) by using new and unproven technologies.
2) Grossly reduced safety standards and equipment, such as:
- Only one flare tower instead of (the US standard) two.
- No spill-over tank around the main MIC tank. (which is common in US plants)
- Using equipment with only a limited trial run and no proven safety record.
- Disposing toxic chemical waste by evaporation in open pits, which resulted in poisoning the water table. This continues to poison and kill the people living in the area today.
3) While Judge Keenan dismissed the 1999 case on the grounds that "too much time had passed" and that cleanup was unenforceable by the court due to the remote location, he recognized the fact that Union Carbide HAD withheld information from the public and the court.
Going back to Mnehrs review, the fact that the victims are third world citizens, does not reduce the sense of responsibility and liability of greedy corporations.
Ash
|
Feb 15 '04
8:43 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I am very surprised.. (Reply to this comment)
by Arthur.Rubin
Read the accident reports.
As I said -- perhaps UC should have pulled out of India. But they have no obligation to maintain US safety requirements when the contrary was mandated by the Indian government.
Furthermore, the reports clearly indicate that an alarm was ignored -- and that, if the tank was shut down in response to the alarm, as mandated by the training the employees received, the accident probably would not have happened.
The telemetry data indicates that a value was turned the wrong way for normal processing -- that value being inaccessible under normal operating conditions suggests sabotage. But, if the native employees had followed the procedures they were trained to do, the accident still probably wouldn't have happened.
The reduced safety in question is in regard putting native employees in place before their training would have been complete under US standards. That reduction was mandated by the Indian government. UC's alternative would have to shut down the plant until the training was completed -- if the training could be done with the plant shut down.
|
Feb 14 '04
10:09 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: I am very surprised.. (Reply to this comment)
by aashok
Arthur Rubin,
"(2) the reduced safety standards were mandated by the Indian government,"
BULL SH!T
Come on Arthur, I expect better from you...
"in any forum outside of India, it is clear that UC bears very little responsibility for the explosion."
UC did not have a problem reporting $200MM in sales from UC India Ltd, of which it owned 50.9% controlling interest. It was their obligation to maintain US equivalent safety standards. Blaming the "NATIVES", often seems to be the best policy, for all these greedy companies.
Ash
|
Feb 13 '04
6:17 pm PST
|
|
Re: Bravo! (Reply to this comment)
by munkus
That's a very simplistic defense of exploitation.
|
Feb 13 '04
6:15 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: I am very surprised.. (Reply to this comment)
by munkus
I agree with pretty much everything you say, except the Bhopal plant wasn't a sweatshop.
|
Feb 13 '04
6:15 pm PST
|
|
Bravo! (Reply to this comment)
by matthewn
The liberals/socialists always whine about how we are 'exploiting' people over seas. When there is a willing buyer (employers) and a willing seller (that being the employee), where's the exploatation?
You were right in the comment section here about how the Nazis used the same rhetoric to gain power. The communists blamed capitalists, the Nazis blame the Jews for their economic hardships of Germany.
Matt
|
Feb 13 '04
8:16 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: . (Reply to this comment)
by mnehr
Please don't. It is a common misnomer and a good part of this debate. For the longest time the left/socialists have tried to distance themselves from the national socialist (nazi) movement and somehow brand it as extreme right wing. In reality, its socialist policies came to power less like those found in Eastern Europe and more like the rise of 'class warfare' rhetoric that one hears today from the left.
|
Feb 13 '04
8:00 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: . (Reply to this comment)
by asafono
I apologize for underestimating and misjudging your expertise on the socio-economic situation in the Nazi Germany - you know a lot more about it that I do. Will delete my prior comments on this topic if requested...
|
Feb 13 '04
7:56 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: I am very surprised.. (Reply to this comment)
by mnehr
Wow, last night was interesting for comments.
|
Feb 13 '04
6:55 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: I am very surprised.. (Reply to this comment)
by Arthur.Rubin
How about the 3800 killed and 11000 people disabled for life, due to lack of safety standards at Union Carbide in Bhopal India?
How many times does it need to be pointed out that (1) India demanded the plant be placed in the country if UC products were to be sold in the country; (2) the reduced safety standards were mandated by the Indian government, and (3) it appears to have been sabotage -- whether due to gross negligence or an intentional act of a native employee is not clear.
I'm not saying that UC should have placed the plant in India -- or that they should not have closed the plant when they discovered that untrained employees were placed in positions of responsibility by the Indian government -- just that, in any forum outside of India, it is clear that UC bears very little responsibility for the explosion. Damages caused by toxic chemicals released before the explosion may be another matter.
|
Feb 13 '04
6:16 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: I am very surprised.. (Reply to this comment)
by aashok
My Dear Doc
One point.. the main point.. that folks cannot comprehend who have been raised in a wealthy country, is that sometimes these 'sweatshops' are a family's ONLY means of income.
I guess it beats shoveling cow dung all day :)
These are in different cultures entirely. To try to equate them with US standards is like apples and oranges.
Different cultures….yes. But people with the same basic need to improve their lives.
Do I like that folks are working in horrid places? No, I do not.. but neither can I afford to bring them all over here and support them myself... so they need some way to do that themselves.
Nobody wants to bring them here…God forbid! And they don’t need our support. They never have. Many of these so-called third world countries, have had flourishing civilizations since 3000-7000BC.
This is their best shot, and as Mnehr points out, it's sometimes much better pay than any of their alternatives.
Better pay but at what cost! Severed arms and hands in hazardous textile mills? Women with poisoned lungs and mutated fetuses from sneaker assembly plants? Or how about the underage children working 18 hours a day, putting together Kathy Lee’s new fall collection? How about the 3800 killed and 11000 people disabled for life, due to lack of safety standards at Union Carbide in Bhopal India? Sweatshops are their best shot?
What Kerry proposes is to take food out of these family's mouths. He'd apparently much rather they starve...
Kerry proposes that, western companies that go to third world countries to reduce costs, should do so responsibly, and adhere to the same standards they would in their own country. Instead of lowering standards, I think he would rather we raise their standards to our own. Empowering a person is a lot more powerful than simply providing a fractional wage job. Lowering health and safety standards in another country, indirectly equates to lowering the value of a human life in that country.
So is that invitation to stay in your basement, still open? I’ll bring a kilt...
Progressive..Ash
PS: Threats in email.. it must be that angry man who wants to pistol whip Mnehr, if he doesn’t vote for Jim.
Mnehr,
” relative comparison”
‘Relative comparison’, sounds a lot like economic discrimination eh?
|
Feb 13 '04
3:51 am PST
|
|
Re: I am very surprised.. (Reply to this comment)
by munkus
You seem to be confusing legal with illegal in the world of sweatshops and I probably wasn't clear enough in my first comment.
As far as I'm aware there are few legal sweatshops in the usual sense of the word, which is why I used "legal" in that an official blind eye is turned to their activities.
Sweatshops are fetid, nasty, squalid places. Have you ever been in one? I have and I have never been so relieved that I had the choice to leave. Many of those working in sweatshops don't have that choice.
You also imply that sweatshops are a largely third-world issue but you forget that underground sweatshops exist in the US, Australia and Western Europe. Though I'm pretty sure from your earlier reply you're against those.
I'm not arguing that suddenly we flood a market with US level wages. That would be a disaster. But as the "rich nations" we have a social responsibility (dangerous and often misused words those) to improve conditions. Yes, US$1 is worth something different everywhere, with a different PPP and so on- but I would've thought that being employed in a safe workplace was of universal worth. Asides from the wage issue (and I begrudgingly accept your argument on that front) sweatshops are, generally, very dangerous places.
And you seem to be suggesting we turn a blind eye to this because it'll help the global economy and it'll make them stronger in the end anyhow. What doesn't kill 'em makes 'em stronger eh?
RE: emails- yes. that sucks. At least I have the balls to disagree publicly ;)
|
Feb 13 '04
2:43 am PST
|
|
Re: I am very surprised.. (Reply to this comment)
by drdevience
Threats in email.. why am I not surprised?
One point.. the main point.. that folks cannot comprehend who have been raised in a wealthy country, is that sometimes these 'sweatshops' are a family's ONLY means of income.
These are in different cultures entirely. To try to equate them with US standards is like apples and oranges.
Do I like that folks are working in horrid places? No, I do not.. but neither can I afford to bring them all over here and support them myself... so they need some way to do that themselves. This is their best shot, and as Mnehr points out, it's sometimes much better pay than any of their alternatives.
What Kerry proposes is to take food out of these family's mouths. He'd apparently much rather they starve...
OpinionatedDoc
|
Feb 12 '04
3:41 pm PST
|
|
I am very surprised.. (Reply to this comment)
by mnehr
.. in the hostility and threats in the e-mails I am receiving here from people who don't want to post comments.
I believe that many have missed the point (and an entire paragraph) that this is a counterbalance argument and does not reflect my all of my personal opinion. I have attempted to clarify that point in the article.
|
Feb 12 '04
12:51 pm PST
|
|
Re: You're kidding right!? (Reply to this comment)
by mnehr
see prior comments..
Again the problem is that one side sees this as a race to the bottom, as you put it. The problem with that argument is that it does not look at it from the perspective of the situations these people are in. They are moving upward, getting out of poverty. A race to the bottom would be moving jobs out and forcing people back into the poverty they were in.
|
Feb 12 '04
12:28 pm PST
|
|
You're kidding right!? (Reply to this comment)
by vemartin
Hummmm, what the good Senator is proposing is just common sense and self-preservation. We are in the wage game in a race to the bottom, and at the finish line the United States will be the loser; ask any Walmart employee not currently in management, you know those who receive no health care, overtime, or decent wages! In case you haven’t notice, good paying white collar and manufacturing jobs are fleeing the U.S. as fast or faster then Walmart and Target can create low wage replacements. And where are they going? To those very same sweatshops you seem to think are necessary.
A truly global economy which respects the rights of all humans will not occur, and the U.S. will not stop hemorrhaging jobs, until the wage playing field is leveled. How many more high paying jobs can the U.S. economy lose before our standard of living begins to suffer? Cites and states are already feeling the pinch, and they in turn squeeze the taxpayer who has very little left to give. And as wages continue their decent here in the U.S. how much longer can an economy increasingly depended on consumer spending sustain itself?
No the race to the bottom is not good for anyone; not you, not me, not those poor suffering masses in Asia, or Mexico. The WTO and World Bank can play apart here by demanding certain standards of member nations, and enforcing those standards by withholding good and services. Instead of making excuse for and tolerating sweatshops we should be demanding change. Slavery was part and partial of growing societies in the past as well; should we laud its return? We as humans should demand more…
VeMartin
|
Feb 12 '04
12:14 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: . (Reply to this comment)
by mnehr
Oh and just so everyone is clear; to quote Indiana Jones:
I hate Nazis..
|
Feb 12 '04
8:42 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: . (Reply to this comment)
by mnehr
Oh, and some references on this to remove the hearsay thought:
Art, Ideology and Economics in Nazi Germany
by Steinweis, Alan E.
Economic Relations Between Nazi Germany and Franco's Spain: 1936-1945 (Oxford Historical Monographs)
by Christian Leitz
War and Economy in the Third Reich
by R. J. Overy
Feeding the German Eagle: Soviet Economic Aid to Nazi Germany, 1933-1941
by Edward E. Ericson III
|
Feb 12 '04
8:21 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: . (Reply to this comment)
by mnehr
You are correct that this did not effect most small business. It actually promoted self-ownership (albeit highly restrictive) of small business and demonized (later taking control of) industry.
When I used the term business I probably should use the term industry instead as although the movement was highly restrictive on the business you mention it was industry that was socialized. This is something that is just recently being put together and is often an overlooked, specifically Volksgemeinschaft (a rough translation is community but refers to community work projects.)
The bulk of industry control in this was through government sponsored ‘unions’ which stripped control of the industry leaders, leaving them only as puppets, and relinquished control to the union’s handlers, the party.
The second part of this was through industry re-focus, specifically Volksgemeinschaft, creating community work projects were industry was ‘encouraged’ to refocus efforts on public works projects or military projects and all hiring dictates were controlled by the party.
In 1936 Hitler started his 4 year plan (Lebensraum- translated as habitat) under Schacht which took complete control of agricultural production, raw material production and import/export from Germany.
Often this is not looked at as traditional socialism control of business because the figureheads were left in power but it, for all intensive purposes it did socialize the industry within Germany.
|
Feb 12 '04
8:16 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: . (Reply to this comment)
by asafono
You are correct in pointing out my slight fallacy, National Socialism as known in Germany and Italy in the 20s & 30s did not take over all business but most business. A business was taken over if it were deemed helpful for the 'betterment of society' (pure socialism)..
Again, I am not sure what you basing this on (hearsay?) but this is still far from what actually happened. In Germany especially, "big business", the IMC, as well as many small shop owners, artisans, entrepreneurs, were strong backers of the Nazi party, and their business (which represented a major portion of the economy) were not privatized. Jewish businesses, yes.
|
Feb 12 '04
7:52 am PST
|
|
Re: . (Reply to this comment)
by mnehr
But come on you all.. I would love to see some competiting reviews. Do you think I write these so everyone is all smiles and agrees.
All of you are excellent writers, so write..
:->
|
Feb 12 '04
7:30 am PST
|
|
Re: . (Reply to this comment)
by mnehr
So many comments so little time.
To take these one at a time, first aashok what you fail to calculate as do many is the relative purchasing power of what they are paid in US dollars within their own economy. I showed this in the calculations where the average 'sweatshop' worker, instead of being a slave, falls within the national average income of their country.
Another item of rheortic that is falsely promoted is the squalor that these people work in. Again, people promote the falsity of comparing their working conditions to the first world. What one must do is compare the working conditions to the standard of living and working conditions in their country. In case after case it is shown that what we call squalor is actually a strong improvement from the conditions they lived in or alternative work conditions.
It is interesting how progressives like to stop progress for the sake of rheortic that does not hold up under scrutiny. The fact is that these people's lives are improving and history shows us that it will continue to improve as they are now competing in a natural state of progress.
asafono:
You are correct in pointing out my slight fallacy, National Socialism as known in Germany and Italy in the 20s & 30s did not take over all business but most business. A business was taken over if it were deemed helpful for the 'betterment of society' (pure socialism)..
On your major point all we need to do is look at history and account for automated production of products. Korea, which used to be a harbinger of sweatshops, was a main manufacturer of computer and electronic parts. As Korea grew economically so did technology and now the sweatshops are not needed as much of the process is automated.
Your third point is still based on looking at rheortic. Again, why not do a relative comparison of conditions in and out of these so called 'sweatshops'. Sweatshops are providing a living wage and better living conditions than are available in these poorer countries. We can throw numbers around all day that say they only make about $1.00 US each day, but we never want to see what the relative purchasing power in their economy is. It is a complete myth that this is a form of legalized slavery.
Munkus:
By now you probably have come to see my answer if you read the other replies. Again, we cannot judge another countries standards based on our current standards. It is a gross misstep that we assume we impose western living standards on countries that do not have the means to support those standards.
We have to support progress forward. If we do not and continue to beat the same old drums of rheortic then these people will remain in much worse conditions than you are petitioning against.
(Yes, illegal sweatshops are a completely different story and should be dealt with differently.)
Why do people in these countries want this kind of employment? It is all about relative comparison. Employment in so called sweatshops is a huge increase in their standard of living and is moving many people out of abject poverty and starvation.
And going right back to Ash's last comment
But I guess it is more profitable to simply put a cheaper price tag on the life of a (third world) human being.
Again you miss relative comparison, but I will let you progressives (sic) say that these people are completely worthless because they are poor instead of giving them an opportunity to move out of poverty.
This so reminds me of how the progressives think it is uncompassionate to want homeless people to work but have campaigns to give them new shopping carts empowering them to stay in the situations they are in.
I knew this would be an interesting debate.
|
Feb 12 '04
7:16 am PST
|
|
. (Reply to this comment)
by aashok
You bring up some interesting debating points. However your argument might be more compelling if you could list the names and addresses of sweatshops you visited in China, India, South America and other exotic locales (for research).
Most (99.99%) of these sweatshops are nothing more than modernized slavery. They exploit the basic living needs (food & shelter) of third world human beings, while violating their human rights. Human beings are forced to work and spend a majority of their life, in unsafe, unsanitary, unhealthy, polluted and sub-human environments. However, we the citizens of the developed world, would never tolerate working under these conditions. In fact we even have laws to protect our human rights.
Going from a manufacturing cost of 15 cents to $40 retail, is indicative of the unbridled greed in corporate America. If these companies really cared about the people they employ in their manufacturing plants (sweat shops), they would maintain US standards of safety, hygiene, pollution control and normal working hours (40+OT). They would create goodwill in these communities by investing (a portion of their $39.85)in schools, child day care centers, libraries, schools etc. That would be the correct thing to do.
But I guess it is more profitable to simply put a cheaper price tag on the life of a (third world) human being.
**PHTEW**
Ash
|
Feb 12 '04
3:34 am PST
|
|
|
|
