A couple days ago I wrote a note in favor of unilateral, if need be, free
trade. Someone responded with a note asking what I would do about
"sweatshops". It's a fair question and deserves an answer. Unfortunately, I
seem to have deleted the note so I hope remember the thrust of it.
Nobody, myself included, wants to see people work in "sweatshops", defined
as low paying jobs under poor to bad conditions.
On the other hand, to many people, what we see as "sweatshops" appear to be
the proverbial golden paving blocks. In other words, it is the opportunity
to raise themselves from an even worse existence. For example, there have
been a couple of notes about the Maquiladoras in Mexico. Yet nobody is
forcing the workers to go there. Yes, conditions appear pretty horrible to
Americans, but without the maquiladoras, what would these people do?
Subsistence farming generation after generation?
I've lived in Puerto Rico for the past 30 years. When I came here, it was
pretty third world. It still has a long ways to go but the progress has
been incredible (in part due to US subsidies both direct and via tax
relief, thank you all very much)
My father-in-law is in his late 80's now. He was one of 17 children. My
mother in law was one of 15. Both grew up in grinding poverty which even I,
having seen the poverty that used to exist on the island, can barely
imagine. His principle source of income was cutting cane at about 25 cents
a day and not even year round.
In the early 50's General Electric built a "sweatshop" in their town making
circuit breakers. It's still there, still making breakers. It didn't pay
much but it paid better than cane cutting and was steady. Both mother and
father in law worked there for 25 years before retiring.
It was terrible, mind-numbing work, sitting there putting breakers together
all day long. Doing the same thing over and over and over.
On the other hand, with no skills or education, there was not a whole lot
else they could do. It allowed them to contribute and be productive members
of society.
More importantly, it allowed them to build something for themselves. They
have a comfortable house and put 5 kids through college. These kids (my
wife included) will never have to do the kind of work they did and we are
eternally grateful. The grandkids are doing even better.
Without that "sweatshop", the 400 year cycle of grinding poverty and day to
day existence at the bottom rungs would never have been broken. My son
would probably be in a cane field right now instead of medical school. Who
knows where my daughter would have been but she would not be lead engineer
in a plant as she is now.
On a more macro scale, Puerto Rico has gone from being pretty basic in the
industry it has to being world class in terms of levels of technologies and
competencies. Especially in pharmaceuticals but in other areas as well.
Sure it would have been nice if my parents in law could have had nice
office jobs at $40m/yr for 20-30 hours of work a week. But we live in the
real world. People get paid what their labor is worth and, frankly,
unskilled labor is not worth all that much. You've got to start somewhere
and that somewhere is generally pretty basic. The thing is that you don't
have to stay there.
So don't bitch to me about "sweatshops". At least not in general. Unless
you want to tell me how much better off people are living and dying in
subsistence level poverty, generation after generation. Frankly, that
worldview doesn't get much sympathy from me. I don't like seeing poverty.
It is not necessary and, more importantly, it is morally wrong. From a
pragmatic point of view, people in poverty don't make very good customers,
either.
Now if you want to do something, you could organize boycotts, protests,
letter writing campaigns and the like of the products made in "sweatshops"
such as happened a few years ago with the Cathy Lee Gifford clothing. The
protests were able to get Wal-Mart to stop carrying the clothes.
That would certainly be one means of fighting them and it can be effective.
Forbes recently had an article on an American who runs a trading company in
Hong Kong which certifies plants for K-Mart in terms of working conditions,
safety, pay etc.
On the other hand, when Wal-Mart stopped carrying the Cathie Lee Gifford
clothes, the workers would up out of work and in much worse condition. Read
about OxFam's findings in that Paul Krugman article Louis Proyect posted
from Sunday's NY Times.
Best,
John R Henry CPP
Visit the Quick Changeover website at http://www.changeover.com
Subscribe to the Quick Changeover Newsletter at
http://www.changeover.com/newsletter.htm
