> 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.
=========
Many capitalists don't seem to mind.
> 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?
===========
Not that I'm romanticizing the issue, but they did it for thousands of years. What
they've gone through in the last 40 years or so isn't structurally different from the
enclosures in England way back when in Capitalism's golden age [sic]. They can't
raise themselves if the profits are expatriated to Wall Street and then to wherever.
>
> 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)
============
You're welcome. How's the drinking water and cancer rate around the chemical plants?
> 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.
==========
Does Jack Welch really get paid according to his marginal productivity? Would GE have
gone under if they paid your family a living wage and told the shareholders to quit
being so greedy?
>
> 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.
=========
Name one person on this planet who's publicly come out in favor of poverty besides
monks.
>
> 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.
===========
Boycotts, yeah that'll lift living standards of the poor. Why not change the property
and contract right of workers in Wal-Mart and their suppliers so that predatory
monopsony pricing doesn't take place and the clearks who work in the store don't have
to apply for food stamps. Or are the Walton family getting paid according to their
marginal productivity?
>
> 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
==============
So how would you raise the living standards of the poor given capitalist property
rights, financial markets, business cycles and greed?
Ian
