Sweatshops

[von Mises]

I've read so many times that we filthy pigs exploit third world children so here we have some examples for which you can be blamed.

1) In the early 1990s, the United States Congress considered the "Child Labor Deterrence Act," which would have taken punitive action against companies benefiting from child labor. The Act never passed, but the public debate it triggered put enormous pressure on a number of multinational corporations with assets in the U.S. One German garment maker laid off 50,000 child workers in Bangladesh. The British charity organization Oxfam later conducted a study that found that thousands of those laid-off children later became prostitutes, turned to crime, or starved to death.

2) The United Nations organization UNICEF reports that an international boycott of the Nepalese carpet industry in the mid-1990s caused several plants to shut down; thousands of Nepalese girls later entered the sex trade.

3) In 1995, a consortium of anti-sweatshop groups threw the spotlight on football (soccer) stitching plants in Pakistan. In response, Nike and Reebok shut down their plants in Pakistan, and several other companies followed suit. The result: tens of thousands of unemployed Pakistanis. Mean income in Pakistan fell by 20%. According to University of Colorado economist Keith E. Maskus, studies later showed a large proportion of those laid off ended up in crime, begging, or working as prostitutes. (Masksus source: Race to the Top, by Tomas Larsson.)

4) In 2000 the BBC did an expose on sweatshop factories in Cambodia with ties to both Nike and the Gap. The BBC uncovered unsavory working conditions, and found several examples of children under 15 years of age working 12 or more hour shifts. After the BBC expose aired, both Nike and the Gap pulled out of Cambodia under public pressure. Cambodia lost $10 million in contracts, and hundreds of Cambodians lost their jobs

To conclude

A country must be able to afford to ban child labor before child labor is pulled out from under it. Otherwise, without work, the children there beg, or starve, or die of malaria, or diarrhea.

[Goldfinger]

Yeah, I agree, but that doesn't mean sweatshops are a good thing.

[Invader Zim]

However if those multinational corporations had not been there in the firast place putting pressure on the economys and creating dependant economys then those kids would never have been laid off because they would be working in the traditional jobs of those nations. Sweat shops cause all these problems you described, making even more of a case for there, if not immidiate abolishment (because of the issues you raised) then the banning of new ones.

[革命者]

Quote: from von Mises on 10:58 am on May 1, 2003
I've read so many times that we filthy pigs exploit third world children so here we have some examples for which you can be blamed.

1) In the early 1990s, the United States Congress considered the "Child Labor Deterrence Act," which would have taken punitive action against companies benefiting from child labor. The Act never passed, but the public debate it triggered put enormous pressure on a number of multinational corporations with assets in the U.S. One German garment maker laid off 50,000 child workers in Bangladesh. The British charity organization Oxfam later conducted a study that found that thousands of those laid-off children later became prostitutes, turned to crime, or starved to death.

2) The United Nations organization UNICEF reports that an international boycott of the Nepalese carpet industry in the mid-1990s caused several plants to shut down; thousands of Nepalese girls later entered the sex trade.

3) In 1995, a consortium of anti-sweatshop groups threw the spotlight on football (soccer) stitching plants in Pakistan. In response, Nike and Reebok shut down their plants in Pakistan, and several other companies followed suit. The result: tens of thousands of unemployed Pakistanis. Mean income in Pakistan fell by 20%. According to University of Colorado economist Keith E. Maskus, studies later showed a large proportion of those laid off ended up in crime, begging, or working as prostitutes. (Masksus source: Race to the Top, by Tomas Larsson.)

4) In 2000 the BBC did an expose on sweatshop factories in Cambodia with ties to both Nike and the Gap. The BBC uncovered unsavory working conditions, and found several examples of children under 15 years of age working 12 or more hour shifts. After the BBC expose aired, both Nike and the Gap pulled out of Cambodia under public pressure. Cambodia lost $10 million in contracts, and hundreds of Cambodians lost their jobs

To conclude

A country must be able to afford to ban child labor before child labor is pulled out from under it. Otherwise, without work, the children there beg, or starve, or die of malaria, or diarrhea.


agreed. but you're still filthy pigs, okay??http://www.invisionboard.com/demo/style_images/1/icon10.gif

[redstar2000]

A curious thread.

Is the argument that poor countries "benefit" from the exploitation of children?

Should we look for the label "Made By Child Labor" on whatever garments we purchase?

Is there something especially "praiseworthy" about making kids work 12 to 14 hours a day for pennies an hour so that western consumers can have "name-brand" apparal?

Is the argument that multi-national corporations "save kids from the sex industry"?

And if the "spotlight of shame" was so effective, where are all those products that used to be made by kids being made now? By whom and under what conditions?

How about this idea, von Mises? A world-wide minimum-wage and regulated working conditions International Convention enforced by the World Trade Organization with appropriate penalties for violations?

No, you couldn't do something like that, could you? Think of the profits you would lose!

That's why reformists are wrong and revolutionaries are right!

:cool:

[Dan Majerle]

My thoughts exactly RedStar!

[Comrade Daniel]

As long as the multinational try to benifit from childs, as long as a corrupt african government forces girls into prostitution. The job isn't finished and this is jus bad. There are 2 things which need to be changed: first the governments in Africa should become real leftist nations and build up a reasonable education system and health care. Afther that the nation should nationalize their industry to avoid any multinational from killing abusing childs.
BTW Von Mises in fact the children working in Sweat Shops already are starving and already commit crime to get more money then they get from ours of working. Many girls are already forced to sell their body to richer land-owners.

[von Mises]

Source Comrade Daniel? And who is going to pay for all that?

I oppose sweatshops just as much as you do, but every economy went through an industrial stage with sweatshops. Only the periods get shorter, take for instance Taiwan, where it took only 25 years to reach modernity.

My point is that you can oppose sweatshops, but your reasoning drives kids into prostitution. If they don't work there won't be a Harry Potter running around waving money out of nothing.

And Redstar, we could give a minimum wage but why? If company A is already in a country and B wants to make use of the cheap labour as well, it needs to offer more money otherwise people will stay working for A.

And I would probably lose more money if the world knew that I have 5 year olds working 14 hrs a day and I ran around hitting everyone not working hard enough. So I would regulate itself.

Just as with the environment, an economy needs to get to a certain stage in order to abolish childlabour.

[Goldfinger]

yeah, and that type of economy is Marxism

[革命者]

And Redstar, we could give a minimum wage but why? If company A is already in a country and B wants to make use of the cheap labour as well, it needs to offer more money otherwise people will stay working for A.

correctie:

you filthy libertarian pig!!!

btw, von Mises.. are you a member of the JOVD (forums)??

(Edited by Scotty at 9:34 pm on May 1, 2003)

[redstar2000]

"I would regulate myself." -- von Mises

I just bet you would. :cheesy:

Between 1860 and 1917, American capitalism was the most "self-regulated" in world history.

The best summary of that instructive experience is the classic work by Gustavus Myers entitled History of the Great American Fortunes.

Look in your public library; it will be in the basement stacks. And it is scathing.

:cool:

[hazard]

this issue alone could prove to be the ultimate destruction of the western world. it is safe to assume that even the most brainwashed of the capitalist supporters cannot defened capitalism under this topic. as such, since these multi-nats cannot ever afford to pull out of their child labour policies, they will force the world to revolt against them.

what I'd like to know is why child labour laws are only partially enforced in the western nations. specifically, why are children permitted to be exploited on tv, on radio and in movies? not to mention music, stageshows and circuses. the worst of all these is the brutal, double exploitation of children that takes place in commercials. they are first exploited for their labour and then exploited again in order to sell a product. just as bad as the capitalists who do the exploiting are the parents who allow their children to be exploited. and worse than both of these are the herd of cattle that offers not one moment of consideration while they chew their cud like tv dinners and watch this transpire.

naturally, factory labour is harsher, but the allowable child labour is just as, if not more, exploitive. I think its time that something is done about legal child exploitation in the western world, as well as illegal child explitation in the rest of the world by the west.

[VivoFidel]

So what you are saying, is you need to exploit children to keep a balance between the companies...or is that just me.

[VivoFidel]

Another point is it was cappitalists who put sweatshops up in the first place, you are blaming the communists for a problem you caused, you know why? Because any American knows that "them commies are bad people" or so your Government taught you.

[von Mises]

Quote: from Scotty on 8:33 pm on May 1, 2003
And Redstar, we could give a minimum wage but why? If company A is already in a country and B wants to make use of the cheap labour as well, it needs to offer more money otherwise people will stay working for A.

correctie:

you filthy libertarian pig!!!

btw, von Mises.. are you a member of the JOVD (forums)??

(Edited by Scotty at 9:34 pm on May 1, 2003)


Who knows ;-)

Redstar2000, marketregulation is better than issuing all new kids of legislation.

My god, vivo, read waht I have written? You would propably think it's better for the children to get raped by 50 yr old fat germans or starve than get exploited in sweatshops. It is choosing between 2 bad things, and history shows that eventually things will get better.

Hazard, have you taken your pills?

[The Muckraker]

von Mises wrote:

And Redstar, we could give a minimum wage but why? If company A is already in a country and B wants to make use of the cheap labour as well, it needs to offer more money otherwise people will stay working for A.

That statement presumes that there is zero unemployment and only the workers in company A can do the labor required by company B. Perhaps this is an example of the "pure logic" of the Austrians, or of the mystical a priori knowledge they claim. In fact, if von Mises' statement was true, then one would have to conclude that every company in the US would have to pay more than the first company ever created here and so on to the present day in order to get workers! In fact, his argument means that every new factory in the US would have to pay more than the highest paid factory workers get, otherwise people would just leave the other factory to work for the new one. That's the kind of "logic" we've come to expect from fringe capitalists.

With arguments this weak, no wonder the Austrians aren't taken seriously. But thanks for making me smile, von Mises.

[von Mises]

So I do reading your posts Muckracker.

I was not arguing the case for the US market but for third world countries. As research shows most companies pay 20% more than people could earn normally. Unless they sell themselves to fat germans or start selling drugs, they could earn more. Or maybe cut off their leg so tourist give them more when they beg.

[The Muckraker]

von Mises,

Okay, I'll be nice to you. Let's forget about the US labor market. The fact remains that your example demands full employment and that the workers in Company A are the only ones who could work at Company B. It's a losing argument, Mises. And that's just what's suggested logically by your argument. In reality, it also demands that Company B opens up a factory right next door to Company A, for you're talking nations. Perhaps you don't feel you have to take into account a 100 mile separation between the plants, but I think that might be important, especially in poor nations with little infrastructure. You don't expect the workers from Company A to walk 100 miles to Company B every day, do you? Of course not.

You presented shit and called it a delicacy. Own up to it and hang your head in shame.

[von Mises]

Sorry can't do. Have you ever studied the development of countries throughout the decades? Of course this idea is extremely basic and doens't take into account a lot of other factors but that doesn't make it a crappy argument.

And people in Africa sometimes have to walk 3 hours for fresh water so it is not that strange.

[redstar2000]

Unilever saves kids from "sex industry".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/south_asia/3005059.stm

These multi-national corporations should hire you, von Mises, to teach them how to put a proper "spin" on their business practices.

:cool:

[von Mises]

Fine, then let them shut down the companies. Consequently you probably want to raise taxes here so we can give more aid to those countries?

Even the president of Mexico, I believe, told this. It was either working in a sweatshop or to live in poverty.