Why the anti-sweatshop crusaders have it wrong

[A2K78]

Thomas DiLorenzo has it right, the crusade against sweatshops have nothing to do with the plight/abuse of workers, but everything to do with the self-interest of the labor unions in this country.

What I like about DiLorenzo argument against the ant-sweatshop crowd, he goes to mention how these workers are earning more than than the average wage:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo113.html

 

[Sphinx]

clearly the author has never worked in that type of environment, nor anything remotely close to it.

 

[Scaff]

Thomas DiLorenzo has it right, the crusade against sweatshops have nothing to do with the plight/abuse of workers, but everything to do with the self-interest of the labor unions in this country.

What I like about DiLorenzo argument against the ant-sweatshop crowd, he goes to mention how these workers are earning more than than the average wage:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo113.html

OK I seriously don't know what point to start out with in regard to this, but to be honest that some one who is a professor of economics could put out something so clearly biased and easily discredited is quite surprising.

First his piece makes no attempt at all to distinguish the nature of third world factory being looked at. Lumping together those that do pay good wages and have structured employee rights with those that do not. To not even attempt to acknowledge that good and bad employers exist within the third world labour market shows not only a fundamental flaw in logic and reasoning, but such a massive bias that it becomes easy to dismiss the entire piece.

Are you (and the author) seriously expecting us to believe that every third world employer pays above average wages and offers excellent working conditions? If so it displays a level of naivety that is staggering.

To then lump everyone who believes that sweat shops that do exploit workers and pay substandard wages (for the local area) as simply being slaves to the US union movement is equally laughable. Sorry, but does the rest of the world not have an issue with this very problem or are they also in the thrall of the American unions?

Biased and poorly written does not even come close to my view on this piece.

I mean its not exactly difficult to find evidence of sweatshops that do pay below local wages and do treat employees illegally (in regard to local law)...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/08/gap-next-marks-spencer-sweatshops





Scaff

 

[Duke]

I haven't read the article (and after Scaff's indictment, I don't intend to), but the fundamental point I've never had explained to me is this:

How is offering someone a low-paying, poor-conditions job worse than not offering them any job at all?

I am all for workers being treated fairly and humanely, but that basic question has never been answered by the anti-sweatshop crowd.

 

[Danoff]

^ That

 

[lbsf1]

However these employers break lots of the rights stated in the decleration of human rights.

Partly this one.
4. No one has the right to treat you as a slave nor should you make anyone your slave.
Some ones I have seen in the news break this one.
17. Everyone has the right to own property and possessions.
These three definately.
23. Everyone has the right to work for a fair wage in a safe environment and to join a trade union.
24. Everyone has the right to rest and leisure.
25. Everyone has the right to an adequate standard of living and medical help if they are ill.
Some break these.
26. Everyone has the right to go to school.


So would having no job and begging the streets for a probably similar wage be better than working for these employers who blatently disregard your human rights.

 

[Danoff]

However these employers break lots of the rights stated in the decleration of human rights.

Partly this one.
4. No one has the right to treat you as a slave nor should you make anyone your slave.

Paying you for services is not making you a slave. If they do make you a slave they cease to be a "sweatshop" and become a "slave owner". Totally different topic.

Some ones I have seen in the news break this one.
17. Everyone has the right to own property and possessions.

...but they don't have the right to have property or possessions handed to them. So again, if it's theft, that's not a sweatshop. Theft is theft.

These three definately.
23. Everyone has the right to work for a fair wage in a safe environment and to join a trade union.
24. Everyone has the right to rest and leisure.
25. Everyone has the right to an adequate standard of living and medical help if they are ill.
Some break these.
26. Everyone has the right to go to school.

These aren't rights. These are crappy UN "wouldn't it be nice" statements that are inconsistent with human rights. These are the sorts of things that make the UN rights list a total joke.

 

[wfooshee]

Your "declaration of human rights" is not a legal document, so it can't be violated.

Damn, Danoff said it while I was thinking. And said it better.

 

[lbsf1]

Yes its not a legal document however it is one that has much importance and leads to many legal documents. I googled decleration of human rights and that is the list I came up with so I'm pretty sure those ones are part of the document, I heard of one place that refused to let people have property of their own so that one was broken. We have just done a gcse rs section on human rights and yes those are the human rights by what is part of the uk Curiculim at schools. Those employers also have the responsilility of the health and safety of their employies.

 

[Danoff]

It's the UN declaration which is preposterous. Check the US bill of rights for a much better list.

 

[Omnis]

OK I seriously don't know what point to start out with in regard to this, but to be honest that some one who is a professor of economics could put out something so clearly biased and easily discredited is quite surprising.

First his piece makes no attempt at all to distinguish the nature of third world factory being looked at. Lumping together those that do pay good wages and have structured employee rights with those that do not. To not even attempt to acknowledge that good and bad employers exist within the third world labour market shows not only a fundamental flaw in logic and reasoning, but such a massive bias that it becomes easy to dismiss the entire piece.

Are you (and the author) seriously expecting us to believe that every third world employer pays above average wages and offers excellent working conditions? If so it displays a level of naivety that is staggering.

To then lump everyone who believes that sweat shops that do exploit workers and pay substandard wages (for the local area) as simply being slaves to the US union movement is equally laughable. Sorry, but does the rest of the world not have an issue with this very problem or are they also in the thrall of the American unions?

Biased and poorly written does not even come close to my view on this piece.

I mean its not exactly difficult to find evidence of sweatshops that do pay below local wages and do treat employees illegally (in regard to local law)...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/08/gap-next-marks-spencer-sweatshops





Scaff

If you have a problem, I would e-mail Thomas or Lew Rockwell about the article. It's Lew's site after all. I've e-mailed DiLorenzo once before and got a reply, although it wasn't to dispute something. As the editor, I'm sure Lew would appreciate your concerns and would respond to you as well. This article was published 4 years ago though. The article you dug up is a month old.

Regardless, other lewrockwell.com writers have covered this topic better. And on Mises.org you'll find much, much better literature on the subject.

 

[Sphinx]

I mean its not exactly difficult to find evidence of sweatshops that do pay below local wages and do treat employees illegally (in regard to local law)...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/08/gap-next-marks-spencer-sweatshops

Indian workers are paid just 25p an hour and forced to work overtime in factories used by some of Britain's best-known high street stores

Workers also say that those who refuse to work the extra hours have been told to find new jobs. Those in the factory supplying Gap and Next also claim staff who refused to work extra hours were threatened and fired, a practice defined under international law as forced labour and outlawed around the world.

India is the same as the UK then.

 

[Touring Mars]

How is offering someone a low-paying, poor-conditions job worse than not offering them any job at all?

I am all for workers being treated fairly and humanely, but that basic question has never been answered by the anti-sweatshop crowd.

The problem is that people need money to survive, and therefore there will always be those whose circumstances compel them to accept any jobs that are available. People that run sweatshops and other employers who pay ludicrously low wages know that the people who accept jobs from them have basically got no other choice, and therefore they know they can get away with just about anything. While it is not forced labour, it is exploitation.

The 'if you don't like the conditions, don't take the job' idea simply doesn't apply in many cases - not for those who aspire to earn a living anyway. Those who aspire to earn a living in the face of extremely limited opportunities rather than depending on charity, resorting to crime, or languishing in destitution, are essentially compelled to take jobs they don't want, in return for meager financial reward, no matter what risks to their safety, health or dignity they may suffer. It is a great pity and an enormous shame that some consider their plight with contempt.

 

[Joel]

Until these people are being forced to work in these factories, I have no problem with it. When the workers are being physically restrained from leaving, or when they aren't getting paid at all, that's where I have a problem, because then it's slavery.


Having a low paying, poor conditions job is better than no job. Also, the UN declaration of human rights is total BS.


It says....
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.


Then goes on to say....

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.


Hmm... "free"? More like arbitrarily depriving people of their property.

 

[Northstar]

Until these people are being forced to work in these factories, I have no problem with it.


These people aren't being forced to work there. And it's perfectly OK to have workers work overtime under threat of being fired. It happens to me all the time, if I leave my restaurant job when it's really busy, I can be fired.

How do you know they aren't being forced?

I wouldn't be shocked to learn some of these factories are part of organized crime, which probably wouldn't let you easily leave.

Also, at least in the US they can't force you to work overtime without paying you additional amount of money on top of what you normally make, that is where the difference lies. These people are forced to work overtime for not a penny extra.

 

[Joel]

How do you know they aren't being forced?

I wouldn't be shocked to learn some of these factories are part of organized crime, which probably wouldn't let you easily leave.

I definitely have an issue with these people being forced to work, and I'm sure it happens a lot. However, if they aren't being forced, I don't have a problem.

Also, at least in the US they can't force you to work overtime without paying you additional amount of money, that is where the difference lies. These people are forced to work overtime for not a penny extra.

It's the same up in Canuck land, you get 1.5 times your hourly wage for overtime (which I think is BS too). Personally, I think overtime should be the same as your regular hourly wage. So in the case of sweatshops, if they get another hour's pay for another hour's work it's fine. But if they aren't being paid the same wage, then it's wrong and I have an issue.

 

[Keef]

Having a low paying, poor conditions job is better than no job. Also, the UN declaration of human rights is total BS.


It says....
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.


Then goes on to say....

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.


Hmm... "free"? More like arbitrarily depriving people of their property.

Because collecting taxes by force and against people's will is violating their rights to property, yes. Likewise, not taxing for an education system and instead demanding lessons from a teacher without paying them is against the teacher's property rights. Their knowledge is their property. Basically, getting anything for free violates somebody's property rights, unless of course they voluntarily provide it for free.

 

[Joel]

Because collecting taxes by force and against people's will is violating their rights to property, yes. Likewise, not taxing for an education system and instead demanding lessons from a teacher without paying them is against the teacher's property rights. Their knowledge is their property. Basically, getting anything for free violates somebody's property rights, unless of course they voluntarily provide it for free.

That's what I was getting at

 

[Duke]

However these employers break lots of the rights stated in the decleration of human rights.

Partly this one.
4. No one has the right to treat you as a slave nor should you make anyone your slave.
Some ones I have seen in the news break this one.
17. Everyone has the right to own property and possessions.
These three definately.
23. Everyone has the right to work for a fair wage in a safe environment and to join a trade union.
24. Everyone has the right to rest and leisure.
25. Everyone has the right to an adequate standard of living and medical help if they are ill.
Some break these.
26. Everyone has the right to go to school.


So would having no job and begging the streets for a probably similar wage be better than working for these employers who blatently disregard your human rights.

4) Agreed. Offering someone a low-paying, poor-conditions job is not making them a slave. They are always free to not accept the job and find some other means of survival.

17) Agreed. What does this have to do with low wages and poor conditions? Everyone has a right to keep what they earn, whether it is a few dollars for a day of factory work or a few vegetables from their scratch farm in the back yard.

23) Where does this "right" derive from? I see nothing inherent in human rights that says this must be true. You have the right to accept or reject the given working conditions you are being offered. That is all. You are free to provide for yourself in a better way if you can find it. You do have the right to join a trade union if you so choose, but employers also have the right not to deal with that trade union and the trade union has no right to compel you to join it. Not that it works that way in real life, either.

24) Again: where does this "right" derive from? You have a life you need to support - your own. If you can do so in a way that allows rest and leisure, great; if not, then where do you get the idea that leisure must be provided for you by someone else's work?

25) Yet again: where does this "right" derive from? You have the right to keep what you make. There is no "right" to have that production equal a certain minimum amount of property. If you can't earn it yourself, why must someone else earn it for you?

26) And yet again: where does this "right" derive from? Why is there a "right" to go to school? You have a right not to be actively prevented from educating yourself, but having an education provided is not a "right". Universal, publicly-funded education may be a wise investment a given society chooses to spend resources on... but it is never a "right".

So yes, if you can make a better living begging the streets, then feel free to choose to do so. But that does not make the employer evil for failing to offer a magical, "living wage"-paying job with certain conditions. Anyone choosing not to accept those conditions may freely provide for themselves another way.

Note that this does not permit employers to lie about the working conditions or wages - that is a violation of the workers' rights and is not acceptable.

The problem is that people need money to survive, and therefore there will always be those whose circumstances compel them to accept any jobs that are available. People that run sweatshops and other employers who pay ludicrously low wages know that the people who accept jobs from them have basically got no other choice, and therefore they know they can get away with just about anything. While it is not forced labour, it is exploitation.

The 'if you don't like the conditions, don't take the job' idea simply doesn't apply in many cases - not for those who aspire to earn a living anyway. Those who aspire to earn a living in the face of extremely limited opportunities rather than depending on charity, resorting to crime, or languishing in destitution, are essentially compelled to take jobs they don't want, in return for meager financial reward, no matter what risks to their safety, health or dignity they may suffer. It is a great pity and an enormous shame that some consider their plight with contempt.

Well worded and noble, as always from you. However, remove the evil Western sweatshop overlords from the picture entirely for a moment. What would these people be doing for a living in that case? Why is the opportunity to have a low-paying, poor-conditions job WORSE than having no opportunity for a job at all? That question remains open.

 

[Dotini]

Why is the opportunity to have a low-paying, poor-conditions job WORSE than having no opportunity for a job at all? That question remains open.

Let us say that there was a village comprised of small family farms. They have subsisted for generations on self-sufficiency and selling produce, milk, eggs and cheese to their neighbors.

Now let us say a large out-of-state corporation establishes a huge, super-efficient agri-business next door to the village. Shortly, the economy of the villagers is devastated by lower prices on produce and dairy, despite the factory farm's lower quality. To make matters worse, the local river becomes polluted with effluents and the water table begins to fall with some villagers losing their water wells. The factory farm offers low-paying jobs to the villagers, but not near enough to employ them all. By and by, the village is abandoned as children move away and people die. Eventually, only empty buildings are left to rot and tumble down. Scenes like this can be seen all over America, and the wider world, too. It may be "progress", and may be an example of "freedom" and market forces at work. But it is not to my liking.

Respectfully,
Dotini

 

[A2K78]

How do you know they aren't being forced?

I wouldn't be shocked to learn some of these factories are part of organized crime, which probably wouldn't let you easily leave.

Also, at least in the US they can't force you to work overtime without paying you additional amount of money on top of what you normally make, that is where the difference lies. These people are forced to work overtime for not a penny extra.

These people aren't being forced to work, they voluntarily chose to work in these places becauses its economically better than actually being in slavery e.g. prostitution and other sex work or living on the streets, stravation.

 

[A2K78]

However these employers break lots of the rights stated in the decleration of human rights.

Partly this one.
4. No one has the right to treat you as a slave nor should you make anyone your slave.
Some ones I have seen in the news break this one.
17. Everyone has the right to own property and possessions.
These three definately.
23. Everyone has the right to work for a fair wage in a safe environment and to join a trade union.
24. Everyone has the right to rest and leisure.
25. Everyone has the right to an adequate standard of living and medical help if they are ill.
Some break these.
26. Everyone has the right to go to school.

Nobody, and I don't care who you are or what they are don't have a right to nothing other individual liberty. The "rights" you mentions are nothing but a vehicle for government to trample on the individual rights of another.

So would having no job and begging the streets for a probably similar wage be better than working for these employers who blatently disregard your human rights.

These people are doing much better than always having to beg or worst participate in activity e.g. sex trade that actually endanger their very lives.

In the end I don't care what their wages are, but the point I rather see someone having some form of employment as a mean to build their economic base rather than be in a position of desperation e.g. begging or the sex trade/indusry.

 

[Danoff]

Let us say that there was a village comprised of small family farms. They have subsisted for generations on self-sufficiency and selling produce, milk, eggs and cheese to their neighbors.

Now let us say a large out-of-state corporation establishes a huge, super-efficient agri-business next door to the village. Shortly, the economy of the villagers is devastated by lower prices on produce and dairy, despite the factory farm's lower quality. To make matters worse, the local river becomes polluted with effluents and the water table begins to fall with some villagers losing their water wells. The factory farm offers low-paying jobs to the villagers, but not near enough to employ them all. By and by, the village is abandoned as children move away and people die. Eventually, only empty buildings are left to rot and tumble down. Scenes like this can be seen all over America, and the wider world, too. It may be "progress", and may be an example of "freedom" and market forces at work. But it is not to my liking.

Respectfully,
Dotini

Ah, the Wal-Mart scenario. In general this is an argument against competition. The idea being that low prices offered by one company can put others out of business.

When you're in a business that gets defeated by a more efficient business, what are you to do? Tell the government that efficiency is bad and that your business should be kept alive by destroying the more efficient business? How about finding a way to either compete or provide a different service in which you can compete?

This is how capitalism works. Efficiency is bred for through competition. It doesn't work if competition isn't allowed to defeat inefficient businesses. It's the reason we live in prosperity today. The key is that natural resources need to be deployed in the most efficient way possible - and that means inefficient methods need to be removed.

Now let's come back to your third world example.

Let's say you have a small farming village in a third world country that is a closed system. There are 3 farmers, each of which is providing a different crop. Each farmer consumes 1/3 of his crop and sells the other 2/3. Each farmer buys 1/3 of the other farmers' crops - the exchange rate is even. The GDP of this village is 3 units of food.

Now, imagine a huge multinational evil corporation shows up in this little village and, through technology, employs one of the three farmers to produce the entire village's crops all by himself at the same price as before. Now this one farmer is producing 4 units of food all by himself. He has 4 times as much food as he needs. He sells 1 unit of food abroad, consumes 1, and has 2 units of food remaining unsold. The guy employed is obviously better off. He has some product from abroad, and also has the same amount of food he had before plus 2 units of unsold food.

He could sell those 2 units of food abroad, but would like to buy products with them locally due to the inefficiency of shipping. Unfortunately the local economy is only set up to produce more food - something that this farmer has no need of.

There are two options here. One is that the two farmers die of starvation since their business has dried up and they have nothing to trade and cannot subsist on their own efforts. Another is that the farmers learn how to grow the third crop, restructure their farms to provide for their needs, and don't do business with the WalMart farmer since they have nothing to offer him that he values. The last is that the two farmers learn to produce something that the WalMart farmer does value. It's this last scenario that's most important.

When the local economy is able to adapt, and the two farmers are now producing something else, the economy is better than it started. Now, instead of sitting on the ground and wearing loin cloths, they all eat the same amount but have chairs and wear clothes. This is because one of the other two farmers is making chairs, and the other is making clothes. Now the GDP of the village is 3 units of food, 1 unit of chairs, and 1 unit of clothing.

This is how everyone ends up better off with more efficient use of natural resources. Anyone who doesn't believe it works needs a lesson in economics. This is really basic stuff, and it's how our country has succeeded.

 

[Duke]

Ah, the Wal-Mart scenario. In general this is an argument against competition. The idea being that low prices offered by one company can put others out of business.

When you're in a business that gets defeated by a more efficient business, what are you to do? Tell the government that efficiency is bad and that your business should be kept alive by destroying the more efficient business? How about finding a way to either compete or provide a different service in which you can compete?

This. My family grew up in the coal region of Pennsylvania. In the '50s Coal Was King. In the '80s Coal Was Dead.

You adapt or you die. Ask any of the millions of extinct species that died out long before Man was even a plains ape with shortening arms and increasing brain pan.

 

[DK]

You have a right not to be actively prevented from educating yourself...

...and yet religious fundamentalists try to prevent your education anyway.

 

[Dotini]

This is really basic stuff, and it's how our country has succeeded.

One in seven Americans lives in poverty, according to this:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/census-1-7-americans-live-poverty/

If this is success, you can have it. I'll take something else, thank you.

 

[Joel]

One in seven Americans lives in poverty, according to this:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/census-1-7-americans-live-poverty/

Therefore?

I'll take something else, thank you

Such as?

 

[Dotini]

Therefore?



Such as?

What do you think?

 

[Joel]

What do you think?

Well, I'm wondering what you're pushing as an alternative to what has resulted in the 1 in 7 poverty rate.

 

[Dotini]

Well, I'm wondering what you're pushing as an alternative to what has resulted in the 1 in 7 poverty rate.

Well, I'm not "pushing" anything more than than staying out of wars and debt. It would be nice to mutually establish that scores of millions of Americans in poverty is rather unsatisfactory at this late stage of our Republic. Then we can go from there as to exactly what steps to take. In other words, do you take the problem seriously? If so, then we can proceed to serious solutions.

Respectfully yours,
Dotini