I've been having an interesting conversation with Kenny and Ben on Kenn'y blog recently. The subject was (1) whether there is such a thing as Objective Reality (we all agree that there is), and (2) the degree to which we can know it.
The practical application of such philisophical musings is seen in things like how, precisely, we can act on known biblical mandates (such as "love your neighbor as yourself") in specific instances. One such instance would be a beggar asking for money - if we have money and nothing else practical to give, is it better to give the beggar money (which may be used to unsavory and harmful ends, like drugs), or to withhold money so as not to enable the feared behavior (which might cause the man to not eat today).
Another application is in such things as politics, social consciousness, and our attitude towards the world. Take "sweatshops" as an example - labor in foreign countries where the pay can be pennies per hour. Are they a bad thing? On the one hand, we have people who are receiving pay far below the American standards we have set. On the other hand, assuming people are working voluntarily, it's reasonable to believe they want to work there.
Following that last thread, there is an interesting article I ran across today defending sweatshops. It may yet be proper for America as a society to refuse to buy sweatshop labor. But such decisions should be fully informed, as much as possible, about the consequences:
---
Economists across the political spectrum have pointed out that for many sweatshop workers the alternatives are much, much worse.1 In one famous 1993 case U.S. senator Tom Harkin proposed banning imports from countries that employed children in sweatshops. In response a factory in Bangladesh laid off 50,000 children. What was their next best alternative? According to the British charity Oxfam a large number of them became prostitutes.2
1 Walter Williams, "Sweatshop Exploitation." January 27, 2004. Paul Krugman, "In Praise of Cheap Labor, Bad Jobs at Bad Wages are Better Than No Jobs at All." Slate, March 20, 1997.
2 Paul Krugman, New York Times. April 22, 2001.
---
When arguing policy - be it over oil prices, price gouging, public schools, or sweatshop labor - it's important to make sure you are comparing real policies to real alternatives, not real policies to utopian alternatives. If America forces a minimum wage on "sweatshops" in other countries, then to the extent that the wage is higher than the value of their labor, people will be forced out of work.
Is it better to allow a fortunate few to claim high wages, and force others to even deeper levels of abject squalor? Or is it better to embrace sweatshops, despite the large gap between those working conditions and those we enjoy in America?
This is a hard question. But we should not be allowed to avoid it, and engage instead in fantasy:
---
"Once passed, this legislation will reward decent U.S. companies which are striving to adhere to the law. Worker rights standards in China, Bangladesh and other countries across the world will be raised, improving conditions for tens of millions of working people. Your legislation will for the first time also create a level playing field for American workers to compete fairly in the global economy.9"
9 Testimonies at the Senate Subcommittee on Interstate Commerce, Trade and Tourism Hearing. Statement of Charles Kernaghan. February 14, 2007
Monday, June 02, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
First off, I think workers in China's quasi-communist society can't quit or change their jobs if they want to. But then, I think their wages are government-controlled too, though I'm not sure.
This is an interesting issue... we have to remember that the countries in which sweatshops operate often have weak or corrupt states. This is bad for three reasons: 1) it allows industrialists to exploit workers with no repercussions, 2) workers can't quit/lose their jobs and rely on a social safety net until they find a new job, and 3) homegrown industry gets so tied up in bribe-taking and red tape that it can't create jobs, which would drive up wages as capitalists compete for workers.
The problem isn't so much with the sweatshops - it's with the poorly-run governments. Good foreign aid, then, would be aimed at getting third-world governments to clean up their houses and go after exploitative labor practices...
China is a very valid exception to the assumption of "voluntary association." I have heard that people there are in fact forced to be there. That throws every argument in favor of sweatshops out the window - if it's not a choice, it's slavery... and I don't care what they're paid. Yet, I still bought an iPod.
I've heard similar arguments to those made by this author concerning the American Minimum Wage - it not only prevents employers from paying people too little, it also prevents people who would be willing to work for less from accepting it. Good or bad, I'm not saying here. It's just a description of the consequences.
I think your point #1 is perfectly valid, though the argumentitive side of me wants to dicker about the meaning of "exploit," as it's emotional and ill-defined in common usage about such things - a low wage to us may appear exploitative, but if it's a wage the worker finds better than the alternatives available, is it still exploiting him to pay it?
Point #2 is interesting, because you cite the lack of a social safety net but if we do nothing but close down the sweatshop anyway (though whatever channel we accomplish that), the workers still end up on the street. There may be no safety net, but if the association is voluntary, then the workers came from somewhere and, presumably, have soemthing they could go back to. But if those options are terrible, then a sweatshop paying 6 times the average income in a country is still doing the person a favor.
Point #3 is good, and deserves to be broadened a great deal. I'd say it's the number 1 practical reason for poverty in the world - corrupt local institutions. See my favorite dead horse - Zimbabwe.
I think the whole point of the article might be this: an American who says to tens of thousands of people "your company is exploiting you and we won't take it - we're shutting you down (whether by raising wages to the point of being unprofitable or by an explicit boycott or ban on their products), and those workers were working there because it was the best choice available to them - this American is not doing those people a favor.
In a different scale, it's like a millionaire deciding to close all McDonalds restaurants for their low exploitative wage rates, without providing any alternatives. People at McDonalds might not like working there, and they certainly don't get wealthy doing so - but that doesn't mean it's not the best option they felt they had available. Taking away someone's best option and not providing a superior alternative is not helpful. It lets the closer feel good, but leaves those he "helped" worse off.
For a more modern example, see labor unions and automation. If a union makes labor so expensive that it becomes cheaper to replace workers with expensive machines, it might make those few that stay behind better off, but that's small comfort to those on the unemployment line. As we can see from the oil market right now, raising the price of a good discourages consumption of it, and encourages the consumption of substitutes. It's true of labor, too.
Finally - even after considering all of this, reasonable people may decide that it's an acceptable sacrifice. I'm not trying to say which way is the best, or proper way to go right now. I only want to illuminate the practical results of such decisions so that the moral decision can be well-informed.
To me, the very basic situation where a sweat shop is the laborer's best alternative seems like an obvious place for a kind of moral pragmatism. That is, getting something is better than getting nothing.
Of course, I think we all agree this point is totally negated if the laborer doesn't have a choice about being there.
A basic principal for me shapes a lot of discussions, and I think of it as the 'just war principle' or perhaps the 'anti-utopia principle,' but it's really important to realize that in a lot of circumstances, if one isn't willing to take imperfect action, innocent people will suffer.
Maybe I'll also add that it's for considering situations like this that I think it's important to recognize the possibility of objective moral knowledge. While reasonable people could disagree about what is more moral (to allow or disallow sweatshops), I think it's the type of discussion that must be guided by essentially moral principles. No one worth talking to is saying 'oh, how can we possibly judge what is good for a Chinese peasant?'
"...if one isn't willing to take imperfect action, innocent people will suffer."
The idea being that even if action has a cost (that, I presume, is what makes it imprefect), inaction also has a cost. Right?
So, even for something like the Iraq war (an onerous flashpoint of frustration for a great many people) our discussion is not "here is the cost of action, we should have done nothing." The conversation should instead be, if looking at whether we should have gone to war or not, what the realized cost of action is compared to the cost of inaction.
Yes, I agree with that.
Although I think it's important to engage in a moral calculation of sorts, I'm definitely not claiming it's an easy or obvious calculation.
Ecclesiastes 1:13 "And I set my mind to seek and explore by wisdom concerning all that has been done under heaven. It is a grievous task which God has given to the sons of men to be afflicted with."
I will chip in with my $0.02 based on my experience in Guatemala.
What I found there changed my views dramatically on the sweatshop issue. There was an area that had quite a few factories that made apparel for American retailers. I met quite a few people who worked there and saw how they lived.
They had a very good standard of living compared other Guatemalans. They did work long hours and they were paid little but when you compared it to alternatives (coffee picking, firewood carrying, or tortilla making to name a few) they were well treated and like the job. Do they wish that they had it better, of course but who doesn't. You can find people making $100K and they will complain about their poor working conditions and long hours.
I think it is hard for us as Americans, who have been developing a "modern" economy for a lot longer than they have to come in and demand that they go from nothing to modern instantly. It is a process and over time it will naturally evolve.
Many of these people live in homes with dirt floors, no electricity, or plumbing so to give them something is better than what they have.
Do I think that companies have a responsibility to provide good conditions, I do but "good" is relative. We could take a horrible home in the states plop it down in the average Guatemalan neighborhood and they would think it is amazing.
Your realism is fair and admirable. I find in it an echo of one of my favorite theologians, Reinhold Niebuhr.
But to take up the flashpoint....there were a lot of options for Iraq aside from invasion. To offer the choice between invasion and doing nothing is a false choice (albeit one that was raised often by those trying to sell the war to the American public in 2002-2003).
So, the discussion, were one to engage in the rational debate you propose, would be the costs and benefits of option A, the costs and benefits of option B, the costs and benefits of option C....and so forth. As in many a political debate, both sides focused on the costs of the other side and the benefits of theirs. (Although, again, even my phrasing assumes there were only two sides. Our current president often assumes there is only one other side and chooses to define it as the weakest argument that opposes his view. "We can't just ignore terrorism and those that want to are naive." Really, Mr. President?)
Right now, I can say that we are seeing the costs of Option Invasion and they are pretty horrific. And now, of course, we have many options beyond Stay the Course and Abandon Ship Now. Let's see if any of our current political leaders can actually tease out the nuances.
Granted. I wasn't trying to present a false alternative, and there were certainly options that did not include war. What I had in mind was those that look back at the war now and say "the costs were high, therefore we should have done something different."
Ignoring the benefit of hindsight in such an argument, I think the place for reasonable minds to argue about whether we should have gone to war or not concerns what we knew at the time, and what we expected at the time.
It is a seperate - though related - argument that addresses what should we do now, weighing the costs and benefits ranging from indefinite commitment in the region to immediate withdrawl.
And while I agree that the costs have been high, I don't know that I would call them horrific when compared to other armed conflicts (except for Gulf War I). Each death an injury is a tragedy, though, and I do think we need a serious look at what those lives are buying us.
I do think that's a tough decision that anyone without access to all the facts is ill-equipped to make. In such a case, I think the best idea is to elect the person best suited to make those choices, and trust them.
Oh, and since I called you a pinko socialist on Kenny's blog, I fully expect you to call me a capitalist pig at some point.
I have to be reminded that we do in fact disagree on a significant swath of our thinking, because otherwise you really do sound eerily similar.
Another thought with regards to the original sweatshop conversation (and yes, I know by this point I'm a Benjy-come-lately to the already completed conversation).
It seems to me that the choice between a low-paying, unsafe job and no job at all is created by....us. The American Consumer. Through a combination of ignorance and self-centeredness, we with the abundant resources purchase the cheapest products....thereby ensuring that the least possible amount of resources are available for paying the sweatshop workers better wages or for making their workplace decently safe. It would take someone with enough clout and knowledge to present an option to the American consumer whereby they can buy somewhat more expensive products that go to the benefit of the sweatshop worker (instead of closing them down). And it would take enough American consumers to care enough to buy the products out of their abundant resources....not always going to happen, but maybe it's possible.
I guess what I'm saying is it's not enough to throw up our hands and say "these are the only options they have and we shouldn't cut off the better option." Not when we create the limitation in options. Not when, if we had the will and the knowledge, we could have the power to create better options for them.
(Of course, there is then the problem of corruption Dave and Jeff mentioned earlier. If all these extra resources simply went to lining the pockets of the people in charge, there's not much point. Of course, being one who suspects the worst of such folks, I'm not at all certain that this isn't already the case....and that's at least part of the reason the sweatshop workers live in such dire situations.)
Oh and....um.....you are a capitalist gopher. No, wait...I'm not good at this.....mercantalist pig. Capitalist Giraffe? That's it. Dave, you're a Capitalist Giraffe. Which, incidentally, would be a great name for a rock band.
Dave Barry is a comic genius.
The proposal you lay out would in fact be an option, and it has been accomplished in other areas - as with Starbucks (I believe) paying more for coffee beans that are grown in a certain way (I wish that I could remember the name of such programs, but it's akin to "Fair Trade.")
There are two potential concerns, though.
1) The moment you start drawing attention to the wages that sweatshop workers make, you make that the focus (which is of course the idea). But if we were to pay them the exorbitant rate of $1 per hour, it would still seem low to Americans. I imagine that a groundswell of support might not stop until sweatshop workers were paid on par with Americans. At which point, due to the additional costs of having a manufacturing plant overseas it becomes more profitable to simply open a plant here, closing down the sweatshop.
The flow of capital and unusually "high" sweatshop pay to developing countries is in proportion to how cheap the labor is. The more you narrow that gap, the less incentive there is to do business there.
2) It depends on the generosity of the American consumer. So do programs like "Made in America." And such programs even have a degree of success. But there's a reason that en masse we import so many goods, and it's because of the many decisions that come down to no more than price. It's why Mom & Pop shops struggle against Wal*Mart, even if every single person, asked independently, would sing the praises of Mom & Pop.
It's a nice idea, and I'm all for somebody trying. But in trying, I want to make sure that we are providing better options, not taking away an existing option that appears much nicer than the alternatives - pro-worker, not anti-sweatshop. And that can be a fine line.
Phew! What a relief to let you guys argue with each other instead of me for awhile.
I am fascinated by the simultaneous personal similarity and political difference between the two of you. I've spent no less that 10 minutes of my free time trying to figure out what accounts for the difference.
I'm willing to bet that the lion's share if not the whole of the difference is in the assumptions he and I make about the efficacy of government/centralized intervention in public affairs.
I assume and see a large, onerous, and burdensome cost in the government doing anything, and so the situations where I see value (benefit > cost) in the government intervening are small.
I suspect Ben sees smaller costs and/or larger benefits, so the times when he sees value in government intervention are more frequent.
I think we both have similar values, beliefs, and motivations. But I see government involvement as something that's burdensome much more often than beneficial, and I think he sees it as a tool that can be effectively wielded for good.
That's my guess.
Post a Comment