I recently overheard an argument about the morality of sweatshops, and it got me thinking. Though my first feeling is that sweatshops are of course immoral (providing unlivable wages for extremely hard labor in order to exploit poor people), I was actually somewhat convinced by the following argument: sweatshops are a good thing for their workers because the shops help create economic growth in poor areas and provide jobs for people who would otherwise have none.
So, what are sweatshops? The means for the rich to exploit the poor for profit? Or the means to draw a poor community out of poverty when there are no other options?
The idea that, essentially, "sweatshops are better than nothing" is really a bad comparison. Even assuming that's true, it's not clear that the absence of sweatshops would mean less net jobs in the area. Even if companies like Nike paid their workers livable wages with reasonable hours and decent working environments, it would be cheaper than having the same work done somewhere else, like in America. So, if companies are convinced to stop running sweatshops by consumer boycotts, the result will almost certainly not be fewer Third World jobs. Instead, it will be higher wages for the same Third World jobs.
I'm not even sure about the accuracy of the assumption above, that sweatshops are better than no industry at all. A sweatshop industry can seriously mess up a poor economy: by encouraging people to give up their previous means of sustenance (presumably, to a large extent, agriculture) in exchange for the allure of cash promised by sweatshops, corporations soon make entire towns dependent on them for survival. If a CEO decides to close a sweatshop, an entire town is suddenly out its primary economic force.
At the end of the day, sweatshops are immoral for two reasons: because they do not create jobs, they merely lower salaries for existing jobs, and because they make local economies dependent on their continued presence and destroy a poor community's chance to create their own independent future.
So, what are sweatshops? The means for the rich to exploit the poor for profit? Or the means to draw a poor community out of poverty when there are no other options?
The idea that, essentially, "sweatshops are better than nothing" is really a bad comparison. Even assuming that's true, it's not clear that the absence of sweatshops would mean less net jobs in the area. Even if companies like Nike paid their workers livable wages with reasonable hours and decent working environments, it would be cheaper than having the same work done somewhere else, like in America. So, if companies are convinced to stop running sweatshops by consumer boycotts, the result will almost certainly not be fewer Third World jobs. Instead, it will be higher wages for the same Third World jobs.
I'm not even sure about the accuracy of the assumption above, that sweatshops are better than no industry at all. A sweatshop industry can seriously mess up a poor economy: by encouraging people to give up their previous means of sustenance (presumably, to a large extent, agriculture) in exchange for the allure of cash promised by sweatshops, corporations soon make entire towns dependent on them for survival. If a CEO decides to close a sweatshop, an entire town is suddenly out its primary economic force.
At the end of the day, sweatshops are immoral for two reasons: because they do not create jobs, they merely lower salaries for existing jobs, and because they make local economies dependent on their continued presence and destroy a poor community's chance to create their own independent future.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I encourage commenters to use their real name, although I do not require it.
Blogger employs an automatic spam filtering algorithm for comments. If a non-spam comment has been filtered out, email source4politics@gmail.com and the issue will be investigated.