Posted by Anon at 9:30pm May 27 '10Of course my ideology biases me to some extent (lets not debate to how far). But although I do see the side of it that is blatant exploitation, I think it's a win-win.
Let's follow a narrative on this. Say you have a small island in Malaysia which consists of impoverished farmers who frequently go long periods without food and have almost zero economy in the modern sense and no modern luxuries whatsoever. What happens when Nike opens a factory there?
Firstly the factory has to get built so Nike brings in experienced construction crews to build the factory but also utilizes unskilled local labor to a great extent. The workers here will obviously earn pennies on the dollar, but they will also gain job skills which they can use anywhere they choose to move. And if their previous job was superior to that offered by Nike they'd obviously not choose to voluntarily work the construction site.
Now you have highly paid construction crews and meagerly paid laborers added to this once undeveloped land. Where do they spend their money? On places to stay, things to eat, local trinkets, whores, beer, all sorts of stuff. One thing you'll never lack anywhere you go is enterprising people who will find a way to make a buck offering services. So the economy is now developing. Someone may open a hookah shop or a massage parlor where their was no opportunity for this before.
Long term some of the previously unskilled laborers now have their own small businesses building houses locally. There may be electricians and other tradesmen around. Obviously the plant needs people to service the factory equipment, drive trucks, clean, do security, etc, etc. So you now have developed an island with no previous potential at all in to a quickly modernizing metro. Once there is wealth to allow people to earn a living specializing in watch repair, auto repair, legal assistance, food supply, and hundreds of other things that an economy consists of you become a self-sustained local organism.
That this sort of thing works is unquestionable just by the fact that were these factories go the local market frequently out-values itself from the previously low wages and future factories will open in other places that are as cheap as the narrative island used to be.
You also see this in places where Navy bases operate in Southeast Asia. Where before there was no economy nor a chance of one you have huge metropolises that would take a hit, but still survive if the Navy were to pull out.
And yes, I have painted a rather rosy picture of what happens here. There are a lot of dark sides to the story. Navy bases are usually surrounded by seedy bars and whorehouses and factory localities suffer a lot when the factories leave. But would they really have been better off had there never been any development? I really don't think so. Do you disagree?
Also, I want to hear what the alternatives are to modernizing the third world. You see our efforts at a different approach in Africa. We just send aid that is used by corrupt governments to buy weapons and war with each other. Due to this most companies avoid Africa like the plague. Violent conflict is bad for business. And where does Africa stand in contrast to Asia? I'll answer that.. Not very good. (while also conceding that Africa does have other factors as to why they are in such poor shape).
So what do you think? I don't wish to be berated for jerking off to exploitative capitalism because that's not the point here. I'd really like to hear some commentary on what I'm missing and/or what is the best way to bring prosperity to the third world.
Let's follow a narrative on this. Say you have a small island in Malaysia which consists of impoverished farmers who frequently go long periods without food and have almost zero economy in the modern sense and no modern luxuries whatsoever. What happens when Nike opens a factory there?
Firstly the factory has to get built so Nike brings in experienced construction crews to build the factory but also utilizes unskilled local labor to a great extent. The workers here will obviously earn pennies on the dollar, but they will also gain job skills which they can use anywhere they choose to move. And if their previous job was superior to that offered by Nike they'd obviously not choose to voluntarily work the construction site.
Now you have highly paid construction crews and meagerly paid laborers added to this once undeveloped land. Where do they spend their money? On places to stay, things to eat, local trinkets, whores, beer, all sorts of stuff. One thing you'll never lack anywhere you go is enterprising people who will find a way to make a buck offering services. So the economy is now developing. Someone may open a hookah shop or a massage parlor where their was no opportunity for this before.
Long term some of the previously unskilled laborers now have their own small businesses building houses locally. There may be electricians and other tradesmen around. Obviously the plant needs people to service the factory equipment, drive trucks, clean, do security, etc, etc. So you now have developed an island with no previous potential at all in to a quickly modernizing metro. Once there is wealth to allow people to earn a living specializing in watch repair, auto repair, legal assistance, food supply, and hundreds of other things that an economy consists of you become a self-sustained local organism.
That this sort of thing works is unquestionable just by the fact that were these factories go the local market frequently out-values itself from the previously low wages and future factories will open in other places that are as cheap as the narrative island used to be.
You also see this in places where Navy bases operate in Southeast Asia. Where before there was no economy nor a chance of one you have huge metropolises that would take a hit, but still survive if the Navy were to pull out.
And yes, I have painted a rather rosy picture of what happens here. There are a lot of dark sides to the story. Navy bases are usually surrounded by seedy bars and whorehouses and factory localities suffer a lot when the factories leave. But would they really have been better off had there never been any development? I really don't think so. Do you disagree?
Also, I want to hear what the alternatives are to modernizing the third world. You see our efforts at a different approach in Africa. We just send aid that is used by corrupt governments to buy weapons and war with each other. Due to this most companies avoid Africa like the plague. Violent conflict is bad for business. And where does Africa stand in contrast to Asia? I'll answer that.. Not very good. (while also conceding that Africa does have other factors as to why they are in such poor shape).
So what do you think? I don't wish to be berated for jerking off to exploitative capitalism because that's not the point here. I'd really like to hear some commentary on what I'm missing and/or what is the best way to bring prosperity to the third world.
Are Asian Sweatshops Really So Bad? - Anon