Posted by Sir Four at 3:19pm May 31 '10I think most people feel a bit sick to their stomach contemplating that whatever they just bought was made by desperate, mistreated people struggling against crippling poverty. That's why most people don't think about it most of the time (easy to do, really).
I agree that the situation is not so black and white. The people being exploited were desperately poor before the sweatshop and would remain so if the sweatshop were to close.
But think about it. As an American, you see people living in absolute poverty. You say to yourself, "well if that's the case, we might as well get some productive use out of their desperation." I mean, they're desperate either way, right? Why not gain something from it? Well... that line of thought it a bit morally appalling, unless you also claim that doing so will improve these people's lives eventually. And maybe that is so. But does a potential tomorrow justify what you're doing today?
Well, I'm quite hesitant to say yes. What I'd rather see is some minimum standards at these sweatshops. I mean, something. Not American standards...that would be a wildly utopian expectation. But some legal framework that limits hours per week, mandates break periods, addresses work-related injuries, and sets a minimum for pay. I think the US should only negotiate free trade agreements with countries that agree to meet these basic standards.
We sometimes forget that we have something of incredible value: our enormous and lucrative consumer base, which other countries want maximal access to. Why give it away for free? I think we can get some basic standards at these overseas sweatshops in return.
And if we do so, our we not spreading our values...in a much more concrete way than, say, invading a country to overthrow their leader?
I agree that the situation is not so black and white. The people being exploited were desperately poor before the sweatshop and would remain so if the sweatshop were to close.
But think about it. As an American, you see people living in absolute poverty. You say to yourself, "well if that's the case, we might as well get some productive use out of their desperation." I mean, they're desperate either way, right? Why not gain something from it? Well... that line of thought it a bit morally appalling, unless you also claim that doing so will improve these people's lives eventually. And maybe that is so. But does a potential tomorrow justify what you're doing today?
Well, I'm quite hesitant to say yes. What I'd rather see is some minimum standards at these sweatshops. I mean, something. Not American standards...that would be a wildly utopian expectation. But some legal framework that limits hours per week, mandates break periods, addresses work-related injuries, and sets a minimum for pay. I think the US should only negotiate free trade agreements with countries that agree to meet these basic standards.
We sometimes forget that we have something of incredible value: our enormous and lucrative consumer base, which other countries want maximal access to. Why give it away for free? I think we can get some basic standards at these overseas sweatshops in return.
added on 3:21pm May 31 '10:
" I think the US should only negotiate free trade agreements with countries that agree to meet these basic standards."And if we do so, our we not spreading our values...in a much more concrete way than, say, invading a country to overthrow their leader?
Re: Are Asian Sweatshops Really So Bad? - Sir Four