First let me clarify that I only support people voluntarily taking sweatshop jobs-I do not support anything involuntary. I think it is good to consider the long-term implications of present actions. But by taking a sweatshop job, not only can people afford life-saving interventions, but they can also afford things like elementary education, which has massive long-term benefits. Saying something is better does not imply that it is good. Starting with sweatshop jobs, the four Asian Tigers have made a dramatic rise, where according to purchasing power parity_per_capita) South Korea and Taiwan are richer than Spain, and Singapore and Hong Kong are richer than the US!
Sure, but can we really speak of āchoiceā for those who have no other options? Again: your argument can be used to defend any form of slavery, as long as slaves became slaves āout of choiceā. If otherwise they wouldnāt have survived, what kind of choice is that?! Imagine the alternative: there is consumers-driven pressure on companies to introduce serious control of working conditions. As a result, current sweatshops eventually become much safer for work. Itās a long-term win-win scenario.
I think on balance thereās a strong chance youāre right, but there IS a lose-lose outcome, where the consumer pressure drives the companies to fire all their sweatshop employees and move to a place where they can get people from a different, less needy origin (that maybe has different labour laws, or in some other ways pacifies many of the consumer activists).
First let me clarify that I only support people voluntarily taking sweatshop jobs-I do not support anything involuntary. I think it is good to consider the long-term implications of present actions. But by taking a sweatshop job, not only can people afford life-saving interventions, but they can also afford things like elementary education, which has massive long-term benefits. Saying something is better does not imply that it is good. Starting with sweatshop jobs, the four Asian Tigers have made a dramatic rise, where according to purchasing power parity_per_capita) South Korea and Taiwan are richer than Spain, and Singapore and Hong Kong are richer than the US!
Sure, but can we really speak of āchoiceā for those who have no other options? Again: your argument can be used to defend any form of slavery, as long as slaves became slaves āout of choiceā. If otherwise they wouldnāt have survived, what kind of choice is that?! Imagine the alternative: there is consumers-driven pressure on companies to introduce serious control of working conditions. As a result, current sweatshops eventually become much safer for work. Itās a long-term win-win scenario.
I think on balance thereās a strong chance youāre right, but there IS a lose-lose outcome, where the consumer pressure drives the companies to fire all their sweatshop employees and move to a place where they can get people from a different, less needy origin (that maybe has different labour laws, or in some other ways pacifies many of the consumer activists).