"Sweatshops," Boycotts, and the Road to Poverty

I would like some reactions to the article "Sweatshops," Boycotts, and the Road to Poverty by Capitalism Magazine.

 

It echoes my opinion, and it lends support to the policy of outsourcing. Another example of economics vs. emotionalism.

-Atlas

 

Would this article change your opinion?

 

It doesn't change my opinion. Here's why:

First of all, the article tries to put a human face on the issue, with quotes and pictures of workers. They talk of being scared when supervisors yell at them and complain about their financial situation. If you've ever been in the army, their ordeals don't seem all that bad, but that's beside the point. The point is, I don't support sweatshops because I think the workers aren't real people. I realize that they are individuals like you and I, but are unfortunately not nearly as well off.

Next, the article puts the devil horns on clothing retailers. That's not going to change my opinion either. I've heard it before, read Nader, etc. I don't love "powerful U.S. clothing retailers," but I also don't hate them because, like all corporations, they are faceless, big, scary, rich, whatever. It's business, and I support capitalism, so no problems there.
It goes on to show how small of a portion (of total revenues) goes toward worker's wages. Unless I've already decided that these companies are evil exploiters who are ultimately out to get us, this statistic has little meaning.
"You don't tell Wal-Mart your price, Wal-Mart tells you," says the American Textile Manufacturing Institute. That is true. But, more importantly, you tell Wal-Mart "no thanks" if you don't like the price. If there's a crime here, I'm not liberal enough to see it.

The article also lists the bad conditions found in sweatshops. But these details still don't attack the fundamental argument for these factories: "what else is there?" "Factories that close because apparel retailers have
moved on to another location with even lower wages cost workers their jobs and livelihoods." Here the contradiction is evident. When the factories leave, these people lose their livlihoods. They are worse off, just like they were before the factories were ever present. Sweatshops have made the lives of these people relatively better, yet they are criticized for not making their lives as good as we ourselves would want them.

-Atlas

 

OK good web site.I have added it to my Bookmarks.I looked at the link for "What is Poverty?".Maybe they should ask is "What is wealth?"
I mean I have my own house that is paid for but no partner that I am in love with.I know this hippy couple that get withdrawl symptoms if they are away from each other for more than a few days.

 

In response to "Capitalist Magazine's" (???) article:

So all of a sudden, we can breathe a great sigh of relief that the sweat shop produced clothing we're wearing means one grand thing -- we're actually helping out poor people in third world countries! Yay! What a great weight lifted off my shoulders.
What pissed me off about this article was that it made the huge corporations seem like gods, bringing forth jobs for the eager to work, and the people against child-labour and disgusting working conditions look like the devil for stripping jobs away from these people, and them, having to turn to prostitution in order to make a living. Yes, it was all our fault, because of our belief that people should be paid more than pennies a day, we cost them their livlihood.
I don't have a problem with clothing made over-seas. All I (and I think most people against sweat shops) ask is responsibility from western corporations. Responsibility to provide safe working conditions, to allow breaks and not have mandatory 24 hourshifts when demand is in, and the responsibility to take responsibility. These corporations have make their bed and now they must lie in it.
This article feeds my rage even more against huge clothing manufacturers. If they think that sweatshops and child labour appaled westerners, closing factories and leaving people jobless, instead of cleaning up their act just furthers the resentment against manufacturers.

 

Sweatshop apologists ignore the fact that independed collective bargaining is often violently suppressed in developing countries. In other words, while these workers are indeed desperate for jobs, they're not thrilled to have this desperation exploited and forcibly perpetuated.

 

There isn't an easy solution to sweatshops until someone or something can stand up to major corporations. Like the UN or some other human rights group with POWER. Unfortunately for the billions of repressed people, no one has the power to fight this cancer.


Right now, this is total Marxism, the proletariat vs. the bourgiouses, the workers vs. the owners. Maybe the only way to fix this problem is a violent revolution, but it won't happen in my lifetime.

Although one thing I HATE is when ignorant people get pissed that factories move over seas and then complain about the high price of American made products. Total hypocrasy!

Peace,
Kim

"It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly. "
Bertrand Russell