|
more friedman units posted:It's not clear to me WHY a developing economy has to go through an abusive sweatshop-labor phase, or that it's a one-time stage in economic development. Notice how the refrain from companies is that U.S. workers have to become more "competitive" and accept lower wages along with longer hours, less stringent workplace safety measures, and no unionization? It's awesome to say that sweatshops are wrong and that workers shouldn't be forced to live in difficult conditions. What's a plausible policy towards actually getting rid of sweatshops and improving welfare for the Chinese worker?
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2012 23:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 09:58 |
|
|
rscott posted:Ah, yes that little word "plausible". By inserting that word into your statement you get an automatic get out of jail free card when it comes to defending the exploitation of Chinese workers. So what's your solution?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2012 23:23
|
|
|
rscott posted:Letting the workers own and run the means of production, of course! So are you against all of Deng Xiaoping's reforms?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2012 23:29
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:Ideally they'd be eliminated in the same manner they were in North America in the late 19th/early 20th century, through the power of organized labour against factory owners. I suppose westerners can help through providing assistance to Chinese labour and worker's rights organizations (I don't know any myself, but would be interested to learn of them). I think while its nice to also try to change consumption habits to avoid sweatshop produced products, capitalists in developing countries will usually be able to hide or manipulate the details of the production chain to their advantage. This would be the ideal solution, using monopoly power against corporations is a natural means of extracting concessions. Of course it can be difficult for labor movements to establish themselves in places without legal protections and it is also a challenge to establish unions among low-capital workers (because it's difficult for them to establish monopoly power, being so easily replaceable) but as China develops its economy more this should be a more viable route.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2012 00:17
|
|
|
more friedman units posted:Worker cooperatives? Basic union representation and safety measures? Actually, industrialization in the developing world has a track record of decreasing child labor, as the higher wages and shifting means of production de-emphasize child labor as a crucial component for family survival. It may also be that a forty-hour work week would be incompatible with high-labor low-capital production as workers are not yet productive enough by the hour to garner the wages necessary to to make a living. You cannot simply impose Western high-capital worker standards of living without development taking place in the economy, as higher standards of living are byproducts of productivity that is essential for the basic functioning of the market. Though I am pro-union (because that is simply market forces) and for regulation in areas such as basic safety and the environment. But one does have to be aware of the necessity of attracting foreign capital, whether one wants to or not. Without foreign capital inflows, it is unlikely that China will be able to expand its economy at anything similar to what it enjoys now, the kind of pace that actually does allow workers out of sustenance farming.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2012 01:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 09:58 |
|
|
more friedman units posted:Rather than using evasive wording, you could just say that foreign companies won't use Chinese suppliers without the abusive sweatshop labor model. If China tried to move away from that model, the companies would shift their factory orders to countries that are willing to embrace it. If you want me to phrase it that way, sure. In order to attract foreign investment (and that includes investment beyond direct investment by foreign companies, such as loans), they're going to have to turn not just an accounting profit, but an economic profit, meaning they will receive at least average returns on investment. Without the foreign investment, there is no factory. There is no means of production. Do you see why the foreign company becomes all of the sudden an important consideration here? Just because they're lovely and amoral doesn't mean they can be ignored, and just because what they do is unpleasant doesn't preclude it being the best option. quote:How are unions "simply market forces" when they require a legal and societal super-structure of beliefs that will support them as a concept? If a company closes down any store or factory that attempts to unionize and fires union organizers, how does a union gain any traction? I said it was simply market forces because they work through market power and controlling the labor supply, which I would argue is perfectly legitimate. Although, as you point out, organized labor is often the subject of political intervention. If you want me to clarify my position, I am on the pro-political union side of that politics.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2012 05:33
|
|