|
I frequently come across the argument put forth by globalization advocates that outsourcing of manufacturing to China has been a great boon to the citizens and country as a whole, lifting them from poor starving rice farmers to industrious go-getters poised to experience a revolution in living standards. They argue that this excuses a lot of the exploitation because, well, they don't live in grass reed huts anymore. I'm highly suspicious this is nothing but an attempt to rationalize and justify the abuse of foreign workers, but is there even any truth to this claim? Has the standard of living actually increased an appreciable amount as a direct result of jobs created by outsourcing from first world nations?
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2012 21:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 16:12 |
|
|
asdf32 posted:I think one hang-up is inappropriately romanticizing undeveloped life. So it's not that countries go from 'quaint rural phase' to 'abusive laborious sweatshop phase' before becoming developed. It's that they go from 'laborious rural phase' to 'equally or slightly less laborious sweatshop phase' to, hopefully, developed phase. China is deep in the middle of this process. I think his point was more along the lines of questioning if the phase of "abusive laborious sweatshop" needs to exist at all, since every first world country has already established that it's important for workers to have protections and rights, and there is no reason other than greed that companies from these countries won't extend these rights to it's foreign workforce. These conditions don't need to exist, of course, but I don't think they're a byproduct of outsourcing labor as much as the explicit point of it in the first place. The abuse of labor and it's profitability are the primary purpose and goal of this system. e:grammar McKracken fucked around with this message at 23:06 on Feb 20, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2012 23:03
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:I think also the criticism of sweatshops most people have made in this thread aren't so much that they aren't better than rural life (they are), its that they're unnecessary and workers could have even better conditions if factory owners weren't drawing off profit. Yeah, this is really the key issue. It's not that the sweatshop model is some unfortunate, accidental side effect of economic development and foreign business interests in China, it is the entire point of outsourcing labor to the developing world in the first place. It gives companies a cheaper workforce and less regulatory measures to exploit for higher profit margins, while simultaneously breaking the bargaining power of labor back home. It is win-win for the wealthy ruling class and a massive loss for everyone else.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2012 02:12
|
|