Let me start this off by saying that this in no way shows what my beliefs are on the subjects mentioned.
While reading through one of my textbooks, I came across a section entitled: "Globalisation for good or evil?" (Yes, Australians spell Globalization wrong) and it brought up a couple of points presented in a BBC television program,
Panaorama, that discussed factory conditions in developing countries. Here are some of the events:
- Report: Nike and Gap use shops that employ boys under 15 making them work more than 12 hours a day.
- Result: Nike and Gap close plants costing hundreds of local Cambodians jobs and the country millions of dollars in contract.
- Report: German Clothing Manufacturer using child labor
- Result: 50,000 child workers lose jobs. Later, OXFAM (Group that finds solutions to poverty and injustice) discovered that many of these children had to resort to prostitution and crime to sustain themselves, and some even starved to death.
- Report: In Nepal, Carpet Industry using young girls for labor.
- Result: UNICEF reports that thousands of these girls had to turn to prostitution to survive.
- Report: Pakistan sweatshops producing soccer balls for companies such as Nike and Reebok.
- Result: The mean family income in Pakistan falls by more than 20%.
Now I agree that companies have the duty to watch over how their products are made and know the labor law standard for countries where they have factories, but who is to say what the correct standard should be? Should these factories have to follow 'Western' standards found in wealthy, developed countries, or should the standard be set by the poor, underdeveloped country where the factory resides?
It seems as if shutting down these factories actually made life worse for the kids that lost their jobs.
Just something to think about.....:confused:
This is a very touchy subject, so I will attempt to tread lightly. I personally feel more harm was done by shutting these companies down. We as a country have come a long way, but these are underdeveloped places with no actual job markets. This income is needed by these people to increase their standard of living. Having said that, I still don't stand behind child labor 100%, but I'd like to think that working in a sweatshop is better than starving or resorting to prostitution.
I think they key point in your statement is "Western standards found in wealthy, developed countries". If you aren't one of these countries, I don't see how you set these standards.
Better to work twelve hours a day in a sweatshop at
age twelve so one can simply eat, or to sell one's
self on the streets so as to eat? Ever heard
of a catch 22 situation? Nike, the Gap, etc. need
to be perceived as "good corporate world citizens." Such
is the "global economy" that nations have to whore out
their children to Western consumption in order to, so
to speak, make ends meet. Geez, some kind of religious/
spiritual Utopia needs to arrive...
Did anybody stop to look at it from this point of view: having factories and things over there takes jobs from those people, which is bad, but we have almost a million and four-hundred (1,400,000) US citizens looking for jobs. Sucks that they have problems, but so do we. Maybe, if the US unemployment rate went down, and/or more money stayed in the US (I know not much leaves the country for sweatshops, but that means it stays in the hands' of the extremely wealthy), our country would become a lot better and the wealth would be spread.
Sound greedy? Flash forward to phase two of my plan: the more wealth and jobs in the US would cause the need for expansion as well as more workers to produce the increased number of goods being sold, and then companies could set-up factories and things (not sweatshops) in other countries to meet the increase in demand, which then people in those countries might also eventually have the money to purchase the goods that they're producing.
All of that summed up: we need to help ourselves first, and that will give us the power to help others, which would make the world a better place.
Here's another thought: for thousands of years, our ancestors
lived close to the land... then, less that two hundred years
ago came the steam engine, the assembly line, the mass production of material goods our ancestors never knew they
needed. At one point in Hebrew history, a person was said
to be very blessed to live 'til age 70...with all our progress,
we've managed to push that upward seven/eight years. Now,
we get in our cars and drive to jobs that aren't very fulfilling, eat foods sprayed with god knows what and preserved
with god knows what, and feel about as connected to nature as
a lawn chair. People moved to the cities by the droves, then
retreated to the suburbs (unless poor and white or a minority)
and still drive into the cities to "make a living." We may
all define "progress" in the funniest way in human history.
Cell phones, twenty-four hour a day news, plugged in to every
device imaginable, flying around at break neck speed to
meaningless movies and events, all the while disconnected
from the very things that for generations people stayed
alive for... anyway, just thinking out loud...
Beef, I'm curious to your opinion on this? I'd also like to know what you're doing in Australia if it isn't too personal of a question. I've always wanted to go.
I have always felt that it will be very hard to stop the exportation of American jobs to third-world countries. The companies love it because it increases their profit margins, and the poor countries love it because it brings in (relatively) good-paying jobs to populations that are grateful for whatever meager wages they are paid.
So, what to do about it? :confused:
If American companies do not meet OSHA requirements in other
countries, then we are allowing them to do to others what
we will not allow be done to our own workers. This places
profits over justice and fairness. This places "every day
low prices" (Walmart) above human beings: "Oh that silver
and gold would be so dear and flesh and blood so cheap."
For me, it isn't really about whether or not Mai Ling is
better off with her low wage job in Thailand that without
it, it is about whether or not US corporations, and tacitly
the US government, places "vital US economic interests" above
"do unto others" type justice.
I believe it should be up to the underprivledged poor countries in which the factories reside to set the standard for child labor, not the wealthy countries who have a solid established government. If the majority of our citizens we're suffering due to poverty and turning to violence and crime just imagine how bad things could get. We really have no idea of hell like we think we do.
Jimmy Dugan Wrote:I believe it should be up to the underprivledged poor countries in which the factories reside to set the standard for child labor, not the wealthy countries who have a solid established government. If the majority of our citizens we're suffering due to poverty and turning to violence and crime just imagine how bad things could get. We really have no idea of hell like we think we do.
Two children stand on a street corner. An older boy says he
will give whichever one of them can drink a bottle of tobasco
sauce and not get a drink of water for five minutes a crisp,
new twenty dollar bill. One child comes from a home of modest
means and has his basic needs and some of his wants provided.
The other child exists at below poverty and often goes without
supper and has worn out clothes and shoes. Now, which one
of these children has more power to resist the offer of
degrading oneself for money? The underpriviledged,
whether an individual or a country, operate from a position
of need and powerlessness, and at least one test of character
is how one treats the vulnerable. US corporations fail
that test miserably.
Fenix Wrote:Beef, I'm curious to your opinion on this? I'd also like to know what you're doing in Australia if it isn't too personal of a question. I've always wanted to go.
I feel that as long as the working conditions are safe (which I know all are not), then going to other countries is a good thing for the global economy. If we really want to make the world a better place then we need to get all countries on the same level (or close to it) in terms of wealth. This starts by putting factory jobs in underdeveloped countries. Didn't we go through the Industrial Revolution and face many of the same situations? Now look how successful we are.
I used to believe that we should fist worry totally about ourselves and not any other country (I still think we do too much for others), but as I mentioned earlier, this major globalization we are living through is something that can not be overlooked. Companies have to become Multinational (MNCs) and I believe that just as in the past there were American giants, we will begin to see companies that are World Giants (ie. Wal-Mart).
So it is needed, and if safe conditions, will make the world better as a whole to where hopefully eventually, these children will have parents who can take care of them so they don't have to work.
And I am spending a semester abroad in Australia. It is a great place if you ever get the chance to make it down here....minus the long 14 hour flight from LA.
Beef Wrote:I feel that as long as the working conditions are safe (which I know all are not), then going to other countries is a good thing for the global economy. If we really want to make the world a better place then we need to get all countries on the same level (or close to it) in terms of wealth. This starts by putting factory jobs in underdeveloped countries. Didn't we go through the Industrial Revolution and face many of the same situations? Now look how successful we are.
I used to believe that we should fist worry totally about ourselves and not any other country (I still think we do too much for others), but as I mentioned earlier, this major globalization we are living through is something that can not be overlooked. Companies have to become Multinational (MNCs) and I believe that just as in the past there were American giants, we will begin to see companies that are World Giants (ie. Wal-Mart).
So it is needed, and if safe conditions, will make the world better as a whole to where hopefully eventually, these children will have parents who can take care of them so they don't have to work.
And I am spending a semester abroad in Australia. It is a great place if you ever get the chance to make it down here....minus the long 14 hour flight from LA.
I agree about doing too much financially for other countries. From a protection standpoint I feel it is our duty to protect those who can't protect themselves.
The school I attend has a program where they will send you to England for a semester. I was thinking about trying that.