Agreed. I also thought that this was everyones position.

Seems not tho, as we are debating whether or not anyone can be exploited if they took the job willingly. Which is the kind of libertarian idiocy we havent seen for a while here.

Right. The argument is that while they may be better off in a sweatshop than on a subsistence level farm, it's still okay to demand standards from that sweatshop.

Local governments in developing countries are corrupt and understaffed (who knew), so the regulations are poorly enforced. In this case it seems that the worst failings were the building owner, not the call centre company.

However, im making two related points.

1. Any company coming to a poor country (or anywhere) has an obligation to look after their workers. Anything else is exploitation and ****ty. Responable call centres like the ones im involved with make this central to all of our procurement and contracts. Then follow up with regular audits.

2. Safety regs are a good example of why econ 101 thinking falls down. a call centre worker is not well placed to assess the fire risk of every potential employer. Nor are they in the position to make sure regulations are followed.

Developing world labour practices are complicated. As is defining where the responsibility lies along a long supply chain. What is exploitation, what is doing good, what is doing harm?

The free market stuff delibertely obscures this, because they want to exploit people and dont give a ****. The american company that just burnt 30 people to death just wanted the cheapest location and didnt want to spend time and effort on safety.

There's something very strange about the post-postmodern usage of 'like' with the commas before and after.

HOLY **** WHAT THE **** IS WRONG WITH YOUR BRAIN

Yeah. It can be annoying talking to some liberals about this stuff as well. There was someone used to be in my book club who was politically active, a liberal and would frequently talk about how she opposed nationalism and that a person in need overseas was the same as a person in need in Australia. She also had a husband with a very well-paid union job in merchant shipping and was vehemently opposed to a proposal to allow foreign workers to work on Australian merchant ships. When I eventually got annoyed enough to point out the contradiction, she was like "yes but I want to RAISE OTHERS UP TO OUR LEVEL", like it was possible for everyone in the world to be given union jobs on Australian wages. Industry and infrastructure needs to develop gradually and with real foreign investment in developing countries, it's not possible to simply export Western standard of living and Western wages directly to underdeveloped places. That also doesn't mean I think it's OK for 10 year old children to work 12-hour days in horrendous firetraps, there is middle ground between these two positions. Which I understand is what you were saying. I feel like I'm contributing to the development of a derail here.

Yes its a derail. And yes the original "i dont know anything but the Clintons should probably go to prison" guy has left.

But you know. Someone is wrong on the internet.

Were the shipping companies planning on paying equivalent salaries?

No. Not an expert on it but from what I understand the plan was to bypass the union. Not really interested in your thoughts on that in isolation, the point was more about "why don't we just give everyone in the world excellent wages and working conditions starting tomorrow?" type liberals. Also want to say that I wouldn't have broached the subject with her at all were it not for the fact that she had repeatedly made a point earlier of saying that she believed living conditions here were excessively high and that we should sacrifice some of it for the good of those in poorer countries.

Yeah I get that, the lose-lose nature of the proposition, and in hindsight perhaps that's what Rainier was trying to articulate but, at the end of the day, like, why don't we just give everyone in the world excellent wages and working conditions starting tomorrow?

Mr Market will kick your door down and put your head on a spike.

A big picture look at it would be to say the Chinese made a bet with the Chinese people saying don't worry about inequality or exploitation and if you do that the standard of living will grow for everyone via growth. Basically a rising tide raises all boats. And in a sense that happened, the average wages for a Chinese worker did increase while inequality exploded in China. You can argue about whether or not the average Chinese worker is getting the better end of the bargain but overall everyone's seeing some gains.

The same bet was made with Americans called the Reagan Revolution where deregulation would happen, inequality would probably increase but Americans shouldn't worry about it because everyone will see their standard of living increase via growth. But the US didn't see the payout on that bet. Inequality has exploded in the US but the median wages for workers have either declined, stagnated, or grown at a sub par rate.

Ironically in a relative sense US workers are being exploited more by the US economy than Chinese workers because at least the median Chinese worker is getting the promise that was made to them.

At what wage level (if any) do you feel the midgets are no longer being exploited?
Who decides what is demeaning?
Should we boycott The Wizard of Oz?

Simple, if a worker isn't paid enough for their labor then they are being exploited. Under unsafe conditions in a factory, the worker in that factory should be paid a lot more than a worker doing the same job in a factory where the conditions are much safer. In a fast food joint, if the employer insists that the employees be unusually bright and cheery those workers should be paid more than a worker at a fast food joint that is ok with just being polite to customers. EZ game.

What are your thoughts on the Lingerie Football League (now under a different name)? Seems like it is exploiting women but I will take a wild guess that the players would be pissed if the government shut it down.

Lingerie League

You criticize my intelligence and then post this?

Do you find it confusing why English language call centers are more likely to exist in Manila than Manhattan? If they are going to pay "excellent wages" there is no reason for them to exist in the locations they do. What would these companies suddenly deciding to pay "excellent wages" lead to? Greater levels of poverty among these exploited people you are so concerned about. If you are going to open up a factory and pay first world wages, there's no reason to put the factory in a third world country.

You can whine about how that sucks and is unfair all you want but it doesn't change the reality.

I'm not defending companies that violate safety regulations. You can call that exploitation, although some of the same logic still applies. My argument isn't so much that workers can't willingly be exploited so much as that term is misleading when it simply refers to low wages and a job none of us would want to do.

When a factory opens up in a third world town, that is overwhelmingly a good thing for the people there. Upward mobility isn't a smooth and easy overnight process in poor countries.

Is an 'excellent wage' in Manila the same as in Manhattan?

cilldroichid

Of course not. The point is that the main reason call centers set up shop in countries like The Philippines and India is the low wage they can pay workers who speak English.

Companies aren't charities. It'd be great if everyone in the world earned a US middle class wage but it simply doesn't work that way. Remove the option of paying low wages and there is far less of a reason to invest in third world countries. I'm not in the call center industry but I'd imagine if the only option is to pay workers $9/hour operating in the US makes more business sense than operating in The Philippines.

Totally the same thing.

No, it's not confusing and is plainly obvious to everybody itt.

In light of that, why do you think you've received so much push-back here?

I think the push-back is largely a semantics beef over my reaction to the word "exploit". In your case, you're just a simple-minded, semi-literate moron.

I also think Americans and people from other rich countries struggle to understand why someone would choose to work in harsh conditions for what they see as an extraordinarily low wage.

There's frequently a disconnect with lefties regarding this issue. On one hand they think companies should produce their shoes or whatever in countries with decent wages but at the same time want to improve the plight of these workers who would be definitively worse off if the factories left.

There's no reason for labor-intensive industries to invest in third world countries with low wages if you are going to be paying workers first world wages. Companies don't exist to transform the working class of poor countries.

Literally no one here is confused about why people choose to work in sweatshops.

I didn't say they were, but I do think in the narrative of factories in poor countries being evil it is often left out that workers choose to work in these places because its their best option, regardless of whether it is understood or not.

A quick google search shows the average hourly rate of a call center worker in the Philippines is $1.75 compared to $12.00 in the US. Would it put off companies investing in The Philippines that much if there was some sort of regulation that doubled the average rate to $3.50 an hour?

It's been pointed out that choice does not preclude exploitation.


+1 vote for ending this derail that is going in circles.