Debate for POLITICS class...

[gwiyomi17]

"Can Sweatshops and Cheap Labour Benefit the Pooor?"

 

I'm on the YES side..

I need some ideas how to defend this

Also, can youo please post the links where you get your ideas..

 

THANKS!!

Edited November 3, 2013 by gwiyomi17

[turionx2]

A big NO.

 

Leads to:

 

1) Excess air pollution in these developing countries. Air pollution can lead to diseases. Check out the Air Pollution wikipedia page, look at the map and take a look at China.

2) Sweat shop workers need to work overhours with negative health consequences.

3) Job losses in developed countries because companies move their company to developing countries.

Edited November 3, 2013 by turionx2

[iNow]

I think the question is what those poor people would be doing (and how would they be eating and caring for themselves) in the absence of those sweatshop jobs. Whether or not it's morally correct or they are taking steps to guard against climate change, the question is how are people feeding themselves.

 

A key example is FoxConn in China which has been in the news during the last few years due to their role in producing Apple's iPhones. There is a lot of focus on the poor working and living conditions of these workers, and how poorly they are paid. I agree we should strive to improve their living conditions and the safety requirements and pay, etc., but the better question IMO is if they are better off or worse off than if those jobs were not present... If they'd be more healthy or less healthy... better fed or worse fed if such work did not exist... and if more jobs are consequently created by the income they receive and then spend at other vendors helping THEM and THEIR families eat... consequently raising the tide and improving conditions in aggregate.

[gwiyomi17]

Hmm.. I need to defend on my side..

I read this article : http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/1997/03/in_praise_of_cheap_labor.2.html

 

 

I think the question is what those poor people would be doing (and how would they be eating and caring for themselves) in the absence of those sweatshop jobs. Whether or not it's morally correct or they are taking steps to guard against climate change, the question is how are people feeding themselves.

A key example is FoxConn in China which has been in the news during the last few years due to their role in producing Apple's iPhones. There is a lot of focus on the poor working and living conditions of these workers, and how poorly they are paid. I agree we should strive to improve their living conditions and the safety requirements and pay, etc., but the better question IMO is if they are better off or worse off than if those jobs were not present... If they'd be more healthy or less healthy... better fed or worse fed if such work did not exist... and if more jobs are consequently created by the income they receive and then spend at other vendors helping THEM and THEIR families eat... consequently raising the tide and improving conditions in aggregate.

I got your point, but what you posted sounds like you don't agree that sweatshops and cheap labors benefit the poor..am i right?

[turionx2]

I think the question is what those poor people would be doing (and how would they be eating and caring for themselves) in the absence of those sweatshop jobs. Whether or not it's morally correct or they are taking steps to guard against climate change, the question is how are people feeding themselves.

We can say the same thing about the Europeans and Americans that have and are losing their jobs. How are these young Europeans and Americans going to feed themselves in the future?

 

We shouldn't presume that everyone has a desire for money and a well paid job and/or requires a job to survive. There is those individuals who would prefer moving away from a polluted city to a clean air environment and work the land.

 

A key example is FoxConn in China which has been in the news during the last few years due to their role in producing Apple's iPhones. There is a lot of focus on the poor working and living conditions of these workers, and how poorly they are paid. I agree we should strive to improve their living conditions and the safety requirements and pay, etc., but the better question IMO is if they are better off or worse off than if those jobs were not present... If they'd be more healthy or less healthy... better fed or worse fed if such work did not exist... and if more jobs are consequently created by the income they receive and then spend at other vendors helping THEM and THEIR families eat... consequently raising the tide and improving conditions in aggregate.

 

Maybe European and American corporations need to get out of these in developing countries and let them sort it out themselves. Their generation would most likely be better off in the long run without those jobs despite the early deaths that would ensue. It sounds harsh but nature isn't pretty and the overproduction of food doesn't help because these people in developing countries tend to breed uncontrollably.

 

There has been a big problem in Europe and North America for years with illegal immigrants entering countries with the preconception of getting a job in these developed countries and at times, they do get a job and send money back to their home country, money that is taken from the national debt of developed countries. A rise is debt leads to a rise in taxes; taxes required to pay back the national debt and eventually job loss ensues because companies are so far in debt.

 

So, by fixing a supposed problem in these in developed countries instead of letting them take care of themselves, we eventually end up with more problems here in our home countries.

[overtone]

 

 

but the better question IMO is if they are better off or worse off than if those jobs were not present..

I mistrust that question - it is at a minimum apt to mislead: you do not want to create a situation in which the powerful gain the privilege of exploiting labor by creating acute misery in the non-laboring populace.

 

If people have been abused to the point that a sweatshop owner is offering relief from worse misery, the right question is not whether the sweatshop is actually a degree of relief.

[iNow]

My larger point is that this situation is far more complex than a simple binary choice of "is it good or bad." The accurate answer is, "it depends... on the circumstances and the individual in question." The other point is that we should always strive to do better and to improve conditions as a guiding principle.

 

There is nothing misleading about either of those points, IMO.

[john5746]

I got your point, but what you posted sounds like you don't agree that sweatshops and cheap labors benefit the poor..am i right?

I think the link you provided is about as good as you will get for your side. Working for little is better than starvation, I guess.

 

If sweatshops and cheap labor benefit the poor, wouldn't cheap labor from the mega-wealthy be even better? Make them work/invest for little to nothing. They still would work less and in better conditions than sweatshops.

Edited November 4, 2013 by john5746

[iNow]

I need to defend on my side...

More here (including links within): http://business.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/06/are-sweatshops-an-economic-necessity/

[gwiyomi17]

thanks guys,

i will gather more information

then i will do some important points that supports the Yes side..

 

do you think it will help me if i also search for the No side?

i guess i will do that for now,

I'm not sure whether it is good to be on the Pro-sweatshop than anti-sweatshop ..

[iNow]

It's good to be pro-better conditions for workers no matter what they do, and to recognize that sometimes for some small segment of the population that sweatshop (as awful as it is relative to other work conditions) still represents "better" than what is available to them otherwise.

 

The negative? The wealthy take advantage of those in poverty in much the same way that plantation owners took advantage of slaves.

[overtone]

 

 

It's good to be pro-better conditions for workers no matter what they do, and to recognize that sometimes for some small segment of the population that sweatshop (as awful as it is relative to other work conditions) still represents "better" than what is available to them otherwise.

The assumption that what is "otherwise" is a given independent of the existence of sweatshops is not valid.

 

Sweatshops do not arise in a vacuum, and are not maintained in innocence - creating misery to abet the exploitation of it is quite common, as is seeing that those who attempt to avoid exploitation are made miserable. This is a standard tactic of economic oppression, recognized as such as far back as industrial economies have been observed and analyzed - for Marx's "reserve army of the unemployed", abusive employment is much sought after as the alternative to starvation etc, and as Marx pointed out that gives the capitalist employers a class interest in maintaining unemployment itself as well as the consequences of it.

 

Obviously favoring the sweatshop aspect of the situation is no more ethically or morally defensible than favoring the misery aspect of it - two sides of the same coin.

[Phi for All]

do you think it will help me if i also search for the No side?

 

Absolutely. Knowing the objections that may be posed to your own stance and being prepared to answer them is a big part of any debate.

 

In this case, you should know that your opponents are going to be mentioning the work environment and shabby treatment sweatshop workers face. You probably have your "low wages are better than no wages" argument well fleshed-out, but you should also touch on the fact that the low wages sweatshop workers receive are usually enough to improve the economy in a region, to the point where better lifestyles will mean eventually sweatshop jobs won't be as attractive as they are now. They can be a temporary way to increase an economy and give people the means to work towards something better.

[overtone]

 

 

you should also touch on the fact that the low wages sweatshop workers receive are usually enough to improve the economy in a region, to the point where better lifestyles will mean eventually sweatshop jobs won't be as attractive as they are now. They can be a temporary way to increase an economy and give people the means to work towards something better.

You need to establish the existence of the specific circumstances under which sweatshops are in fact "temporary", and in physical reality can reasonably be expected to disappear, and exactly how that is to happen in the face of opposition from the beneficiaries,

 

and those in which the wages delivered actually improve the economy of the demographic or social class from which the wage earners are drawn (not "the economy" in some vague sense),

 

and those in which the means provided by sweatshps can in fact be used to "work towards something better".

 

In the above you need to consider explicitly the circumstances under which sweatshops are created (such as in the examples below), in particular avoiding the mere assumption of a prior misery not explained, with reference to those profiting from the sweatshops, and including such immediately relevant matters as the role of women and the ownership of land etc.

 

Some examples you might handle: the economy imposed on Ireland, northern England, and Scotland by the "Enclosure" - an example of the creation phase of sweatshops, the establishment of the misery - or the one created in India, China, Indonesia, etc, by the sweatshop establishers of the British Empire et al. Why and how was their establishment (the entire event, including the misery generation) beneficial to their employees, why and exactly how were they "temporary".

[danston]

It can, but it's not an ethical means to do so.

 

Also, there is little evidence that sweatshops lead to economic enhancement rather than sustenance. India and China are not advancing due to sweatshops, but do to macroeconomic and to some extent social reforms.

[jduff]

I think there is a need to a more definitive answer of what a "sweatshop" is. Before we can conclude any benefits from such! I notice above preconceived notions that may be true or may be completely wrong.

 

So what would be the best definition of sweatshop? According to this site http://www.dosomething.org/tipsandtools/11-facts-about-sweatshops a sweatshop is any business that violates two or more U.S labor laws. Many companies in the U.S skim right on the edge of being a sweatshop.

 

Examples in the business I am in are Amazon(Warehouse/Logistics) GSI(Warehouse/Logistics). While on the surface they seem legitimate. The reality is 80% of the workforce for those places are through temporary services. The employees for those services are expected to work very long hours. They are expected to be paid in some cases under the poverty line. They have no insurance other than what they can now sign up for under the AHCA. When it is said and done those employees barely survive due to these circumstances. Also remember none of these employees have benefits.

 

The reality is there are many sweatshops just in this country alone. Just those corporations have found ways to skirt around current U.S labor laws. We in essence do not even have to look outside our boundaries. While it is worse in many other countries. The U.S labor laws do not exist in most cases outside our border.

 

In the cases above the benefits would be:

 

1. Cheap labor below the poverty line.

2.Fast, efficient service.

3.Because of no union, or benefits.Demand for employees can drop or raise dependent upon business needs(One day your working, next you have no job).

4. Brings down the overall base cost of operating a business.

5. The owners or investors make HUGE profits that are not shared among the lower caste workers.

6. Gives someone a job who would otherwise be unemployed with no income other than what he can deal without employment.

 

These are just examples! While it is nice to see so many worried about another countries workforce. Really we should be looking at what we have here at home!

Edited December 10, 2013 by jduff