 |
QuakerInfo.com Forum
A place to discuss Quakers and Quakerism
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
GKK
Joined: 27 Sep 2004
Posts: 187
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 8:04 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| oneputt wrote: |
| Quote: |
| And just what facts have you to support this opinion? |
The fact that illegal immigration has been around a lot longer than the sweatshops that have been set up in Mexico and C America in the past couple of decades.Do you think illegal immigration is a recent phenomenom of the last 20 years? |
This entire line of reasoning hinges on the idea that the phenomenon of exploitive labour practices are a mere twenty years old. This is untrue. You have admitted as much yourself, in the same post.
The practice of paying wages that are inadequate to meet the worker's needs has been around since wage-labour was invented. About three or four hundred years before the word 'sweatshop' was invented.
Rural populations being dispossessed of their land and ending up as wage-labourers in factories or as migrant harvest-workers on large-scale farms isn't new either.
Ever larger numbers of people are effected by these things.
So, yeah. People have been sneaking across the border from Mexico ever since they were. Uh, dispossessed of their lands in California, etc, when the border was established.
| Quote: |
My claim is that the numbers of workers far exceed those who have been displaced from a subsistence level of living by these factories,and that these people were poor and desperate before the factories came in,and choose to work there because it raises their standard of living. |
I'm not sure where you get "displaced by factories." I said displaced, by various factors. It is obviously not the case that everybody's small farm now has a shoe-factory on it.
Anyway. The increase in urban populations coresponds to the decrease in rural populations. Agriculture is what rural populations do.
The UN says the number of urban poor globally has more than doubled in ten years, and most of those people migrated to the cities from rural areas.
How is that consistant with the idea that there are more sweatshop workers than people displaced from the countryside?
Plus, real hard-core poverty, food-insecurity, is more prevailant among the urban poor than among rural poor people.
How is that consistant with the idea that migrating to the cities has improved their standard of living?
| Quote: |
| What I refered to as a small isolated case was your example of the Jamaican dairy farms being ruined by competition,and I meant small as a ratio of people displaced |
There's really nothing 'small' about every dairy in an entire nation being destroyed. Jamaica is a small country, so the number of people effected may seem small, but as a percentage of the population it was probably pretty significant.
Anyway, really, see the movie. They show a number of other agricultural operations (bannanas, vegetables) going the same way.
It's not exactly competition, either -- if I make self-reciprocating widgets and you make self-reciprocating widgets but I get everybody in town to give me ten dollars and use that money so I can sell widgets at less than the cost of producing them, your business, unsubsidized in this way, will fold.
| Quote: |
| The better question is not where they came from,but why.Why would someone leave the countryside and move to an urban area to work for wages unless it improves their situation in their eyes?You seem to attribute a mass case of extreme stupidity to all the overseas workers.They all were better off living the old ways in the countryside,but they are just to dumb to know it and they all ignorantly moved into the urban areas to work and are too stupid to realize they're worse off.You seem to think you know what is better for them than they do.But they are the ones having to live their lives there,don't you think they are smart enough to figure out whether they had it better in the country than they do in the city? |
This is pretty insulting.
Anyway, I thought I made it quite clear that these people DON'T want to leave the countryside. They had to, to make a living. Yes, they are better off in sweatshops than starving in the countryside, but they were much better off in the countryside back when they had land there and could farm it.
| Quote: |
| Should they be paid more?Yes.Will refusing to buy their widget put more money in their pocket?You hope,but you don't know.It could cost them their job.And how are they helped by that? |
Except I do know. I know that to double the wage of a Mexican worker who makes Hanes T-shits, it would cost about five cents more per T-shirt. One day I was messing with numbers and calculated that the cost of doubling the wage of every T-shirt factory worker was about half the pay of the CEO of the Sara Lee corporation, of which Hanes is a subsidiary. This business where wages are less than 1% of profit per item holds true for some other stuff I've investigated -- plastic toys made in China.
| Quote: |
| I am not convinced of the correctness in the bigger scheme of things of boycotting poor people,so I'll just leave it there. |
I'm not boycotting poor people. I'm boycotting rich people.
This plastic toy shark is for sale for two dollars. Half of that is materials, labour and shipping costs. Half of that is profit. The workers who made that shark got one cent per shark, in pay. The guys who own the company get a dollar per shark, in profit.
Who am I helping if I buy the shark?
If I refuse to buy the shark, who am I boycotting?
If I refuse to buy the shark but say, "I will buy some other plastic shark, this one over here. It costs three dollars, but the worker who made it was paid 63 cents per shark," is it really very likely that this does anything but help, in the long term? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Frank
Joined: 27 Jan 2003
Posts: 95
Location: Iowa
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 7:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
The late Edward Abbey, a writer whose stomping ground was the American Southwest, used to speculate gleefully about the time greedy civilization as we know it would exceed its reach and old Mother Earth would just buck us off using such tools as war, famine and disease.
All that would remain would be the earth, sky and seas, vegetation and critters less destructive than humankind. Then, after a cosmic sigh of relief, this planet would set about repairing itself.
Under this scenario, humanity's only windows of hope would be isolated pockets of agrarian peasants who at least still were capable of feeding themselves and the few others adaptive enough to become effective hunter-gatherers.
I can't wrap my mind around the global economy this morning --- boycotts, aspiring workers in third-world countries, workers in the United States and elsewhere displaced by them and their fat-cat masters, the state of my wardrobe and where its components should come from. So I'm gonna go work in the garden. When the end comes at least I'll have plenty of tomatoes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthony
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 1542
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anthony wrote: |
I am now wondering where to buy clothes, etc. that I know are not the product of sweatshop labour? When I shop at large chain stores, such as M&S, Next, etc. should I only be buying clothes made in the West (although, I know there are sweatshops in the West)? I have recently checked out a couple of web pages that purports to sell green, free-trade attire, but it looks shoddy and old fashioned. Advice would be welcome because I don't wish to continue purchasing from retailers whose stock is dubious.
So, may I suggest that we use this link to shed light on this issue and encourage each other, providing advice and information - and ask questions as I have done (I've already learnt much already).
|
Should I be surprised that since I posted the above plea for advice and information, no one has responded? Instead, the debate continues on the pros and cons of this trade - perhaps the debate is more interesting. However, I am beginning to wonder if this is all that is happening - is it all talk? Is anyone out there actually refusing to buy sweatshop items? If so, please share your experiences. Simon, where are you?
I bought a jacket from M&S the other day, assuming that it would be made under fair-trade conditions. It was only as an afterthought that I decided to check the label, interestingly, nowhere on the garment provided any information on its place of origin. I am left wondering if, once again, I have supported the sweatshop industry without realising it?
In Friendship |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GKK
Joined: 27 Sep 2004
Posts: 187
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 3:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry about that, Anthony.
I buy clothes from justiceclothing.com. They're from union-shops in the US and Canada. The clothes are better made than most, and last. I'm hard on clothes. The selection is pretty limited. Bill Samuel posted another site in the 'Plain Speech' thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rylan_losce
Joined: 26 Feb 2006
Posts: 56
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anthony wrote: |
| Anthony wrote: |
I am now wondering where to buy clothes, etc. that I know are not the product of sweatshop labour? When I shop at large chain stores, such as M&S, Next, etc. should I only be buying clothes made in the West (although, I know there are sweatshops in the West)? I have recently checked out a couple of web pages that purports to sell green, free-trade attire, but it looks shoddy and old fashioned. Advice would be welcome because I don't wish to continue purchasing from retailers whose stock is dubious.
So, may I suggest that we use this link to shed light on this issue and encourage each other, providing advice and information - and ask questions as I have done (I've already learnt much already).
|
Should I be surprised that since I posted the above plea for advice and information, no one has responded? Instead, the debate continues on the pros and cons of this trade - perhaps the debate is more interesting. However, I am beginning to wonder if this is all that is happening - is it all talk? Is anyone out there actually refusing to buy sweatshop items? If so, please share your experiences. Simon, where are you?
I bought a jacket from M&S the other day, assuming that it would be made under fair-trade conditions. It was only as an afterthought that I decided to check the label, interestingly, nowhere on the garment provided any information on its place of origin. I am left wondering if, once again, I have supported the sweatshop industry without realising it?
In Friendship |
If you're in the UK, you should have no problem finding good, ethical clothing.
Here are some sites:
www.zeropointzero.co.uk
www.arkadash.co.uk
www.bynature.co.uk
www.howies.co.uk
hug.trans-act.co.uk
www.kuyichi.com
www.mongrelclothing.co.uk
www.thtc.co.uk
www.eponasport.com
Most of those have stores (I think) in britain somewhere. Some might be sort of pricey. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthony
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 1542
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 2:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Friend Rylan, 
Thank you for you kind consideration and effort. I will investigate these links, but as there has been so little feedback about experiences of buying these products I have no alternative but to consider that there is more talk than purchase
In Friendship |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthony
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 1542
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 3:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have searched the sites provided by Rylan, and several others, including No Sweat Apparel, for clothes. However, it seems that they only cater for youth, particularly those who like T shirts (I do, but not that young  ) and hoodies (not for me). It seems that we don't have all that much choice, and even those available are very expensive, even for those who can afford them. Even clothes purchased from reputable organisations such as M&S are dubious: I eventually found the label on my latest M&S acquisition, a jacket, tucked away in the pocket - it was made in Turkey.
This issue seems to provide more questions than answers.
In Friendship |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sorianofan
Joined: 22 Apr 2005
Posts: 328
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Without sweatshops and industrialization, you don't have the populationm growth to 6.3 billion people we have today. I am not against free labor, but I do put effort in not buying products that help nations perpetuate the slavery of their people.
_________________
Cats rule and that is the truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthony
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 1542
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 3:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Without sweatshops and industrialization, you don't have the populationm growth to 6.3 billion people we have today. I am not against free labor, but I do put effort in not buying products that help nations perpetuate the slavery of their people. |
Hi 
Could you please clarify how sweatshops and industrialisation increase the growth in population? Additionally, what is your success rate when purchasing 'freetrade' items of clothing (not T-shirts)?
In Friendship |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sorianofan
Joined: 22 Apr 2005
Posts: 328
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 7:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Anthony wrote: |
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Without sweatshops and industrialization, you don't have the populationm growth to 6.3 billion people we have today. I am not against free labor, but I do put effort in not buying products that help nations perpetuate the slavery of their people. |
Hi
Could you please clarify how sweatshops and industrialisation increase the growth in population? Additionally, what is your success rate when purchasing 'freetrade' items of clothing (not T-shirts)?
In Friendship |
What we call "sweatshops" and "wage slavery" are common practices in less priviliged countries. They are means of employment that help pay for necessities such as food and education. The same is true in America in the early twentieth century. Without an expansion of industrialization, you simply don't have an expansion of population. Agricultural capacity greatly increases, and in a world where people expect to trade foodstuffs for goods, nations lack in agricultural capacity give something in return--often "sweatshop goods".
Population's first huge burst in growth occured during the Industrial Revolution, and bursted again with vaccinations, penicillin, and etc. These are all brought to use by industrialized processes and such goods can only be attained through trade and economic development.
Now, it is not my intent to argue in favor of free trade, capitalism, or anything like that. I am just saying this is why things the way they are, and it is easy to hold our noses at labor practices not acceptable in our society, but if people thanks to these practices have more children and they live, this certainly reflects upon an increase in the standard of living. Eventually, and hopefully for the sake of sustainability, population growth plateus...but not because people are forced to die off in large numbers because food, medicine, and shelter in unavailable due to a lack of industrialization.
_________________
Cats rule and that is the truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthony
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 1542
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sorianofan wrote: |
Population's first huge burst in growth occured during the Industrial Revolution, and bursted again with vaccinations, penicillin, and etc. These are all brought to use by industrialized processes and such goods can only be attained through trade and economic development. |
Thank you sorianofan,
I have found this very interesting, particularly in the light of what Oneputt claimed: that sweatshop labour was at least helpful and allowed families to live, are they better not better than nothing? What would people survive on if the sweatshops ceased? He was brought to task for articulating these thoughts; yet, you seem to have vindicated his point: that sweatshops at least allow families to not only survive, but to flourish: they 'have more children and they live, this certainly reflects upon an increase in the standard of living.'
Now, I know it's not as simple as this: there are many issues: agricultural production is difficult because of loss of land and international food tariffs, etc; many of those working in sweatshops are children who are not allowed home for days if not weeks at a time, if at all; and they have to sleep next to their machines.
My issue is that alternatives to sweatshop labour products are difficult to find and identify, particularly clothes that are not inordinately expensive and fashionless. I have asked about the experiences of others in finding reasonably priced, fashionable and easily identifiable non-sweatshop clothes in stores, etc. - excluding attractive T-shirts and other inappropriate stuff (for some), but there seems to be a surprising silence on this one.
If we were able to find reasonably priced, attractive clothes, and no one bought sweatshop products (ideally), then, hopefully, the sweatshop industry would collapse, but, in the interim, who would support the workers who had been 'liberated?' Is it a vicious circle?
I am a novice regarding the understanding this issue and would like to do the right thing, however, I am beginning to realise that this is not as easy as some would have us believe. We know the issues, but what it the solution? How does it relate to our Quaker testimonies? What is the corporate response? Should we all be wearing T-shirts?
In Friendship |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sorianofan
Joined: 22 Apr 2005
Posts: 328
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 2:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
If we were able to find reasonably priced, attractive clothes, and no one bought sweatshop products (ideally), then, hopefully, the sweatshop industry would collapse, but, in the interim, who would support the workers who had been 'liberated?' Is it a vicious circle?
I am a novice regarding the understanding this issue and would like to do the right thing, however, I am beginning to realise that this is not as easy as some would have us believe. We know the issues, but what it the solution? How does it relate to our Quaker testimonies? What is the corporate response? Should we all be wearing T-shirts? |
Thanks for your response, because I often think about the same things. Personally, I think there is so much good used clothing, we can avoid the sweatshop altogether. Often, donated American clothes that isn't recycled is sold by the pound to foreign markets, such as in Africa, undercutting local merchants and hurting local economies. The same is true about donating food.
Thus, the decisions are always hard, and sadly, I do not think we can figure out the right one. I believe the best we can do is be as just as possible in intent and hope for the best.
_________________
Cats rule and that is the truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
oneputt
Joined: 28 Dec 2002
Posts: 232
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 7:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I buy clothes from justiceclothing.com. They're from union-shops in the US and Canada. The clothes are better made than most, and last. I'm hard on clothes. |
Since this is supposedly done on behalf of the exploited overseas worker,can I assume that these union workers then take some of their wages and send it to the overseas workers?If not,then how does buying from N American union workers help the overseas workers?
| Quote: |
| Anyway, I thought I made it quite clear that these people DON'T want to leave the countryside. |
Please explain exactly how you know this.Have you interviewed every one of the workers to know this?Or is this just an unsubstantiated statement made to appeal to the emotions?The fact is that urbanization is a worldwide phenomenom,and mostly it is done voluntarily by those thinking that a better life awaits them there.Millions of rural American youth do the same thing,and it is doubtful that they really wish to stay on the farm.Making this kind of illogical claim is exactly why I don't trust the other claims made by these people on this issue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthony
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 1542
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 11:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sorianofan wrote: |
Personally, I think there is so much good used clothing, we can avoid the sweatshop altogether. Often, donated American clothes that isn't recycled is sold by the pound to foreign markets, such as in Africa, undercutting local merchants and hurting local economies. The same is true about donating food.
Thus, the decisions are always hard, and sadly, I do not think we can figure out the right one. I believe the best we can do is be as just as possible in intent and hope for the best. |
Sorianofan
Thank you for your constructive and thought provoking response, and for staying with me on this one. I'm sure there must be lots of advice, ideas, and experiences out there, if only it could be tapped into and shared. I would like to see myself marching up to the sales manager in M&S, etc., and demanding to know: "Is this sweatshop or not?" Would I then have made a fool of myself? Well, it's said that a bit of encouragement goes a long way.
In Friendship |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
oneputt
Joined: 28 Dec 2002
Posts: 232
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| If we were able to find reasonably priced, attractive clothes, and no one bought sweatshop products (ideally), then, hopefully, the sweatshop industry would collapse, but, in the interim, who would support the workers who had been 'liberated?' Is it a vicious circle? |
Ah yes,the point I have been trying to make.Exactly what does happen to them in the "interim",however long that is.5 years,10 years,...ever?When we've succeeded in taking away their jobs because we don't think they get paid enough,will they send us thank you cards for liberating them into the abject poverty of whatever is left when these jobs are gone?Somehow I doubt it.
But then that is not the point.The point is to stick it to the rich guys.That is why the posts focus on how little of a percentage the worker gets of the cost of the product,rather than the fact that studies show that their lives are improved,however slightly,by these jobs.The aim is to hurt the rich guys,and if the poor Asian or S American worker loses his job then that is just collateral damage to the cause of fighting greed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
