Why are Liberals Still Defending Sweatshops?

I was surprised to see Ezra Klein endorse Nicholas Kristof's column arguing that "the central challenge in the poorest countries is not that sweatshops exploit too many people, but that they don't exploit enough." Back in my college Macroeconomics class, this argument was expressed as "They're not poor because they work in sweatshops.  They work in sweatshops because they're poor."

Well actually, they're poor because they don't make enough money to support themselves.  If the people who hire them paid them enough, they would not be poor.  Providing jobs to people who would rather work them than stay unemployed doesn't release whoever provides the job from responsibility for how they treat them, just as saving someone from drowning would not give me any more right to mug that person than I have to mug anyone else.

The Postreported in 2005 that National Labor Committee Head Charles Kernaghan

gets angry when he recalls what a worker told him in Bangladesh: "If we could earn 37 cents an hour, we could live with a little dignity." (As opposed to the 21-cent hourly wage that barely staved off starvation.)

As CAPAF's Sabina Dawan observes, it's not as though the International Labor Organization and allied groups working to close such gaps and to see basic human rights protected in plants that make Western companies so rich are out to drive the people of Cambodia out of their jobs - or as though that's the inevitable result of letting workers go to the bathroom, or leave work to give birth.  Does Kristof believe that the Bangladeshi worker Kernaghan references makes 21 cents an hour because at 22 cents his plant would stop making a profit?

As Richard Rothstein wrote in his rejoinder to Kristof:

Kristof's logic would require that worker productivity in Indonesia be precisely 25 percent of that in Mexico, or that the cost of other factors be lower in Mexico than in Indonesia, offsetting higher labor costs. Otherwise, he could not claim that if Indonesian wages rose even a tiny bit closer to Mexican levels, seamstresses would be expelled to the garbage dump. But he has no basis for making such assumptions. While labor standards vary from country to country, technology for assembling apparel does not-that is dictated from New York, for all countries. Apparel manufacturers consider many issues in deciding where to site facilities; labor costs are one, but relatively small differences in labor costs are not.
...Even if a modest increase in Indonesia's minimum wage tempted manufacturers to move their facilities to, say, Mexico, the temptation would be frustrated if Mexico simultaneously enforced a comparable increase in its minimum. The fear that labor standards would cause manufacturers to flee only makes sense if some countries were exempt from global regulation. Kristof never explores why he thinks this is likely.

What's so often missing from arguments like Kristof's, backed by neoclassical economics, heartbreaking anecdotes, and the appeal of counterintuitive conclusions, is an engagement with questions of power.  As Rothstein argues, the anti-anti-sweatshop crowd often point to the history of sweatshops in the American garment industry, but they choose to overlook that American garment workers rose out of poverty not just through hard work but through collective action and collective bargaining to achieve the "labor standards" Kristof consigns to scare quotes.  But when sweatshop workers in third world countries join international labor and human rights organizations in demanding a better life, they don't get laudatory Kristof columns.

Instead, they get threats to their lives.  As Human Rights Watch observed last month, "there has been an ongoing pattern of violence against trade union activists in Cambodia."

Economic coercion isn't the only kind making maintaining the sweatshop status quo.  Larry Summers, in classic neoclassical style, may defend sweatshop labor in the name of "respecting the choices" of the people who work there, but doing so without a peep for those workers' right to organize without threat of murder is a cruel joke.

When Barack Obama mentioned the spate of assassinations targeting union leaders in Colombia, John McCain rolled his eyes.  If Nicholas Kristof takes such violent intimidation more seriously, maybe he should devote a column to it.  He could use a new bit - that Rothstein article critiquing Kristof's sweatshop apologia was published in 2005.

Josh

Tags: Barack Obama, cambodia, Charles Kernaghan, Colombia, Ezra Klein, human rights, human rights watch, international law, John McCain, Labor, Larry Summers, Nicholas Kristof, NYT, Richard Rothstein, sweatshop (all tags)

Comments

7 Comments

Re: Why are Liberals Still Defending Sweatshops?

They aren't.

Kristof is defending sweatshops.

Ergo, he is not a liberal, which is something I thought everyone knew.

by LIsoundview 2009-01-18 08:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Why are Liberals Still Defending Sweatshops?

So I guess Paul Krugman is not a liberal either, right?

by markjay 2009-01-19 05:40AM | 0 recs
You should aim elsewhere...

You wrath should, rightfully, be directed at the consumers who consume things with cost being their only consideration.

I would rather have someone working in a sweatshop, than starving to death.  The reason they make $0.21/hour and not $0.22/hour is because everyone above them in the "food chain" (with the consumer at the very top) has a hard time parting with money.

As an example, for each latte (made from fair trade coffee) that you buy, only $0.03 goes to the farmer.  And yet...

by Ravi Verma 2009-01-18 09:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Why are Liberals Still Defending Sweatshops?

Because there is worse than sweatshops and staying alive and eating gives some hope for the future, while dying on mounds of festering waste doesn't provide even that.

There is poor and there is poorer and there is poorest.  The poorest would like to be poorer, and the poorer would like to be poor. Kids thrown out of sweatshops because of American consumers consciences can find work as prostitutes?  Until the die of AIDS?  

the point was not to defend sweatshops but to highlight what's worse.  If you can see that, well, no one will be abel to explain. maybe you need to travel?  

by anna shane 2009-01-18 09:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Why are Liberals Still Defending Sweatshops?

I hate to agree with this but it is true.  Unless we provide a way to make a decent job and income for these workers in place of sweatshops, we can't remove them.  

by selfevident 2009-01-18 11:39AM | 0 recs
by canadian gal 2009-01-18 11:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Why are Liberals Still Defending Sweatshops?

Because people don't think and live their values. No one ever said being a progressive liberal is easy.

by Charles Lemos 2009-01-18 06:39PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads