What's wrong with paying people 3 dollars a day to make shoes

[dullard]

If people voluntarily agree to work for a certain amount and if they are given proper work environments, then there is nothing wrong with it. If they didn't want the job, they wouldn't do it.

So many people fail to realize that the cost of living is so much lower in those areas. $3 a day may sound like crap salary. But if housing is just $1 a day, it isn't too bad. An entire outfit there may cost just $1-$2. Food is <$1 a day. Etc. They do alright. Are they living in wealth? No. But they aren't starving on the streets either.

And giving cheap jobs overseas helps America too. Yes it hurts our manufacturing jobs. But it means that everything we buy (including items that our businesses buy) is so much cheaper that it more than pays for itself. Free trade (on a whole) is better for both parties. If it wasn't better for both parties, than one or both would pull out of the deal.

 

[Ns1]

nothing

 

[DougK62]

Originally posted by: Hammer
nothing wrong (provided the conditions are ok), but it sure does piss off the unions here.

Everything but sitting on your ass and getting paid $25/hour for it pisses off the unions.

 

[sygyzy]

Originally posted by: dullard
If people voluntarily agree to work for a certain amount and if they are given proper work environments, then there is nothing wrong with it. If they didn't want the job, they wouldn't do it.

So many people fail to realize that the cost of living is so much lower in those areas. $3 a day may sound like crap salary. But if housing is just $1 a day, it isn't too bad. An entire outfit there may cost just $1-$2. Food is <$1 a day. Etc. They do alright. Are they living in wealth? No. But they aren't starving on the streets either.

And giving cheap jobs overseas helps America too. Yes it hurts our manufacturing jobs. But it means that everything we buy (including items that our businesses buy) is so much cheaper that it more than pays for itself. Free trade (on a whole) is better for both parties. If it wasn't better for both parties, than one or both would pull out of the deal.

It's so easy to say "if peopel are volunteering for a job" then it's their fault. There is a thin line between volunteering and having no other choice. What if every gas station in your town decided that gas would cost $10/gallon. You would still need gas right, so you "volunteer" to pay the inflated price. Then when you come complain, people say "well you volunteered to buy it. Nobody 'forced' you". What a load of crock. If these people have NO CHOICE but work for unfair wages, it matters little if they volunteered or not. The alternative would be starving.

 

The problem is not the pay (usually that's on par with the standard of living), it's the warlord-type attitude of the factory bosses. Workers are pushed to the limit, and kids often can't keep up with the pace of the lines.

One of my profs showed me some photos of kids whose fingers were worn down to bone because of the pace of their lines, or kids who have permanent curves in their spines because of their daily posture.

I know that they don't HAVE to work there, but oftentimes, families force kids to work in factories to pay the bills. It's a deadly and dangerous situation, and it needs to stop.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: sygyzy

Originally posted by: dullard
If people voluntarily agree to work for a certain amount and if they are given proper work environments, then there is nothing wrong with it. If they didn't want the job, they wouldn't do it.

So many people fail to realize that the cost of living is so much lower in those areas. $3 a day may sound like crap salary. But if housing is just $1 a day, it isn't too bad. An entire outfit there may cost just $1-$2. Food is <$1 a day. Etc. They do alright. Are they living in wealth? No. But they aren't starving on the streets either.

And giving cheap jobs overseas helps America too. Yes it hurts our manufacturing jobs. But it means that everything we buy (including items that our businesses buy) is so much cheaper that it more than pays for itself. Free trade (on a whole) is better for both parties. If it wasn't better for both parties, than one or both would pull out of the deal.

It's so easy to say "if peopel are volunteering for a job" then it's their fault. There is a thin line between volunteering and having no other choice. What if every gas station in your town decided that gas would cost $10/gallon. You would still need gas right, so you "volunteer" to pay the inflated price. Then when you come complain, people say "well you volunteered to buy it. Nobody 'forced' you". What a load of crock. If these people have NO CHOICE but work for unfair wages, it matters little if they volunteered or not. The alternative would be starving.

Absolutely not,
you always have the choice to work $1/day job by farming. They do have a choice and obviously they're better off by working for nike rather than farming, otherwise they wouldn't do it.

You're making it seem as if the shoe-making business is the only option they have - sorta like the gas station example. In either scenario there would be more companies entering the market because there is room for profit. Shell would open up gas sation for 9 a gallon, bp would open one for 8 ... until you get to the point where you pay the equilibrium price. Same goes for labor - if they're getting underpaid relative to what they're worth, addidas will open another factory and the wages will rise.

 

Originally posted by: halik
Absolutely not,
you always have the choice to work $1/day job by farming. They do have a choice and obviously they're better off by working for nike rather than farming, otherwise they wouldn't do it.

You're making it seem as if the shoe-making business is the only option they have - sorta like the gas station example. In either scenario there would be more companies entering the market because there is room for profit. Shell would open up gas sation for 9 a gallon, bp would open one for 8 ... until you get to the point where you pay the equilibrium price. Same goes for labor - if they're getting underpaid relative to what they're worth, addidas will open another factory and the wages will rise.

Parents often force their children to work in the factories. There's not much choice for the kid in that.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: jumpr
The problem is not the pay (usually that's on par with the standard of living), it's the warlord-type attitude of the factory bosses. Workers are pushed to the limit, and kids often can't keep up with the pace of the lines.

One of my profs showed me some photos of kids whose fingers were worn down to bone because of the pace of their lines, or kids who have permanent curves in their spines because of their daily posture.

I know that they don't HAVE to work there, but oftentimes, families force kids to work in factories to pay the bills. It's a deadly and dangerous situation, and it needs to stop.

Alright, well if you stop whats going on, the countries will go back to $1/day farming and nothing will change. Every single developing country that has lowered trade barries have experienced GDP growth (especially far asia) along with household income.


Actually there's beeen studies done in thailand about child labor and there is a noticable inverse correlation between FDI and child prostitution.