I take a course at my high school called AP Comparative Government. Recently we had a debate on globalization. China is a country that in some ways is being hurt and helped by an international market. China is the leader in textile products as does so with large usage of sweatshop labor.
I know the title seems controversial but it is important to see where this comes from. When we discuss globalization, depending on the nation were are referring to, there are many essential issues to discuss as well as specific problems that have occurred as a side-effect of global trade.
First lets examine things from the side of the business owner. I own a business and as a business owner there is one important thing to me, revenue. In todays market, it is a big advantage in terms of revenue to be able to find ways of reducing the cost of labor. If clothing was to be made all locally in the United States, it would be very expensive. Imagine spending $40-50 on a white undershirt. This is because of regulations on working conditions that occur in America. A country like China is happy to be able to have trade partners, even if the general welfare of their people may suffer. Business owners and executives do not feel a responsibility for the human rights of the workers, especially when they are from other countries.
Now lets look at this from the worker's standpoint. I am a Chinese citizen. During the day I work many hours in poor working conditions for very little pay. Working here is not fun and is hard work, but it is work so I can support my family. Hopefully if I work hard, China can make things better for me and my family. The things I make in the shop are so expensive I can't even afford them.
I think those two little things give you an idea of what I am talking about. Personally, I believe that the Chinese government is responsible for the welfare of its people and it is not the responsibility of corporations to ensure that human rights are followed in productions. Corporations to me have one major duty, bringing in revenue. Once we expand these responsibilities we increase cost which leads to large changes in the economy. This could cause great change in the global market and I do not see the world being ready for this. Every nation goes through a period where they are a manufacturer of mostly goods. The U.S. not much more than 100 years ago had sweatshops. I believe in allowing the economy to flourish as is.
Do you think it is the responsibility of corporations to ensure that human rights are not denied to anyone?
What is more important global human rights or economy?
Is there a general scale to compare human rights or is this a real comparison of apples to oranges.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Businesses do have a social responsibility, and they can profit from it. Look at Starbucks for example. They have a reputation of buying from farms that pay well and are enviromentally responsible. You could also argue that workers would be more productive with better working conditions. I have no studies to support this, but if things would go more smoothly if the workplace was safer and the workers were healthier.
Money is important, but outsourcing costs Americans their jobs. These are the Americans that cannot afford to loose their jobs, since it is the manufactoring jobs that get outsourced. Money is necessary to stay in business, but there are other factors as well. You do not have to sacrifice one for the other in all cases, although it may be necessary.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tricia0711
Most jobs that are being outsourced can be done at a cheaper price by such an extent that it makes no sense to keep jobs in America. I understand the idea that we should keep jobs in America, but there is a big problem with doing that. Most people who have jobs that are being outsourced can get other jobs but are unwilling to take jobs with wages lower than what the currently earn. This is upsetting, sure, but for the economy to grow, our economy is still growing. To not allow it to continue to grow is like putting a spike under a tire you are trying to inflate. The tire will eventually be inflated fully, but while it is, stopping will make it more difficult to continue fill. Structural unemployment is a real problem because of outsourcing, but the real issue that few chose to examen is the level of education of these workers. Many of these workers do not have adequate education. An increase in education standards on a state by state basis rather than on a nation level will eliminate a need to have a protectionist economy allowing for more free flow of technology, ideas, service, and other import exports that will allow the United States economy to grow.
Ross Kressel
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/rosskressel
I understand the idea that we should keep jobs in America, but there is a big problem with doing that. Most people who have jobs that are being outsourced can get other jobs but are unwilling to take jobs with wages lower than what the currently earn. This is upsetting, sure, but for the economy to grow
What good is economic growth if it does not make our people richer?
And I am not talking about making corporations richer. I am talking about our average people?
I personally would rather have a smaller protectionist economy with employess in good paying jobs rather than a larger free globalist economy where people are forced to take jobs with lower wages.
It sounds like you are setting us up for a third world economy where there are a few people who are very rich and the vast majority are working at terrible jobs (or no jobs) and are very poor and there is no middle class.
If the end result of all this globalism and free trade is that the wages of the American people come into equilibrium with the rest of the workforce in the world at about $1 per day, I am not interested.
You need to articulate some real BENEFITS or most of us would prefer protectionism. How does this stuff make American workers better off?
The American worker has worked hard to get to where it is. A corporation is not a living and breathing thing. It is an idea that brings people together to drive revenue and hopefully profit. The percentage of those who are hurt by globalism is America is less than the percent that are helped by it.
If we end globalism like you would like, not only would the average salary of an American increase, but the average price of goods would increase. An attorney who typically makes $100,000 would be lucky to make half of the that and a lot of goods made in sweatshops like t-shirts would more than double in price.
There is a major benefit to globalism. If you have taken any economics classes you will learn about comparative advantage. Just to give you an example, there are two countries, lets call them A and B. Country A and Country B both produce socks and sneakers. Country A can produce more Socks with the all its people than Country B can and at a lower cost. Country A will then produce Socks, not sneakers, assuming that it can't make more sneakers for less cost than Country B.
If you don't want international trade and globalism, I have more questions for you. Do you like bananas? Good lucky finding them if there is an end to globalism. How about wine? You won't be drinking any from anywhere except California. Do you like driving a car to work or school or taking public transportation? Good luck with that without globalism. What about electricity? A lot it is produced from heat from coal heats water to turn turbines. Without globalism we wouldn't have coal for that (we don't use American coal for that, it contains to much sulfur).
If you don't want globalism, then you want the average man to suffer. The average man can not have the things he needs without globalism. If you want the economy to get worse, end the globalist economy and end NAFTA and see how the middle class feels when a second Great Depression hits the U.S.
Human rights are an issue, but if you recall there used to be a little country called the U.S.A. that was full of sweat shops. It is part of the development of the economy. Currently the sweatshops are in Asia. As the Asian economy develops, they will slowly drift to Africa. The governments in countries with sweat shops have the ability to reform, reform takes time though and I don't see why corporations should suffer when this is not their responsibility. You can give me all the corporations you want that do nice things, but for all those there are 10 times the number who don't. It isn't a question of morals, it is a question of how to make money.
Ross Kressel
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/rosskressel
I am going to make several points that I am not going to try to weave together into a coherent essay.
I think trade is good. I understand the concepts of competitive advantange and I understand the benefits in terms of lower prices and increased wealth for both parties that participate in a trade. Since I have a degree in economics, an MBA and have passed the CPA exam, and have started 5 successful businesses over my career, I probably have a fair bit better understanding of these things then you.
Trade is good but I'm not so sure that globalism is good. We had plenty of trade before the era of globalism. We had bananas, wine and all manner of goods from all over the world long before globalism and I believe if you check you will find that most bananas and quite a bit of wine come from countries with which we do NOT have free trade agreements.
I associate globalism with things like super-states, open immigration and loss of local sovereignty and local government. These things are great for the elites who profit from them and who will control these unrepresentative governments. I am not at all sure that they are good for ordinary people because the more remote the government the less responsive the government. And what we have now is already unresponsive and bad enough. Increasingly globalism is starting to look like economic fascism.
Your point about coal is ridiculously misinformed. The USA has the largest coal reserves in the world and western coal from Wyoming and Montana is very low sulfur. About 5 of the world's largest coal mines are within 100 miles of my house and about 15 "unit trains" (100 cars long with 100 tons of coal in each car) pass through my town daily. The USA is a net exporter of coal and I would be surprised if we imported any coal except perhaps some specialty coking coal or products like that. Since we no longer have much in the way of a steel industry, our need for coking coal is probably fairly minimal. If you would have made the same point but used oil instead of coal your point would have made some sense. But again, much of our oil comes from countries that we don't have free trade agreements and quite a few of them are openly hostile to us. Trade happens without globalism or even friendly relations.
It seems to me that there is a certain amount of national security involved in having for example a domestic steel industry. Our ability to retool our vast manufacturing economy was key to our ability to win both of the last World Wars. Where are we going to be when we try to fight the next war and our enemies also happen to be our weapons vendors? I think national security trumps globalism and I think we are going to regret the day that we destroyed several of our domestic industries.
You paint a very frightening picture of the world without globalism but in fact the United States grew to be the world's most powerful AND WEALTHIEST country under an economic regime of trade coupled with moderate protectionism. I have not seen the era of globalism do much for the average American. Real wages have been stagnant for 20 years and the bottom of the middleclass has every reason to feel like an endangered species because the globalists seem so intent on importing so much cheap illegal labor that the few remaining blue collar jobs that used to be middlclass jobs like construction and meat cutting are fast becoming poverty jobs. Truck driving seems to be the next one that globalists have their eye on with the desire to undercut American drivers with cheaper Mexican drivers. Not all Americans can be lawyers or executives but I would like to see all Americans who work hard live reasonably well. We have destroyed the economies of entire states like Michigan and Ohio with globalism. When are those folks going to see some benefits? Oh yeah they can buy cheap Chinese shit at Walmart.
My main point in my previous post is that you are not doing a very good job of selling globalism on its merits. Re-read the quote that I copied into my previous post. You are basically saying that we have to accept lower wages so the economy can grow. Thanks but no thanks! If globalism is all that great a deal you had better figure out a way to show ordinary Americans the benefits or ordinary Americans are going to start voting for politicians that are hostile to globalism. Witness the recent anti-NAFTA rhetoric of Obama and Hillary on the campain trail. I fear that as usual our government will swing to far and they will throw out the good (trade) with the bad (globalism).
The interior region—consisting of Illinois, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Western Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas—is the smallest coal producer of the three main producing regions. The Illinois basin boasts large reserves of bituminous coal, but production has fallen there since the mid-1990s. Its coal generally has a high sulfur content (3 to 7 percent), which runs afoul of US environmental laws, especially the Clean Air Act of 1990.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4061
We are certainly not the leading exporter of coal as you had previously stated as you can clearly see from the following quote from a reliable U.S. sponsored government website.
"Already the world’s leading exporter of coal, Australia is projected to dominate future international coal trade. Australia continues to improve its inland transportation and port infrastructure to expedite coal shipments to international markets. It has plans to expand coal terminals at Abbot Point, Dalrymple Bay, Hay Point, RG Tanna, Barney Point, and Fisherman Islands by about 55 million tons by 2010 and to expand rail transportation capacity in Queensland, where most of Australia’s metallurgical coal is mined, to about 280 million tons (6.8 quadrillion Btu14) [24]. Australia also is projected to remain the primary exporter of metallurgical coal to Asian markets, supplying 73 percent of Asia’s demand for coking coal.
In the international market for steam coal, Indonesia is expected to play a growing role, surpassing Australia as the largest exporter of steam coal in most years of the IEO2007 projections. Indonesia has low-cost reserves of low-sulfur coal; many ports, some with the capability to take capesize ships; and proximity to the expanding markets of Asia. Indonesia’s export trade grew by 125 percent (79 million tons or 1.6 quadrillion Btu) from 2000 to 2005 [25]. For 2006, Indonesia is expected to beat its 2005 export volume by 0.7 quadrillion Btu. From 2005 to 2030, its annual exports are projected to increase by 1.7 quadrillion Btu, depending on its investment in resource exploration and the development of new mines over the period. Other areas of uncertainty for Indonesian exports include the potential for domestic coal demand to compete with coal exports, the adequacy of its internal transportation infrastructure, and domestic environmental concerns. "
Then it goes on to talk about an increased need for coal in the Americas for use for steam power especially with increasing oil prices.
"The United States is projected to import 2.1 quadrillion Btu of coal in 2030, 1.3 quadrillion Btu more than in 2005. Although still a small share of U.S. consumption, at 6.1 percent, that would represent a shift for the United States from being a net exporter to being a net importer. With declining productivity and mining difficulties in Central Appalachia, and with rising demand for coal in the Southeast, imports are expected to become increasingly competitive with domestic U.S. coal production. Already, plans are being made to expand U.S. ports to accommodate coal imports. For example, Kinder Morgan Energy Partners LP is adding 9 million tons (roughly 0.2 quadrillion Btu) of coal import capacity at its Virginia port facilities in early 2008 [34]. "
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/coal.html
Another source also states that Midwestern coal, although abundant in quantity is dangerous for use in the U.S. It does not pass environmental standards for use as declared by the EPA.
Q: Are there any disadvantages to using Midwestern coal?
A: Although Midwestern coal can be mined safely, economically and with minimal effects to the environment, it does present one barrier - - its sulfur content. The burning of coal containing sulfur leads to the formation of sulfur dioxide, an air pollutant. Sulfur can be removed from smokestack emissions, but it is an expensive process. Illinois is a leader in developing clean coal technologies that allow high-sulfur coal to be used in an environmentally sound manner.
http://www.icci.org/coalinfo.html
My next question for you is if you are a supporter of Obama or Clinton, don't you support an America with clean air? We can't have that when we burn coal with high sulfur content here can we?
Have you ever heard of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act? Wasn't that act intended to promote protectionism? How did that work out for the US?
If you are a CPA and have an MBA, why are you reading the blog of a recent high school graduate and attempting to criticize a blog of an 18 year old? Isn't this blog intended for students trying to get scholarships for college? Interesting that you would be reading it if you have those degrees.
Ross Kressel
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/rosskressel
We are certainly not the leading exporter of coal as you had previously stated
I never stated any such thing. I said we had the largest reserves in the world and that we are a net exporter meaning that we export more than we import. That was confirmed by the information you posted.
Eastern and mid-western coal are high sulfur. Western coal is very low sulfur. Wyoming and Montana are not part of the mid-West. We are "western" or Rocky Mountain Western" or even "old Western" or "wild western" but not mid-Western. Many power plants burn a blend of Eastern and Western Coal to meet emission requirements. Eastern coal is anthrocite which is higher quality from the perspective of energy (BTU) content compared to our western sub-bituminous coal so the blend makes a happy medium of reasonably clean and reasonably hot. Modern power plants are getting better and better at scrubbing their emissions so the sulfur content will probably soon be a moot issue. I of course support clean air and think we should be building nukes as fast as we can.
I am a Conservative and normally vote Republican. I can't stand McCain because of his shamnesty though so I'll probably vote Libertarian this year. I certainly won't vote for either Hillary or Obama. I just mentioned them as examples of politicians who are pandering on the issue of being anti-globalism.
I am actually pretty supportive of free-trade. I just don't like globalism which pretty much seems to be handing over huge aspects of our government to unelected big business interests who increasingly seem to be running things to suite their own interests in a fascist manner. I want to see free trade continue but I would like to see it re-organized a little so it actually benefits everybody rather than just the elites. If I were in charge, I'd probably start by getting control of immigration particularly at the bottom of our economy so wages could rise and then I would implement the FAIR Tax which would put our exporters on a level playing field with those in other countries and would create a lot of good jobs. The combination of more jobs and scarce labor would be a great situation for middle and poor America.
The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act is over-rated as the cause of the Great Depression. It may have aggrevated things but the economy had already gone south before it was enacted, It was an excessive tariff. Don't you suppose a modest tariff could have the benefit of supporting industries critical to national security without doing huge harm to either consumers or trade? We had tariffs for 200 years and did pretty well as a trading nation. There were many factors that caused the severity of the Depression and probably the worst was a terrible restrictionist monetary policy. Nobody had the slightest clue about economic theory in those days. Keynes was just starting to figure stuff out and he was only part way right. We did not hit upon Monetarism until Friedman got it right in the 70's.
I am not a CPA although I passed the CPA exam. I was doing other things (building huge computer systems for phone companies around the world) and never bothered to take the self-administered ethics exam (I knew I was unethical enough to pass a self-administered exam) so I never completed the certification process. I didn't want to count beans anyway although I often got stuck with designing the accounting aspects of the computer systems. I am semi-retired now although I will turn 50 this year. I sold my ISP business right at the top of the tech bubble and did pretty well. I still run 3 of my businesses but they are pretty much on auto-pilot and it does not take much beyond counting the money and writing a few checks. My assistant does most of the dreary work and I only work a few hours per day. All of my remaining businesses are related to the coal-bed methane industry here in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming and Montana.
I spend time all over the internet as a political activist. It is one of my several hobbies. My big issue is illegal immigration and getting our borders secured and what not. But I comment on lots of other things. I like this forum because while most of the kids here are pretty liberal they are also mostly thinkers that listen to reason. It is also for the most part a very polite forum and I appreciate that. People (usually) debate respectfully.
Of course they don't want to make less than they already earn. Some cannot afford to either. And if jobs keep getting outsourced, they will continue to have more and more trouble finding a job.
I don't think the trade off is worth it. People come before the economy. Sweatshops make products cheaply because they have poor pay and bad working conditions. We certainly wouldn't allow something like to happen today in America, so why are we willing to support it across seas?
In your arguement, the economy may improve, but the average person suffers. In which case, the average person may prefer that the economy is a little less than disireable. And look at some of the problems that have come from outsourcing: are recalls good for the economy? They hurt the reputation of the company, cost them money in repairing PR damage and recalling the products, and of course any damage that is done.
You can argue money and economy and all that, but companies still have a responsibility to the community. Outsourcing does not just hurt the individual. Often times, especially in smaller cities, most of the population works for that company. When jobs get outsourced, people move to get better jobs, and any other businesses that were there loose customers and the town becomes less disireable. Families are uprooted, sometimes when they have lived in the area for generations. If the town is small enough, it may just dry up. Is all this worth the money saved?
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tricia0711
If you recall, the industrial revolution gave birth to sweatshops. Originally they were found across Europe. Later, because of cost they shifted towards the U.S.A. This brought an enormous number of jobs to America. Influx of money allowed slowly for our population to become better educated. The economy is slowly shifting towards a service based economy. If you are worried about the human rights of sweat shops, don't get me wrong, I feel for the people of nations that have sweat shop labor, but what would you rather have, work or none? It is a negative thing to have sweatshops, but over time they will slowly go away. In some ways outsourcing some things is proving to be more expensive.
In other ways, there have been enormous savings. For instance, do you own a computer? I would assume you do or you blog from a university computer or a library computer, but that seems very unlikely. In any case, you used a computer to do this. Computers are not made in the U.S. anymore and would be very expensive to assemble in the U.S. With a minimum wage (which we all know is not nearly enough to live on based on the statistic that livable wage in the U.S.A. is about $11 per hour), prices of computers would sky rocket. With the increased price of computers, over time , all technology whether you are at the top of the economy or the bottom becomes outdated and new will be needed. Well where does the money come from to pay for a computer now that it is $5,000 because it is created using American labor?
A company can no longer do inventory because its computer system can no longer run because the parts and labor are to expensive because the part was put together and made in the U.S.A. A $5 repair becomes a $100-$200 repair that a store can't repair and now they are unable to watch inventory and soon gain a reputation for never knowing what they do or don't have in stock because of this are forced to go out of business from a lack of customers. All of their employees are now jobless. Those who were to perform the labor and make the parts for the computer are now jobless. Globalism is a terrible thing to some people in the world, but we all depend on each other. Without the labor of the Chinese or the services and designs of another country, the economy doesn't work. Think of globalism as one really big machine where if one country (a piece of the machine) breaks, the rest of the machine stops working.
Ross Kressel
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/rosskressel
And before the Industrial Revolution, many people worked on farms and made their own living. American sweatshops were terrible. There are horror stories about people losing their fingers in the machines, and being unable to work. Children were forced to work in factories, until laws were passed to improve the workplace. The money did little for education, because there was no time to go to school, and those who did often fell asleep during night school in an attempt to improve life for their families.
I know that it is delusional of me to think that we can survive without globalization. Nearly everything is stamped with "made in China." But we can at least encourage foreign sweatshops to improve their working conditions.
"If you are worried about the human rights of sweat shops, don't get me wrong, I feel for the people of nations that have sweat shop labor, but what would you rather have, work or none? It is a negative thing to have sweatshops, but over time they will slowly go away. In some ways outsourcing some things is proving to be more expensive."
This part confuses me a bit. when you say none, you mean no work, right? You admit that sweatshops are bad, but you still argue for them. It demonstrates a "Oh well, what can we do?" additude. They will go away? Not if American corporations continue to support them. If outsourcing is becoming more expensive, why do you argue that it is the more economical option.
Of course less outsourcing will mean sacrifices. Inventory may have to be done the old-fashioned way, until the company has made more money to buy a computer. And some things may always have to be outsourced. But your title is "I SUPPORT sweatshops, not "We will always have sweatshops" which is what you are arguing. And yes, I own a computer, but I'd like to know where you are getting $5 repairs.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tricia0711
As horrible as sweatshops are, they do boost economies in poor rural areas of countries that weren't on the market. Obviously, however, human rights cannot be ignored. In response to your question, global human rights is far more important than the economy, and everyone should agree to this. I'm all for the greater good, but I can't imagine asking people to sacrifice their rights and physical safety for the good of the economy...that's just sickening to even think about.
I also believe that protecting human rights should be the job of governments, as they are really the only institution that has the means to carry out such a big responsibility. However, in today's world, the economy does take priority over the economy due to neo-liberal ecnomic policy (the policy of the American conservatives). The thinking is that we need to just leave the economy alone, and if we do, it will not only thrive but iron out any inequalities. So, more and more power is being taken away from governments. They have less resources and less rights to investigate companies that commit human rights abuses. To many, this sacrifice is worth it. Personally, I would never choose profit over people, and I don't think it's an idea we should even consider.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
Or was that just something you wrote? The reason I ask is that I would expect a business owner to know the difference between revenue and profit. It is possible to have very large revenues and still not earn profits if your costs are higher than your revenues. Everywhere in your blog above your should change the word "revenue" to "profit".
Moving on past the technicalities ....
Personally, I believe that the Chinese government is responsible for the welfare of its people and it is not the responsibility of corporations to ensure that human rights are followed in productions. Corporations to me have one major duty, bringing in revenue.
I generally agree with this statement philosophically. Corporations exist to earn profits for their owners. Corporations are just legal entities. They do not have souls and they do not have moral consciences. They do have a responsibility to follow laws though because if they don't they put their owner's profits and/or capital at risk.
It is the role of government to look out for the interests of their people. Often government carries out that role by COMPELLING corporations to behave in certain ways with laws, enforcement and penalties. For example, in the USA, the executives of corporations who put American children to work in sweat shop conditions will and should find themselves in a serious legal predicament. This is an entirely appropriate role for the government.
As corporations move their operations overseas, I agree that their responsibility is to to comply with local laws. If local laws allow children to work or allow a 7 day work week or whatever, then the corporations should make the profit maximizing decisions that comply with those laws.
But profit maximization is tricky business because there is more to making profits then just cutting costs. You also need to sell your products at a good price. Part of that sales formula is building positive name and brand recognition. It can be very bad business for the public to find out that a company is behaving in a manner that the public finds irresponsible or contemptible. (Nike has felt some of this pain.) There is a risk that your brand will be damaged and that people will purposefully refuse to buy your products. At that point, no matter how low your costs, you have made a bad business mistake that hurts your profitability.
The end result is that it is often good business that yields higher profits for a business to project the image that it has a moral conscience. This is fundamentally a marketing decision that is entirely consistent with your statement about making profits. Businesses project this image of social responsibility by being very public about being green (Whole Foods Supermarkets is a great example) or having a philosophy of placing high value on employees (Costco is a great example). These strategies can be extremely profitable because they earn brand loyalty, repeat business and allow products to be sold at premium prices. They work best if they truly reflect the real values of the principle shareholders in the corporation.
Just because it is legal to run a sweatshop does not necessarily make it good (profitable) business to run a sweatshop.
Just so you know, this was really written in a rush a couple months ago. I was just trying to get it off my chest. I do know the difference between profit and revenue. Revenue is money taken in while profit is revenue minus cost.
I understand the idea of marketability of a corporation, but think about what you said about Nike. Who sells the most shoes in America? I would imagine Nike based on the shoes I generally see people where. There isn't a corporation out there that I am aware of that is the "nice company" of the shoe industry. There is no shoe company like say Jones Soda (if you send them a picture they will put you on a pack of soda).
Ross Kressel
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/rosskressel
Like I said, I am in philisophical agreement. The job of companies is to make profits and the job of governments is to look out for their people.
I think companies should follow laws and other than that they should make decisions that lead to profit maximization for their shareholders.
It may or may not be good business to market oneself as a "corporate citizen" and it may or may not be good business to drive down costs with sweat shop labor.
I think Birkenstock might claim they are the corporate citizens of the shoe world. If not, there are a whole lot of lefties and greenies that would be emotionally shattered.
about its own people making your statement an ignorant one.
Personally, I believe that the Chinese government is responsible for the welfare of its people and it is not the responsibility of corporations to ensure that human rights are followed in productions
If foreign companies did not insist on some form of human rights, China would never have drafted any legislation ensuring human rights. But the main thing to realize is that all laws in China are symbolic and not actionable.
The Chinese government is extremely corrupt. They care only about profits. If foreign companies weren't so squeamish about letting people die by the millions over working conditions, the Chinese government would have been perfectly willing to kill millions to squeeze out a little more profit.
If you really want to know about human rights in China, read a little more about how foreign companies helped transform Chinese lives since the late 80's based on their insistence that the government at least pretends to care for its people.
Should American corporations force evil governments like the Chinese government to do right by its people? Well, only if Americans want to continue to pretend it cares about human life.
When I said outsourcing is in some ways more expensive, I am talking about jobs that are much higher up than sweat shop jobs. You know how you call about a tech problem with a computer or whatever and you get a guy from India? Well that is proving to be just about as costly as keeping the people here. The quality of work of the Indian workers is not as high and we are having to take American management and send it there to help teach Indian managers how to run things because they have never been put in that kind of situation.
Farming is good and all, but that is the most basic form of economy. If you want the whole economy to be a farming economy, sorry that it changed, but a growing economy is just like a growing person. Sweatshops are the "puberty" of a country so to speak.
As far as Americans supporting sweatshops, more people in China are able to eat at this point than have been since the country became "communist". I think it would be very wrong of us to oppose it. Are working conditions bad? Yes, but in the long term, the government will regulate the work force in the same ways that we did and it will no longer be an issue, but during that time the work force will have progressed. Ending sweat shop labor in China would be great for human rights, but the global economy would crash. the movement of sweat shop labor must be done slowly so that it can be picked up by another area (I assume that they will move to Africa in the next hundred years).
Ross Kressel
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/rosskressel