Comments on: Man In Suit Says Sweatshops Are Good http://www.saalonmuyo.com/2009/01/16/man-in-suit-says-sweatshops-are-good/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=man-in-suit-says-sweatshops-are-good Flashlights and Explosions Tue, 07 Feb 2012 02:09:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Zach Richardson http://www.saalonmuyo.com/2009/01/16/man-in-suit-says-sweatshops-are-good/comment-page-1/#comment-1625 Zach Richardson Sun, 06 Dec 2009 08:18:46 +0000 http://www.saalonmuyo.com/?p=432#comment-1625 Nice article, I have had many of the same problems with corporate greed, but am slowly changing my views. I have a couple things I would like to note. Firstly, I think you are arguing that we as a people need to stop being greedy, or somehow change human nature. I see this as a pretty lame solution, as real solutions work with human nature rather than against it. More importantly though, I'd like to point out that I dont think higher profit for these companies is necessarily a bad thing if we're still (I hope) arguing for a utilitarian approach. I can't cite any statistics, but I would like to present a hypothetical case example: Two large corporations, Capitalism Footwear (CF) and Happyshoes both produce athletic footwear and have sweatshops in two poor countries. Both countries, Slumbodia and Pooristan have national average incomes of US $0.50 a day. People often starve to death, and some depend on the factories for the bowl of rice they are given each day. Each company has ten factories employing 100 workers earning US $0.10 an hour (we could say workers work on average 10 hours a day, putting them at double the average national income); CF's factories are in Slumbodia and Happyshoes' are in Pooristan. Both companies show record profits this quarter. Happyshoes decides to help out its workers by increasing wages to "living wage" standards and give their workers a pay increase to $0.50 an hour. Now their workers are earning ten times the national standard. Not rich by ANY means, but well off compared to their countrymen. Greedy CF, on the other hand, decides to expand their operations, and creates 4 new factories, each still paying $0.10 (still twice national average) an hour(thereby massively increasing profit and allowing them to expand AGAIN next year). So my question is which company has done more good? Paying 100 workers like kings (not nearly American standards, but 10x national average for unskilled labor) or paying 500 workers enough to survive? I am quite interested in your response because I still wonder about these things myself. My case study is of course quite biased to make a point, so address any issues you see. my email, if you're interested, is zlrichar@umail.iu.edu Good article, my friend! Nice article, I have had many of the same problems with corporate greed, but am slowly changing my views. I have a couple things I would like to note. Firstly, I think you are arguing that we as a people need to stop being greedy, or somehow change human nature. I see this as a pretty lame solution, as real solutions work with human nature rather than against it. More importantly though, I’d like to point out that I dont think higher profit for these companies is necessarily a bad thing if we’re still (I hope) arguing for a utilitarian approach. I can’t cite any statistics, but I would like to present a hypothetical case example:
Two large corporations, Capitalism Footwear (CF) and Happyshoes both produce athletic footwear and have sweatshops in two poor countries. Both countries, Slumbodia and Pooristan have national average incomes of US $0.50 a day. People often starve to death, and some depend on the factories for the bowl of rice they are given each day. Each company has ten factories employing 100 workers earning US $0.10 an hour (we could say workers work on average 10 hours a day, putting them at double the average national income); CF’s factories are in Slumbodia and Happyshoes’ are in Pooristan. Both companies show record profits this quarter. Happyshoes decides to help out its workers by increasing wages to “living wage” standards and give their workers a pay increase to $0.50 an hour. Now their workers are earning ten times the national standard. Not rich by ANY means, but well off compared to their countrymen.
Greedy CF, on the other hand, decides to expand their operations, and creates 4 new factories, each still paying $0.10 (still twice national average) an hour(thereby massively increasing profit and allowing them to expand AGAIN next year).
So my question is which company has done more good? Paying 100 workers like kings (not nearly American standards, but 10x national average for unskilled labor) or paying 500 workers enough to survive?

I am quite interested in your response because I still wonder about these things myself. My case study is of course quite biased to make a point, so address any issues you see. my email, if you’re interested, is zlrichar@umail.iu.edu
Good article, my friend!

]]> By: rey http://www.saalonmuyo.com/2009/01/16/man-in-suit-says-sweatshops-are-good/comment-page-1/#comment-1621 rey Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:42:18 +0000 http://www.saalonmuyo.com/?p=432#comment-1621 I agree that American Corp. do have a responsibility in regards to sweatshops. This article was well written and brought out some good points. Kristof is right, sweatshops are better than starvation but it is ethically wrong for American Corp. to take advantage of that. FYI: there is a typo in the second to last paragraph, second to last sentence - "To complete for work" should be "To COMPETE for work". Thanks for the good read. I agree that American Corp. do have a responsibility in regards to sweatshops. This article was well written and brought out some good points. Kristof is right, sweatshops are better than starvation but it is ethically wrong for American Corp. to take advantage of that.

FYI: there is a typo in the second to last paragraph, second to last sentence – “To complete for work” should be “To COMPETE for work”.

Thanks for the good read.

]]>