Topic for Debate

[Gayowulf]

I'm taking an economics course, and one of the projects we are reqired to do is an oral report.

I had quite a lot of difficulty coming up with a subject, but once I did (sweatshops) I found that it seems to be a topic that makes people turn red in the face and call me ignorant. Strangely enough many people who disagree with me are unable to refute my argument...

what do you think? dose this make you hate me and want to burn crosses on my front lawn? Hell, I had less opposition when i did my "Why Feminists Will Never Take Over the World" report for english.

Sweatshops

Issue
Good or bad for the workers?

Findings

Biased judgement of labor standards
1. The labor conditions of sweatshops are usually judged by developed country standards
Must compare against existing choices
2. People work in sweatshops because they are the best alternative.
Consider a nation's competitive advantage
3. Banning sweatshops would remove a developing country's best competitve advantage


Other findings: Countries where sweatshops have been banned exhibit more social unrest than countries with sweatshops.

Sweatshops are often a developmental stage - Consider Japan.

The closure of sweatshops denys countries labour, which doesn't help things.

So in short, we should not judge these factories too harshly.

[Blank Verse]

Originally posted by Gayowulf
I'm taking an economics course, and one of the projects we are reqired to do is an oral report.

I had quite a lot of difficulty coming up with a subject, but once I did (sweatshops) I found that it seems to be a topic that makes people turn red in the face and call me ignorant. Strangely enough many people who disagree with me are unable to refute my argument...

what do you think? dose this make you hate me and want to burn crosses on my front lawn? Hell, I had less opposition when i did my "Why Feminists Will Never Take Over the World" report for english.

Sweatshops

Issue
Good or bad for the workers?

Findings

Biased judgement of labor standards
1. The labor conditions of sweatshops are usually judged by developed country standards
Must compare against existing choices
2. People work in sweatshops because they are the best alternative.
Consider a nation's competitive advantage
3. Banning sweatshops would remove a developing country's best competitve advantage


Other findings: Countries where sweatshops have been banned exhibit more social unrest than countries with sweatshops.

Sweatshops are often a developmental stage - Consider Japan.

The closure of sweatshops denys countries labour, which doesn't help things.

So in short, we should not judge these factories too harshly.

I agree with pretty much everything in your report. Can you provide specific examples for some of your findings?

I do agree with you, although I wish I didn't. I don't like the fact that a lot of sweatshops employ young children. Economically favourable or not, I do not like this situation. And it wouldn't be a problem if these sweatshops had better conditions. I believe this is where you put your education to the test, Mr. Economics student.

[Gayowulf]

I agree that the conditions are ----ty to work in. The thing is, though, that economics is about money not people.

There are a lot of "international students" that attend my post secondary institution. I was lucky enough to find one from a country in Africa who had worked in a sort of a sweatshop. He was paid $10 a day to assemble things for some norweigan company. The norweigans got paid $100 a day to do the same thing.

He said that given the choice between working for that amount in the ----ty conditions or not working, he said he would have chose to work, as would most of his friends.

Also remember that the conditions are ----ty by our western standards, but decent by the standards of a developing country.

[merickson]

The historic facts that you cite are correct.

The modern situation with fewer, larger and multi-national corporations creates a situation where the historic effects of sweatshops can not be used to predict their modern effects.
Consider that historicaly sweatshops were owned and run by individuals who evaluated their buisness success by their personal comfort. A modern corporation can not experience comfort. To put it another way the modern corporation has no concept of "enough".
This effects the way that the largest economic players act.
John D. Rockerfeller used some of his buisness profits for non-buisness purposes (ie the Rockerfeller Foundation). Modern corporations use their profits for buisness purposes only.

[Blank Verse]

Originally posted by Gayowulf
I agree that the conditions are ----ty to work in. The thing is, though, that economics is about money not people.

There are a lot of "international students" that attend my post secondary institution. I was lucky enough to find one from a country in Africa who had worked in a sort of a sweatshop. He was paid $10 a day to assemble things for some norweigan company. The norweigans got paid $100 a day to do the same thing.

He said that given the choice between working for that amount in the ----ty conditions or not working, he said he would have chose to work, as would most of his friends.

Also remember that the conditions are ----ty by our western standards, but decent by the standards of a developing country.

to tell you the truth, $10 a day is better than I would have expected.

[Gayowulf]

i think he worked longer than the average day.

i didn't really get into the details because i didn't know the guy, and I hate to pry.

Also the fact that he was a good 4" taller than me and had tribal scars on his forehead made me want to make the interview as quck as possible.