Americans: do you care if it was made in America?

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Who in this case is them? I highly doubt that the average citizen of these countries is making an informed choice on these issues.

Fine, go right ahead and doubt it! So what? India, China, and Mexico belong to the Indians, the Chinese, and the Mexicans. They don't need to prove to you that they're competent to make their own decisions, and they certainly don't need your approval for making them.

I guess they don't really need my money then, either, under that construction. Wouldn't you agree? Leaving me free to Buy American, with a clean conscience!

Instead of focusing on individuals, why not focus on the companies involved? The owners and operators of the factories with poor conditions KNOW they're screwing the people who work there. They KNOW they are killing the environment in the area that they are in. But they don't give a ****, because it makes them a profit, and hey - the people they are employing are slightly better off than if they were working the fields, right?

How can I, in good conscience, give money to these companies? The vast majority of it is going into the pockets of arguably shitty people. And for what? So I can have some piece of crap, poorly made item? And save a few bucks?

No thanks.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

If Guatamala pollutes the air and water of the Gulf of Mexico, that can very well affect us in a negative manner.

Fair enough. But first of all, this wouldn't apply to India and China (or at least apply to a much lesser degree.) Second, this kind of argument would have to work both ways. When the US cleared those BP oil rigs that ended up polluting the Gulf of Mexico, did it wait for Guatemala's approval?

Setanta wrote:

Additionally, the economic inequalities mean that many of the undocumented workers in the United States come from Guatamala, as well as other Latin American nations.

More jobs in Guatemala means fewer illegal Guatemalan immigrants in the US. So what you're presenting here is an argument for expanding trade with Guatemala, not for limiting it.

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I guess they don't really need my money then, either, under that construction. Wouldn't you agree? Leaving me free to Buy American, with a clean conscience!

That's fine. If you want to pay extra to make sure your merchandize is American, that's your choice as a consumer. I'm not arguing with it.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I guess they don't really need my money then, either, under that construction. Wouldn't you agree? Leaving me free to Buy American, with a clean conscience!

That's fine. If you want to pay extra to make sure your merchandize is American, that's your prerogative. I'm not arguing with it.

Oh, okay then. That's not only what I want, but what I do. It sends a message that price isn't the only factor that matters in the production of goods, and that things like decency matter as well.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Thomas,

The sweated labor which upsets many Americans, and especially the cheap clothing industry is not necessarily in China or India exclusively you know--much of the cheap clothing comes from Latin America. Certainly Guatamala has as much interest in lax regulation of oil platforms in American waters in the Gulf as we do in any polution of Guatamala's environment. Nothing i wrote suggested otherwise, and that's pretty close to a tu quoque argument--although without the element of a personal criticism.

Guatamalans would have little reason to come here if they got decent wages and working conditions at home. Despite available sweat shop jobs, they come here. It does not appear to me that there is much in the way of economic opportunity offered by the exploiting industries of the multi-nationals. If your point were well-founded, why would Guatamalans still come here?

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I disagree that that's the message it sends, and I certainly disagree with your sanctimonious insinuation that decency doesn't matter to buyers of foreign imports. Other than that, live well and prosper.

2 Replies

This article at CNN says that even in bad economic times here, Guatemalans are better off than they would be working at home.

Quote:

For some immigrants, the experts say, the reasons for toughing out the U.S. economic recession outweigh the reasons for leaving, including: • One or two days of work per month at $8 an hour is often better than what they can make back home . . .

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Guatamalans would have little reason to come here if they got decent wages and working conditions at home. Despite available sweat shop jobs, they come here. It does not appear to me that there is much in the way of economic opportunity offered by the exploiting industries of the multi-nationals. If your point were well-founded, why would Guatamalans still come here?

Because there still isn't enough demand among Guatemalan sweatshop owners for Guatemalan labor. If expanded trade increases that demand, the price of that labor---in other words, wages in Guatemala---will rise. Just as it did in America's sweatshops, about 100 years ago.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

I disagree that that's the message it sends, and I certainly disagree with your sanctimonious insinuation that decency doesn't matter to buyers of foreign imports. Other than that, live well and prosper.

I don't believe I was intending to send such an insinuation at all, but it is interesting that you interpreted it that way. I honestly believe that choosing to buy more expensive products, which are made in a cleaner fashion by people who are payed a fair wage, sends the message that I wrote.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Where is your increased demand going to come from? Thanks to Walmart and the competition it represents for other retail outlets, almost all of the clothing sold in this country which is not haute couture (or aspiring to be so seen) comes from foreign sweated labor.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I honestly believe that choosing to buy more expensive products, which are made in a cleaner fashion by people who are payed a fair wage, sends the message that I wrote.

It is an interesting proposition. The push for fair trade coffee has had a huge impact on the coffee market, and the increase in price has been absorbed without a murmur. The concept is sufficiently popular that people ask when buying coffee if it is fair trade, and retailers prominently advertise that their coffee is fair trade.

The same thing happened decades ago with tuna. With not even very much effort on the part of activists, millions of school children were motivated to demand of their parents that they not buy tuna which was not guaranteed to be "dolphin friendly." The entire tuna industry was turned around in a matter of months.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

It (The Madness) didn't pass and so I am back to defend Cyclo.

At what point did the morally correct position become "Buy products produced by exploited child labor because they need the dough?"

When Krugman issued his pronouncement?

What happened to boycotting Nike products?

What about boycotting companies that traded with South Africa during the days of apartheid?

Is it because such a position can be perceived as that scourge of world peace, dread nationalism?

When did "tribal economics," become a greater evil than neo-colonial, capitalist exploitation?

It's tough keeping up with this "living" morality.

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Let's look at the argument from an environmental angle. If more and more people realize that buying cheap crap is bad for the environment, and the demand for cheap crap dries up, does that not in fact make the world a better place as well?

No. Environmentalism is not a bigger difference to quality of life than is being able to eat. It's a luxury concern in comparison to the concerns of the poor and they are already responsible for generating much less per capita than Americans anyway.

And if environmentalism is your concern you should advocate American poverty because economic growth (and the subsequent increase in consumption) is inexorably tied to pollution. Economic development increases pollution. The third world is right to say that the first world is hypocritical for getting through their industrialism without any concern for pollution and then trying to use environmentalism as a bludgeon to hamper the industrialization of the third world.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

At what point did the morally correct position become "Buy products produced by exploited child labor because they need the dough?"

This is begging the question, the very point we are making is that they are not being exploited but given opportunities that are life-changing to them in a very positive way.

Americans see a child working and see exploitation but the alternative is that they just go back to even worse jobs like scavenging.

I am all for kids not having to work but that isn't an alternative you guys are proposing, you are just proposing that they go back to the even worse work that they had been doing.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I also won't buy an inferior product simply because it means jobs for kids in a sweatshop in Laos.

Neither do I. I don't think anyone here has said that either.

I buy what makes the most sense for me and I agree with you that to go out of your way to buy it just because it's American will just perpetuate the dying industries that are no longer competitive in America (most manufacturing, but especially things like textiles).

As it stands, America gets most of my money (because I spend heavily on technology services where America happens to excel) but I object to economic nationalism for the sake of it. I pick American products when they are the best option for me, not because I care more about American jobs than someone else's jobs.

I also agree that market-based decisions will trend towards getting the job to the one who needs it most and that is what I mean when I want a fair playing field and to let the best win. But all too often you hear nationalistic calls to ignore what is most competitive for the sake of patriotism and that kind of economic nationalism I object to for economic and humanitarian reasons.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

I truly appreciate your desire to use "begging the question" as it was originally intended but, after all , you didn't.

I've not answered a question of my own choosing, let alone one that misdirects attention from the point subject to debate.

I appreciate that, for some reason, you have decided that what was once commonly accepted as exploitation is now providing opportunities, and I appreciate that you are not Leftisim personified, but I still wonder when did the liberal sensitivity change.

This is not to suggest that you can answer this question, and if you tell me you have always looked at child labor in third world countries this way, I will believe you, but Krugman is a Voice of The Left, and he has changed his opinion on this issue.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

I think Robert cited Krugman because what he writes makes economic sense, not as an alternative to making economic sense. (Obviously I can't speak for Robert. Just saying.)

Yes, I cited him because I remembered his argument and agree with it. And as you already know I am no fan of Krugman.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Where is your increased demand going to come from?

I don't know. I do know, however, that diminishing US imports of Guatemalan goods are going to diminish the amount of jobs available in Guatemala, and will pressure Guatemalan worker to seek employment in the United States instead.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I truly appreciate your desire to use "begging the question" as it was originally intended but, after all , you didn't.

I've not answered a question of my own choosing, let alone one that misdirects attention from the point subject to debate.

Quote:

The fallacy of petitio principii, or "begging the question", is committed "when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without proof", or more generally denotes when an assumption is used, "in some form of the very proposition to be proved, as a premise from which to deduce it".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Your statement to the effect that we are supporting exploitation in sweatshops assumes that it is exploitation which is itself the core of the dispute.

Quote:

I appreciate that, for some reason, you have decided that what was once commonly accepted as exploitation is now providing opportunities, and I appreciate that you are not Leftisim personified, but I still wonder when did the liberal sensitivity change.

It never did (most liberals are still against sweatshops, and I ascribe this to ignorance on their part by simply assuming that it's exploitative).

Quote:

This is not to suggest that you can answer this question, and if you tell me you have always looked at child labor in third world countries this way, I will believe you, but Krugman is a Voice of The Left, and he has changed his opinion on this issue.

I will always strongly object to child labor. But the children aren't working because Americans buy Nike, they are working because they are poor. If Americans stop buying Nike that doesn't mean they stop working, it means they go to even worse jobs and I think most Americans still don't think it through far enough to realize that.

I don't know if Krugman has changed his mind about this, but I'd lose a lot of respect for him as an economist if he ever held the ignorant position about sweatshops that most people do.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

At what point did the morally correct position become "Buy products produced by exploited child labor because they need the dough?"

You are assuming they're exploited. I don't. Anyway, embracing cheap foreign labor never was morally incorrect as far as I am concerned. It's been morally correct ever since increasing welfare of the poor was more important than promoting the welfare of the already-affluent. And by international standards, American workers are already affluent.

1 Reply

Americans: do you care if it was made in America?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know