|
|
 Originally Posted by wufwugy
Sweatshops and the like are simply a means of exploitation for profit; their predecessors are merely oppression for profit. The difference and why they arise is that the former is more profitable than the latter. The idea that sweatshops are a boon to the workers is nothing but mythology that could not exist if there was not an even more oppressed populace to pull from.
If you were curbstomped every morning you woke up, you too, if given the option, would choose to merely be punched daily instead of curbstomped. Rationalizing that this is a necessary socioeconomic benefit to you (other than simply not hurting you in the first place) is no different than the rationalizations for sweatshops and the like
Suffering, starvation, and scarcity is the default state of humanity. Globalization and free trade is elevating hundreds of millions of people out of this default state constantly and this can be clearly seen in countries like India. It just isn't happening at the pace that egalitarian-minded people like yourself want.
Yeah, corporations are exploiting sweatshop labor for profit, and so are their competitors. This mechanism is what is lowering the prices of goods (and thus increasing the standard of living) for everyone in the world, including the poorest people. This also causes the price of sweatshop labor to constantly be on the rise, again, just not as fast as you'd like. Today's sweatshop in Indonesia will be tomorrow's sweatshop in Burma, as Indonesia becomes elevated out of poverty by free markets. Sweatshop labor has been seen again and again to be consistent with a positive transitional period in emerging economies.
|
Reply With Quote
