Re: travelling friend

["Peter T. Chattaway" <petert at interchange_ubc.ca>]

On Tue, 15 Oct 2002, Don Smith wrote:

> > Is this a reference to the so-called sweat-shops?  
>
> So-called?  How bad do the working conditions have to be before it
> counts as a "real" sweatshop?

Beats me -- I have never actually heard anyone try to define the word in a
way that was not intended to prejudice the discussion through rhetoric.

> > But the fact is, the presence of those so-called sweat-shops -- as
> > much as they may need to be improved -- is also bringing economic
> > benefits to the people who work there.
>
> According to Klein, that analogy does not hold.  These
> export-processing-zones (if you don't like the word sweat-shop, that's
> the technical term) are actually *not* bringing economic benefits to the
> people.  The zones are tax-free, so all the production does nothing for
> social services and civic infrastructure.

Well, the authors of that New York Times article I referred to earlier,
"Two Cheers for Sweatshops", might not agree with the gist of that:

   http://www.topica.com/lists/dadl-ot/read/message.html?mid=801553511

   In fact, the most vibrant parts of Asia are nearly all in what might be
   called the Sweatshop Belt, from China and South Korea to Malaysia,
   Indonesia and even Bangladesh and India. Today these sweatshop
   countries control about one-quarter of the global economy. As the
   industrial revolution spreads through China and India, there are good
   reasons to think that Asia will continue to pick up speed. Some World
   Bank forecasts show Asia's share of global gross domestic product
   rising to 55 to 60 percent by about 2025 -- roughly the West's share at
   its peak half a century ago. The sweatshops have helped lay the
   groundwork for a historic economic realignment that is putting Asia
   back on its feet. Countries are rebounding from the economic crisis of
   1997-98 and the sweatshops -- seen by Westerners as evidence of
   moribund economies -- actually reflect an industrial revolution that is
   raising living standards in the East. . . .

   For all the misery they can engender, sweatshops at least offer a
   precarious escape from the poverty that is the developing world's
   greatest problem. Over the past 50 years, countries like India resisted
   foreign exploitation, while countries that started at a similar
   economic level -- like Taiwan and South Korea -- accepted sweatshops as
   the price of development. Today there can be no doubt about which
   approach worked better. Taiwan and South Korea are modern countries
   with low rates of infant mortality and high levels of education; in
   contrast, every year 3.1 million Indian children die before the age of
   5, mostly from diseases of poverty like diarrhea.

> And they don't bring any benefits to the workers, who toil under
> perilous conditions for 12 hours or more a day (unpaid forced overtime)
> for untenable wages.

Untenable by whose standard?

> Note that I'm not suggesting they should be earning $10 an hour.  But
> when the *living* wage of the area is 87 cents a day, and they're
> earning 13 cents a day, that's simply not sustainable.

If the living wage is 87 cents a day and these people are willing to work
for 13 cents a day, then clearly, they are working at the so-called
sweat-shop because they can't find better work anywhere else -- and is
that really the company's fault?

> What economic benefits *exactly* can you point to that come from these
> EPZs?  I'm really curious.  What I've read about includes growth of
> corrupt and oppressive government, loss of sustainable local industry
> and agriculture, and extremely high child mortality rate.  I'd really
> like to know what of these supposed benefits are actually happening.
> Perhaps (quite possible_ my sources are biased in their reporting.  I've
> never been to one of these places, either.
>
> Of course, Naomi Klein has.  For whatever that's worth.

Well, the authors of that NYT article have been there too -- indeed, they
say they went to Thailand full of anti-sweatshop prejudice, but during
their time there, they came to moderate their point of view somewhat.  
FWIW, I showed the article to a friend of mine who worked as a missionary
or Bible translator or something in Thailand, and he said it was ...

   ... mostly very accurate and correct in its main points and its 'moral'
   or whatever. Yes, there *are* things that could and should be better
   for the workers but overall, it's a pretty good deal for them. I would
   also say that probably the majority of the bad things ('the way they
   house workers in firetraps, expose children to dangerous chemicals,
   deny bathroom breaks, demand sexual favors, force people to work double
   shifts or dismiss anyone who tries to organize a union') come more from
   their fellow countrymen than from the Americans behind the company.
   That is, these situations are faced in local businesses too. That
   strikes me as being the Asian norm, it's not something we brought
   there.

So, make of all that what you will.

--- Peter T. Chattaway --------------------------- peter at chattaway_com ---
 If true love never did exist how could we know its name? -- Sam Phillips
          Happiness happens but I want joy. -- Marjorie Cardwell

---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/OtR/