in praise of cheap labour <- another bullshit article.
"And as long as you have no realistic alternative to industrialization based on low wages, to oppose it means that you are willing to deny desperately poor people the best chance they have of progress for the sake of what amounts to an aesthetic standard--that is, the fact that you don't like the idea of workers being paid a pittance to supply rich Westerners with fashion items.
In short, my correspondents are not entitled to their self-righteousness. They have not thought the matter through. And when the hopes of hundreds of millions are at stake, thinking things through is not just good intellectual practice. It is a moral duty."
So this guy basically makes a case for industrialization through the export of western companies as the best option-- in other words, though he admits "entrepreneurs' only motivation is cheap labour", he insists that it creates a positive effect in third world countries:
Ignoring the fact that, yes, if you set up foreign factories and essentially open up new jobs, there will eventually be a competition in wages, and an eventual rise in the standard of living, what is dead wrong is yet another old assumption: the ends justify the means. And in this case, someone didn't really take a look at the "end" game well enough either!
Although foreign aid is negligible, and although labour rights could possibly create a greater rift between those who have jobs and those who do not, it is more about the means through which a country becomes industrialized. It's about time we define "industrialization by means of cheap labour" and draw the line between a truly productive, self-sustaining community, and a community dependent on competitive wages and western shoe companies. Honestly. You risk a high degree of stagnancy, and the argument for the potential development of "better" jobs is obsolete. Yes, I can just imagine it now-- a country that makes a living by sewing together shirts and shoes is going to magically develop a competitive market for the cheap manufacturing of jet engines and cheap bioengineering research. Clearly, we do not define progress by how quickly and cheaply a country can manufacture t-shirts. So why does that not apply to other countries?
In short, my correspondents are not entitled to their self-righteousness. They have not thought the matter through. And when the hopes of hundreds of millions are at stake, thinking things through is not just good intellectual practice. It is a moral duty."
So this guy basically makes a case for industrialization through the export of western companies as the best option-- in other words, though he admits "entrepreneurs' only motivation is cheap labour", he insists that it creates a positive effect in third world countries:
Ignoring the fact that, yes, if you set up foreign factories and essentially open up new jobs, there will eventually be a competition in wages, and an eventual rise in the standard of living, what is dead wrong is yet another old assumption: the ends justify the means. And in this case, someone didn't really take a look at the "end" game well enough either!
Although foreign aid is negligible, and although labour rights could possibly create a greater rift between those who have jobs and those who do not, it is more about the means through which a country becomes industrialized. It's about time we define "industrialization by means of cheap labour" and draw the line between a truly productive, self-sustaining community, and a community dependent on competitive wages and western shoe companies. Honestly. You risk a high degree of stagnancy, and the argument for the potential development of "better" jobs is obsolete. Yes, I can just imagine it now-- a country that makes a living by sewing together shirts and shoes is going to magically develop a competitive market for the cheap manufacturing of jet engines and cheap bioengineering research. Clearly, we do not define progress by how quickly and cheaply a country can manufacture t-shirts. So why does that not apply to other countries?