Christians and sweat shops overseas

Father Orthoduck is aware that Christians from every political persuasion have condemned the sweat shops and forced child labor used in several of the countries that provide our clothing, toys, etc. There is no religious support for children being exploited by adult owners in order to save wages and benefits in order to make better profits and be able to undercut the competition. Ah, but, never worry, there is actual capitalist support for sweatshops by at least some Republicans.

To Father Orthoduck’s utter surprise there was an article published in the New York Times last January supporting sweatshops:

Mr. Obama and the Democrats who favor labor standards in trade agreements mean well, for they intend to fight back at oppressive sweatshops abroad. But while it shocks Americans to hear it, the central challenge in the poorest countries is not that sweatshops exploit too many people, but that they don’t exploit enough.

Please note very carefully that the author argues that the Democrats are making a mistake by wanting to stop oppressive sweatshops. I assume that this means that the author is claiming that the Republicans are not making that mistake otherwise he would not have mentioned Democrats by name. And, the argument is, once again, partially based on profits for the owners:

I often hear the argument: Labor standards can improve wages and working conditions, without greatly affecting the eventual retail cost of goods. That’s true. But labor standards and “living wages” have a larger impact on production costs that companies are always trying to pare. The result is to push companies to operate more capital-intensive factories in better-off nations like Malaysia, rather than labor-intensive factories in poorer countries like Ghana or Cambodia.

First, please note what he admits, “Labor standards can improve wages and working conditions without greatly affecting the eventual retail cost of goods. That’s true.” So, let’s see, having safe working conditions and reasonable wages (by the standards of the country in which the factory is located) is bad because employers will not want to locate factories there–supposedly–, so it is better to have bad dangerous factories because children will be able to earn money for their families than to have them starving even worse. This is also arguing that the reason that companies locate factories in those countries is precisely because they neither have to put much money into the facilities themselves, nor do they have to pay the social costs of the injuries, long-term damage, etc., that go with having an unsafe factory. In passing, contrary to the author, there are policies that can mitigate the increased production costs. But, let’s go on:

Cambodia has, in fact, pursued an interesting experiment by working with factories to establish decent labor standards and wages. It’s a worthwhile idea, but one result of paying above-market wages is that those in charge of hiring often demand bribes — sometimes a month’s salary — in exchange for a job.

So, let’s see, trying to establish decent labor standards and wages is not good because it increases bribes. So, does this mean that it is better to have bad working conditions and not pay a one month’s salary than to have safe working conditions and pay a one month salary at the front end which you will earn back very quickly? In fact, the increased wages would mean that you would still earn more by the end of your first year than you would earn under sweatshop wages and no safety. I think I know which of the two would be a better choice.

But, here is the interesting part. The author indirectly admits that what Cambodia has done is interesting, and apparently has not really resulted in a loss of jobs to the country. I can tell that is so because otherwise he would have quickly mentioned the loss of jobs. Instead he is forced to mention a one month loss of income one-time, a rather small and inconsequential argument in comparison to the significantly lowered social costs to the nation as a result of increased wages and higher safety.

Among people who work in development, many strongly believe (but few dare say very loudly) that one of the best hopes for the poorest countries would be to build their manufacturing industries. But global campaigns against sweatshops make that less likely.

Really? People who work in development do not dare say that the poorest countries need to build their own industries? Since when? But, let’s see, forcing people worldwide to adhere to certain standards of safety in manufacturing will hurt the poorest countries, therefore, we should allow them to build dangerous sweatshops. Again, this is admitting that for the owners the profit motive is worth the damaged and broken bodies they leave behind. And, it even makes expediency and greed the highest argument. ¡Vaya capitalismo! Frankly, this is why I do not believe in laissez faire capitalism, but rather in ordoliberal capitalism, but I have covered that in another post.

The whole argument makes some assumptions that are quite questionnable. And, I would go further and argue that some of them are immoral. But, the saddest part is that there is no reason why this argument cannot be expanded to our country. After all, why should we not use the same argument here in the USA? We keep losing jobs overseas. There are already arguments that we have had too much regulation. Already worker protections (in the areas of wages and benefits) have been weakened in the USA. But, let’s go farther. Why not allow unsafe working conditions here and make lawsuits against those conditions illegal? After all, by the same arguments, this should lower costs for companies and should make it easier to keep jobs in the USA. And, with more jobs, unemployment would go down and our economy would improve.

Yes, all the arguments that are made in this article are good arguments to make so that our economy will improve. Yes, let’s allow lower wages. Let’s remove worker protections and safety regulations, or at least lower them. Yes, let’s make sure that workers cannot use the court system. Our economy would benefit, shareholders would have increased profit. And certainly, as Mr. Scrooge said, we can make sure to have workhouses and public sanatoriums and other means to take care of those less fortunate, the injured, the orphans, etc. Yes, let’s return to the way things were at the time of Charles Dickens. At least that way, some will clearly have the opportunity to be very rich.

“I wish to be left alone,” said Scrooge. “Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don’t make merry myself at Christmas and I can’t afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there.”

“Many can’t go there; and many would rather die.”

“If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides — excuse me — I don’t know that.”

“But you might know it,” observed the gentleman.

“It’s not my business,” Scrooge returned. “It’s enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people’s. Mine occupies me constantly. Good afternoon, gentlemen!”

The fight against child labor and for increased worker safety during the times of Charles Dickens was never based on capitalism. It was a moral argument, an argument that overcame pure market forces to say that the way things were had to change if we were to look at ourselves in a mirror. Market forces will always argue for expediency. But, as Christians we cannot go there alone. I am not saying ignore economics. But, some matters are beyond economics and must be addressed by Christians based on who our God is and who we are.