Comments on: DSHA Students Respond

By: Tiara Zarcone

Tiara Zarcone — Tue, 26 May 2009 01:18:10 +0000

Thank you, Sarah, for your comments. You are right that sweatshops have unsafe working conditions for its employees, but there are many factors in considering the part of our discussion question that concerns whether wages are just or unjust. In addition to providing a living wage, there is the question of choice on the part of the worker and the violation of human dignity that occurs. As has been demonstrated in multiple responses, sweatshops do provide living wages for their employees. That leaves us to work through choice and human dignity. Everyone agrees that even if we’re dealing with livable wages, they are not just if the person is treated as something less than human. But, choice complicates the matter. When someone makes a conscious decision to work in a sweatshop knowing that the conditions are not very good, is it morally appropriate for us to say the wages are unjust? If we do not, we run the risk of condoning something terrible. If we do, we effectively say that a person’s right to choose should not be respected when it comes to people in developing countries. Quite a tricky situation.
Nader’s thoughts that a company should provide a safe working environment and appropriate wages is a great idea, but how far should we take that? There are many jobs in the United States that are unsafe. There’s firefighting, construction, law enforcement, and many more. In all three cases, employees run the risk of serious injury or even death. What, according to Nader, is the responsibility of those employers to its employees? Everyone knows sweatshops are dangerous, but some jobs have high risk factors to them. We have to be prudent when we talk about job safety. It’s one thing to provide for the employee, but it’s another to become like a nanny, acting as if people cannot take care of themselves and enforcing such extreme rules that it puts the employee in even more danger.
As for what Nader says about just wages, he’s right. But we’ve discussed multiple times that when considering cost of living, sweatshop wages are indeed just. The cost of living in developing countries is drastically lower to that of the United States. We have to look at wages in terms of what people in other countries need to survive, not what we need to survive and what we think they should be receiving. It will always be shocking to us that people are paid such low wages compared to ourselves. On the other hand, it will always be just as much of a shock to other people that we make so much money. What in the world do we need such high wages for anyway? We have an aweful lot of luxuries over here. What do we need cell phones and ipods and cable television for if they aren’t a necessity? Why can’t Americans live simple lives like other people in the world? Looking at how both sides perceive livable and just wages helps us put things in perspective.
I like that you brought up Chrysler. It’s a good example of what businesses need to do sometimes in order to stay in business and continue paying their employees. I agree with Friedman that a company’s biggest concern should be turn a profit. Without that profit, nothing happens. People don’t get paid, goods don’t get created, and consumers don’t get what they want. If Chrysler was going to go bankrupt, it’s because nobody was buying their cars for the prices they were asking. That means that if the company wants to continue making cars it has to go somewhere where it’s cheaper to build a car. It’s cheaper in Mexico because the cost of living is lower. If the cost of living is lower, Chrysler doesn’t have to spend as much to make a car, which means they can lower the prices of their cars, which means more people might buy cars, which means Chrysler will then have the money to pay it’s employees, bills, etc.
On a final note, you mention that children are required to work in sweatshops. This is not due to the presence of the sweatshops and their possible need for cihldren to work in tiny bits of machinery. The reason children work in sweatshops is because the economic situations are so bad that the parents need everyone to bring money in so there can be food on the table. It’s sad to say, but if those children were not in the sweatshops then they would be in the streets begging for money or food or dumpster diving for anything of value or working somewhere else. You’re right that children should be able to play and do all the things children should be able to do, but the reality is that suvival comes first and when survival is threatened children have to grow up a little faster.

By: Tiara Zarcone

Tiara Zarcone — Mon, 25 May 2009 23:26:40 +0000

Thank you, Katherine, for your comments. The Declaration of Independence does indeed state that “…all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” They are not saying that all men are entitled to the same working conditions but rather than all men are entitled to life, freedom from tyranny, and happiness in terms of success. These have to do with the government’s role in the lives of the people. You could argue that to some degree developing countries that allow sweatshops into their borders are fulfilling these three rights. They are not subjecting their citizens to death by starvation by depriving the opportunity to work and earn money, they are allowing trade which enables citizens to act more freely with their money, and they are allowing “happiness” in the sense that people can work to earn a living and provide for their families which leads to pride. After all, if you went from begging on the streets to a job with a guaranteed paycheck, wouldn’t you be proud of the fact that you can now put food on the table without wondering where your next meal is coming from?
When it comes to monetary distribution when a consumer purchases a product, the same things are happening in the cases of both companies. When Wal-Mart sells an item, the price of that item is then distributed between wages, purchase of other goods to sell, and other expenses. When New Balance sells shoes, the same thing is happening. The reason why New Balance pays their employees so much more is because the average cost of a pair of women’s running shoes is $100. It’s kind of like buying a Gucci bag. People pay more for an item which then leads to higher profits for the company which then enables them to pay higher wages. The reason Wal-Mart doesn’t sell shoes for $100 is because people who rely on stores that have lower prices can’t afford to pay that much for a pair of shoes when they are struggling to pay the bills and buy food as it is.
You make a good point that when the cost of living goes up, wages have to go up too. If the cost of living in developing countries is going up, wages will eventually go up too. When the cost of living goes up, it means that chances are pretty good that the standard of living is going up, which means the economy may be improving. When that happens, sweatshops become too inefficient to remain open and in addition people will stop working at sweatshops because better jobs will become available. This isn’t something that happens quickly, however. It takes a long time and there will be dips and rises in the economy, but things will eventually improve.

By: Tiara Zarcone

Tiara Zarcone — Mon, 25 May 2009 22:59:09 +0000

Thank you, Jessica, for your comments. It’s interesting that you argue sweatshop wages are unjust because they prevent developing countries from improving economically. I’ve cited a presentation attached to the forum page a few times, and I think it’s worth another look. The project “Economic Freedom and Global Poverty” by James Gwartney and Joseph Connors was designed to examine whether or not the economies of developing countries are improving over time. Economic freedom means people have the option to choose where to work. The data was pulled from the World FactBook with notes that it entailed information on 70% of the world’s population in 1980 and 82% in 2005. Approximately 85% of the world’s population lives in poverty, which means many of these people work in sweatshops. On slide 4 we see that the global $1/day poverty rate has decreased by 23.1% in 25 years. The country with the largest impact was by far China. They went from a 64% $1/day poverty rate in 1980 to 10% in 2005. On slide 10 we see the $2/day global poverty rate. It has fallen from 70.4% in 1980 to 48.9% in 2005. Again, we see that China had a large impact with 88% of the population living at $2/day in 1980 down to 35% in 2005. This data would suggest that sweatshops are not hurting the economies of developing countries. Rather, they are helping to improve conditions over time. And just as a quick note before moving on, the reason companies pay sweatshop workers less than workers in other countries is becuase of the cost of living. If it costs less than $1/day to survive in developing countries, then there is no reason to pay someone $7/hour. Not to mention the catastrophic economic results that would take place if money was injected at such a high rate into these countries. Hyper inflation would run rampant and the images of 1930’s Germany with citizens burning money and carry barrels full of bills to pay for food would become a reality. More money isn’t necessarily always better.
On a final note, it’s true that sweatshops don’t follow the standards that Nader wishes to impose. In fact, by Nader’s standards, nobody is following through. What does he mean by social and ethical responsibility? How far are companies supposed to go to protect their employees? What role does personal responsibility play in Nader’s propositions? The research might lead to surprising answers.

By: Tiara Zarcone

Tiara Zarcone — Mon, 25 May 2009 22:29:23 +0000

Thank you, Melanie, for your comments. We always have to make sure we’re doing research and crunching the numbers for this discussion. You mentioned ulivable wages for sweatshop workers, but let’s look at a few numbers. In another post I mentioned that a loaf of bread costs 21 cents in Kabul, Afghanistan. Many people earn under $1/day. Let’s say a man in Kabul only earns 50 cents/day. That means that if he buys one loaf of bread, he still has 31 cents left over. With part of that 31 cents, he can then purchase some milk to drink. That probably leaves him with about 15-20 cents. This is what a normal meal looks like in many developing countries. People may be malnourished, but they are still getting enough food to survive. We should always consider cost of living relative to wage in a given country rather than across countries since someone in the United States obviously wouldn’t be able to survive on 50 cents/day, but someone in Afghanistan can.
What makes the part of our question about just wages difficult to answer is that the dignity of these people as human beings is often being violated. But that violation is occurring after people have consented to work in sweatshops. So if someone agrees to the working conditions within a sweatshop and can live off of the wages, does that mean the wages are just or does the violation of human dignity, even though accepted by the employee, trump the fact that he can live off of the money he receives? It’s a tough one.
The salaries of corporation executives seems to trouble many students who have posted so far. But we need to make it clear that executives work harder and cope with more pressure than some of us may ever have to. An executive has to bear the burden of how to make a company stay afload in a sea governed by the demands of consumers. If he can’t find a way to turn a profit then nobody is going to have a job at his company. In addition, executives do what few people are capable of doing: running a company. I think it is just that they are paid more than sweatshop workers because executives have received higher educations and know more about running a company than sweatshop workers.
On a final note, I would argue that sweatshops do not prevent people of excelling. It’s the economic disasters of the developing countries that prevent people from succeeding. A sweatshop is merely the symptom of poverty (nobody would work at a sweatshop if there were better options), not part of the cause. When sweatshops emerge it’s because they are a better option than whatever other choices people have.

By: Tiara Zarcone

Tiara Zarcone — Mon, 25 May 2009 21:56:59 +0000

Thank you, Molly, for putting so much thought into your post. I appreciate that you took the time to read the other posts and critically think about the issue. Keep in mind, though, that relative terms like “decent wages” make the issue more ambiguous for us. We have to take into consideration cost of living when discussing income. Numbers mean everything.
You have a very good point that because people are choosing to work in sweatshops, they do have the power to protest while at the same time demand for jobs is high enough that it would be easy to replace them. You also propose an interesting solution that employers should cut their own wages and that it should be distributed to the sweatshop workers. Your suggestion implies that cutting one person’s pay to benefit someone else is just. Is it? Forced equality doesn’t seem very right to me. Let’s apply this to a different example. Do you think it’s right to decrease the pay of a manager at a McDonald’s restaurant in order to pay the cashier more money? Does the efficiency of the cashier warrant a pay increase, economically speaking? In other words, does the cashier provide enough of a benefit for the company to justify a higher paycheck? After all, the manager could run a register too if he had to. Part of the reason why sweatshop wages are so low is because so many people are capable of doing the job. Anyone can sit at a sewing machine and sew clothes together. I’m not trying to belittle what sweatshop workers do because they do work very hard in miserable conditions. What I am trying to do is help put the situation into perspective. A company isn’t going to increase someone’s pay unless they can demonstrate that they are a better asset to the company than their coworkers. The managers of companies that have sweatshops get paid more because they can do what most sweatshop workers can’t: run a factory.

By: Tiara Zarcone

Tiara Zarcone — Mon, 25 May 2009 21:19:09 +0000

Thank you for your comments, Natalie. We have to be very careful about the terms we use when discussing the forum question since they can change the entire conversation. Slave labor is a very loaded phrase that entails a situation in which the rights of the individual are non-existent. One does not have the ability to make and act on any decisions a person would normally be able to because their free will is under the control of another individual. If we were talking about slave labor, it would make our discussion question moot since the question assumes that people are choosing to work in sweatshops, as evidenced by our reading materials. This ability to choose to enter into a contract with sweatshops and also to terminate that contract means this is not a case of slave labor. That said, it may be the case that sweatshops are the only places where people can find work. However, the ability to choose is still there.
You bring up an interesting point that companies like Ben and Jerry’s and New Balance don’t use sweatshops. Why do you think it is that so many other companies do? How large are Ben and Jerry’s and New Balance compared to other coporations that do use sweatshops? Size of a company might play a role in the decision to open factories outside of the United States.
The contrast between Ralph Nader and Milton Freidman keeps coming up and I appreciate that you took the time to make the point that both men have drastically different views. Their opinions probably differ so much because Nader’s ideas could arguably be socialistic (he’s supported by the Socialist Party, which says a lot about his views) while Freidman is a capitalist. Just as food for thought, how do you think their opposing political beliefs influence how they think businesses should be managed? And how do you think their opinions dictate what they would say about sweatshop wages?

By: Tiara Zarcone

Tiara Zarcone — Sun, 24 May 2009 23:29:10 +0000

Thank you, Jessica, for your wonderful comments. You’re right on track when looking at wages from an economic perspective. Efficient wages have nothing to do with how we feel. It’s about how they relate to the economic conditions of the country or region; what the cost of living is. Don’t let your feelings get in the way, though, when looking at whether the wages are just or unjust. The question remains when looking at the morality of wages whether those wages are livable or not. The first part of your post argues that the wages are indeed livable. Companies like Nike don’t pay their employees more for the reasons you already stated. We also have to take into consideration the efficiency of the workers. Nobody denies that they work long hours in difficult conditions and that’s not right, but how much are they able to produce of a product? If I’m working 18 hour days and can only produce three shirts in one day, it isn’t economically wise for the company to pay me more since they can only sell the three shirts I made. If a company spends more than they can take in, they’ll end up going bankrupt. Also keep in mind that there are cultural reasons why we only work five days a week and some people work six. This is actually the practice in Asia. Students, for example, attend school for six days and only have one day off every week. Their summer vacations are also shorter than ours. This isn’t because of cruelty or apathy on the part of the government. It’s because that’s how they prefer it. And it’s possible that in Asia they’re more efficient that way.
On a final note, we need to be careful about labeling companies as money hungry or the executives as greedy. Companies are ultimately ruled by the demands of the consumer. If people are unwilling to purchase goods at certain prices, then the company needs to adjust accordingly. Profit plays a huge role in decisions that executives make, and there’s no doubt about that. But it isn’t profit motivated by greed. It’s motivated more often than not by the need to make sure the company survives to the next week or the next year and in order to do that they need to turn a profit.

By: Tiara Zarcone

Tiara Zarcone — Sun, 24 May 2009 23:07:24 +0000

Thank you, Kelsey, for your comments. You’re right that the working conditions of sweatshops are unjust, but what about the wages? If people are choosing to work in these conditions, what does that say about the wages they are agreeing to be paid? When people freely make decisions, it complicates questions like the one we’re discussing. One of the questions that arises out of the fact that many people choose to work in sweatshops is whether or not it is morally appropriate for us to suggest that the factories be closed down. If we do that, we’re effectively telling these people that their decisions don’t mean anything. In a way, we’d be acting unjustly towards them.
We need to note too that most of these people will never set foot in a classroom even without the sweatshops in their countries. Children are often with their parents begging for food and trying to find a way to survive. The reason we are able to put so much emphasis on education in the United States is because our country is more stable. It isn’t because we used to have sweatshops and then got rid of them. And keep in mind that companies from the United States are not the only ones building sweatshops in devloping countries. Countries like China often have many of their own sweatshops.
On a final note, review some of my comments about how wages are determined in sweatshops. It’s a complicated formula that includes the economic state of a country, the efficiency of the employees, and customer demand for a product. Companies lower their prices not because they want to but because consumers are not willing to pay higher prices for that company’s goods. If a company could charge more for a product, there’s no doubt that they would since it would mean higher profits. What stops them is that people will not pay the prices if they go too high. It isn’t a simple matter of greed.

By: Tiara Zarcone

Tiara Zarcone — Sun, 24 May 2009 22:52:35 +0000

Thank you, Hilary, for your comments. It’s true that conditions in sweatshops are atrocious and that socially there isn’t much going on that could be called just. But are the wages just? The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church provides a definition of just wages that’s linked to the forum page. What I like most about the Church’s definition is that it’s wisdom is demonstrated by the fact that there is no monetary amount declared. Rather, the definition of a just wage is, basically, that which is livable. It is, of course, a little more complicated that that, but take a look at try to puzzle through it. It might be surprising how difficult our discussion question becomes.
I found it interesting that you referenced the contrast between Tiger Woods and his multimillion contracts and the comparatively lower wages of sweatshop workers. The reason there’s such a huge difference is because of the economic conditions of the countries as well as demand for a field of work. Tiger Woods is rich because very few people can golf as well as he can. It’s true: he gets to go out on the green and play for a living. But the reason he gets to do that is because people enjoy watching him play and there’s only one Tiger Woods in the world. A job in a sweatshop, however, may be in high demand by people who need work, but it’s easy to replace wokers. So, because of the poor economic conditions in developing countries and also because turnover is so easy, sweatshop wages are lower. This is where we also have to consider efficiency of wages. How many of a product can a person produce in a day and how does that reflect on how many items the company can sell?
A brief note on Nader: he also believes that companies should go to any length to keep their employees safe, even if it would be detrimental to the company. When we study what other people have to say, we have to do it in a prudent way. While safety is good, how far is too far? When he talks about companies having social and ethical responsibilities, what is he really thinking? What does he have in mind? How prudent is he being?
We should also be very careful with generalizations. There’s been a trend in posts to mark executives of companies as greedy monsters like those in the film Wall Street. I know people who are trying to run their own businesses, and they don’t come across as money-hungry people who would stop at nothing to make a buck. Just because an executive has a high salary doesn’t mean they’re “money obsessed” or that they didn’t earn it. Executives work much harder than you and I and they have a much heavier burden to carry.
You make a very good point that injustice in the world will never go away as long as places like sweatshops exist and people don’t have the opportunities for success that they deserve. The sad truth is that while everyone should be treated equally as human beings, there will always be people who don’t have the opporutnities we would like them to have. That’s why hope is so important. There’s an interesting passage in the Bible in Deuteronomy 15:11: “The needy will never be lacking in the land”. We may never be able to end the existence of sweatshops, but if we do what we can to help people then it will help reduce the number of sweatshops.

By: Tiara Zarcone

Tiara Zarcone — Sat, 23 May 2009 20:01:47 +0000

Thank you, Amanda for your post. I’m glad you picked up on the complexity of the discussion question. By asking whether wages are just and efficient, we are looking at how sweatshop wages can be evaluated both morally and economically. Both are very complex. How do we weigh the fact that jobs are provided where there may not have been any before against the fact that the conditions people work in are not very good? How can we get past the standards of our own living conditions to see how people live through the eyes of citizens of developign countries? What does Catholic Social Teaching tell us about just wages and what does it not tell us? How do we apply that to sweatshops? What’s efficiency and how does that apply to sweatshop wages? You are right that the balance between just and efficient is a difficult one. Is it really the responsibility of a company to protect it’s employees, though? I’m curious what exactly you mean by protect. Do you mean financially or the working conditions? When it comes to finances, the responsibility to look after employees does not fall to the company. If a just wage is being paid, what is done with that wage, no matter how small, is the responsibility of the employee. When it comes to safety, we have to ask where the line is drawn. I’ll reference Nader here since so many people are doing it. He would say that a company has a responsibility to protect an employee from all dangers. The construction worker sitting in the rafters of a church that I mentioned in a post should be wearing harnasses or some other kind of protection, even at the cost of being able to efficiently do his job. What we need to consider is whether that’s really a reasonable suggestion or protectionism to the extreme. I would argue he takes it too far. The company should provide some safety for it’s employees, but some of the responsibility falls to the employee as well. Dangerous working conditions require common sense and a level head. If someone has neither, then it’s their fault if they get hurt. Sometimes sweatshops don’t provide the most basic of protection, and I think that’s where they go wrong. So what we have here is a very complicated question for an even more complicated situtation.