Quote:
Originally posted by Agamemnon@Feb 9 2005, 09:50 AM
Quote:
|
Again, "avoiding Wal-Mart" because of them using products produced by cheap labor, hurts no one...except the cheap laborer.
|
Well... if a lot of people did it, it would 'hurt' Wal-Mart. Boycotts of businesses/products aren't new.
Quote:
|
I understand the concept of wanting to line the big corporations wallets because they use standards unacceptable to most. What i don't grasp is how the very heart of the matter (using cheap labor to produce goods) is affected by this decision.
|
Well, I'll point to my rape example again. Buying cheap DVD's from the rapist in no way helps the rape victim (who is basically completely removed from you), and it DOES get you cheap DVD's. Why not buy from him, right? The rape has already been committed, there's nothing you can do to help now... so why not save a few bucks, right? I see the situations as more or less parallel.
You're right, not buying DVD's (shopping at Wal-Mart) from rapist won't do a thing for the rape victim. But wouldn't you feel like an ass for supporting the guy? Maybe you wouldn't...
Quote:
|
there is only one real big loser in the whole thing...the guy thats being exploited in (insert 3rd world country) already. Now you wish to take away his only (albeit meager and grossly unfair) income in order to prove a point to a huge multi-national that wont blink twice by missing your business?
|
Sure, but I think there's an assumption out there that these people were 'losers' before we came along, and we're responsible for injecting a little financial happiness into their lives.
I may be wrong here, but I'm fairly sure these peoples weren't living in desperate poverty since the time of Christ, just waiting for Wal-Mart and Nike to come along and alleviate their misery. Thats not the way it was.
I don't think Wal-Mart and Nike sweatshops are a _requirement_ to develop your nation.
The big criminals here are generally the governments who conspire with these corporations. The governments should be legislating labour rights for their own people, but tend to drop the ball salivating over the meager corporate taxes they're promised in return for granting a good deal to the businesses.
Quote:
A case of the "hopeful" ends, justifying the means?
I guess this logic is OK here, but not in Iraq?  (Just had to throw that in there)
|
Don't really know what this means. I have no idea how someone boycotting Wal-Mart for unfair labour practises = support for an invasion of Iraq. While both ideals are probably Utopian, thats about as far as I see the correlation going. Maybe you could go further w/ it, or is that for another thread? 
|
Ag, drawing a comparason between a sweatshop and a rapist is a long shot... at best. Even in a sweatshop, the conditions could be horrendous, long hours, etc, but at the end of the day, the worker has helped both themselves and their family. A rapist helps noone but themselves.
Large businesses hire less fortunate/handicapped people all the time. They probably pay them minimum wage, or maybe less. The government would probably chip in a bit as well to bring up the total wage. But the business is in fact, getting cheap labor. Are you going to boycott those establishments as well, becuase they are exploiting the handicapped? Not paying them what they should be getting paid? They are giving the opportunity for them make a living.
At a place i used to work at, they would hire high school students to come in and gain "work experiance". They would be paid less than minimum wage, for doing sh*t work. That could be considered exploitation as well.