[blankall]

Originally Posted by Daradon

As was mentioned, sweatshops are horribly exploitative, and even as global competition increases, they're not really getting any better. That is often the argument that is used by the pro industry, pro cheap labour crowd. Eventually if all the cheap labour gets sourced out, salaries will have to go up. Supply and demand right? That's your thing, the market will fix everything in time.

But often it gets worse, because new countries are also competing to be the source for cheap labour. It's doubtful we'll ever be at a stage where 'normal market conditions' actually work in favor for these people.

So to be a responsible community, a middle ground does need to be achieved. I have long thought an international minimum wage would be a good thing, but I have no idea how that could ever be pulled off.

And when I say minimum wage, I don't mean a western style minimum wage, but one that would allow cheap labour to be attractive to their governments and keep enough factories in these countries to give these people jobs, but not so low that it's completely exploitative.

Maybe the bigger thing would be, like this Bangladesh incident, to have stricter international standards, and tougher fines for companies who put their workers at risk, even if it is through a third party.

Of course, again, I have no idea how you get that ball in motion. As many have argued before, if people knew where their products came from, they could pressure their companies, or at least vote with their wallet by not buying from them. And that in turn would cause them to behave better.

For instance, Joe Fresh brand are very worried that they are going to suffer noticeable public pressure from this incident and it's bad press. That's why they were so quick to say they were going to help the families of the victims.

Doing it as cheap as possible is great, until you're doing it so cheap it hurts by bottom line by bringing bad press. Which isn't often, not nearly as often as it should. But it does happen.

So yeah, consumers can help, but it's a tough uphill slog.

As for the OP, I too was confused with the point that he was trying to make if there was one. I'm not sure ethical shopping ever meant anything about price. Except for the fact that's it's usually more expensive to buy with a conscience. Not counting obvious big ticket items like cars and stuff. Mostly food and clothing etc.

Also to the OP's comment about, 'I can't believe this hasn't been commented on,' it does get commented on in lots of threads. It's such a large issue it has shown up in lots of threads about goods or politics. I don't know how you narrow it down to a all-encompassing thread.

To add to this a little.

What OP is proposing is essentially a boycott of all goods manufactured in low income countries. The problem is pulling out all that industry is just going to tank those lower end economies even further and result in even worse living conditions.

As for your point that the sweat shops aren't increasing the standard of living, well that's just not true. There are hundreds of millions of people in India and China who were living below the poverty line 20 years ago, who aren't now. Both countries initially based their economies on manufacturing and agriculture.

Maybe the solution is finding companies that do use forieng labour but provide good working conditions....not really sure how you would monitor that. Perhaps cameras broadcasting feeds over the internet.