|
|
 Originally Posted by Renton
Again, I don't romanticize sweatshops. I think that an honest conversation needs to be had about what constitutes a sweatshop and what is acceptable. I think everyone can agree that sweatshops shouldn't be life-threatening conditions for the workers. But leftists take the anti-sweatshop crusade way too far and say that sweatshop workers aren't paid enough and that capitalism exploits workers. They'd rather these people resorted to prostitution or petty theft to make a living instead. They'd rather everything in the world cost twice as much. They'd rather live in a world where people in third world countries have nothing to offer to the world economy, and no means of building wealth for themselves.
Those aren't the only two options. By far the best model we've ever seen for boosting an economy is one that pays employees enough to purchase what they produce. But this has never been a popular idea among those who fancy themselves modern day royalty, so it gets pushed under the rug as much as possible, and we end up believing false ideas about how we need extremely cheap labor and executives need enormous vaults of profits. This globalized trade model you're describing is actually extremely inefficient and is really just slave wages for producers and purchases on credit for consumers, all of which is meant for maximum profits for the "owners".
Not only is this not the only model, but it is a terribly inefficient model. We have done better models in the past and would could do them now if we pulled them out from under the rug
|
Reply With Quote
