How do sweatshops contribute to poverty in the global economy?

[loseyourname]

I double dare you to tell this to the kids in downtown LA, or any of the many other deprived areas in the US. As far as I'm concerned, if the outcome is massive inequality, then you have to question how equal the opportunity was in the first place.

Unless you're referring specifically to skid row (not many kids live there), Downtown LA is not that bad. It was a good deal worse 15 years ago, but even then, almost no one lived there. The main occupants now are either the neo-metropolitans living in the Promenade Towers or the USC students renting cheap lofts in the rebuilt bank district.

 

[the number 42]

.. will you buy cheaper products of a reputed company even if you knew in some thirld world country they are employing child labour in order to minimise production costs? we must not allow any company to get away by using unethical means anywhere in the planet.

well said. The problem is that while the media bombard us with sports, celebrity culture etc, we get very little on the places that stich the footballs and t-shirts. The BBC, bless its heart, on occasion with put on a news report about a case of this kind as if it is breaking news . Traditionally respectable resources by and large keep us in the dark over these matters.

 

[the number 42]

Unless you're referring specifically to skid row (not many kids live there), Downtown LA is not that bad. It was a good deal worse 15 years ago, but even then, almost no one lived there. The main occupants now are either the neo-metropolitans living in the Promenade Towers or the USC students renting cheap lofts in the rebuilt bank district.

Well check this link and tell me which slum you'd prefer I cite:
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/dpu-projects/Global_Report/pdfs/LA.pdf

Its from a report with the catchy title: UNDERSTANDING SLUMS: Case Studies for the Global Report on Human Settlements 2003

"The migration of whites from Los Angeles intensified
during the period after the civil unrest; but the Los Angeles economy began to diversify and rebound during the late 1990s. While employment rates were
up, poverty did not decline. Rather, a shift to low wage
sector employment and now a steady stream of recent
immigrants to occupy these jobs appears to be a enduring
pattern in the city. Rents have risen sharply in poor
communities as the poor choose overcrowding rather
than homelessness. The high level of use of these residential
structures increases processes of decay and
deterioration. The growth in poverty is likely to continue
as well as the growth in disinvested areas over the
coming decade".

 

[loseyourname]

Well check this link and tell me which slum you'd prefer I cite:
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/dpu-projects/Global_Report/pdfs/LA.pdf

Its from a report with the catchy title: UNDERSTANDING SLUMS: Case Studies for the Global Report on Human Settlements 2003

That report mostly cites slum buildings - not too many neighborhoods. There is still a good deal of crime and poverty in South Central (now officially called "South LA"), but the housing and population density aren't really that bad. Housing is worst in Hollywood. The only slum-like neighborhood close to downtown is Boyle Heights. Even that's cleaned up to the point where I feel fairly safe at night - but maybe I'm just insane. Not too many people live there, though. It's mostly a warehouse district and the railway yard is there.

 

[the number 42]

That report mostly cites slum buildings - not too many neighborhoods. There is still a good deal of crime and poverty in South Central (now officially called "South LA"), but the housing and population density aren't really that bad. Housing is worst in Hollywood. The only slum-like neighborhood close to downtown is Boyle Heights. Even that's cleaned up to the point where I feel fairly safe at night - but maybe I'm just insane. Not too many people live there, though. It's mostly a warehouse district and the railway yard is there.

Okay, let's either continue this discussion on a new thread 'LA real estate: best deals on crack and one bedroom apartments', or on 'The Land of Opportunity' thread in Politics and General Tantrums section. My point was that not everyone starts from the same place, thus are at a relative disadvantage when it comes to reaching the upper rungs of the social ladder. This to me seems at least as 'self-evident' as 'all men being born equal'.

 

[loseyourname]

Okay. I don't disagree with you. I'm just saying that downtown LA has undergone a nice renaissance ever since Staples Center was built, especially now that all of the buildings in the old bank district are being converted to lofts and office space. Just don't want people to get the wrong impression based on movies from the 80's and 90's.

Heck, your post was just as off-topic as mine. It had nothing to do with globalization.

 

[the number 42]

Heck, your post was just as off-topic as mine. It had nothing to do with globalization.

Globalise *THIS*, buster.

(Damn. Just doesn't have the same impact without my webcam).

 

[sid_galt]

I double dare you to tell this to the kids in downtown LA, or any of the many other deprived areas in the US. As far as I'm concerned, if the outcome is massive inequality, then you have to question how equal the opportunity was in the first place.

So are you implying that given equal opportunity, all people would perform equally?

Keep in mind that people like J.J. Hill, Cornelius Vanderbilt and many others rose from ditches to riches.
Why didn't others like them become what they became? It was not difference in opportunity but difference in ability.

As for the present distribution of opportunity, public schools do exist to educate students. You can't just given an isolated example and then imply that that is the general condition.

So if wealth was more fairly distributed we'd all be living in ditches?

"Fair" distribution of wealth simply means that everyone gets what one has rightly earned through one's ability, nothing more, nothing less.

It does not mean forcibly taking wealth from the rich through laws (a.k.a. robbery) and giving it to the poor. When an individual takes money without permission, it is called stealing. When the government does it, it is called justice.
What kind of justice is this?

So take your pick: you can have running water, plumbing, innoculations, and a car while Bill gates lives in a solid gold house, or Bill Gates can live in a Medival castle with no running water (and a real risk of the plague) and you can take your chances with a dirt floor straw shack and the plage. Which would you prefer?

Well, if you really think these are the only options then I'm not surprised you have come to hold the beliefs that you seem to.

This is precisely what happened in Communism.

The rulers (members of the Communist party) lived in villas while the general public suffered.
The same thing happened during monarchy.

Right - we should all be grateful for being part of an unequal, exploitative world. You feel irritated? Try supporting a family working in a t-shirt factory in South America.

Before the advent of capitalism, child mortality rates were 50%. People lived in medieval huts and could barely make ends meet.

Capitalism greatly increased wealth and provide opportunity and employment. Was this exploitation

Was improving human conditions of living exploitation?

Was creation of wealth exploitation?

As to your example of a poor family, keep in mind that without the t-shirt factory, the family wouldn't even have a job to earn money to live.

Okay then. If I say 'Thanks, I'm really grateful' will you promise to stop improving the world? Develop the good things e.g. medicine, but do we really need to price it so that many can't afford it?

And who would pay for the expenses involved in the research of new drugs?

People are capable of many things good, bad, & indifferent. If you encourage people to love & share, they will. If you encourage people to exploit each other under the guise of freedom, they'll do that too.

So now you are calling actual freedom, a guise of freedom?

As to your point about exploitation, it is baseless.

 

[the number 42]

So are you implying that given equal opportunity, all people would perform equally?

Keep in mind that people like J.J. Hill, Cornelius Vanderbilt and many others rose from ditches to riches. ... You can't just given an isolated example and then imply that that is the general condition.

Ow! That foot must hurt, dude.

 

[sid_galt]

Ow! That foot must hurt, dude.

What do you mean?

 

[metacristi]

Are corrupt (greedy) governments to blame?

I have been reading about a garment worker in Nicaragua who earns about $15 dollars a week, but her expenses of living are closer to $30 a week. I don't know how these people survive.

Incidentally, the corporation she produces garments for earns several billion dollars in profits each year.

Corruption alone cannot account in entirety for the poverty in the world (only marginally it is really of blame), unfortunately it is the system itself which produces and entertains it. When looking at the whole picture, namely the situation at the world level, it's clear that capitalism has not succeded. Even in the so called rich countries, after hundred of years of contiunous growth, the problem has not been eliminated yet. See http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Globalization/Globalization_watch.html for a much more accurate picture...no, the accusations of corruption and incapacity to organize are not THE problems, the most important problem, overlooked currently, on purpose, by those who benefit from the system, is that the economic doctrine itself is of blame (unfortunately not all people, have the same chances as official propaganda often claim; capitalism alone cannot solve this). The truth is far away from the glamorous myths presented in let's say 'Fortune', 'The economist' or 'Forbes'.

I'd rather say that it is poverty which creates widespread corruption not the other way around. As for the myth that poverty disappears fast it is enough to look at South America, the preferred experimental ground of 'laissez faire' libertarians in the last 50 years, to realize that basically nothing changed. Unfortunately mere economic growth cannot solve the problems, not to mention the destruction of the environment due to necessity of 'growth' with all costs (the internal dynamic of capitalism make this imperative). What's funny is that, basically, there is no good reason to think that a continuous economic growth can be sustained forever. Something is putrid in Danemark...

 

[Aquamarine]

Corruption alone cannot account in entirety for the poverty in the world (only marginally it is really of blame), unfortunately it is the system itself which produces and entertains it. When looking at the whole picture, namely the situation at the world level, it's clear that capitalism has not succeded. Even in the so called rich countries, after hundred of years of contiunous growth, the problem has not been eliminated yet. See http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Globalization/Globalization_watch.html for a much more accurate picture...no, the accusations of corruption and incapacity to organize are not THE problems, the most important problem, overlooked currently, on purpose, by those who benefit from the system, is that the economic doctrine itself is of blame (unfortunately not all people, have the same chances as official propaganda often claim; capitalism alone cannot solve this). The truth is far away from the glamorous myths presented in let's say 'Fortune', 'The economist' or 'Forbes'.

I'd rather say that it is poverty which creates widespread corruption not the other way around. As for the myth that poverty disappears fast it is enough to look at South America, the preferred experimental ground of 'laissez faire' libertarians in the last 50 years, to realize that basically nothing changed. Unfortunately mere economic growth cannot solve the problems, not to mention the destruction of the environment due to necessity of 'growth' with all costs (the internal dynamic of capitalism make this imperative). What's funny is that, basically, there is no good reason to think that a continuous economic growth can be sustained forever. Something is putrid in Danemark...

Regarding corruption and capitalism:
http://alpha.montclair.edu/~lebelp/EconFreedomandCorruption.html

Regardin poverty:
http://www.worldbank.org/research/povmonitor/

 

[the number 42]

This link is to a radio debate that is mainly about advertising in general, but the first few mins (after a trailer for another programme) is about advertising & the global economy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/ram/wed2002.ram