[naner]

As bad as a 3rd world outsourced job is to us 1st worlder's it's still generally BETTER than what they would have otherwise. In fact Apple and other 'outsourcers' are the one and only reason for the breath-taking trend line that is China's per capita growth

This always seemed like a bullshit argument to me. So it is marginally better to work 16 hour days in terrible conditions while dumping chemicals in local groundwater than it is to starve to death. Well, it turns out that overworking people and polluting is still bad behaviour. These outsourcing companies shouldn't be commended for it. Provide these people good working conditions and a safe environment or don't bother outsourcing.

As an analogy, you wouldn't commend me for purchasing a mail-order bride from a poor country with sex trafficking problems. Yeah, it is marginally better for her than prostitution and she'll have better living conditions, but my behavior is still abusive and exploitative.

[forensic]

We can't save the world. Even if our entire country voted for it, we could not save the Chinese from their own policies.

They are adults living in a sovereign nation; they are responsible for their own working conditions.

I'm not going to feel white-guilt for stuff that happens in a foreign country over which I have zero control.

[m_eiman]

Even if our entire country voted for it, we could not save the Chinese from their own policies.

Vote with your wallet. If nobody will buy products produced using awful methods, they will no longer be produced that way. It's quite simple. Then you'll say "But everyone else is buying them, so it doesn't matter if I do it too". To which I say "Don't care about what others are doing, just do the right thing yourself".

[forensic]

It's impossible for me to have perfect information, or even relatively accurate information about the working conditions of the people who made my stuff.

Also since working conditions are subjective value judgements, I can't even objectively say that someone is working under bad working conditions.

In the first world there are high-rise window cleaners. Some people would consider washing windows a mile in the sky to be cruel and unusual punishment. Others consider it a thrill and would pay to do it.

I am not qualified to determine the difference between a sweatshop and just a highly efficient assembly line. Even if I was qualified, I would not have the necessary information. Even if I had the necessary information, I use too many products for me to examine the supply lines of each one. Even if someone did this for me, they would not be able to probe into the dark depths of communist China.

No, this doesn't fall to me. The working conditions of Chinese people are the responsibility of Chinese people. I will engage in trade with Chinese people and let them decide how they wish to work and how they wish to organize their society.

Ethnic paternalism is so 19th century.

[rimantas]

Ok, don't buy the products. Then they are without the jobs. How does it help exactly?

[Volpe]

Yes, because that's how capitalism works! If you don't buy a specific product, the whole market fails and everyone dies of hunger.

[olalonde]

> Well, it turns out that overworking people and polluting is still bad behaviour.

Fast-forward to year 2085

> Well, it turns out that asking people to do mechanical work 30 hours a week and dumping CO2 in the atmosphere is still bad behaviour.

[tomjen3]

This is the way every society goes - Milton Friedman pointed out when confronted with how horrible living in the cities at the time of Charles Dickens was that the reason people moved to the cities was that it was far worse in the countryside.

Also the reason companies outsource isn't to provide the workers with great work environments (that may or may not happen) but to save money.

[berntb]

>>Well, it turns out that overworking people and polluting is still bad behaviour.

I usually give this link at this point. http://www.slate.com/id/1918/

Krugman discuss, well, why you are a judging hypocr.. cough, a bit harsh. :-)

Edit: Let me put it this way. A millennia ago, my ancestors made today's Afghanistan look like a cosy and peaceful place. Now, it is a bit different -- a welfare state where there haven't been war for a couple of centuries. Both situations are inside the range of human behaviour/nature. The trick is to organise things so society works and so that it gets better over time. So few ways of doing things really works, so it is a bit funny when you complain about just those, from a moral perspective.

[naner]

I've read this before. I supposed I just have a hard time with the idea that doing harmful things is long-term beneficial.

[berntb]

>>I just have a hard time with the idea that doing harmful things is long-term beneficial.

I come from a protestant culture; we have problems believing that fun things can be beneficial. :-)

Krugman argued -- many of those things aren't harmful, given the situation the local people are in.

Instead of complaining about something that will be fixed automatically given good governance, work for good governance... Another of my standard links:

http://reason.com/archives/2006/03/01/why-poor-countries-are...

(Me? I am doing good by educating activists about the real problems. :-) )