[beaconstudios]

Not only that, but the conditions in the West are contingent on the work done in the rest of the world. There's a reason we're not all working in sweatshops making all the products we are constantly using, and it's because we have poor people in other countries doing it instead. For their living standards to rise, ours will have to lower (though the economy is not a zero sum game of course, and technology/automation can reduce the necessary labour).

I don't think it's malicious or anything - I just think that this perspective is a little ignorant of how the world really works.

[chii]

> we have poor people in other countries doing it instead.

and they become less poor afterwards. Eventually, they will no longer accept the low wages as their own wealth increases. i think this is a good outcome - all parties benefit from the transaction.

This will take a long time to play out, and in the mean time, the research and development of tech would progress enough to find a solution to the energy and resource problem - increasing efficiency, or finding new sources to extract (my money is on asteroids).

But the way it will play out, means that there's always a gradient of relative "conditions" - from the lowest, to the highest. As long as this gradient is always shifting up - aka, everyone's condition is improving - i think it is acceptable.

[beaconstudios]

> and they become less poor afterwards.

This doesn't happen when you're paid subsistence wages, which sweatshop workers are. It's exploitation of the poor, pure and simple - there's no trickle-down economics in play, they just get to stay poor but alive while the goods they make are sold to wealthier countries.

It would be really nice if free markets played out the way free market advocates say they do, but they don't.

> But the way it will play out, means that there's always a gradient of relative "conditions"

Personally, I'd rather we lived in a meritocratic system where hard work and innovation benefits the individual responsible, and everybody earns the value of their work. I don't like the idea of a perpetual underclass based on characteristics unrelated to personal capability, like nationality or race.

[ericmay]

>This doesn't happen when you're paid subsistence wages, which sweatshop workers are

How did any country ever become wealthy? The US and UK for example went through the Industrial Revolution too, where people were paid subsistence wages and worked in sweatshops...

[dragonwriter]

> The US and UK for example went through the Industrial Revolution too, where people were paid subsistence wages and worked in sweatshops...

Then they had mass, deadly, pro- and anti-labor violence culminating in various labor protections which resulted in a less-miserable distribution of the rewards of industry, a process which has been interspersed with backsliding and repetition over time.

[ericmay]

Right and so then they became less poor afterward.

[beaconstudios]

This argument boils down to "it was a good thing we exploited them, it gave them the impetus to fight back against our exploitation". Is this meant to be a dialectical argument or just a really weird moral one?

[softcactus]

That's very easy for you to say in your current situation. I think you would not find it acceptable if you were one of the sweatshop workers. This is the exact logic that has been used to justify slavery/exploitation throughout history.

[yetihehe]

What is your argument exactly, that we should not give job to workers in poorer countries? So that they don't have any money?

[softcactus]

Pay people without exploiting them. You can pay people decent wages and avoid putting them in unnecessary danger while still making a significant profit. If that truly cant be done, then that industry needs to be nationalized to cover the deficit.

[beaconstudios]

the economy is not a binary choice between "pay people subsistence wages" and "don't pay them at all". We could pay people better, invest in the development of underdeveloped countries that we exploit (no, IMF loans do not count). We could focus on helping people instead of exploiting them for profit. Many options are available.

[yetihehe]

Why don't you do this? If you don't have resources for this, why do you think other people have them? Ask yourself honestly, if you won a lottery yesterday, would you give it away to those workers in underdeveloped countries? I would not, because I'm too greedy, but I don't think you would really give money away either, and I supported Ukraine with about $100, which is probably the biggest donation I have done in my life, many people could live on it for two weeks where I live. Many options are available, but not all of them are as good as just giving them jobs. And if you wanted to give them better paying jobs - who will pay? Would you pay more for some laptop because it supported some unknown person on the other side of earth? Why don't you just send them some money today? You have that option after all.

[beaconstudios]

Putting aside the fact that I do try to help people out financially where I can - this is just a deflection from reform. We ended slavery because it was immoral, and I'm sure there were people saying "if you love slaves so much, why don't you buy slaves and free them yourself" at the time. While it's possible to do that on an individual basis, that doesn't lead to the end of slavery, which itself should not exist at all. Neither should exploitation of poor countries by rich ones. I'm sure you realise that this is bad.