[thecodeore]

All companies, in every nation, pay the minimum they can get away with. In nations with no social structure, very little wealth, and no jobs the choice is not government hand out vs minimum wage, but a very low paying job or starvation. It would appear you would rather these children starve then to allow them to work for enough money to feed themsleves, possibly working up and out of poverty over generations.

America did not just magically start out as a wealthy nation, for generations children labored on family farms, in business, and even in sweatshops. Generations ago a person had to work form dawn to dusk just to feed themselves, Today in America "poverty" is not having and iPhone or Broadband internet.

The idea that we can magically transform these 3rd world nation into 1st world nations is naive at best, The same path America took, is the same path these nations must take. Over time wages will increase, conditions will improve, etc, this is a natural order of things. The good news is, this will happen MUCH MUST faster than it did in America.

Check out these Videos

http://www.learnliberty.org/videos/top-3-ways-sweatshops-hel...

http://www.learnliberty.org/content/unbelievable-truth-about...

http://www.learnliberty.org/content/sweatshop-wages-and-thir...

[Klinky]

You seem to be okay with children being crushed to death or burning up in fires from substandard building construction. Construction that is known to be unsafe. It's accepted because it is convenient, not because it's necessary. These factories aren't turning out bare essential materials that are sold for small profit margins. They create luxury items that often have the markings of vapid pop culture and are sold with huge margins. First world countries know these conditions are abhorrent, because we do not allow them, but first would countries do allow the thirst for high profit margins to come at the cost of human lives overseas.

Your inability to understand the depth with which poverty strikes those in the U.S. is astounding. Poverty in the U.S. means that you don't have clothes to wear to school, that the school you go to is underperforming, that you live in a neighborhood where you could get shot, abducted, propositioned for drugs. It means going hungry on a day-to-day basis. It means the power being shutoff. It means probably not having a parent in the home because they are either absent or working two or three jobs. It often means the environment you grow up in is likely to be rife with psychological, physical or substance abuse. It means taking two hour bus rides both ways to get to a minimum wage job. It means no or substandard healthcare. It could mean living in a car, on the street or being under threat of such outcomes.

The videos linked are pretty disgusting and make libertarians sound like horrible people. Maybe you should also put some videos up about how libertarians justify slavery or indentured servitude because the slave or servant would have died if they weren't being exploited. Maybe an article could be written about the exploited workers in Dubai, and how it's still mutually beneficial to have their rights stripped of them, pay held for months, because the alternative is possible starvation in their home country.

Raising awareness and demanding better standards can improve conditions. If you are coming from the point of view that there is no problem with sweatshops and things don't need to change, then it's likely workers will continue to be exploited. How long have China, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Malaysia had sweatshops? Why haven't sweatshops brought supposed prosperity to these countries yet? How many generations more will have to endure sweatshops and possible death? No one should have to put up with a sudden and horrible death so "Keep Calm Carry On" shirts can make it on to Target store shelves.

[thecodeore]

  libertarians justify slavery or indentured servitude

libertarians first and foremost believe in non-aggression, voluntary trade. so slavery, in so far as it was forced upon someone via violence or the threat of violence would not be justified.

  If you are coming from the point of view that there is no problem with sweatshops and things don't need to change

None of the video's I linked to, nor it is my position that things do not need to change, your emotional response is the problem, you lack the ability to react with logic, to understand how the world actually works, instead you lash out with emotion about how the world "should" work in your opinion

  How long have China, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Malaysia had sweatshops?

They are in reality, why do you think in recent year companies have been flocking back to the US, telecom and tech industries are the most widely known, but many business are coming back. It is the increased in wages in those nations brought about by economic development via sweatshops coupled with the reducing wages in the US brought about by the failed economic policies of the US government

[PeterisP]

A simple question - would ms. Meem from the article be happy if you went there and got the owner to fire her and other kids mentioned? That would be a small step towards eliminating child labor there, would you be proud and count it as a small victory?

[notahacker]

The thing about sweatshops is that they could make the same clothes, retailing in the West at the same prices, if they hired adults on a 45 hour weeks with genuinely optional overtime and didn't treat their staff abusively. There would actually be higher employment rather than lower employment in the local economy as a result. In many cases the only people that lose out would be middlemen that earn very well by developing world standards reallocating outsourcing contracts to cheaper factories offering worse conditions. Sure, the fact that economic globalization allows people in poorer countries to earn an income doing work for richer countries benefits them, and it's very difficult for factories and even local governments to unilaterally enforce better working conditions, but that doesn't mean that the people whose best option is working in the garment industry wouldn't on average be better off if retailers actually knew where their clothes were made and regulation was so pervasive internationally and effectively enforced that buyers didn't have the option of getting T-shirts for a cent less from the factory that employed actual slaves.

The evidence so far doesn't support outsourced garment manufacture as being a route to developed country status either.

[PeterisP]

Your hypothesis in the first sentence is testable - would a Bangladeshi factory owner who chose to do as you say be more competitive than others, getting higher productivity while being able to sell for the same prices? Are the most successful manufacturers there doing it right now, and if not, why not?

[dbond]

I would rather they not starve!

  I'm OK with children working in factories if that is the reality of their situation

At no point here have I said we should shut the places down, in fact I've acknowledged the opposite. I'm not saying we need to transform third world nations into first world, that is just absurd. What I am saying is that they should be paid enough to afford proper housing and real futures, not the slim possibility of working themselves out of poverty over generations.

[smtddr]

> America did not just magically start out as a wealthy nation,

[...]

> The idea that we can magically transform these 3rd world nation into 1st world nations is naive at best, The same path America took, is the same path these nations must take.

America isn't a good example. It stomped on so many people to get where it is today. And even right now America only continues to function because of the exploitation & corruption of other countries. Nobody can/should follow America's footsteps.

[kansface]

Can you name any wealthy country where this wasn't the case (baring Norway).

[senthilnayagam]

thanks for the videos, they are very informative