I'd be curious to hear from the people on HN:
In your opinion, is there a valid moral/ethical argument for buying products "Made in the USA" that doesn't fall apart when expanded to include other countries?
In your opinion, is there a valid moral/ethical argument for buying products "Made in the USA" that doesn't fall apart when expanded to include other countries?
If you know of a better way to quickly filter out "made by kids," "made by people who are about to be killed in a factory collapse," and "made by indentured servants (or 'third party nationals' as the UAE styles them)" then I'd be interested to know what it is.
try to minimize your participation in the culture of waste. thats got to be worth something.
doesn't really support the narrative of supporting local industry or the idea of eternal market growth.
But then one could ask whether certain parts of Europe enjoy the same moral prerogative wrt the US?
Also, European regulations are the strictest and labor unions the loudest in the world, so it's unlikely any meaningful quantity of goods produced under cruel conditions make their way into the European market. At least we believe that.
The new global standard for the conditions a factory worker may expect is that they'll work 12 hour days, live in a barracks, get paid every three months and suffer routine exposure to dangerous amounts of Benzene---to say nothing of the wages. And if you can't or won't work under these conditions then you're non-employable.
So American worker gets thrown out because he's suddenly insufficiently downtrodden to be a competitive worker in his former line of work.
And maybe the Benzene is worth it to the average Chinese worker. I can't speak for him. But I can say that if it's not, he'll lose his job like the American did and they'll find someone even cheaper somewhere else.
PS: I guarantee you that there are no separate factories in China for export into the EU where workers receive EU-level protections. Don't be daft. The European markets are full of goods produced in horrible conditions.
All nations went through horrible things to reach the high standard of living we take for granted today.
And even in cases where it's true, ignores the fact that many may have preferred not to have had the choice imposed in the first place. E.g. subsistence farmers forced off their land and into cities, either by mandate or through unchecked externalities (aka the polluting plant next door). And purchasing from these manufacturing operations helps spread that misery.
I'm not saying it's an easy calculus, but your characterization is surely reductive.
Do you have any sources for these claims?
Logically it will fall apart. You can say "but isn't citizen of country X just as worthy of a making a good living?" and in a general logical sense, yes they are. However from a practical point of view, choosing to buy something made locally is appealing.
Countries and nations are here to stay for a while. Only the super-wealthy get to be citizens of the world and enjoy globalization in its positive PR-sense. They can live in South America, fly to New York to shop on the weekend, take the yacht to Seychelles for vacation. Borders mean nothing for them. Funny enough many developers on HN here also get to enjoy that if they don't have to work in an office. They can be nomads and borders are just minor annoyances for them.
But Most people are stuck in their countries, and so it makes sense for them to care and worry about the people from the same country a bit more. Buying locally is a manifestation of that.