Child labor is probably not caused by the demand for clothes, though. On the contrary, without those jobs, the situation of those families would be even more perilous.
Well maybe if the parents would be paid a bit more these kids would be given a chance to fair better in life by going to school. What is that comment? demand for lower priced clothes, "infinite growth" and investors always demanding higher returns absolutely causes all that child exploitation.
Your comment is either ignorant or downright dismissive of a problem directly caused by us, western consumers.
It's akin to saying "at least the slave is fed", exact same puritan mindset.
So unfortunately, buying their labor at cheap rates seems to be the best way to transfer wealth right now, at least a big scale [0].
[0] - On a smaller scale individuals can donate to charities like Against Malaria Foundation or GiveDirectly, which I highly recommend everyone does if they have excess wealth.
This is not the only option, and this defeatist attitude is dangerous. There are many charities operating in third-world countries that are incredibly efficient and are delivering real impact right now. Here’s a few: https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities
Now, obviously scaling it up will be difficult, but all these charities are currently cash constrained, so there’s still some room to grow, and after that point, I’m sure it’s not an intractable problem to figure out a working model.
The “corrupt government” excuse is common one to justify inaction, but given the existence of so many organizations doing good work, I don’t it’s applicable anymore.
- Buy clothes made using child labour, the children and their families get a bit of additional income. - Don't buy clothes made using child labour, the children and their families don't get a bit of additional income.
Most likely, these children are working because without this income, it's difficult for them to meet their needs for survival. Given that, the choosing option 2 will clearly leave this children and their families worse off. I'm not sure how that's a controversial statement, it's simply describing the situation as it is. Denying harsh realities doesn't make things better for those children.
Now, the ideal situation is just a direct wealth transfer from rich countries to poor countries, and I would be in favor of that. But people in rich countries value the lives of people in their countries many times more than those in poor countries, so I doubt this will happen anytime soon.
Here's a few options:
1. buy second hand
Cheapest and best for the environment
2. buy local
stimulates local economy, doesn't give money to another big corporation ready to exploit another country
3. buy fair trade
4. stop buying so many things
It really isn't that difficult.
------------
The harsh reality is that we all are to blame for the predicament of those countries and we try to brush it off, just like you just did. We choose to buy cheap without checking where things are from. We choose not to support local industries. We choose politicians that choose not to prosecute companies for crimes in other countries. We choose to give big companies money which they then use to corrupt foreign countries in order to exploit them. We choose to justify our consumerism with "at least I'm giving them a job".
You really think that those countries would be in such disarray without our involvement? Do you think if multi-nationals had less power, the support of their western politicians and populace, that they'd be able to mess around in foreign countries and take away opportunities for the foreign populace?
It's clearly not a false dichotomy, since 3 of those options will leave those in the working in the global poor worse off. Buying fair trade will help those in the global poor, so that's a good option.
Note that I did not use this to justify slave labour. That's obviously bad, and they will be better off not working under slave labour. We should refuse to buy goods produced from slave labour. I am specifically focusing on those who work "voluntarily"[0] in exchange for pay.
> we try to brush it off, just like you just did.
Did you read my comment? I said, "Now, the ideal situation is just a direct wealth transfer from rich countries to poor countries, and I would be in favor of that." How is that brushing it off? I advocated for giving them money/aid/etc. directly (and is something I do on a small scale personally, by donating to charities that help people in the global poor).
What it comes down to at the end is that these people are working these jobs because the alternative is starvation or the like. If you're saying we should stop buying from them (indirectly, through a large company), you need to pair that with a direct transfer of some form of aid to make up for the lost income. Otherwise, you are directly making them worse off. Before, they earned some money for their labour, now they don't.
> The harsh reality is that we all are to blame for the predicament of those countries
If we're to blame, we can't just tell them "Sorry, I know you need this income to sustain yourself, but I'm not comfortable with those working conditions, so I'm going to give my money to someone in a first world country instead."
[0] - Ie. They decided they are better off working this job, than not working this job.
16x9 - Child Labour: The Dark Side of Chocolate https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXWFXeIZY9g
Documentary. The Dark Side Of Chocolate https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Vfbv6hNeng
the "at least the slaves aren't starving" argument. Maybe if westerners paid them a bit more, which they can afford, their parents would send these kids to school instead.
No HN has always been extremely classist like that, it's the startup world where "we're just an app" and humans that aren't engineers or entrepreneurs are seen as yet another disposable resource to be exploited in order to fake it till you IPO...
This is not the worst dehumanizing comment I've seen on this website, unfortunately.