Hacker News Reader

Comment by antris | Hacker News Reader

This post (like many others) completely ignores the fact that these people choose to work in this environment. Statistics show that factory / industrial workers in China are doing better than those who stay in rural jobs. Human development indicators in China have constantly risen since the 1980's [1] and the economy is booming [2].

These sweatshops are horrific to our standards, but to their standards, these are great places to work.

[1]: http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/CHN.html [2]: https://www.google.fi/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&#...

View on HN

Well, reading some Dickens will show they said the same in London in the early 1800s. And now we talk about those times as hideous, unjust, abusive...

Is it a choice between death by fire and death by starvation?

I do not call that a choice.

You are right. It is not a real choice.

But aren't the political and economic conditions in China the responsibility of the Chinese Government and at some level the Chinese people? Maybe the "choice" that they made is not the hideous working conditions but tolerating their political establishment that made such conditions a norm.

Yes, that is right. I only wanted to defend the people and point out the dire place they are in. Guilt is on the Chinese Government above all, certainly.

I appreciate your point and over simplification doesn't make any argument better- but I have often heard the counter argument of "choice" as one that rationalizes horrific conditions. If the choice is between dangerous working conditions or a job that does not pay enough to give your children opportunities many (if not most) people will choose to sacrifice during this generation for the next, it is clear that the financial incentives for every group (manufacturers, laborers, and consumers) and yes standards of living are better but consumers at a minimum should be informed that their is a hidden cost to the cheaper goods... and that they could make different choices or pressure their companies to improve conditions.

Many western consumers seem to struggle with the incrementalism of improving quality of life in (what used to be) the third world. The choice is very real, we just didn't see the horrors of subsistence farming that's been the only possible way of life in these countries, literally forever. It'd be great if the choice included a completely safe and healthy job for everyone, but if we knew how to create those at scale at the drop of a hand, we'd make some of them at home, in our unemployment-stricken economies.

Demanding that Apple/Nokia/whoever pay a little better and improves health and safety measures makes you feel nice, but it's only going to affect a dizzyingly small fraction of the workforce. China is improving at an insane rate on practically all indicators. Of particular interest, wages in the costal cities are exploding, causing factories to move inland, ie. bring progress to the previously underdeveloped rural regions.

...and there we go, the proverbial, libertarian "choice".

It's not about "libertarian choice". It's about not being able to change all the world in an instant. Workplace safety in China looks to be increasing. Wages too. For that matter, the Chinese workforce is shrinking while Mexico has lower labor costs.

Also this constant global coverage due to youtube or other media is improving things in China. Without the unprecedented awareness the internet affords us, I don't think China would have done more to address these issues

Yes, work conditions in China are slowly and steadily improving.

But somehow, whenever the concept of choice comes up, it's always about the privileged giving the oppressed a pep talk, claiming that whatever position society has put them in "it's really totally fine".

"Safety is increasing" - would /you/ work at such a factory?

If I were in the same position as those workers in China were, I certainly would work in the factories. When you options are working a dangerous manufacturing job getting paid relatively well, or a slightly more dangerous farming job where you can barely afford to live, the choice is easy.

The US investing in Chinese manufacturing has and is increasing the quality of life (and safety) for the workers in China. This takes time, and there is nothing we can do to avoid that. If we were to go in and demand North American manufacturing salary and safety standards for the entire supply chain, you can bet their goods would cost more to produce than if we just did it here and we would therefore just make them here. That would destroy the Chinese economy and send everyone back into worse conditions than we currently have. Therefore I would argue that the result would be a net harm if we force conditions to rise too rapidly, rather a balance must be maintained.

And what other, non-libertarian choices do these workers have?

Good point. The other choice is planned economy, state regulation all over the place, including in haircut style. They just have a border to cross to see the result in DPRK, or open a book on recent history, or ask the elder. The result is well known: it's starvation.

No Libertarian claims that a world based on Libertarian principles would be perfect, or that nothing bad would ever happen. Pointing out a single instance of a pathology that could happen under Libertarianism is a faint criticism when every other system has it's pathologies as well. In fact, I have never heard anybody refer to China or Bangladesh or the like as bastions of Libertarianism, so it looks like it's the current system whose pathologies we're talking about.

Maybe what China and their ilk need is exactly a dash of good old fashion Libertarian thought.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com