Hacker News Reader

Comment by RodericDay | Hacker News Reader

The way I answer people that say this is: It's not good enough.

Yes, you can come up with all the explanation whatsoever you want to how this is a ~local maxima~ of happiness, but the fact is that we live on a much higher one with tons of disposable income and benefit from their work... so it s not a ~global maxima~ (not even close) so we should do better.

What can I say? I'm definitely more to the left than most people in this website but any quietly upvoted defense of child labor sounds like "the slaves had it better than in _x_" or "women were spared _y_" jobs to me when it comes to defending poor social policy. Grown-ass white men getting paid to develop digital toys justifying to themselves why the situation for 9 year old sweatshop workers is good enough. JFC.

edit: in fact, every single reply amongst the first 20 in some ways works to justify the completely bubbled-in mentality of the startup crowd. just running down the topic I see (caricaturized for effect) "social justice types don't understand how rough it is out there, this is good for her!", "ugh, this journalist is endangering the girl!", and "this really puts in perspective all those pesky cultural issues that women, gay people, and minorities keep complaining about".

what the hell is wrong with you all, seriously.

View on HN

No, this is just your angry knee-jerk reaction so you can feel good about taking the moral high-ground, and you're scrambling to find the negative in every comment.

The comment you're replying is a detailed comment that also states that there should be more done to improve working conditions and wages. Your comment is a rant about how we're a bunch of "grown-ass white men" (thanks for assuming things about me) who bask in our privilege and wealth.

Meta: Is there a label for this kind of derailing, angry comment? I feel like it could be a variant of concern trolling, where the writer pretends to care about the issue at hand but actually tries to redirect the conversation towards ad hominem attacks.

Have you ever worked in a factory? I used to. They squeeze you as hard as they can, constantly. Most of the people have no leverage to push back. While having money is better than having none, that doesn't mean everything is ok and you can just ignore the way the workers get abused.

In the US, you can push back at things like unsafe conditions with threats of OSHA. I doubt there's any such thing in Bangladesh, but it would be a good start.

Having a job is great, but they should be required to provide reasonable working conditions. And even in the USA, they will do the absolute minimum unless pushed.

Source: I have worked 16-hour shifts in a US factory that was over 100F, sometimes unable to get lunch or bathroom breaks. I now work a normal office job and laugh at the very notion of comparing even a 100-hour week doing this to a 70-hour week doing that.

Well, the original comment by L_Rahman is saying basically that. Except that it's phrased more like "while not everything is ok and you cannot just ignore the way the workers get abused, you also have to to consider that having money is better than having none".

That's a more reasonable opinion. I believe that the solution is to make sure people in situations like these have real, viable options. For example, places of employment with decent working conditions.

Incidentally, many of the complaints against Chinese/Bangladesh/etc. factories could also be leveled against US factories per my experience. Other than the child labor bit, I've seen just about everything here, too, though I expect some of the problems are simply more widespread and occur more frequently.

Factory managers know that their employees don't have a lot of options and tend to squeeze them hard. (Then collect bonuses for cost savings...) It was always amusing to hear them tell the crew how great it was that labor expenses were down. And yes, I did point out afterwards to the people that "labor expenses" === "your paychecks." For whatever reason, this was not obvious to some.

> Incidentally, many of the complaints against Chinese/Bangladesh/etc. factories could also be leveled against US factories per my experience. Other than the child labor bit, I've seen just about everything here, too, though I expect some of the problems are simply more widespread and occur more frequently.

When a US factory burns down and kills all the employees inside because they'd been locked in during their 15 hour shift - which has happened more than once in Bangladesh - you can say that US factories are similar to Bangladeshi factories.

I agree that conditions for many workers suck, but let's not pretend there's much similarity.

> When a US factory burns down and kills all the employees inside because they'd been locked in during their 15 hour shift.

I give you the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire in New York City, killing 146 garment workers. Same general gist, even: doors were locked by management from the outside "to prevent pilferage and unauthorized breaks".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fi...

The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire in New York City on March 25, 1911

Lots of things have happened in the US since 1911.

Factory fires killing employees still happen in Bangladesh.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-24453165

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24195441

It wasn't a factory, but there was a lawsuit over the Wal-Mart where the employees were locked inside while stocking habitually, only for someone to have a medical emergency.

You're right that there are better protections in the USA. But day-to-day conditions are not so great--there's nothing particularly abnormal about 15-hour shifts, or people who would lose their jobs for refusing them.

The #1 way to fight back is to quit which increases costs to the factory owner, if you don't then it's better than the alternatives.

I am unexperienced when it comes to such matters, but:

1. Quitting means you are no longer making money, and if that was an acceptable endgame then you likely wouldn't be employed in such conditions in the first place;

2. I find it extremely unlikely that such factory owners would have a dearth of prospective (eager, even) employees.

#1 Quitting does not mean you never look for another job or quit on the first day etc. It means when you perceive working for said factory is not worth it you do something else.

#2 Having a large labor supply suggests the job is competitive. However, even if that's the case having people constantly quit increases training costs.

The point of all of this is industrialization tends to follow a path where people move from terrible low wage jobs to more well paid work. Even China has moved past the first rung of the ladder with market forces forcing factory's to increase pay and or improve conditions. Presumably where going to run out of 3rd world countries at some point, though there is some concern robots / AI is going to end up filling that nitch possibly stranding a few countries.

You are begging the question. The reason factory workers in poor rural countries put up with no windows, ventilation, or air conditioning is that the alternative is subsistence farming. Suggesting that they quit in protest is almost cruel.

China has absolutely not moved past the first rung of this ladder. The majority of the Chinese population lives in abject rural poverty.

It's actually about a 50/50 split between rural and urban [0]. This means that the Chinese urban population nowadays is 150% of the total Chinese population in 1950[1]. So now that the facts are on the table, what is your point?

[0] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-17/china-urban-populat...

[1]http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=chinese+population

Those Chinese in abject rural poverty seem to be quite content there from what I could gather from friends and relatives that went to rural China (I stayed in the larger cities, so I'm clarifying that I haven't had first hand experiences with rural rural Chinese, only from those that moved to the city).

Most Chinese in the city (some which you may judge as living in abject poverty), are actually pretty happy with their situation. Even the homeless people seem more content than over here in Germany (I've talked to quite some of them over some baijiu at the corner of the street).

Please stop painting China a some kind of post-communist hellhole where people are starving on the streets whilst toiling away in backstreet sweatshops. You're not doing the country any justice, and you should really visit it someday.s

If you think quitting is the #1 way to fight back, you must not be familiar with labor organizing, including strikes.

Several states are openly hostile to unions and there are more than a few businesses that would simply close a branch if it were about to unionize. Also, you end up with two sets of bosses, which brings its own issues.

I've seen constant double-digit monthly turnover and that didn't do much that I could discern. Yes, it raised costs but they were relatively insensitive to that.

I call it outrage tourism. Most of the time, people commenting like this are simply trying on other people's purported outrage to see how it feels.

I think a lot of the emotion here comes not only from empathizing with Meem's plight, but the twin realizations that a) the problem is much wider than Meem, and b) individuals are largely powerless to do anything about the wider issue of poverty.

It can be difficult to accept your own powerlessness in the face of large scale social problems. Our instinct is to want to confer the same quality of life we have on those who, through no fault or failing of their own, live in a much poorer society with much poorer prospects for virtually everyone born there. Clearly "society" is to blame, but how do you change a society, from top to bottom? Does Bangaldesh need a Lee Kuan Yew[1]?

So no, it's not tourism. It's a howl of pain when confronted with newly realized powerlessness. And personally, I prefer it to cool indifference.

[1] http://www.amazon.com/From-Third-World-First-Singapore/dp/00...

The thing is, the problem is not powerlessness, but the lack of courage and will. If each and every one of us refused to contribute to evil structures and systems, it would make a huge difference.

The Banality of Systemic Evil is a great read: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/the-banality...

And you're right about the indifference. Add ambivalence to lack of courage and will.

Is there a label for this kind of derailing, angry comment?

Moral superiority, I suppose.

wow. just wow.

slacktivism ... maybe angry slacktivism

I really detest that term. The implication is that if you aren't out there doing something then you should just shut up and not be upset. To me that flies in the face of democracy and public discourse--words and opinions do matter.

If someone who is outraged but doesn't do anything is a 'slacktivist', then what is someone who is both not outraged and not doing anything about it? The implication of 'slacktivist' is that the second person is somehow better--that in order to avoid being a 'slacktivist' you should school yourself into being an always-detached philosopher of suffering, always reasonable, always balanced.

if you aren't out there doing something then you should just shut up

You've said it yourself. Golden words.

What kind of democracy do you expect to get in HN comments? After that half-cocked "outrage" and "being upset" the slacktivist is going to click another cat video startup and forget this topic altogether. I can see dêmos, but κράτος - not at all.

> any quietly upvoted defense of child labor sounds like "the slaves had it better than in _x_" or "women were spared _y_" jobs to me when it comes to defending poor social policy. Grown-ass white men getting paid to develop digital toys justifying to themselves why the situation for 9 year old sweatshop workers is good enough. JFC.

I'm not defending this situation at all. It is unforgivable that factory owners sock away millions of dollars while literally paying their employees pennies. This is not okay. Unfortunately, this is what profit making entities do when they don't have regulations forcing them to do otherwise, hence my argument that any serious improvement in working conditions will require legislation and enforcement from the government.

As for being a "grown-ass white man getting paid to develop digital toys", well let's just say that my dad grew up in an impoverished fishing village in southern Bangladesh and somehow made it to America and raised me a solidly working class family in NY. I'm currently in school thanks to need based financial aid that covers my expenses.

So no, my perspective doesn't come from a background of privilege trying to justify oppression. Things are what they are and I don't think being angry about it solves anything.

I wouldn't be surprised if the regulations exist but aren't enforced. What these workers need is power to enforce the laws... and in the absence of adequate laws, to marshal enough popular force to create agreements that are better than what laws might exist.

As first-worlders, it's our moral duty to support people who work to help create that power for the factory workers.

While the regulations that do exist are weak, they are an improvement over existing conditions. What's saddening is that there have even been a number of cases where the engineers in regulatory agencies have gone into factories and reported structural failures and fire code violations to their superiors only to have it completely shut down.

In most cases in Bangladesh corruption occurs at the inspection level with relatively low-level individuals. That the factory owners have been able to buy out the higher level officials that the inspecting teams report to is troubling and has me worried.

I'm going to reply to my own comment since the reply is brief and general:

There's little wrong with Rahman's post in general. There's plenty wrong with the psychological mechanics that led it to quietly bubble to the top. Many people rightly see it as an "authentic" shield or cover for their own apathy. Hurl "slacktivism" my way, I'll call you a Randroid or something (I'm not feeling very inspired). Ultimately via this message board all we can do is expose the kernel of our philosophies. Mine is that all wealthy people that react to a story of strife by seeking a reassuring explanation to carry on about their business (ie: the silent upvoters) are probably bad people in the only meaningful sense of the word: selfish and reactionary.

Keep explaining to me how this is the best of all feasible worlds and how your privileged position in it isn't clouding your objective economical understanding of things. Keep telling me about political correctness and "outrage tourism" as obstacles to Bangladesh's rational child labor economic success story in the making- they could be as happy and equal as South Koreans and Americans one day!

I'm just a young cloudy-headed incipient leftist, what do I know?

No one is saying that this is the best of all possible worlds. Without proposing any solutions that work within the framework of reality, though, all you're doing is basking in your moral superiority.

A first, rather easy solution would be to pay decently. What? Capitalists can't do this? Because other capitalists will drive them out of business? My my, isn't the system really fucked! Time for some radical architectural changes.

Capitalism is an ethically bankrupt system which nevertheless manages to produce very good outcomes over the long term. It does this by redirecting human greed, jealousy, ambition, etc towards endeavors which benefit other people. To be clear: there are plenty of problems, and plenty of people being abused. But compare it with feudal economics, where a rent-seeking class had a monopoly on everything and had absolutely no incentive to improve the economic conditions of their subjects. Capitalism is messed up, but it works. It works because it accepts as a fundamental axiom that humans are inherently bad.

Compare this with communism, anarchism, etc. They assume that humans are basically good. Let's just increase everyone's income! Except that isn't sustainable unless it makes economic sense. Negative externalities and all that. There's always going to be people that want power and money and prestige. If you get rid of money, they'll seek those things by turning Russia into a dictatorship. Why should they care about the people starving in the holodomor famine? It's an externality.

Note, of course, that capitalism only works well if you have strong human rights and the rule of law. If either of those fail, you get corruption and slavery. But strong human rights and the rule of law aren't going to change the fact that some (many) people will still be working for $2 a day, simply because they've got no better option. The world sucks, but idealism alone can't fix it.

I don't think I'm explaining my point very well, so let me just state it plainly: it's easy to complain about our f^@!$d up system, but much harder to find a solution that works any better. Before you advocate radical architectural changes, you better be able to prove that your revolution won't eat it's young.

This doesn't mean that we get to sit back and enjoy our lives without guilt. I think every person in the first world has a moral imperative to help people in developing countries. However, we need to be realistic about what works. One great way to improve lives is to provide education, or employment for people who complete higher education. Technology provides a good opportunity in this regard (not the best opportunity, but it's something that we can do, without excuse). There's no reason why a Rwandan in Kigali can't earn first-world wages for doing software development.

> But compare it with feudal economics, where a rent-seeking class had a monopoly on everything and had absolutely no incentive to improve the economic conditions of their subjects.

This sounds a little like the US today. In order for capitalism to deliver what promise it holds, it must be saved from the capitalists. That means intelligent regulation (as opposed to mere red tape).

I don't really have experience with the US (I'm from New Zealand), but from first impressions I agree with you. Capitalism is a system of regulations to restrict the actions of capitalists.

Rather ironically, your post commits the same offense as its grandparents. You just posted yet another angry tirade with no actionable solution bathed in moral righteousness (as a reply to a post which is essentially the same as this one).

Your radicalism is just as useless to that girl as is the opposite opinion you deride.

> Capitalists can't do this? Because other capitalists will drive them out of business? My my, isn't the system really fucked! Time for some radical architectural changes.

Been tried. Didn't work out very well.

Do alot people reading this react in this manner in their professional life as well, or is this just the usual kind of knee-jerk reaction when someone suggest that something needs to be changed, or rethought, on a much lower lever then the usual superficial alterations we're used to see in the political field?

It's just sad and juvenile.

I'm like this professionally too; in fact it's my professional experience that informs this political view (I was a fairly gung-ho socialist before I became a professional developer). Attempting to fundamentally re-architect a software system almost always ends in disaster - I've seen it happen, or http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html is the standard reference.

What works? Incremental changes that you can make while keeping the current system running. It's ok if you have some grand masterplan behind your changes, but try and make sure those small changes will be valuable even if you have to abandon the grand plan, or change its direction. So I now approach politics this way, and it feels like this is a more mature position, not less.

I think we basically agree, but your reply was a dogmatic one. Discarding the notion of political change without bothering to listen to, or express arguments.

Gradual change do not exclude fundamental change - eventually. Revolution is after all just evolution speeded up. It's just a different approach.

I was flippant and dismissive yes, but I think that comment I originally replied to - "Capitalists can't do this? Because other capitalists will drive them out of business? My my, isn't the system really fucked! Time for some radical architectural changes." - was unlikely to be worth engaging with.

Meh, Communism is like Zero-Point Energy. It sounds good in theory, but it's been disproved time after time, yet it still has adherents saying that the conventional power grid is evil, and that Zero-Point Energy will solve everything.

I'm waiting for someone to tell me that Communism works, but that people are broken, the most marvelous rationalization that history ever spit forth.

The "slacktivism" charge only carries weight when levied by actual activists.

I'm just a young cloudy-headed incipient leftist, what do I know?

Not as much as you would if you wrote a bit less and read a bit more.

I'm not sure what solution you might be proposing but it sounds a little like using foreign power (economic or otherwise) to force the factories to close and send everyone back to subsistence farming at the edge of starvation back at their home village dirt-farms until which time in the indeterminate future we can come up with a better solution for them.

It seems like a common refrain in feel good politics. If not perfect, then none at all. It scales terrifyingly well from closing homeless shelters because they don't have approved handicap bathrooms all the way up to chocking off the economic output of entire countries.

That's a pretty weak straw man argument.

Back in the real world, such activists usually would-be trade partners to provide childhood education and regulate working conditions as a condition of market access. As large, wealthy markets, territories like the US and EU have a great deal of leverage in such matters.

On the surface I agree completely. Right down to the level of when I'm standing in the WalMart thinking about whether to buy that fair-trade coffee or not.

In practice, that solution doesn't work so well. Usually the goods wind up simply taking a longer boat ride through a country with looser standards before winding up in the US/EU.

The fundamental problem is Bangladeshi. It requires a Bangladeshi solution. High-minded westerners can help, some, but it might be smaller help than first seems possible.

I agree. Change has to be organic. You can't simply put in place some ideal thought up in the Bay area in Bangladesh overnight without there being major disruption and unintended consequences. Bangladeshis have to work through the situation, with outside parties providing assistance when it is requested.

>whether to buy that fair-trade coffee

This really does make a difference you know. You're looking at considering a couple of dollars overhead, yet it provides genuine support to the growers who made a commitment to pay their workers fairly.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/dec/...

The economic realities of Fairtrade seem different IF the Guardian can be trusted on this.

It's worth noting that the parent post does say that the government should step in, but doesn't because of corruption. I don't think he/she is defending the corruption.

I'm with you on the "it's not good enough," but at the same time, you can't just close down the sweatshops if that would make their lives worse. I would say that this is a classic case of needing government to step in, because the problem is not one that the market can solve: As the parent points out, it's in the interest of each sweatshop owner to minimize labor costs. Only at the point where labor becomes scares is the market value of labor going to rise, and a lot of abuse can happen waiting for that eventuality. If it ever happens.

...and that would be "scarce", not "scares"; my fingers seem to type phonetically when I'm not paying enough attention.

you can click edit and fix your post.

Not after some timeout (24 hours?). I noticed it when I was glancing over my comments the next day looking for replies.

> what the hell is wrong with you all, seriously.

What the hell is wrong with you is that you dont understand economics(supply and demand). The world is the way it is and as long as there is a vast supply of workers competing for few jobs the situation is not going to change. No amount of pipe dreaming is going to change that.

I can hear you say minimum wage and regulations. Guess what, while this might improve the situation of those who have a job, it will only make it harder for people who a looking for jobs.

There are no simple solutions but in a world where tens of thousands die of hunger each day having a job and being able to feed yourself is better than nothing.

No offense, but your comment is full of shit! I really doubt the person who you responded to is a "Grown-ass white men getting paid to develop digital toys justifying to themselves why the situation for 9 year old sweatshop workers is good enough"

You sound to me like fashionista looking at a bum and lamenting that he doesn't have an Armani suit (oh My!). Sure things aren't good enough around the world. It's easy to appear morally "superior", but quite frankly, it's a lot worse in other places. (Last I check, things were looking that great in Somalia either)

Bangladesh was part of Pakistan, and looking at the situation objectively they're in a much better position than Pakistan is. I'd rather have a corrupt government where people are outraged and talking about minimum wage than having to focus merely on survival. The place has one of the fastest growing economies in the world and while there are filthy rich people there and filthy poor too, the gap between the too has narrowed significantly over the last 20 years.

Believe it or not, it's the "start up" crowd who made a good bit of the difference in the third world. India has been transformed by the IT industry, and Bangladesh is well on it's way. There are those who bitch and moan and there are those who do something. And if one took their head out of their ass long enough to see reality for what it is, they would notice how much of this is article is sensationalism and how much is really about actually helping the poor and doing something. And yes, I do get to say something about it b/c I do spend a significant amount of time DOING something about it rather than just bitching.

Good luck getting all the bums Armani suits, those with some sense will hopefully continue to help in getting them food and shelter first.

"local maxima"? The commenter never said that progress was finished, and that nothing more should or could be done. He was merely describing it as better than the prior state, from a utilitarian perspective.

Relative to standards of living in America today, the situation described in the article is abhorrent. But social/cultural progress is not fast, direct, pretty, or easy. America struggled through many stages of oppressive, inhumane periods. Even today's society may be described by future generations as barbaric (e.g. wage slavery, government surveillance, etc etc).

It's one thing when we're all going up the ladder together, and another when those higher up the ladder are stepping on the heads of those on lower rungs to get up faster or maintain their position.

I would add a minor footnote, namely the only part of the story that can be concievably considered morally relevant to us: what can be done here? And by "here" I mean the countries to whose jursidiction these multinational giants belong.

Just take the recent Supreme Court ruling [1] that made it even harder than it already was to sue corporations for human right abuses overseas. The ruling is already being used as precedent [2] to dismiss overseas abuse charges.

[1] "Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co." http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/10-1491_l6gn.pdf

[2] "Al Shimari v. CACI et al." http://ccrjustice.org/ourcases/current-cases/al-shimari-v-ca...

Thank you for enduring the indignant replies!

Yes, this place is dominated by strata of society driven to justify organized child labor, even after seeing the face of one such 9 year old. Throughout history, such people justified all sorts of things.

I know many like them in person, and am constantly weirded out. (One reason I dislike hanging out with programmers, managers and investors.) The banally evil things stumbling from their mouths... For example, when something vaguely feminist comes up, someone often tells me that women are mentally inferior to men, apparently expecting me to smirk with them. (As opposed to wonder what planet these creatures come from, and why they thought they could randomly splutter that in civilized society.) Fortunately, I have the freedom to tell them what I think, and am grateful for the reminder that they're nothing like the person I want to be.

It's logical that people would want to defend these things because abusive labor practices are driving almost every aspect of our lives in the Western world. Our food, our clothes, our phones, our computers, our furniture, almost everything that we buy is manufactured and sold though exploitation.

People have a tendency to fight problems when they seem manageable, but labor exploitation is so out of control, the only options seem like flight into some kind of back-to-the-land movement or justification. It's too bad that this kind of mentality is so prevalent among people who think of themselves as problem solvers.

(bow)

Couldn't have put it better.

Sometimes I wonder who is producing the real STUFF, since we are all working in the non-productive tertiary sector.

It's not justifying the horrible situation - it's pointing out a fact that the obvious naive solution (prohibition) would bring more harm than good to those poor people.

even after seeing the face of one such 9 year old

What is the alternative for this 9 year old (in a country with a GDP per capita of $744, and a population density of 2,850 per square mile. Norway, as a contrast, has a GDP of $99,500 per capita, and a density of 39 per square mile)? Please describe the utopia salvation because I would just love to hear it.

Of course, given the rest of your comment I hardly think you're looking for any intrusion of reality. The sexism bit to auger your ridiculous point about "these people" is outrageous nonsense.

Regarding the views of techies, this is an overgeneralization. The real situation is more nuanced, and there are a range of views, well- and ill-considered, across the ideological spectrum.

The problem is that anti-sweatshop leftists like you do things like buy clothes made by unionized workers in downtown Los Angeles. That's not pushing Bangladeshi child laborers up a global maximum, it's pulling them down from the local maximum they've already achieved.

Are you saying it is somehow immoral/less moral to not buy from sweatshops?

Yes! People in Bangladesh need money for development desperately. It would be better to just mail them checks, but if you aren't doing that then buying from their (crappy) factories is better than nothing. Even if you are mailing checks the extra that gets contributed from buying clothes made in Bangladesh helps.

It's certainly counterproductive to boycott them if you don't do anything else.

You're assuming that's the only option. What about every single one of us making sure we buy from companies that demand more from their suppliers? What about more innovation around social change and activism and less around things like sharing photos and building "free" websites that ride on the evil that is advertising?

I'm definitely open to hearing creative solutions, but if all you have to say is that sweatshops are bad, you're not really contributing. Lots of things are bad. What helps is working towards what would be better.

I am with you mate, on this one. Only if one develops a sense of revulsion, when reading poor little Meem's story, can one contribute to bring about change.

Others like your parent mean well. But that kind of thinking leads to quiet apathy, in my opinion. So what if Meem and other women are better off, than previous generation. Clearly this is not enough. Come on man! A 9 year old (or whatever age) not knowing there are other things that are possible, working 9 to 9 and just getting half a day off on Fridays. Is this the best life, she can have? Seriously people, there is something wrong with your thinking on this. You are not being ambitious enough, and settling for very low level of results. Again the last few sentences are not for you, RodericDay, but for all those who are countering you with their pragmatism and level-headedness.

Lincoln, when he fought for abolishing slavery, also would have faced such reactions. (And to all others, my intent is not to directly put this commenter alongside Lincoln. Its just to make a point, to recognize this as a valid sentiment)

It's easy to stand on the sidelines and hurl brickbats at a system (global capitalism) which has raised more people out of grinding poverty in a shorter time than everything else we've ever done in all of recorded history combined.

It's harder to offer real suggestions to actually improve the lives of the poor. And I see you don't.

Your outrage may make you feel good, but it helps no one but you. And that makes it selfish.

Your arguments are quite flawed as they could be applied in favour of feudalism or plain cattle slavery. Also, "Communist" China has raised quite a lot of people out of povert as well. Should we therefore attribute this to state-communism (or state-capitalism)? Of course not.

For me, this is fundamentally an ethical question. Is this wrong and should one work to change it? I think that when a wage labourer barely, if at all, earns enough for food and shelter it is not much different than slavery. As such, I think it's wrong and that it should be changed.

Furthermore, I can't accept the notion that one has to have a thoughout solution to a complex problem to be able to express ones views. A good start to achieving change is to express when one thinks something is wrong and to build from there. The process of achieving change is naturally much more complex than simply expressing ones view and as such it would be irrational to have that as a requirement to speak.

Fundamental change, which may or may not be needed in this case, is often deeply political and such solutions, even if detailed and serious - albeit subjective, is too often just discarded without any thought or arguments.

> Your arguments are quite flawed as they could be applied in favour of feudalism or plain cattle slavery.

Not at all. I could make some solid suggestions for proven ways of improving on feudalism or slavery. But I don't know of any likely ideas to help Bangladesh beyond what they're already doing. More to the point, RodericDay apparently didn't have any either.

If I say Apple knows a few things about global supply chain management, and thus it might be a good idea not to criticise them as clowns who couldn't run a lemonade stand, it does not follow that I disagree with all criticism of every business everywhere just because my arguments could, in theory, have been made about other companies. Because that particular argument would be wrong applied to almost any other company.

> Also, "Communist" China has raised quite a lot of people out of povert as well.

That was the precise process I was referring to, and as I"m sure you're aware (hence your scare quotes), it was via the operations of modern global capitalism, very similar to what is even now beginning to take place in Bangladesh and elsewhere in the Asian periphery.

> I can't accept the notion that one has to have a thoughout solution to a complex problem to be able to express ones views.

To be sure. But RodericDay went far further than that. First, he didn't have the faintest suggestion of a solution; he didn't even suggest an avenue to explore. And second, he wasn't just "expressing his views"; he was condemning the system and its supporters in the harshest possible language. There is a difference between suggesting that it would be nice if Bangladesh could improve even faster, and saying that people who are pleased with their progress are pro-slavery.

My point is that raising people out of poverty should not be used as a measurement of a systems viability and success. As such, the unfair state-capitalism of China should not be praised as a viable system of the future just because it succeeded to raise so many people out of poverty.

> My point is that raising people out of poverty should not be used as a measurement of a systems [...] success.

I have no words.

Why? Do you believe that?

No, it's not good enough. But what are you going to do about it? There are lots of people in Bangladesh whose situation is worse than Meem's because they don't have sweatshop jobs. Poverty in Bangladesh isn't something we should just accept, but consider that that factory is doing more to make Meem's life better than anybody else. If you want to change things don't shit on the things that are helping, work to create better jobs and opportunities for people in Bangladesh so that sweatshops aren't their best options. But trying to take away the meager means that Bangladeshis have is perverse.

Your position is deeply irrational and unrealistic. It may give you some sense of moral comfort, but it has zero application to the real world, and is the fodder of a million asinine Facebook forwards.

People aren't "justifying" anything, they're stating actual realities of the world. 30 years ago South Korea was the sweatshop of the world. Today it is an economic powerhouse with largely first world living conditions. The same is increasingly true of China. Countries don't just skip that stage in their evolution, short of some mythical utopia project, however much we might like to think they can.

You're ignoring the fact of globalization. Corporations and their consumers are getting more and more sophisticated at targeting and exploiting the countries with the worst labor laws. Multi national corporations are getting more sophisticated at evading scenarios where particular host countries (i.e. post-industrial nations) attempt to curb their exploitation.

This is a real and scary problem. It is not without precedent--the horrors perpetuated by the unfettered corporation-states during the colonial era are an example of the results of 'self policing', which is too often society's answer to how corporations should be regulated.

This makes for a situation that is worse than that faced by the first rounds of Industrial Revolution countries, for labor movements have little power when economic benefits actively bypass countries with more regulations and flow to the most corrupt and exploitation-friendly countries.

Perhaps we cannot (yet) create a utopia where every human who is born has a healthy and labor-light life. But we can refuse to accept the 'actual realities' and try to prevent scenarios where wealth is distributed to the exploiters and not the exploitees.

I'm getting this feeling that globalization works for everybody but the working man.

If borders were open to labor migration as they are to capital/corporations I bet the situation would be much better.

Borders nowadays exist only for the lowest of classes. In a globalized economy borders seem like a mechanism of opression.

Just my 2c.

Agreed. It reminds me of one of the lessons of capitalism--how Henry Ford increased the wages of his workers so that they could buy his cars, thus benefiting them and himself. He did so because he didn't have a sufficiently large body of consumers for his goods. This is seen as an example of how capitalism is ultimately motivated to uplift all people to consumer status.

The problem is when the chain of supply and demand grows longer and longer (i.e. covers more distance in terms of culture, national borders, multinational markets, etc), as it does today. In the modern era, what if Henry Ford's factory was in a third world country? There would be no shortage of first world consumers of Ford's products, so in that scenario there is no capitalist incentive to raise the workers' wages. Especially since the first world consumers are buying the products for the very reason that Ford is paying wages impossibly below first world pay scales.

This scenario is also not without precedent, for what it is is the isolation and exploitation of one population in favor of another population, which is a colonialist scenario (as opposed to a Marxist scenario where classes are stratified in a single society). In such a scenario, nothing capitalistically motivated will come to the aid of the exploited population until a very long chain of supply and demand has been unwound.

Ford raised wages so he could hire the best workers and retain them in a competitive hiring environment in a growing industry. The main reason his workers could afford his car wasn't because they were paid so much, but rather because Ford reduced his production costs overall so that the car cost so little. A lot of that probably had to do with being able to demand a lot from his workers because he could hire the best factory workers.

Paying your workers enough to buy your own products is mathematically impossible to profit from--they're just paying you back money you paid them in the first place, and they can't pay you more than 100% of their salary, so you always pay them more than they pay you.

>Borders nowadays exist only for the lowest of classes.

If only that were true. It would be an incredible improvement.

> Countries don't just skip that stage in their evolution, short of some mythical utopia project, however much we might like to think they can.

However, countries cannot simply follow other countries' recipes for "success". Unbridled optimism hurts. Economic development (not to be confused with economic growth) is not an inevitable process. There are many pitfalls and it is a constant effort to stay on the path towards economic development to reach a point where you become a developed nation and can look forward to growth.

There is no simple blue print for guaranteed success. What worked for South Korea might not work for Bangladesh.

Ha-Joon Chang's "Bad Samaritans" is interesting in this regard. Accessible, too.

Grown-ass white men getting paid to develop digital toys justifying to themselves why the situation for 9 year old sweatshop workers is good enough. JFC.

Fine, you pay for their food, clothes and schooling and we'll close the shops. What do you think of 80 year olds forced to work as Walmart greeters to make ends meet, right in the good ol' USA? The world has problems, sometimes you gotta pick the lesser evil since problems can't be solved by a HN comment or with a finger snap.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com