>But *working* in horrible conditions does.
> And, actually, you're wrong
>about "living" as well.
>In a free trade zone,
>where many of these factories
>are located, multinational corporations are
>the only ones with influence
>over the corrupt politics.

Remember what happened to Subharto? His regime crumbled with an economic crisis.

Now you're talking about what the people in their own sovereign country want to do. It's not right to question their sovereignity.

>*They*
>are essentially in control.

The Malaysians have control of their own government.

Also,
>the standard of living relates
>directly to labor standards (especially
>wage standards), so when Nike
>(or, more accurately, whoever Nike
>subcontracts to produce its apparel)
>comes in and lowers them,
>they are directly altering the
>standard of living in that
>community.

If 27% of the population chooses factory work over fishing, they must have a greater standard of living because of it, right?

>In most cases, factory work *is*
>better. That doesn't make
>it acceptable.

So we have to realign the world resources until we reach some sort of mythical parity? That doesn't make sense, and it's an insult to folks who want to determine themselves.

>Here we have
>a chance to exercise _positive_
>influence by implimenting higher standards.

That might not work for their economy or society. What are you suggesting. I boycott FUBU so that they make less money now, and if the boycott succeeds they will make less money in the future?

>In other areas of poverty,
>we can't be as helpful,
>but by actually using our
>foreign investments to RAISE the
>quality of life and ameliorate
>poverty, we can help those
>countries tackle some of the
>more rooted problems.

I agree with you here, although not necessarily for the same reasons. What interest do we have in raising their pay? Sure it's nice, but why is it just? Why is it better for an American company/industry to monopolize the labor force in a foreign country? Doesn't this halt the ability for native businesses to compete for that same labor? Aren't we essentially draining that country of it's labor and resources? It's labor gentrification.

>>Labor force - by occupation: manufacturing
>>27%, agriculture, forestry, and fisheries
>>16%, local trade and tourism
>>17%, services 15%, government 10%,
>>construction 9% (1999 est.)
>>
>>27% is a big chunk.
>
>In fact it's the largest chunk.
>A good reason to attack
>it.

If you peeped the site, light manufacturing was down the list, not the biggest piece of that subsection.

>>But obviously 73% of the
>>population opted out of "slavery".
>
>What? WHAT?!!??! They aren't "opting out"
>of anything.

They decided not to work in what you are characterizing as slave labor, which is most clearly not given that actual slavery exists on the globe.

Steady jobs
>are the most desirable thing
>to have in a country
>like that. The tragedy
>is that they have to
>settle for inhumane conditions because
>it's actually the best they
>can get! Try again on
>this one.

Inhumane? Maybe not up to Western standards and mores, but apparently they have options. You want to reform their country and their society based on your own understanding of what "basic" human needs are. That's not an absolute #, it's dependent on the whole society.

>
>>They choose it.
>
>Again, freewill here (and this isn't
>even the case in poor
>America) and freewill there are
>very different animals. That's just
>like Reagan's assertion that the
>homeless in D.C. were in
>that state because they wanted
>to be.

Not actually relevant. You should be talking about folks who work 2 or 3 minimum wage jobs to support their families. The reasons for being homeless are far more complex than how much money they take home.

>Nope. It's not their government, or
>their way of life when
>free trade zones are concerned.

So you're telling me, Nike goes to a south eastern asian country and corrals and chains these people to sewing machines?

> We're not dealing with
>democratic societies here, or anything
>that even resembles them.

And should we judge them as less worthy of self-determination if they aren't democratic?

>>you are implying a Vietnam scenario: we must save
>>them from themselves. It's
>>cultural imperialism.
>
>Not really. It would be
>if we imposed *our* cultural
>values on theirs, but we
>are talking about basic human
>rights, not "cultural" values.

Basic human rights are not an absolute. You have no "right" to strike, unionize, bargain collectively, et cetera. If someone stops you from organizing your folks, God is not going to come down and punish the transgressor.

>Speaking of imperialism, how about our
>MNC's controlling their labor and
>commerce?

MNC is?

>This is an extremely important point.
> But, international action/solidarity can
>set precedents for domestic policy.

give examples. No UN resolution holds any weight in this country.

>And companies are in fact
>much more impregnable under our
>"limited liability" in the US
>than they are once the
>UN Declaration of Human Rights
>comes into play in Third
>World countries. In other
>words, that's where we can
>get them.

Yeah, I'll try and pull out my UN charter next time I get pulled over by the state. Do you seriously think the US will ever kowtow to the UN?

one
k. orr

http://breddanansi.tumblr.com/