Fri 30 Jan, 2009
“Sweatshop Labor is Wrong Unless the Jeans are Cute”
Comments (8) Filed under: Thinking about race, privilege and inequalityTags: Consumerism, Fair trade, Moral issues, Slavery, Sweatshop labor
A new study by researchers at the Harvard Business School finds that consumers who highly desire a pair of jeans or sneakers are significantly less likely to be concerned about sweatshop labor or other moral issues involved in their manufacture.
One of my favorite moments in Traces of the Trade occurs when my distant cousin, Elizabeth, offers these thoughts about the parallels between slavery centuries ago and modern injustices:
It’s hard to say because I didn’t live [during slavery] but you know, there’s stuff that goes on today that we all accept as normal that … isn’t, and in a hundred years people might be looking at it in the same exact way.
I buy stuff that’s made by people that aren’t getting paid what they’re worth at all, all the time, you know?
Sweatshop labor and fair trade are merely two examples of moral issues in today’s world with which we could be concerned, and which our descendants may condemn us for tolerating unquestioningly.
This research raises troubling questions about how easily we, as consumers, can set aside our moral qualms about products and services when we desire those goods or feel that we are benefiting highly from their pricing. It may go a long way towards helping us to understand the widespread acceptance of sweatshop labor and other questionable practices in today’s global economy, as well as the nearly universal acceptance of slavery and such slave-produced goods as coffee, sugar, and cotton prior to the 20th century.
In the first experiment in this study, consumers expressed significantly less concern about sweatshop labor used to produce a hypothetical pair of jeans, and about the morality of sweatshop labor in general (“moral disengagement”), if they were interested in purchasing the jeans or thought the jeans would be flattering on them.
In the second experiment, consumers were more likely to exhibit moral disengagement regarding sweatshop labor used to manufacture Nike brand sneakers if they thought the sneakers were purchased at a substantial discount and that they would be particularly satisfied with them.
The authors refer to this effect as “motivated moral disengagement,” because consumers are presumably employing moral disengagement subconsciously in order to justify their behavior — to reduce the cognitive dissonance between their desires as consumers and their concerns as moral human beings about supporting harmful working conditions.
bobbo says:
This is the second blog entry I have read. I'm struck by how much useless hand wringing is going on in this entry and the reparations entry as well.
I've heard that one cause of stress is making oneself responsible for something you have no control over.
We can't control what governments do/don't do overseas. We can't control what our own government did 150 years ago. We aren't responsible–don't stress out over it.
If you don't want to wear jeans made in a Chinese Sweat Shop, then don't do it. Just don't be surprised when your action has no effect at all-at least you did what you could? Course if many consumers did the same thing, then the sweat shop might close, and the sweat shop worker would go from unemployed who used to make 20 cents an hour to starving beggar or worse?
Without sweat shops, China has no/lesser advantage in the wage component of goods. Their one billion rural peasants will stay that way. The STEP UP to sweat shop worker will be denied them.
How to be a "good person" is a real challenge. I don't think it extends to strangers 7000 miles away. Course, each of us should be free to make these decisions as we wish.
James says:
Bobbo, I gather you believe that consumer concern for the exploitation of workers is merely "useless hand wringing" because you believe that consumers have no control over this issue.
On the contrary, consumer action can easily alter corporate practices in such areas as labor and environmental standards. This happens all the time, and the available examples include overseas, "sweatshop" labor. It's true that one consumer can't immediately change the world, but as you point out, it's certainly possible to simply avoid buying such goods, without undue stress about whether or not enough consumers will do so to end the practice.
As for whether or not we're responsible for corporate practices abroad, why not? We know that these practices persist only because consumers are willing to buy the goods. If consumers have moral qualms about sweatshop labor, and buy those products merely because it's cheap or convenient to do so, aren't they, in fact, responsible for the consequences? What's the moral difference between a company executive who signs off on sweatshop labor, and a consumer who condones the practice by purchasing the goods?
Course if many consumers did the same thing, then the sweat shop might close, and the sweat shop worker would go from unemployed who used to make 20 cents an hour to starving beggar or worse?
Here you raise an argument with which I'm in strong agreement, bobbo.
How should we judge overseas labor practices, and exercise our power as consumers to influence those practices, if they are in fact better for the workers than the alternative?
It's easy to make this judgment when the corporate response will be to improve working conditions and continue production as before. However, a substantial increase in labor or other costs will often result in shutting down production for good or relocating to another country once there is no longer a competitive advantage in the local workforce.
By the same logic, consumer action would be responsible for this outcome. If those jobs were better than other local work, does it matter that the wages or workplace standards were lower than those prevailing in the U.S.? Does it matter what the workers themselves want?
So I agree with you that in this way, how to be a "good person" is a difficult challenge. However, I can't agree that the obligation to be a good person doesn't extend to strangers half a world away.
That may have been true centuries ago, when our lives barely affected those across the globe, but today we make choices every day which profoundly affect the well-being of those in distant lands.
bobbo says:
James–you have cleaved the hand wringing issue from the unintended consequences of caring about the sweat shop workers. Hooking the concern to the consequences was my entire point.
So, lets restate. What can/should a single consumer do to help foreign sweat shop workers? In most scenarios, the answer is continue to buy their products and be at peace with that.
The bigger issue in fact is that by buying foreign goods regardless of the sweat shop conditions or not, the American standard of living is put into decline thru loss of jobs.
Weep not for whom the bell tolls. There are limits in the real world. So when you say: "That may have been true centuries ago, when our lives barely affected those across the globe, but today we make choices every day which profoundly affect the well-being of those in distant lands." I say forget about those foreign workers==the actions more directly impact yourself/your neighbors.
The world has moved into unintended economic competition ((somebody could even study that aspect of History?)) and right now we have entered the cusp of economic conflict. During a war, it is not helpful to worry about the casualties of your enemies. Likewise today, the working conditions of our economic competitors comes in so far behind what our own interests are as to drop out of reasonable consideration.
James says:
Thanks for clarifying your position, bobbo.
I don't agree that in most cases, an individual consumer can best help sweatshop workers by buying their products.
My analysis above was intended to suggest that if improving the well-being of foreign workers is the goal, then the consequences of buying or not buying their products are highly relevant. If a boycott would result in a company improving working conditions or wages, for instance, then not buying the product might be the right thing to do.
If, on the other hand, reduced demand would simply cause the company to abandon the country and produce their products elsewhere, then the action might be counter-productive. This would happen if, for instance, the company calculates that the added costs of improving working standards would eliminate the comparative advantage of foreign production.
You say that the "bigger issue" would be any threatened decline in the U.S. standard of living. Leaving aside the thorny question of whether that should, in fact, be our most important concern, it's not at all obvious that the our standard of living will be negatively impacted by encouraging production in foreign countries. In fact, as a general proposition, the dominant view in modern economic theory is that our standard of living will rise when national barriers to economic activity are lowered, and attempts to preserve jobs through trade barriers will reduce the overall economic well-being of the nation.
I say forget about those foreign workers==the actions more directly impact yourself/your neighbors.
I don't agree, bobbo. It sounds to me as though these actions are likely to impact both groups equally. After all, any alleged impact on U.S. jobs would only occur to the extent that foreign jobs are created.
The real issue, I think, is the one I mentioned above: will our neighbors, here in the U.S., be better off, or worse off, if we encourage production to relocate overseas in accordance with principles of free trade?
During a war, it is not helpful to worry about the casualties of your enemies.
You may choose to view this as a war if you'd like, bobbo. I prefer to view global economic activity as a win-win situation, particularly since most economists agree that we all benefit from freer trade. Certainly higher productivity and greater economic innovation here in the U.S. will only benefit our economy, but this sort of economic competition does not require us to disregard the interests of those living abroad.
Your focus on the nation as the unit of analysis is also quite interesting. Why the nation? Why not the region? I live in New England. Should I apply the same logic to consumer choices (and political measures) when it comes to economic activity in other regions of the country? If not, why not?
bobbo says:
James–you say you don’t agree that in most cases, an individual consumer can best help sweatshop workers by buying their products. You then provide NO FACTS AND NO ANALYSIS to back your conclusion. You only offer a restatement of the initial problem and its two most likely outcomes. That doesn't help or support your opinion at all.
Name any boycott that has worked–there are a few on issues that are much more odious. None that I know of regarding Asian Ring sweat shops that have lifted the rural population out of poverty so effectively that the population gives their governments strong support and double digit growth in gnp.
In fact, saying the workers are underpaid is about as insightful as saying that slaves enjoyed picking cotton. It is a projection of attitudes from an irrelevant perspective, often for reasons unrelated to what is actually being observed. ie==what a middle class college educated rich westerner finds sweaty is unrelated to the challenges and limitations of a developing third world country.
xxxxxxxxx
Perspective is also the main ingredient in your position that: "In fact, as a general proposition, the dominant view in modern economic theory is that our standard of living will rise when national barriers to economic activity are lowered." /// Oh Really?
For any given program or change or theory there are groups that will be helped, and groups that will be harmed. By and large, you can tell which group someone is in by what opinion they hold. So–if indeed the dominant view is what you say, my recognition is limited to the belief that the dominant pontificators are benefited by the theory and we as yet know nothing about the probable impact of the theory. Even academics are self centered little pigs. I am too–I just start with that recognition rather than try to hide it.
Most win/win situations are nothing of the sort and are just a big lie to get the program sold.
I'd have to see a lot of economic history to fight this general premise: After WW2 America survived as the worlds leading economy. We were the only player in town. We made everything and exported to everyone. Over time, other manufacturing economies came on line and the USA is now a declining empire that produces very litte and runs trade deficits every year. Our standard of living is declining==sharply==its plain to see. Where is the win for the USA?
Why the nation–and not the region? ((I had to read that 2-3 times because the relevant region I thought you would use would be the Western Hemisphere or something more inclusive???)) Because regional protective measures are illegal so to propose same or think in those terms is pretty lame.
James says:
James–you say you don’t agree that in most cases, an individual consumer can best help sweatshop workers by buying their products. You then provide NO FACTS AND NO ANALYSIS to back your conclusion.
Actually, bobbo, I explained that statement by outlining briefly the conditions under which it would or wouldn't be helpful to workers for consumers to buy their products. For instance, I noted that buying products would not help workers if a boycott would cause the company to improve working conditions or wages.
The implication is that either set of conditions is a fairly common occurrence. You seem to dispute this when you ask for an example of "any boycott that has worked" when it comes to sweatshops. To give you just the most famous example of such a response to consumer pressure, ten years ago Nike made significant concessions, ones which the New York Times said "set a standard that other companies should match."
You also make favorable comments about Asian sweatshops, their working conditions and wages. I don't dispute any of that. In fact, if you'll scroll back up, you'll see that I took the time to say that it wouldn't be right to simply try to have sweatshops shut down and jobs moved to other countries, or to insist that we should judge working conditions in other countries by prevailing standards in this one.
For any given program or change or theory there are groups that will be helped, and groups that will be harmed.
Yes, and I was careful to phrase my comment in terms of the overall economic well-being of the nation.
Free trade has the peculiar characteristic in prevailing economic theory that it will inevitably improve the overall economic situation of a nation, while also generating specific winners and losers.
We should never lose sight of this fact. However, it also means that in principle, any given free trade move is a good one: any economic losers can be compensated for their losses, and then some, and the nation as a whole will still benefit.
This refers, of course, to financial compensation, which may not be seen as adequate compensation to those who are, for instance, put out of work. This, in turn, means that we would need to carefully consider whether, with compensation and such programs as job training for other industries, the cost to workers is or isn't outweighed by the benefits to the nation. Further complicating this calculation is the fact that trade barriers to prop up an industry only prolong the inevitable: barring an unexpected change in fortunes, that industry will continue to be an economic drain on the nation indefinitely, while the economic and personal pain of letting the industry contract or disappear is a one-time cost, better endured sooner rather than later if it must happen at all.
if indeed the dominant view is what you say, my recognition is limited to the belief that the dominant pontificators are benefited by the theory … Even academics are self centered little pigs.
You believe that the economists who support the dominant model in this area do so because they benefit from free trade? And those economists who disagree somehow belong to another economic class or interest?
I believe your observation is more relevant when looking at who supports or opposes various trade measures. By and large, business interests and workers in this country support free trade when it helps their industry, and oppose it when it does not.
I am too–I just start with that recognition rather than try to hide it.
A modest approach, to be sure, and one I admire. However, I'm not sure this argument is at its strongest when you're discussing the desire of Westerner consumers to sacrifice a bit of their economic self-interest out of moral concern for the well-being of people they'll never meet on the far side of the globe.
Over time, other manufacturing economies came on line and the USA is now a declining empire that produces very litte and runs trade deficits every year. … Where is the win for the USA?
It's true, bobbo. The U.S. would have a larger share of the world economy if the other economies of the world hadn't grown and developed following WWII.
Of course, that isn't realistic, and isn't an indictment of free trade. The U.S. in a protectionist environment would be worse off in either 1950 or 2000.
It's also true that the U.S. standard of living is higher because of the growth of the other economies of the world. I don't know any Americans who would prefer to live in 1950, with a larger share of the world economy but a much lower standard of living, than in 2009.
I'll leave aside the question of whether the U.S., still by far the largest economy in the world, can really be said to be producing "very little."
regional protective measures are illegal so to propose same or think in those terms is pretty lame
How is that lame, bobbo? I'm not proposing that we do it, but as a thought experiment, why shouldn't I encourage New England to focus on its own regional economy, oppose policies designed to boost other parts of the U.S. economy, and even impose protectionist measures against other regions of the country?
What about your logic suggests that nations should do this, but not regions within nations? Isn't the choice of the nation, rather than the region (or continent, or hemisphere), merely arbitrary?
bobbo says:
James==you raise many good points. I want to give a few of them an honest good think through. I will now read down to the first issue I find, respond to it, then take a day or two for the rest. I think our discussion is growing a bit larger than fair consideration can address? At least for me.
xxxxx
"Actually, bobbo, I explained that statement by outlining briefly the conditions under which it would or wouldn’t be helpful to workers for consumers to buy their products. For instance, I noted that buying products would not help workers if a boycott would cause the company to improve working conditions or wages." /// Thats a pure tautology and thereby lots of words but no analysis. Analysis is didactic, not circular. Not "if-then." You did not thereby explain anything but merely restated what I said.
I'm starting to have "flashes" at an explanation as to how we are not connecting to our mutual disadvantage/frustration. It will come to me eventually.
James says:
That sounds fine to me, bobbo. Please take your time, and respond to anything you wish, when and if it's convenient for you.