Sparkysgrrrl said:
If sweatshops are a neccesity to upstarting an economy, how do you explain the fact that there are sweatshops in the U.S., Canada, and the U.K.?
They certainly aren't still trying to get a jump on things...
And just what do you consider to be a sweatchop mug222?
Since you state that you do agree that places with inhumane conditions are wrong, what constitutes a sweatshop in your mind?
(edit: My God I just realized I read the question incorrectly, and answered a different one than she had asked.
Anyway, I think I answered a more difficult and interesting question than she had asked, so I'll leave this up...)
I guess she isn't here anymore, but I'll respond nonetheless...
Of course, sweatshops are not a prerequisite for development; that would be insane. The reason why certain countries got rich several hundred years ago while others stagnated in poverty could fill thousands of textbooks. It has nothing to do with sweatshops and all do to with geography, disease burden (malaria, for example, had a very loose foothold in the U.S. south because it was an almost tropical region, while many parts of Asia remain tremendously afflicted by the disease), physical trade access, stable political machinery, agricultural productivity (the U.S. has the midwestern breadbasket, while, say, Western China has to contend with poor soils as a result of its high elevation), neighborly conflict, sea borders, etc. etc. etc.
You must understand that development in the mid-to-late second millenium (when the rich country-poor country gap first became important and, as you say, the U.S., Canada, and the UK became wealthy) is nothing like development today: globalization meant nothing, airplanes and large-scale sea-shipping--and thus international trade--were centuries away, multinational corporations did not exist (and therefore, sweatshops did not exist.) That the U.S., Canada, the UK, and most of western Europe became rich while much of the rest of the world--mostly, and importantly, those in the tropics--still faced 30 year life expectancies and lives of poverty had
nothing at all to do with sweatshops.
At the dawn of the 21st century, the situation is completely different. The world is essentially divided between the very rich (1/6 of humanity) and the very poor (essentially, the other 5/6). [It is interesting to note that almost without exception, the rich live in the temperate climates where TB, malaria, and other infectious diseases cannot claim a good foothold, and where soil fertility is better than in the tropical ecozone.] Poor countries cannot expect to become wealthy in the same manner in which the U.S. became wealthy two hundred years ago. True development requires extensive Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). The only motivation for a U.S. or European company to invest in a country of poor, largely uneducated individuals is cheap wages. That's the
only motivation, essentially (other than seeking new markets.) If wages were not cheaper, they would naturally seek a higher educated workforce. It's that simple. If outside organizations succeed in securing higher wages for, say, Nike workers in a factory outside Jakarta, then it is only natural that Nike will no longer invest in Indonesia but instead in countries where wages remain cheap.
So, how does a country develop if they are paid poorly by international companies? The money from a shoe factory is ten times better than what they formerly made as a rice farmer (why else would they do it?) and this money can be used to buy better education for their children, who therefore find better, higher-paying jobs--for example, in an Intel plant in Penang, Malaysia.
These countries are in a
poverty trap, meaning that the adults of the population do not make enough to secure adequate health care and education for their children, who therefore are not sufficiently educated for any job except the farm...and the cycle continues. Many Asian countries have broken free of the poverty-trap, beginning largely sweatshop economies only 30 years ago. FDI is the key, and initially FDI in a poor country will mean low wages.
As for your second question, I define sweatshops as large-scale manufacturing facilities that pay extremely poor wages (that is, relative to U.S. standards) to a large number of employees. That is not in itself inhumane. There is no coercion, and workers choose to be there. And, if they can finally send their children to school, rightfully so.
(I applaud anyone who slogged through that
)