So, do I have this correct. Exploitation is good as long as there are people worse off that haven't yet been exploited, especially children, that have had the audacity to be born in countries that have been historically plundered by powerful nations that send their corporations to corrupt their polyticksions and exploit a select few of the population now for profit.
No, you don't have it correct. It's not exploitation. It's gains from exchange. Both sides are better off. And, as I'm sure you know, there's no audacity about it. They are unlucky to be born into poor countries, whether or not those countries have been plundered. Also, to the extent people in corporations think the way you do, they will refrain from locating there, which means less competition for the services of these children and, therefore, lower wages.
As I said in my talk, not enough people are advocating that these children and their parents be given green cards. So they are choosing from options that you and I would regard as horrible. If you take away their best option, that hurts them; it doesn't help them.
No, the child gains from exchange also. I referenced the NPR report and the New York Times story in my talk. Both found that the children who worked in the factories earned more, and in better conditions, than their counterparts who were working longer hours outdoors on farms. Talk about sweat!
This is awesome! Though it goes into greater detail, it reminds me of the part in Milton Friedman's "Free to Choose" where he talks about his parents working in sweatshops. Like you, he pointed out that both sides benefited because it was a voluntary change. He also strongly emphasized that they didn't stay in the sweatshops. It was the first rung on a ladder that took them to new opportunities and a better life in their chosen land. He probably wouldn't have been born in America if there had been no sweatshops.
So, do I have this correct. Exploitation is good as long as there are people worse off that haven't yet been exploited, especially children, that have had the audacity to be born in countries that have been historically plundered by powerful nations that send their corporations to corrupt their polyticksions and exploit a select few of the population now for profit.
No, you don't have it correct. It's not exploitation. It's gains from exchange. Both sides are better off. And, as I'm sure you know, there's no audacity about it. They are unlucky to be born into poor countries, whether or not those countries have been plundered. Also, to the extent people in corporations think the way you do, they will refrain from locating there, which means less competition for the services of these children and, therefore, lower wages.
As I said in my talk, not enough people are advocating that these children and their parents be given green cards. So they are choosing from options that you and I would regard as horrible. If you take away their best option, that hurts them; it doesn't help them.
OK thanks for the clarification. so, one child’s exploitation is another mans gains from exchange.
Who ever says economics isn’t science is just playing semantics. I look forward to further lessons. thanks.
You're welcome.
No, the child gains from exchange also. I referenced the NPR report and the New York Times story in my talk. Both found that the children who worked in the factories earned more, and in better conditions, than their counterparts who were working longer hours outdoors on farms. Talk about sweat!
Another great and insightful column. thank you.
You're welcome, Mike.
For a great book on this topic, I recommend: Out of Poverty: Sweatshops in the Global Economy (Cambridge University Press, 2014) by Ben Powell.
I agree as well. I used to add that to the "Learn more" reading list for my intro to econ class when I taught.
I agree.
This is awesome! Though it goes into greater detail, it reminds me of the part in Milton Friedman's "Free to Choose" where he talks about his parents working in sweatshops. Like you, he pointed out that both sides benefited because it was a voluntary change. He also strongly emphasized that they didn't stay in the sweatshops. It was the first rung on a ladder that took them to new opportunities and a better life in their chosen land. He probably wouldn't have been born in America if there had been no sweatshops.
Thanks, Joy, and good point re Milton.