DSP would cause more poor people to lose jobs
Issue date: 4/22/08 Section: Letters to the Editor
TO THE EDITOR:
In recent days I have been swamped with information regarding the Designated Suppliers Program. Though its aims are quite noble, I believe that it is a blatant example of misguided idealism.
Programs and legislation like the DSP simply do not work. The Child Labor Deterrence Act of 1992, which prohibited imports made from child labor, resulted in an estimated 50,000 children losing their jobs in the Bangladeshi garment-making industry.
This doesn't mean these children suddenly received an education and better life. UNICEF reported that they turned to far more dangerous and exploitative jobs like "stone-crushing, street hustling and prostitution."
What many antisweatshop activists fail to realize is in the context of the countries where sweatshops are located, they are often a desirable source of employment.
Though working 12 hours in a unairconditioned factory sounds miserable, it's probably better than working 16 hours scratching a living out of subsistence agriculture, especially when sweatshop work often pays double the average local income. If a higher "living wage" is instituted, the employer will replace labor with capital.
This will mean thousands of workers already below the poverty line will lose their jobs, their one and only source of security.
Clearly the conditions in sweatshops are awful and need to be improved, but seeing them only in black and white in a world of grays will only cause greater problems.
Anybody interested in reducing poverty should take to mind the words of world-renowned development economist Jeffrey Sachs: "My concern is not that there are too many sweatshops but that there are too few."
Tom Koester
Junior
Economics
In recent days I have been swamped with information regarding the Designated Suppliers Program. Though its aims are quite noble, I believe that it is a blatant example of misguided idealism.
Programs and legislation like the DSP simply do not work. The Child Labor Deterrence Act of 1992, which prohibited imports made from child labor, resulted in an estimated 50,000 children losing their jobs in the Bangladeshi garment-making industry.
This doesn't mean these children suddenly received an education and better life. UNICEF reported that they turned to far more dangerous and exploitative jobs like "stone-crushing, street hustling and prostitution."
What many antisweatshop activists fail to realize is in the context of the countries where sweatshops are located, they are often a desirable source of employment.
Though working 12 hours in a unairconditioned factory sounds miserable, it's probably better than working 16 hours scratching a living out of subsistence agriculture, especially when sweatshop work often pays double the average local income. If a higher "living wage" is instituted, the employer will replace labor with capital.
This will mean thousands of workers already below the poverty line will lose their jobs, their one and only source of security.
Clearly the conditions in sweatshops are awful and need to be improved, but seeing them only in black and white in a world of grays will only cause greater problems.
Anybody interested in reducing poverty should take to mind the words of world-renowned development economist Jeffrey Sachs: "My concern is not that there are too many sweatshops but that there are too few."
Tom Koester
Junior
Economics
Viewing Comments 1 - 6 of 8
kosta
posted 4/22/08 @ 8:57 AM EST
Tom, maybe you should take a few 12 hour shifts in an non air conditioned factory before you speculate about whether this is indeed a "desirable source of employment"
joe
posted 4/22/08 @ 9:14 AM EST
Well said, Tom. Some students have intentions to help others, but they don't realize the situation abroad.
Mike
posted 4/22/08 @ 9:29 AM EST
Holy shit! There are people who understand economics at UNC!
Nicole
posted 4/22/08 @ 11:43 AM EST
tom, the designated suppliers program was written, reviewed and proposed not by a bunch of dirty hippies but by people who have travelled extensively with the precise aim of studying the context in which these factories exist, particularly in the gaze of current economic situations. (Continued…)
Ted
posted 4/22/08 @ 11:54 PM EST
Finally someone points out common economic sense.
Look, I am sure that lots of people at UNC have good intentions and want to change the world, but do your homework first. (Continued…)
One of the members of the peaceful occupation
posted 4/23/08 @ 11:25 AM EST
To actually find out what you're talking about and the economic logic behind the DSP, I'd suggest going to dsp4unc.wordpress.com
Post a Comment