The whine that is, of course, emitted while sitting on the evil-capitalist-made sofa in the evil-capitalist-built house that they bought with their public-sector salary funded by taxes levied (ultimately) on the profits made by evil capitalists.
Well, after that is it such a relief to hear someone point out that, in fact, third world sweatshops are not such a bad thing. He's even gone on to explain why child labour is not such a bad idea, too.
Of course, like me he acknowledges that the conditions that apply in the sweatshops are not pleasant. Neither of us would not want his children to work in one. But taking a wider view, it is better to allow this as an interim state towards a (genuinely) better future than to condemn them to perpetual slave labour. Not such a clown now, eh?
As JuliaM comments, capitalism is still the worst possible system - apart from all the alternatives.
Careful, these kinds of arguments were used to justify children being sent up chimneys, if I recall.
ReplyDeletetaking a wider view, it is better to allow this as an interim state towards a (genuinely) better future than to condemn them to perpetual slave labour
And that argument sounds Marxist to me.
these kinds of arguments were used to justify children being sent up chimneys, if I recall.
ReplyDeleteWhich is kind of the point. We can tut all we like from our safe and comfortable armchairs, but the fact was that those children lived in great poverty. Spending part of the day up a chimney was better than spending all day in school but starving later in the evening. And the housewife was no doubt pleased with her newly energy-efficient chimney.
Not pleasant, but still part of the development of this country and its economy. That, in turn, gave us the means to provide both a free education for those children and benefits for their parents. It also made a small but definite contribution towards providing the economy with the investment capital needed to develop new forms of heating that did not require soot to be cleaned from a chimney.
And that argument sounds Marxist to me.
Only if used to secure a Marxist end. Which I can assure you, you won't find being espoused here ;-)
Spending part of the day up a chimney was better than spending all day in school but starving later in the evening.
ReplyDeleteOr at least it gave the impression that the children were better off, so that those who could have relieved their poverty didn't need to bother. In the meantime, someone else was on the make out of their suffering.
Only if used to secure a Marxist end. Which I can assure you, you won't find being espoused here ;-)
Not for one moment would I accuse you of being a Marxist! But Marxism is objectionable not only for its end, but also for its methods.
Or at least it gave the impression that the children were better off, so that those who could have relieved their poverty didn't need to bother.
ReplyDeleteThe problem here is that you appeal to an external source of rich people who could fund all the necessary poverty relief. Starting with an impoverished and pre-industrial society (as is discussed in the posts to which I linked), there is no such person. So the society needs to pull itself up by its bootstraps.
That takes hard work, and time.
In the meantime, someone else was on the make out of their suffering.
Ahah!
If they were causing suffering, by the standards of their time, then I condemn them regardless of whether they were making a profit by doing so. The mugger is evil because he mugs, regardless of whether he obtains money in the process.
If they were not causing suffering by the standards of their time, then why does it matter whether they made a profit? Answer - it matters hugely, because if they make a profit and the child makes a living wage then both are richer. Both can spend, creating a market for food and necessaries and allowing others to make a profit selling them. Slowly, bit by bit, everyone gets better off including (eventually) the poor who are unable to work.
Once again (so that this is not lost sight of) I don't like the idea of children cleaning chimneys or making Nike trainers in sweatshops. But I like the idea of them starving to death even less. I prefer the idea of them living in comfort and safety, funded by "the rich"*, but I know it isn't going to happen; there aren't enough of "the rich" and if we make them pay for everyone else to live comfortably then they'll stop making money and be poor instead.
Greed is not good. But profit is virtuous.
---------------------------------------------
*that mythical group with unlimited funds, able to support anything we want without ever running out, usually defined as "anyone better off than me".
The problem here is that you appeal to an external source of rich people who could fund all the necessary poverty relief.
ReplyDeleteThere is no doubt that in the period in question, some people were very rich indeed. There are also grounds for believing that if such persons had used their money to educate such children, then everyone would have become better off. As it was, because the children weren't actually starving, they could be otherwise ignored (except for when they got stuck up the chimney and cried until they died, of course).
If they were not causing suffering by the standards of their time, then why does it matter whether they made a profit?
The issue is whether those who profit from them do so justly or unjustly.
I don't like the idea of children cleaning chimneys or making Nike trainers in sweatshops. But I like the idea of them starving to death even less.
This is why there is a prior question of justice. Suppose if the choice wasn't cleaning chimneys or making Nike trainers in sweatshops, but appearing in child porn or being involved in child prostitution. How would you answer then?
Some actions are simply wrong, and cannot be justified by outcomes.
There is no doubt that in the period in question, some people were very rich indeed.
ReplyDeleteCertainly. But there were huge numbers of poor, and the richness of the wealthy was in part a reflection of the very low labour rates needed to create the things that they needed/wanted - i.e. the sheer number of poor. The existence of some rich people does not of itself demonstrate that there was enough money to go round to lift all from poverty.
And what would have happened if they had tried, but too early? The money would have run out while there were still poor people, but the former rich would no longer have the funds to invest and create the wealth to help the ones who were left (or the incentive to do so). Better, surely, to keep the rate of growth going until the country as a whole is rich enough to create a proper benefits system.
Which is what we did. Capitalism works for the poor, see.
The issue is whether those who profit from them do so justly or unjustly.
Whether they profit or not is irrelevant; that is the point which you are ignoring. If what they are doing is wrong, then it is wrong. The existence or non-existence of a profit does not make it any worse.
In fact, profiting from someone's misery would arguably make your evil act less bad; it provides you with a motive, so that the evil was not purely for your own gratification. It also enables you to do good as a result of the evil (by donating or trading with the proceeds). That is not an argument that I would press, though; the originating act was still wrong.
The point is, profiting from evil does not make you more evil, and profiting per se is not the evil which it is currently often depicted as. Too often, we elide the profit and the evil into a single entity, but that is false. Profit opportunities exist, and evil opportunities exist. Sometimes a particular opportunity embodies both, sometimes just one, and sometimes neither.
The two are, in truth, unrelated.
This is why there is a prior question of justice... porn & prostitution
I'm going to generalise away from children, because I regard both of these as wrong whether done by children or adults. By limiting the discussion to children, you make it unnecessarily emotive.
I would then answer by agreeing that both of those are wrong. That is, of course, entirely consistent with my stance so far, in that I regarded "poor people starving to death" as being wrong, hence there is a class of things that are wrong. Prostitution in all its forms - whether physical or photographic - is wrong.
The question is what we place in the class of things that are wrong. Where we draw the line, who draws it, and whether the people who are affected by the line have a say in what they are allowed to do.
I simply say that in Victorian society, sending children to clean a chimney and thereby preventing them from starving and from falling into prostitution is not necessarily a bad thing. In today's society, where we have other options, it is.
Thanks for your full answer. Lots to comment on here. But I've just realised what day it is tomorrow. So I will forbear from further comment for fear of spoiling the last few hours...
ReplyDeleteJust to take it back a step..
ReplyDeleteNext had to stop using a factory after it was exposed as a child labour employing sweatshop offering just £2 a day to its workers, who endured very unsafe,unsanitary conditions.
What happened to those workers now the factory was effectively banned from selling goods to Europe?
Was the £2 a day better than £0 pounds a day.
How much of their £0 redundancy and £0 wages in lieu were they able to save for the future.
Something better will come along. but as long as labour is cheap then the bosses have the upper hand. when labour is scarce then working conditions and wages improve.
Happened here after the black death. Almost crashed serfdom.
Good example Bill. Next obviously could have afforded to pay a better wage in proper conditions (it hasn't gone bust since it was stopped using this factory). If the people at Next were aware of this factory surely this is a good example of exploitation of children pure and simple.
ReplyDeletePatently is right though, the objection is that it is unjust, not that they were profiting from it (I'm not quite sure why P thinks I would be surprised at his remarks on this, but I'll say no more for the reason given earlier).
Next obviously could have afforded to pay a better wage in proper conditions
ReplyDeleteWhy should it? As Bill points out, the alternative for the local worker was £0. Absent actual slavery, no-one forced the workers to work there; to them the £2 was enough to justify the conditions. And we stand here, in warm safe well stocked houses, and insist that they are sacked - just because £2 would not go very far here?
Shame on us.
(And yes, if the conditions were unsanitary and unsafe, that is an issue for justified complaint. But surely, that complaint is properly addressed to the local government? If a UK company was polluting a river in order to make goods for export, we would look to the UK authorities not the destination country.)
(it hasn't gone bust since it was stopped using this factory).
So what? Do you know where it has moved the work to? Do you know if it changed the price of those goods? Are you certain that their sales held up and customers did not go elsewhere? Do you know their financial situation inside out? How close are they to the edge?
Simplistic, Albert, simplistic.
I think there is a prima facie case for assuming the pay and conditions have improved, because otherwise the same people who exposed them once, would expose them again. Moreover, I know a buyer for Next and we discussed this very question a few months ago.
ReplyDeleteIn contrast, all you can offer is the implication that Next can only survive by paying £2 a day. Do you really want to stand by that? And if so, then why do you think a complaint about the inappropriate conditions would be justified. Couldn't the same argument apply here?
no-one forced the workers to work there. And you accuse me of being simplistic! You think there is a real choice between being paid £0 and £2. You've got a family!
insist that they are sacked Who's insisting that? Not me.
Albert: Next don't pay the workers the money. The textile bosses do. Next pays a price/item for goods.
ReplyDeleteIt can insist on better conditions etc, but the responsibility is the local owners and government. The idea that if ALL companies insist on
Also it is too easy to fall into the comparative price trap. £2 a day is nothing here. Barely a 15 minute minimum wage payout.
But what does a bag of rice cost in India? How much is council tax? What is the average wage?
Who's insisting that? Not me.
ReplyDeleteYes you are, in effect.
I have many similar companies as clients. None of them send this work abroad because they want to. None of them want the long lead times, language difficulties, import formalities and duties, intellectual property risk, transit loss risk and so on that comes with the decision to use far-flung suppliers. Nor are they ruthlessly chasing that last penny in savings - small differences like that would not outweigh the risk inherent in long supply lines. The difference that they are faced with is of the order of £2 vs £10; that is so large, it makes the additional risk and hassle worthwhile.
The huge differential is not therefore the result of UK businesses hammering down the cost of foreign labour; it is a reflection of the fact that a shirt in Thailand is worth a lot less to the buyer than an identical shirt in the UK. If you need confirmation, ask one of the Brits stranded abroad by Eyjafjallajökull.
So when you say that £2 is not fair, that they should pay more and have our H&S overheads (etc) you are not just reducing Next's margin, or increasing the UK street price. You are making the foreign factory uncompetitive. Without that differential, there is no point in buying from abroad. The work will not be sent there, it will be sent to a UK factory instead.
So, you are indeed calling for the third world worker to be sacked, and my argument is more complex than you imply.
Bill: You are qutie right, Next do not deal directly with the manufacturers - that's what my friend said anyway (and why earlier, I made mention of whether the bosses at Next were aware of the factory).
ReplyDeleteIt's also quite true what you (and P) say about the £2 being of much more value. But I'm not really arguing about the particulars and contingencies of this case - the £2 is more symbolic. My question is more abstract: are there no wages which are unjustly low and conditions that are simply unacceptable by any standard? Or can an employer just say that whatever he is paying is better than £0 and no one is forcing them to work?
It seems to me that there is a danger here of making the idea of an exploitative employer an incoherent concept, as if, however immoral he is, an employer cannot be vicious by definition. But if "exploitative employer" is a coherent concept then there will be standards by which an employer must abide.
Albert, you can prevent abuse by making the employee's threat to leave real and genuine. You do that by creating a viable economy in which new businesses can spring up and compete for staff as well as for custom. Do that, and you don't need a concept of an exploitative employer. Instead, everyone is free to decide for themselves whether something is exploitative.
ReplyDeleteYou can also prevent abuse by regulation, more regulation to cover the gaps that appear in the original regulations, yet more regulation to cover the new gaps, and so on.
Both have been tried. Only one works.
But your position doesn't address the moral question of whether every kind of pay and conditions can be sanctioned. Given that it is always wrong to do evil that good may come of it, this moral question must be addressed and not evaded. Similarly, if there are some kinds of pay and conditions which are unjust, how does a victim of those obtain justice from an abusive employer?
ReplyDeleteWe are in our old argument, Albert.
ReplyDeleteYou insist that unjust terms must be prevented. I insist that the conditions must be created in which just terms can be enabled.
You dismiss my stance as immoral/amoral in principle. I dismiss yours as counter-productive in practice.
how does a victim of those obtain justice from an abusive employer?
Simple. By not entering into the contract of employment in the first place, or by simply leaving when the injustice comes to light.
Yes, we are back where we were a few months ago.
ReplyDeleteSimple. By not entering into the contract of employment in the first place, or by simply leaving when the injustice comes to light
And if the choice is unjust contract or earning £0?
And if the choice is unjust contract or earning £0?
ReplyDeleteSee:
I insist that the conditions must be created in which just terms can be enabled.
My penny's worth is that you both have valid points. I think you have to look at it as a spectrum and once society reaches a sufficient level of wealth, the presence of undemanding thresholds of minimum standards should be tolerated, but not that they impose a burden on responsible business.
ReplyDeleteAs for other countries, these are outside our control and the last thing their governments are going to do it is impose conditions that make them uncompetitive. Is this justified as a means to an end? Probably if it is for the greater benefit of all, but the flaw is that the wealth in most cases stays with the owners. That is a problem, P, you do not address.
Pure capitalism has no ethics so educating consumers to make choices is a sensible strategy. Banks could assert influence, so could shareholders, but management has a duty to maximise profit.
Albert, even the Catholic Church exploits the poor. That is the way of the world. Perhaps the poor will reach a level of sophistication and education that they can prevent this. One difficulty is that without enough jobs to go round, management know they can replace awkward staff very easily and impose unjust contracts, which brings me back to having a framework of minimum thresholds in place. I think that is insisting that the conditions must be created in which just terms can be enabled so I agree with Patently, but that does sort of undermine the means to an end argument, doesn't it, Albert? ;-)
That's odd. I posted a comment on this a few days ago, but it hasn't appeared! Can't remember what it said! I think it may have been something like: if employers use cheaper child labour (instead of the more expensive labour of their parents), the whole community remains poor, the children are uneducated, and no one has the funds or education to create more wealth, and so the whole community still remains poor, and as you say M the wealth in most cases stays with the owners.
ReplyDeleteI think that is bad economics, but it is certainly immoral. Money itself is amoral, but the people using it are moral agents. It is therefore not possible to address this question outside of a moral framework.
Albert, even the Catholic Church exploits the poor. That is the way of the world. Perhaps the poor will reach a level of sophistication and education that they can prevent this.
Measured, I don't doubt that - to our shame. I'm afraid it is a sad fact the human beings misuse each other, and as the Church is made of human beings...But I was wondering what you meant in particular - I might disagree with your examples!
All very well, Albert, but the capitalist approach works. It works here, and it works in the other countries that have tried it. Generally, the countries/areas that were the original sweatshops (Korea, Hong Kong, Shanghai...) have become more prosperous and able to lift themselves out of poverty. As they have done so, they have lost the work to other countries. The sweatshop economies are merely the advancing edge of prosperity.
ReplyDeleteIn time, we will get to the point where those countries who want a non-agrarian economy will have one, and manufacturing will return to be more local to the market; prices will then rise again to reflect that.
Capitalism works. It isn't nice, it isn't pretty, but it is unthinkingly fair and over history it has has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system.
the wealth in most cases stays with the owners.
::[sigh]:: Such a tempting fallacy.
So, [puts on best John Cleese voice] apart from the salaries paid to the workers, and the payments made to the suppliers, and the rent paid to whoever owns the building, and the fares paid to the bus companies who bring the workers in, and the prices paid for whatever the owners want to buy, and the money given to the local shops who feed the workers, and the taxes paid to the local government, what has capitalism ever given us??
I'll be rude now and inject a fact into this debate. As you both know, I'm an owner of my business. After tax, I get to see 1.5% of the business's turnover.
I'll say that again. 1.5%. And we are a relatively profitable business, as you know.
Or, 98.5% of the turnover of the business goes to the rest of the economy. Think about that: virtually all of the money that the business handles goes into the wider economy, in the form of salaries, payments to other businesses, and taxes.
And what do I do with my 1.5%? Some is spent, so goes to other businesses in the economy, and some is invested, i.e. lent out in order to allow businesses to grow and take on staff.
So no, the vast majority of the wealth is spread in the economy. But what of the wealth that is retained? Yes, it stays with the owners - or, as we should call them, the investors. The ones who took the risk. The ones who created the jobs in the first place. The ones with whom it should stay.
I will resist citing that it gives them hope when there is none. Perhaps unrealistic goals helps people (Labour certainly think that) and we will get back to evidence based arguments, or not, as the case may be.
ReplyDeleteIt is taking money from people who are poor that denotes exploitation in my view. Collections might at least let them think there are people worse than they are, but it is not moral, even if it is given voluntarily. Was there a practice of taking money of people when serving the last rites, even though the widow and childdren may have been in the next room? I suspect this is now outdated if it is true.
Moving on, did you listen to the testimony of a man about the abuse he and his brother had suffered from the priest(s) on Radio 4 this lunchtime? How it has haunted him? How his brother flunked school, became an alcoholic and has subsequently died. That man has lost a brother, apart from being violated when he was powerless and undermined. The Archbishop of Westminster said the man was welcome to come and talk to him.
Well, honestly. What are words? What are gestures? What are prayers? For God's sake (meant in the purist sense, for an organisation that claims to hold the moral high ground, let's see some action even if it does destroy someone's livelihood. If anyone knowingly perpetrated these crimes or assisted in discrediting the victims, they should face the consequences. Visits to the Archbishop of Westminster don't fool anyone.
Patently,
ReplyDeleteYes, capitalism does work. I was referring to other countries if you look at my piece; LDC's to be precise, but NIC's demonstrate your point nicely. In third world countries wealth is far more concentrated on a few - either owners or the corrupt. Every model needs tweaking even ours (the banks have become too big for their boots) but you have to concede Albert's point that education is vital. Education solves so many problems that society faces. If children work, they are less likely to receive a good education. This is not justified as a means to an end in the world we live in now, is it?
Come on, P, come on. ;-)
Measured: I was referring to other countries if you look at my piece; LDC's to be precise
ReplyDeleteExactly, that's how I took it. And there is a moral point that, even if certain practices do, in the long term, bring propserity (my guess is the picture isn't quite as rosey as you say BTW), if they are immoral, they are wrong. A good end does not justify an unjust means.
I will resist citing that it gives them hope when there is none.
ReplyDeleteGood, because the view that there is no hope is the secular view, it isn't the view of those who teach in the Catholic Church. So they can hardly be accused of exploitation. I genuinely believe all that the Catholic Church teaches as revealed by God and I do not doubt that that is true also of my priest, my bishop and my pope.
St Thomas Aquinas teaches "Man cannot live without joy; therefore when he is deprived of true spiritual joys it is necessary that he become addicted to carnal pleasures." (Cf. modern Britain) The irony is that it is hopeless, joyless secularism that is the deceit, a deceit which exploits people's hopelessness and emptiness with promises of fulfilment to found in this or that vacuous product. (If you want to look at the philosophical history of the over-blown claims of secularism, try this book).
It is taking money from people who are poor that denotes exploitation in my view. It depends on what is taken, and for what reason. If it is taken to ensure the clergy have a much more comfortable living than everyone else, then it is a disgrace. But if people choose to give small amounts of their money in the service of others, or the service of the faith they love, it gives them dignity and joy.
Was there a practice of taking money of people when serving the last rites In a Church which gathers between one sixth and one fifth of the world's population anything is possible somewhere. But no, charging for such services has been condemned from the days of the Apostles.
Of course, the child abuse is a disgrace, we all feel the shame and sorrow the Archbishop spoke of. But when priests have behaved in such ways, they have obviously violated the teaching of the Church (does anyone seriously believe we oppose contraception, but think nothing of child abuse?). When bishops have covered for them, they have broken the teaching of the Church and broken Church law.
Do remember the child abuse is not disproportionately high among Catholic clergy. It is disproportionately low compared with the wider population, and no higher than equivalent groups (some reports say it is lower). Insurance companies do not charge higher premiums against Catholic priests, because they do not actually abuse more than anyone else. One reason you hear so much about the Catholic Church is largely down to its sheer size (it is about 13X the size of the second largest denomination and it has been more active in working in education which obviously raises risks). Another reason is that by knocking the Church society exonerates itself from facing it's own problem, and recognising that its attitudes to sexuality in general are unhealthy.
This is in no way an excuse. It is simply to say that some of the charges made against the Church are unjust. Yes, there have been ministers who have exploited their positions in this way, but it seems odd to me to suggest the Catholic Church per se has so done, given the much higher prevalence of this abuse in society. And while we're about it, what about the massive loss of infant life through deliberate abortion? Contrast all that with the massive amount of voluntary work the Church does in development, education, health etc. and you get a different picture.
I don't doubt that exploitation has gone on, and goes on in the Catholic Church. But in contrast to secularism, overwhelming,that arises from the fact that the Church is made of the same sinful stuff as humanity in general
Sorry, that last bit should have read:
ReplyDeleteBut in contrast to secularism, overwhelmingly,that arises from the fact that the Church is made of the same sinful stuff as humanity in general
I think I have wound both of you up enough today. I look forward to Patently's reply.
ReplyDeleteCome on, Albert. You are hiding behind statistics. Let's talk about punishing those who have done wrong. What should happen to them?
ReplyDeleteNo measured, I wound myself up, which was silly really, and as I had asked you to state the ways in which the Church has exploited people, unjust of me. I apologise and hope you will forgive me.
ReplyDeleteIt's difficult at the moment with all this. I've never done anything like that, and neither has anyone I know in the Catholic Church (though I do know of two cases outside the Catholic Church). And yet it feels that society can just take any shot at us that it wants, which is unfair because society is far worse. There's an added sadness for me, because I find the Catholic Church to the centre and source of my joy and I want others to experience it too. But these things obviously make it much harder to get people to see that.
But it is daft of me to get wound up, because the her ministers have brought it upon us, and what the Church now suffers is nothing compared with what the children have had to endure.
Sorry our messages crossed. Yes, they should be punished. Ironically, some of the most high profile "Pope protected sex abuser" cases are actually cases in which the police knew years before he did.
ReplyDeleteAs far as Church discipline is concerned, Joseph Ratzinger introduced a zero-tolerance policy which has been meted out to high profile clergy as much as to low ranking priests. They are now laicised as quickly as possible. That is down to the present Pope's work from when he got authority over the abuse in 2001 (not 1981 as the press keep saying).
So I think the punishing of abusers has taken place both at the Church and the civil levels. What's less clear (and harder to assign culpability) is how to deal with the bishops accused of cover-ups. Some are guilty as sin and are resigning. Others it's a bit harder. The Irish Bishop who resigned today for example, was not really criticised by the Murphy report, if I recall. He seems to have gone out of a sense of guilt by association. That perhaps should give us pause if we wish to attend to this in a just way.