greece666,
What that I said is factually wrong? Nothing you posted seemed relevant to what I said. Workers in those factories make far more than people in their community working on a farm or at the market, to name a few available jobs.
Thanks for the reply JSD, appreciated. I bolded the parts that are wrong IMO.
The reason locals withstand and work in those conditions is because they are getting paid 5 times as much as their neighbor.
Where did you find that they get paid 5 times more than other employees? Nike has about 1 million workers in 785 countries, I am very skeptical of this number you give.
If I were to get $500,000 a year to work in a “sweatshop” I would probably do it for a few years and bank some money.
I bolded the wrong parts.
You totally missed my point. People work in sweatshops because in most cases they make 5X as much money as they working other available jobs. So I applied that to my own situation
Here’s one source https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/international/sweatshops-make-poor-people-better-off?format=amp
Thanks again for the reply JSD.
I didn't miss your point, I disagree with it. Again, where's the evidence that they make 5 times more?
Second, Adam Smith is a libertarian/neoliberal think tank and anything but a neutral source.
What was wrong with the information they gathered for the article? What are neutral sources? I literally do not even know anymore. You want a peer reviewed article or something?
To me this is common sense anyway. What exactly are you disagreeing with? You think people in these locations have no other options? If that’s what you believe, what were they doing before Nike showed up?
What was wrong with the information they gathered for the article?
They made generalizations based on very thin evidence.
What are neutral sources?
Not the Adam Smith Institute for sure.
You want a peer reviewed article or something?
Here you go. A peer reviewed article arguing that sweatshops are harmful to the people who work there.
To me this is common sense anyway.
If so, why do so many ppl protest sweatshops and have the exact opposite opinion than you?
You think people in these locations have no other options?
Even if I grant you this (that they have other options), this is irrelevant when assessing the moral status of sweatshops. To illustrate how options are irrelevant, consider that prostitutes quite often have alternative employment options, this however does not change the fact that being a pimp is immoral. The same argument can be made about loan sharks too.
If that’s what you believe, what were they doing before Nike showed up?
Again this is irrelevant.
Also, although I'm sure you yourself do not defend such opinions, similar arguments were used to justify slavery, colonialism and all kinds of other evils. (Africans were poor anyway, western civilization was good for non Europeans, if they didn't become slaves they would probably laze around etc)
At the very least you have to concede that the position that sweatshops are bad for the workers and immoral is a defensible one - you obviously don't have to agree with it, and I'm aware that good arguments can be made for the opposite case, but claiming that sweatshops are evidently and commonsensically good for the employees is IMHO not a defensible position.