Change In Your Hands - Global Poverty

This is an article I wrote for the Observer/Oxfam global poverty competition last month. It didn't win, but here it is....

Change in your hands

“Instruments of a market tyranny that is extending its reach across the planet like a cancer… feeding on life in an insatiable quest for money” – so reads David Korten’s damning indictment of transnational corporations in his bestselling book ‘When Corporations Rule the World.’ Emotive though this less than favourable account of big business’ globalising impact may be, it nonetheless points to a common denominator to a wide range of pressing issues concerning global poverty. Of these, perhaps none provides such a unique insight into the seemingly callous machinations behind global capital’s inexorable march across the globe, nor is any so abhorrent to the activists standing opposed to it, as the problem of sweatshop labour.

Where a single pair of Nike trainers is sold in Britain for more than the average monthly wage of the workers in the developing world who made it, it is not hard to see why the organisation ‘No Sweat’ describes sweatshop labour as “modern, global capitalism stripped bare.” Beneath the household names we see that child labour, poverty wages, forced overtime, dangerous working conditions, intimidation, human rights abuses, and sexual harassment of a predominantly female workforce are well documented phenomena.

Former Honduran sweatshop worker, Lydda Eli Gonzalez, writes “We produced more than a thousand of those shirts a day, and just one shirt would pay more than my wage for a week!” But why are such injustices permitted to continue? The truth is that Third World governments welcome the economic investment of corporations such as Nike, Gap, Disney and Wal-Mart who seek to exploit the cheap and expendable pool of labour in these countries. The workers themselves have little choice; the alternative is often unemployment and starvation.

Sweatshop labour is one of the most unjust and deliberate issues of global poverty in existence. As such, however, its discontinuation is also amongst the most attainable of goals. Here we can look to international youth activism.

Whether through music, poetry, art or demonstration, young voices should be outspoken in raising awareness to the campaign to end sweatshop labour, whilst supporting organisations such as ‘No Sweat’ to build solidarity with, unionise and empower the sweatshop workers themselves. In an increasingly globalised world, the movement for change must also be international.

We must use our power as consumers to promote companies with high ethical standards and greater transparency, and publicly pressure those lacking these to change their practices. If sufficient numbers of young people, one of the main groups targeted by mass-marketed sweatshop produce, were to publicly boycott these products by writing to companies, explicitly raising their concerns, corporations would take notice.

Martin Luther King once said that “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter.” We must not be silent. We must speak out, we must educate and we must promote empathy and understanding so that together, a global youth can be united to end sweatshop labour. The change is in our hands!

 

Right so corporations are welcomed into third world countries, and they provide jobs for people who would otherwise be unemployed or starving.

What exactly is the problem?

Bonus points: If you buy a pair of Nike trainers for 100 pounds, how much of this is profit for Nike? Take a guess.

 

Ok so tell me how much?

Love & Wondering
EnonEmouse

 

What's the problem? The problem is that people, no matter where they live in the world, deserve better. They deserve a living wage, not a poverty wage, and they deserve human rights. Could you live on a dollar a day? This isn't much to ask for, and it is inhumane and immoral to deny it....

 

Well, it sounds great doesn't it? Good old Nike, how thoughtful of them to provide jobs for 3rd world countries. It wouldn't have anything to do with cheap labour and exploitation now would it?

If you want any kind of understanding of the 3rd world you have to look at the history and how the West has helped them into their 3rd world status in the first place.

The problem becomes one of morality surely? These people have been forced into a situation where they have to work in these places to survive. It's slave labour ultimately.

Not really sure what point you're making here. It seems as if you're contradicting yourself i.e. you know that Nike are being exploitative - just look at the profit they're making! Or are you praising them for this?

 

A living wage in any country is IMPOSSIBLE. Here in the US, we have raised the minimum wage 18 times since it was first created and people are still whining about it. If you raise the minimum wage to what you would call a "living wage" the cost of living would then go up in relation to that because everything would be more expensive to make, so eventually that "living wage" would become the new "slave wage". If you really want to end poverty, you need to EDUCATE people!! And I don't mean just primary school--the more education a person has the better paying job they will get, period. Focus on education, not on forcing companies to raise the wages, since it will only back fire.

-Kate

 

That too will backfire. I'm an educated person, have a place at Cambridge, will end up with a degree which should ensure me a well paid job and a comfortable life if that's what I want. If everyone were educated to that level then the value of education would decrease in terms of employment. The only merit of education, I would say, is empowerment. And I'm not talking about a rigid state education, I'm talking about knowledge, ideas and wisdom. People need to know the truths of the world so that they can stand up to its injustices, like sweatshop labour for example. And people all around the world must do this. And as for a living wage, I would say at the very least a living wage would be one where people can actually live and not face starvation or disease! If these companies were to pay people enough that they could put a good healthy meal on their tables each day, I don't think the world's economy would collapse....

 

You do know that we're talking about 3rd world countries here right?

But assuming you don't - I know of many people in the UK who have degrees and some even have the intelligence to go with it! I don't see them in high paid jobs. This is taken from a Scottish newspaper:

Infact, and I'm sorry to be rude, but that has to be one of the most ridiculous statements that I've read! What do you base this assumption on?

 

That's the point--to get them empowered. And I wouldn't worry about education losing it's value: here in the US most people have a high school diploma and our economy is the strongest in the world.

Even a "rigid, state education" is better than no education at all. If people were educated enough so that they knew the "truths of the world", they wouldn't be working at sweatshops to begin with.

I never said the world's economy would collapse. I said there would STILL BE POOR PEOPLE. There will always be poor people, and raising the minimum wage isn't going to help anything. Most people who work at sweatshops don't face starvation--the vast majority of people who die of hunger are SUBSISTANCE FARMERS who's only source of income is from their farms. As for disease, most diseases are caused by poor sanitation, (i.e. dirty water and no waste managment,) which has to do with a country's infrastructure. Infrastructure can only be helped when a developing nation's economy is improved, and a developing economy cannot be improved without foreign investment. If there were an international law that said that all compainies had to pay all workers a "living wage" few companies would invest in these countries. No one is going to get out of poverty working in a factory. That's not what they're there for. Ideally, they would be used as temporary jobs for people to work at until they can better their educations and find a better job.

You strike me as rather naive. I wonder...Have you ever even been to a third world country? I have, and I gauruntee you, the one thing all the poor people had in common was that they didn't make it past primary school.

-Kate

 

Oh my!

Education does not just come from institutions!

I am what you would call "a career woman"

successfull... car... house etc...

but more importantly i have a mind

I am very involved in politics and helping the world be "a better place"

I have never been to uni.... not educated formally past college... education comes in many forms..

much of which you do not learn just by reading... but by living

Respect

P.S. Great piece sal, well done

Love, Learning and Freedom Clairexxx

 

So, where exactly would they find work?

 

Yes, I know we're talking about third world countries--I've been to one, thank you. And yes, I know their educational systems are lacking, that's exactly what we need to fix. It is not an assumption: it's common sense. Do you think the people working in those nike factories graduated from college? No. The reason they continue to work at sweatshops is because with their lack of education, they don't know their rights and are terrified of losing their job because they don't think they could find another one.

Plus, what do you think is the formal education level of those people who run nike and most of the employers in the third world? Bet it's higher than third grade. Doctors, nurses, lawyers, teachers, accountants...all these professions are done people with educations. Some of them (i.e. teachers) aren't necessarily paid as much as they should be, but the point is education allows you to have nearly any kind of job you want, and it sure as hell opens up alot more oppurtunities than someone with no education.

I would really hate to think you're saying that it's not worth it to try and educate poor people.

-Kate

 

Not at all, but there is a context here. When people are starving, education is a luxury. And if you educate a bunch of starving people - how's that gonna help them? The governments of 3rd world countries need to take responsibility for their people. There isn't any point in educating a poor community when they don't have the facilities to implement their learning. I ask again - where are they going to find these jobs?

 

Strawberry Fields,

Your first point skirts poorly (pardon the pun) around the issue at hand. The strength of a nation's economy is not an indicator as to the status of its poor. You may have Bill Gates' billions and Texan oil giants powerhousing your econonmy, but you still have people struggling to feed their families, or too poor to afford health insurance. Yes. you have a powerful economy, and yes you may have universally high standards of education, but you still have a huge gulf between rich and poor, which is the real issue at hand here.

As for rigid state education, I wasn't criticising it, though it is not always beneficial. It can do much to resrict objective modes of thought. State education is a start, but by no means should it be an end.

"If people were educated enough so that they knew the "truths of the world", they wouldn't be working at sweatshops "

Thats frankly untrue, and I find it laughable you charge me with being naive in the same breath as making such a sweeping generalisation as that which has very little basis in rational truth. People are forced into their situtions in the third world. It literally is a world apart from the media sanatised world that we live in. Yes educating them would be a beginning, but where else would they work? And who would make our clothes if they were to make the rational choice not to work there? Education can be empowerment, and that empowerment can allow them to campaign for higher wages.

You make a fair point about subsitence farmers, and I would encourage everyone to campaign for fair trade to give third world farmers a better deal. But this isn't mutually exclusive to campaigning to end sweatshop labour. There are many injustices in the world, all of which should be resisted.

Good point on economic investment by companies, I've already alluded to that in the above article. Alas I was only permitted 500 words so was unable to elaborate. But if all countries were to work together as part of a global movement for higher pay and a minimum wage, then there wouldn't be an issue there. That's what I'm calling for. Of course as far as sanitation goes, it's not simply to do with a country's infrastructure, but that's a minor point.

Yes, I've been to a number of third world countries, and your attempt to brand me as naive is a frankly ridiculous and shameful attempt to devalue my argument. Learn how to debate rationally....

 

Yes. That's really clever. We can educate people with all kinds of qualifications for jobs that don't fucking exist!!! Look, it's really simple...... the world has some resources (we'll call them 'beans') and some countries (we'll call the 'people'). In the whole world, there are 100 beans and 100 people. 10 of those people have 90 of the beans, leaving 10 beans for the other 90 people. So we educate those other 90 people. And they still only have 10 beans. Get it?

 

*Claps*, maybe you're right, maybe I do usually agree with you Dok, this is dire, very dire

 

blame the countries, not the corporations. Nike isnt setting the minimum wage in china(45 a month i think).... Nike goes overseas BECAUSE countries like china let their people live like slaves.

While you may get a picture of some evil CEO of Nike, you forget that there are thousands of people involved in the corporation. Sure the CEO is making a shitload of money, but so are the stockholders. Nike's stocks will go down if they dont produce profits and that will hurt countless people. Ditto every other corporation that outsources to the third world. Guess what happens when their profits go down.

Dok was right, 10% own 90%. Sucks, but thats the way it is.

 

Third World countries hvae low or no minimum wage precisely because they want to attract the investment of these corporations who are looking to exploit cheap labour. The countries have very little choice, if they imposed a minimum wage the corporations would go elsewhere. Therefore the blame can be laid at the door of the corporate bosses, if they had humanitarian interests, rather than solely profit for the sake of profit, then they could easily afford to pay their workers more, and still take fat pay cheques themselves....

 

sorry, the point of a corporation is to make a profit. The point of a government is to take care of the people. You are putting the blame on the wrong people.

 

The point of a corporation should be to provide a service to the people. Nike wouldn't make clothes if people didn't need clothes. Yes, they do exist to make massive profits, but I'd argue that's not the way things should be in the world. Companies should serve the people, not the other way round. There are many ways to affect this change, but that's not really the point we're discussing. Governments should exist to look after the people, unfortunately they too are largely concerned with self interest and a strong economy. Governments are not answerable to the people at the best of times, and with China, as a dictatorship, we should be under no illusions that their government serves anyone other than themselves. This is a selfish world we live in, we must work for change, or else we won't have much of a world left in years to come....