The only sweat i want to wear is my own

January 16, 2009 7:00 AM

Is buying clothing from developing countries sweatshops all that bad?

I always thought buying local, or at least from developed countries is better because it promotes better working conditions and fair wages. However, I just finished reading The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time where the author claims that sweatshops are actually good because they allow very poor countries to “reach the bottom rung of the economic development ladder”.

So, what is the most ethical way to buy clothing?

posted by racingjs to clothing, beauty, & fashion (17 comments total)

You could try buying clothing from Cambodia, which enforces higher labor standards in its clothing factories than most other developing countries.

This recent article might be interesting to you. Anyway, if Nick Kristof and my socialist/Marxist college ec professor both agree that supporting sweatshops is good, I'm not one to argue.
posted by phoenixy at 7:13 AM on January 16

Strongly seconding the above-linked article by Kristof. And watch the video that's included -- horrifying.

Also this similar piece by Paul Krugman from 1997. And this other Kristof article.

This working paper says:

Few dispute that multinational firms tend to pay their workers more than domestic firms in the Third World. Critics of sweatshops maintain that because subcontractors make many products for multinational firms, measuring only multinational firm wages does not address critics' complaints against sweatshops. We have addressed the deficiency in the literature by comparing apparel industry wages in countries that supposedly have sweatshops and the wages of individual firms accused of being sweatshops to measures of average standards of living in these countries. The data clearly show that overall, apparel industry workers are far better off than most people in their economies. However, while the best available, the data used was far from perfect. Biases are likely causing us to understate earnings as a percent of living standards. Despite data limitations, individual firms accused of paying sweatshop wages often still compare favorably with other standard of living measures.

Based on pieces like these, I don't feel bad about buying sweatshop-made clothing. There's no question the people who made it have bad lives, but that's not the relevant question to me as a consumer. The relevant question is: will not buying this make those specific workers better off than buying it? That means you need to ask what the alternative for those workers is. If it's, say, prostitution (which in many cases it is), then no.
posted by Jaltcoh at 7:27 AM on January 16

I'm by no means an expert on sweatshops, but living in the developing world, I can tell you there are plenty of ways to help support local tailors / clothiers by buying their wares rather than needing to support a sweatshop.

I'll be honest, I haven't read Sachs' stuff yet - mostly because most people have told me not to waste my time, but if he's going to equate the indentured servitude (at best, I won't begin to describe to you what the "at worst" scenario is here) of mere children (many times, but not always) with "reach[ing] the bottom rung of the economic development ladder"...well then I've apparently made the right decision not to pick up his drivel yet.

Sweatshops help their owners reach higher rungs of the exploitation and corruption ladder, and I can guarantee you those under their "employ" are reaching no rung on any kind of development ladder.

Behind the Label and No Sweat are probably good places for you to start researching this further. The former has a good list of links.

Good on you for wanting to wear ethical clothing. I have to say, sadly, that I don't think it will be that easy to ensure that you are wearing just that, without a lot of leg-work. You can't exactly stroll into your local Macy's and ask the sales clerk if they're sure that this Ralph Lauren wasn't manufactured by children in Malaysia, but I definitely think its worth going the extra mile to make sure it wasn't.
posted by allkindsoftime at 7:41 AM on January 16

My sister-in-law in Kyrgyzstan appreciates any sewing work that comes her way, so from that limited perspective, sweatshops* are good.

*It isn't particularly sweaty work... just her and a bunch of other ladies in a medium sized room full of sewing machines.
posted by Meatbomb at 7:54 AM on January 16

Whoa geez... it's another ethical dilemma in which the terms and results have changed dramatically since the turn of the 20c. Perhaps a local analogy might be helpful: do I hire the well-to-do kid to wash my car OR the not-so-well-to-do kid? Do I pay them the same? What value does that offer each? Am I then responsible for a boom-bust, particularly with the not-so-wtd kid? Meatbomb offers a great illustration / personal anecdote there.

When you've arrived at an answer that is personally satisfactory, just be willing to change your mind. Once you've changed your mind on this several times over, then consider the impact of natural vs. synthetic fabrics and whether the former should be produced organically.

Ah. The joys of globalization.
posted by ezekieldas at 8:10 AM on January 16

An interesting read: Where Am I Wearing?
posted by nitsuj at 8:27 AM on January 16

I'll be honest, I haven't read Sachs' stuff yet - mostly because most people have told me not to waste my time, but if he's going to equate the indentured servitude (at best, I won't begin to describe to you what the "at worst" scenario is here) of mere children (many times, but not always) with "reach[ing] the bottom rung of the economic development ladder"...well then I've apparently made the right decision not to pick up his drivel yet.

That argument would work if the alternative were for those children not to work. But if they're working on sweatshops, that's because their families have decided the kids need to work to bring in money. If the sweatshop jobs aren't available, the parents aren't going to just say, "Oh, I guess you'll have a normal childhood instead"; they'll find something else for the kids to do. If that something else is equal to or worse than sweatshops, then your professed concern about children isn't accomplishing anything.
posted by Jaltcoh at 8:45 AM on January 16 [2 favorites]

That argument would work if the alternative were for those children not to work.

Actually, my line of work is in creating those alternatives. Creating "something else's" that are worlds away from that, and hopefully a bit more towards that "normal childhood" thing you seem to think can't exist.

You can find out a lot more about the organization, if you're interested in that kind of thing, here. You could even sponsor a child who might otherwise end up in a sweatshop. Unless of course you've already made up your mind - along with Sachs and countless others - that there is no alternative. Unlike the OP.
posted by allkindsoftime at 9:21 AM on January 16 [2 favorites]

Actually, my line of work is in creating those alternatives. Creating "something else's" that are worlds away from that, and hopefully a bit more towards that "normal childhood" thing you seem to think can't exist.

You can find out a lot more about the organization, if you're interested in that kind of thing, here. You could even sponsor a child who might otherwise end up in a sweatshop. Unless of course you've already made up your mind - along with Sachs and countless others - that there is no alternative.

You know more about the issue than I do, and maybe you're right that there are economically viable alternatives for these workers. I'm just saying I'm unmoved by the abstract idea of hoping for better labor standards and boycotting poor labor conditions, which is the only level on which too many liberals (not you!) seem to think about the issue. I'd need to see evidence that these real people are actually likely to get these jobs in the real world. It would need to be not just a blueprint that said "This would be an economically viable plan if everyone decided to be reasonable and good-hearted and put it into practice," but a plan that's actually likely to succeed. And I'd need to look at what any offsetting factors would be (e.g. does it rescue 90% of workers in a sweatshop, cause the sweatshop to close, and then consign the remaining 10% to something worse?).

Again, you may be right that such a plan exists and that boycotting sweatshop clothes is effective. I haven't researched it, so I don't know. Even if you are right, I still encourage people to read Kristof's and Krugman's articles for a healthy dose of pragmatism and skepticism. And if they check the link for your organization and are won over by your position, that's just fine with me. (I haven't checked the link yet, but I assume the site has a FAQ or something that responds to Kristof/Krugman-style arguments, right?) In fact, I fervently hope that you're right and that Kristof/Krugman are being too cynical. But whoever's right, I have no doubt that the best possible thing is to have a debate about it where people are free to point out the downsides of trying to boycott sweatshops, even if those arguments might sound callous and overly utilitarian to some.
posted by Jaltcoh at 9:49 AM on January 16

jaltcoh, the problem is not just the problems the workers face, it's also the dependancy the companies create, only to pull out on a whim. They are not sustainably contributing to the economy.

Anywho, my answer to the question is that, if you do believe that "sweatshops" are bad for the communities they are based in, whether or not to buy "sweatshop" clothes basically depends on your means. Are you making 100k a year somewhere with reasonable cost of living, and do you have a reasonably low amount of debt, and no children, or maybe 1? Then you probably can afford to buy many "sweatshop free" clothes. Are you working for a low wage, paying off student loans, etc? Then you do what you've gotta do. Most people in that position even could afford to make a few sacrifices, but there's only so much. More likely, you're somewhere in between. Then maybe try to buy "sweatshop free" or from Cambodia or another better-than-the-rest country as some have suggested.
posted by gauchodaspampas at 10:00 AM on January 16

Why not make a commitment to buy from thrift stores? It's an ethical twofer: 1) reclaim capitalist waste and 2) spend money at worthy nonprofits instead of corporations. Everybody wins!

Not to mention the fact that thrifting frees up your own resources. I recently bought a pair of $350 Tod's loafers for $20, which left me with a great pair of shoes and $330 to spend on books and art supplies. Which is really ten kinds of awesome when you think about it. Works for me!
posted by aquafortis at 10:25 AM on January 16

The thing is, you really have no idea where and under what conditions clothing and other items were made. Work for international companies is contracted and subcontracted to the ninth degree. One pair of Nike sneakers may be made in a factory that abides by all of the local employment and environmental laws, while the next pair may have been made in another factory that does not. Even if you make things yourself, you won't know under what conditions the fabric, yarn, thread, and buttons were made. The only way to *really* be sure is to buy from countries where sweatshops are illegal (though there may still be some in existence) and/or from companies that have a mandate to make all its goods under fair trade conditions a — and of course, not many companies do.

So, the best approach is probably to just to try to reduce your consumption as much as you reasonably can and to buy secondhand stuff whenever possible.
posted by orange swan at 10:41 AM on January 16

I think it comes down to priorities. If you think the benefits (economic development, jobs, higher standard of living) of buying these goods outweighs the costs (environmental, working conditions) then go ahead. If you think that the possibility of exploitation is not worth the potential benefits, then don't.

It's not one of those problems that lends itself to neat quantificiation. Some companies may do things you find exploitive, others not. Either way, it can't hurt to investigate the products you're buying so you can make an informed choice.
posted by electroboy at 11:53 AM on January 16

jaltcoh, the problem is not just the problems the workers face, it's also the dependancy the companies create, only to pull out on a whim. They are not sustainably contributing to the economy.

Ironically, Nike pulled out of some factories in Cambodia to avoid bad publicity about sweatshops.
posted by electroboy at 12:02 PM on January 16

I still encourage people to read Kristof's and Krugman's articles for a healthy dose of pragmatism and skepticism.

Agreed 100%. I'm just always very glad when people take pause to at least engage in the debate. I do need to give those articles / books fair evaluation as well, and I intend to get to them. I guess I just worry about people using the argument of "well we don't have ALL the facts on the table just yet" as an excuse to never get around to actually taking action on the issues. I think too many do that too much of the time (not saying you are, just people in general).
posted by allkindsoftime at 9:57 PM on January 16

I have very little information, relatively to some of you, but this is an important topic for me, and I will be watching the answers with much interest.

My guess is that western involvement in these countries is the problem, not the solution. Western involvement creates the inequalities and conditions that have existed and continue to exist from our never-ending demand for cheap labor and resources. Without our influence why would we not assume that those people would leverage the shared human knowledge and develop sustainable economies on their own? They're smart people, just like the rest of us.

But, the natural resources and cheap labor that we rich people desire so much will still be in high demand. And it's that demand that creates the instability and inequality. Local rulers in those areas would continue to find ways to exploit their people and resources and sell it back to us. This is the pattern of pain that has existed for at least many hundred years, and we've got to put a stop it.

One easy way to reduce demand for products is to just stop buying. But, by doing that we inadvertently risk putting ourselves in a lower-leverage position. The demand for products (power) is so great that someone else would just come along and take our place. So, not only do we have to stop buying, but we also have to organize and unionize on ideas. We must stop supporting people, groups, countries that do not share these values.

Buy stopping our spending, we will increase our personal capital (if we work). Instead of investing that capital back into the current established system (stock market, bonds, banks), we could invest it back into the local economies and producers at the micro level. And, with the Internet and computers it's more possible and manageable to do this.

These are just some unpolished and unfinished thoughts.
posted by brandnew at 6:17 AM on January 17

No.

Naomi Klein's No Logo talks about how sweatshops are cycled through. On the one hand, it provides work for people but the companies always take the lowest bidders and while they may promise industrialization on the surface, as soon as they take their business elsewhere (to someone cheaper), that country is screwed because there's no money coming in. Thus, they are forced to work their employees harder and for lower wages in order to pick up the bids.

If you want to approach it from an ethical standpoint, keep in mind that factory work in those countries is incredibly harsh. Long hours, no pregnancy leave, few bathroom breaks etc. for meager wages and a shared dormitory.

Ideally, a country will industrialize to the point where it is self-sustaining and then engages in trade. Sweatshops force countries to depend on outside trade to sustain themselves.

But with all this stuff, you pick and choose your battles. Personally, I try to buy mostly from thrift shops - it's used clothing that still has life in it, it reduces waste, it's cheap and though it usually was made in a third-world sweatshop, at least I'm not adding to the problem by buying something new. But I will admit to wearing Diesel jeans (made in Asia) because they are awesome and hard to get thrifted.

And I'll second what brandnew says - it's good to pour money back into our own country's economy. It creates job, it stimulates the market and it gives us bargaining power on a global scale. The massive outsourcing that's going on is eliminating jobs here and also stunting growth in some of our industries. It's like how you could teach a man to fish and he'll eat for life and if you give him a fish he'll eat for a day. I totally butchered that but you know what I mean.
posted by HolyWood at 12:54 PM on January 18