On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 20:49:15 +0200, "szozu" hoppbunny at hotmail dot
com wrote:


"animaux" wrote

There is no
way I can buy merchandize any more which I KNOW is being made by either
children, or very poor people.

I understand your motives, but If you won't buy things made by very poor
people, how are they supposed to survive?

Childhood can be viewed as a luxury provided by well-to-do societies.
Children have traditionally learned to work alongside their parents as soon
as they were able to help.

In a similar vein, I've heard people say that if they were to move to an
underdeveloped country, they couldn't imagine hiring a maid, since they feel
it would be a demeaning position for the maid; yet in actual fact, they
would be resented by the locals, who would view them as "rich" yet not
contributing to the economy by providing at least one person with a chance
to feed their family.

Interesting points. "I have to fire you because someone told me I was
oppressing you." I think intelligent, well-informed campaigns to
expose and improve conditions under which brand-name items are
produced is a Good Thing. There *must* be some middle ground between
brutal worker exploitation, and trying to force Guatemalan industries
to pay US minimum wage.

Animaux says she would never buy merchandise she *knows* is made by
very poor people or children. How does one know? How poor is "very
poor"? Lobby for fair coffee prices, or for laws designed to regulate
child labor in foreign countries. Badger Nike and Anne Klein to make
sure their foreign contractors are providing conditions at least as
good and preferably better than the local norm. We might also take a
look at the conditions our own workers labor under. Child labor
(except on farms, mostly) isn't a problem, but minimum wage workers
are regularly treated very badly in many situations.