Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clarification about African trade (fwd)
I agree with Micheal. Workers earning their livings in sweatshops do not even get a living wage. Let's not make the situation look better. Particulary, women workers are more vulnerable to exploitation in this process.It is true that most of the women in this part of the world come to cities to find jobs in order to escape themselves from old fashioned rural patriarchy. Yes, they prefer to work in Nike rather than in rice fields. What happens is that they are now exploited by capitalist bosses who use them as slave labor. Brad writes: But they're better off than they would be if they weren't exploited by capitalist bosses, right? Didn't Joan Robinson understand this? Though her book with that epigram in it is in a box somewhere and I can't verify this, Robinson was referring to the case of being employed (and exploited) by capitalists vs. being unemployed. The fact that being exploited is more pleasant than being unemployed is one of the bases for capitalist exploitation of workers. People wouldn't put up with exploitation if not threatened by competition from the reserve army of labor (and the fear of being drafted into that army). If being unemployed became more pleasant (or equally pleasant), exploitation of labor by capital would likely stop. Capitalists and their ideologists -- e.g., economist Martin Feldstein -- are quite aware of this and want to make sure that unemployment insurance and the like don't undermine workers' proletarian status (though they don't think of these matters in these terms). (Feldstein lobbied for, and won, the taxing of unemployment insurance benefits in the U.S.) In the longer run, of course, if the degree of exploitation is reduced, that dampens the rate of accumulation, restoring the reserve army of labor and exploitation (as Marx points out in volume I, chapter 25, of CAPITAL). (In the medium run, in an economy with fiat money, inflation is encouraged by this situation.) There's another interpretation which might be true to Robinson, since she's referring to poorer, dependent and agricultural, countries in East Asia a couple of decades ago. She may be comparing the situation of being exploited by capitalists vs. being in the "traditional" rural sector. But that interpretation has some problems. If I remember correctly, she was imbued by the then-fashionable urban bias of development economists (one that Brad typically rejects), though she thought that the problems of the countryside could be solved not by urbanization but by a Maoist strategy. This urban bias included Nobel Prize-winning economist W. Arthur Lewis' fallacious notion that traditional peasants had a zero marginal product of labor in agriculture, so that they could be shifted to the "modern" sector with little or no cost and lots of benefits. In addition, it ignores the non-market benefits of living in the countryside, such things as lack of congestion, clean air, and the social connectedness of "traditional" families and clans (which provided a pre-capitalist version of unemployment insurance). (NB: I'm not idealizing "traditional" society as much as noting that it had benefits which were lost with marketization. As others have noted, patriarchy rules the countryside.) What existence of these benefits of living in the countryside indicate is that it's not just a matter of the "pull" factors of the city encouraging people to voluntarily move to the fetid shanty-towns that ring third-world metropoli. There are also "push" factors, such as the rapid commercialization (marketization) of agriculture, the grabbing of the best land by the new commercialized land-lords, etc. (These factors make the countryside even less crowded, as less labor-intensive techniques are applied by commercial farmers, but dirty the air with pesticides, herbicides, and the like, while destroying the security arising from family and clan connectedness.) Push factors may include such matters as "la violencia" in Colombia (the Liberal/Conservative civil war), which with US guidance has morphed into the equally repellent "war on drugs." Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Clarification about African trade(fwd)
I agree with Micheal. Workers earning their livings in sweatshops do not even get a living wage. Let's not make the situation look better. Particulary, women workers are more vulnerable to exploitation in this process.It is true that most of the women in this part of the world come to cities to find jobs in order to escape themselves from old fashioned rural patriarchy. Yes, they prefer to work in Nike rather than in rice fields. What happens is that they are now exploited by capitalist bosses who use them as slave labor. But they're better off than they would be if they weren't exploited by capitalist bosses, right? Didn't Joan Robinson understand this? Brad DeLong -- This is the Unix version of the 'I Love You' virus. It works on the honor system. If you receive this mail, please delete a bunch of GIFs, MP3s and binaries from your home directory. Then send a copy of this e-mail to everyone you know...
Re: Re: Clarification about African trade
All the reports that I get indicate that the sweatshop workers do not get a living wage. Their money wage may be greater than their parents, but their parents had access to the food production and the light that was not priced on the market. So the money wage is misleading. Brad De Long wrote: But if Roger will be hurt, it does not follow that African labor will be helped. Other capitalists will be helped. Despite what you write, I remain unconvinced that the workers in the Indonesian sweatshops are beneficiaries of free trade. Even though the workers in Indonesian sweatshops today have three times the material standard of living of their parents back on the village a generation ago? Even though it does look as if--since World War II--that closing yourself off from world trade is a really bad idea? Even though the most that Dani Rodrik (who is in the business of attacking the trade-and-growth linkages) has been able to do is to fuzz the standard errors and make them large without moving the size of the estimated effect of trade on growth much? As a student of economic history, can you point me to one instance of a country that developed through free trade? The usual case against free trade is a case for export subsidies--invest heavily in export industries that as byproducts build human and institutional capital, protect those industries that generate big social learning externalities, subsidize exports so that you can ride down a learning curve. I know of *many* who have argued that tariffs and quotas on imports into your country can be beneficial. I haven't heard the argument that restrictions on your ability to export--tariffs and quotas imposed on your products by others--are beneficial... -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Clarification about African trade
Michael Perelman wrote: All the reports that I get indicate that the sweatshop workers do not get a living wage. Their money wage may be greater than their parents, but their parents had access to the food production and the light that was not priced on the market. So the money wage is misleading. A friend of mine who spent 2 years as a wire service reporter in Vietnam - she opened Dow Jones's Hanoi bureau - said she interviewed lots of (mostly female) workers who much prefer working for Nike to working in the rice fields. They make more money, the work is less onerous, and they feel partly freed from rural patriarchy. Sorry, that's what she says. Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: Clarification about African trade
Doug, what you say bears some resemblance to the reports that people gave about the girls who worked in the Lowell textile mills. They were younger, single and had no responsibilities. The horror stories that I hear relate to the young girls that have responsibilities, especially children. This version however does not necessarily mean that Brad is correct when he talks about a standard of living three times higher than that of the grandparents. Doug Henwood wrote: Michael Perelman wrote: All the reports that I get indicate that the sweatshop workers do not get a living wage. Their money wage may be greater than their parents, but their parents had access to the food production and the light that was not priced on the market. So the money wage is misleading. A friend of mine who spent 2 years as a wire service reporter in Vietnam - she opened Dow Jones's Hanoi bureau - said she interviewed lots of (mostly female) workers who much prefer working for Nike to working in the rice fields. They make more money, the work is less onerous, and they feel partly freed from rural patriarchy. Sorry, that's what she says. Doug -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Clarification about African trade (fwd)
I agree with Micheal. Workers earning their livings in sweatshops do not even get a living wage. Let's not make the situation look better. Particulary, women workers are more vulnerable to exploitation in this process.It is true that most of the women in this part of the world come to cities to find jobs in order to escape themselves from old fashioned rural patriarchy. Yes, they prefer to work in Nike rather than in rice fields. What happens is that they are now exploited by capitalist bosses who use them as slave labor. This is particulary true in apparel industry in the pacific rim. Some of the studies I have seen indicate that in some industries (foreign based) Malaysian women earn like $50-100 a month, prodividing cheap labor for US manufacturing companies located in free trade zones ( the same is true for Latin Aemrica and Caribbean too). In Dominican republic, for example, wages in export processing stay at $0.50 an hour which is lowest of any carribean basis country(Helen Safa, "Export Manufacturing, State Policy and Women Workers in the Dominican Republic" in Global Production : The Apperel Industry In the Pacific Rim, p 249). One can see a feminization of labor force from industrial labor dominated by men to light industry based on female labor force, and in apparel industry wpmen are used in assembly operations as unskilled and cheap labor. Women are emancipated, but not liberated. Women find themselves in a situation of patriarchal paradox, exploiated by local and foreing male capitalists at the same time. According to Safa,"to attract foreing capital, the Dominican state passed industrial incentive laws providing tax holidays of 8 to 20 years, exemptions from import duties, and no restrictions on profit repatriation.Labor control has been achieved by outright repression or prohibition of unions in the Dominican free trade zones, further increasing the vulnerability of workers" (p.253). Recently, garment firms employ a large female labor force (in 1992, they were 67 percent of all firms in Dominican republic). The strategy is to incorporate women to economic proccess and exploit them at the same time. It is also interesting that, according to Safa, some women in export manufacturing industries (38 percent) condider themselves "as major economic providers". "Juna Santana for example, sustained her family of three children on her weekly salary (about $20), covering food, rent, and her expenses such as transportation and lunch.. Juana's situtation was typical of what many women workers in the free trade zomes faced: low wages, poor working conditions, lack of inexpensive and adequate child care, few job alternatives, partners offering limited assistance or none at all.Export manufacturers have shown a preference for wome workers because they are cheaper to employ, less likely to unionize, and have greater patience for the tedious, monotonous work employed in assembly operations. Most of the women in the trade zones were young and had no previous work experience,which increased their vulnarebility. In addtion, 78 percent of the women were rural migrants, more than half were married, and one fourth were female heads of household, who carried the heaviest financial responsibility as principal or sole economic providers. Two thirds of our sample had young children to support, increasing their financial burden". Here are the stats. I don't know the situation of wome workers in Vietnam. Women may prefer to work in Nike, but i don't think they are economically well off. Perception is not the issue here. Many women think that they are not even exploited. for example, do they make a living wage? what are the objective indicators of this perception of well-being? Minimum wage in selected Countries (Source: USITC, Annual Report on the Impact of the Carribean BAsin Economic Recovery Act on US industries and consumers, sixth report, 1990, pub no, 3432, washington DC, 1991). Country US/hour ($) Aruba 2.86 BAhamas 2.20-3.00 Trinidad and Tobago 2.14 Netherland Antilles 1.18-3.08 Antigua and BArbuda 1.10 St Kitts and Nevis 1.08 Belize 0.87 St Vincent 0.76 Dominica0.75 Guatemale 0.75 Costa Rica 0.71-0.84 Panama 0.59-0.78 Dominican REp 0.50 El Salvador 0.50 Grenada 0.48 Haiti 0.39 Guyana 0.38 Honduras0.33 Jamaica 0.27 Female and Male Labor force Participasion Rates in the Dominican Republic, 1960-1990 (National office of stats 1966, 1985, and in edited tables from 1970 census. 1990 figures from central bank of dominican rep, survey of labor force,
