originally posted in:Secular Sevens
If you completely discount the gross human rights violations in the factories that make the cheap plastic junk. Don't get me wrong, it is by no means just Walmart. But to say they are improving lives in third world countries, I can't quite agree with. Sure, they may provide a minimal amount of wage money to those countries, but they are also the ones funding the human rights abuses that keep those countries running the sweatshops to make those cheap goods.
I agree their distribution model is great, and it does really help lower class Americans stretch their dollar. But I can't believe that sweatshops and unsafe manufacturing plants exploited in other counties are a good thing.
English
-
Agreed. "The greatest good for the greatest number applies to the number within womb of time." Just because this benefits us now doesn't mean it's beneficial for the future of all folks, especially the ones being exploited right now.
-
I like how the article calls third world labor "efficient production". That line is simply a lie. They are nowhere near efficient, they are cost effective. In reality, they use [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhdH1ezM7To]horribly inefficient processes[/url]. They aren't particularly adept at manufacturing. They have no workers safety, pollution, or wage regulation, making them cost effective. Slave labor usually is incredibly cost effective. But that is pretty much the antithesis of Nobel prize material.