Multi National Corporations have been a pet peeve of mine for a while now. Whenever I go to Smithville my mom has upon occasion said "I'm going to Wal-mart, do you need anything?" Since I have trouble controlling my facial expressions I relay to her that I disapprove of her consumer habits. Now she doesn't ask anymore... big box I say, is the devil.
I thought this to be true of most MNC's- setting up shop, driving out mom and pop businesses, and being able to undersell everyone because of their notoriously cheap labor and exploitation in developing countries. The MNC's proliferation of globalization and their lack of ethics, paying nationals 10 bucks a week.. their logos everywhere...yuck...humbug I thought.
Now I don't know what to think and here is why:
Let's begin with an example: Nike goes to Bangladesh and sets up a factory, pays the workers $2 a day, works them for 12 hours a day 6 days a week. The labor is unskilled (since making shoes is apparently not all that hard to do) and the labor pool is vast since the economy isn't exactly booming. If Nike moves in and hires 200 of these people- we have 200 new jobs in the economy- 200 people are able to work and provide for their families (more than before). Now besides the fact that according to my standards they don't make enough to see a movie with one weeks pay- they are making more than before.
Let's pretend Nike got a conscious and decided that they would move back to New York and start a plant there- what we would have is 200 people from Bangladesh who are suddenly jobless. What you would also have is shoes that cost you $300 instead of $100 because it costs Nike more to produce them. (ps, I don't buy nikes except for that time I needed them for volleyball-- it was an emergency and they were cheaper than the alternatives!!!) If an MNC didn't get their product made so cheaply... then it wouldn't be sold so cheaply which would directly affect those on the poverty line in developed countries who aren't able to purchase basic necessities as easily.
Back to the point- I don't hate Walmart anymore. I think they might be scummy but if you said to someone in Bangladesh "I'm rallying people to boycott Walmart so that they won't buy the product you make for such little pay"... they would look at you and say "you're doing what? I won't have a job if you do that..."(although they probably wouldn't say it in English..).
All of this comes from thinking about a book I read this weekend called Naked Economics- which was the best book I've read about economics (the total number of books I've read on the topic doesn't matter...). The author probably explains it better on his chapter on trade and globalization- here's a taste:
Of a Thai laborer:
"She is paid $2 a day for a nine hour shift, six days a week. On several occasions, needles have gone through her hands, and managers have bandaged her up so that she could go back to work".
"How terrible," we murmured sympathetically.
Mongkol looked up, puzzled. "It's good pay," he said. "I hope she can keep that job. There's all this talk about factories closing now, and she said there are rumors that her factory might close. I hope that doesn't happen. I don't know what she would do then."
"The implicit message of the antiglobalization protests is that we in the developed world somehow know what is best for people in poor countries- where they ought to work and even what kind of restaurants they ought to eat in"
"In 1993, child workers in Bangladesh were found to be producing clothing for Wal-mart and Senator Tom Harkin proposed legislation banning imports from countries employing underage workers. The direct result was that Bangladeshi textile factories stopped employing children. But did children go back to school? Did they return to happy homes? Not according to Oxfam, which found that the displaced child workers ended up in even worse jobs, or on the streets- and that a significant number were forced into prostitution"
"Sweatshops do not cause low wages in poor countries; rather they pay low wages because those countries offer workers so few other alternatives"
ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
What a messy world. I'm hearing that part of the answer to this ordeal could be neo-liberalism (I didn't know what that was until 2 days ago...)....but I'll save that for another post.
So, will I personally shop at Walmart?...probably not. Will I protest Walmart...probably not.
So mother, feel free to pick me up that bookshelf at your favorite MNC for when I come home.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Ah Chris...
I'm glad to see that your position on MNCs has gone from hate to don't care! That's a big step. Now you can glibly roll your eyes at either position. That's fabulous! Glad to see that your American education is bringing you to a place of defined convictions and strong ethics.
I'm just teasin' you man. Sounds like good stuff. I personally shop at Wal Mart without really considering the global ramifications. That's probably worse than having a position and then relenting a little because of a good book. I'm proud of you for not being pig-headed and prideful in your anti-Wal Mart stance.
Keep up the good study...prep yourself well - - you'll need the great wisdom if we're going to go ahead with that city block...
JL
JL
I can't believe I'm about to say this but...I would say that I'm more of a fan than not simply because:
a) cheaper things for poor people in North America
b) jobs for people in developing countries
c) mom and pop shops are going to feel it but chances are they are entrepreneurs and will be able to pick themselves up off their feet, eventually.
okay, not sure I'm convinced yet but its a new thing for me...
did you meet with Darryl yet?
ok, i get that having a job that pays $2 a day is better than no job at all. i'm just wondering why those are the only alternatives. i mean, these MNC's make ridiculous profits and the big fromages of these companies pocket millions, yeah? so how is it not possible for the Nike's and Wal-Mart's to simply offer higher wages to the people in Bangladesh etc? instead of legislation which bans the import of these goods, how about legislation which orders fair pay? am i missing something here?
well, in most cases the MNCs pay more than local companies...so it is better wages (fair??? even though we see it as less than peanuts). If Nike said we'll hire people for 8 bucks an hour it would be chaos...people killing for those jobs..
what needs to happen (I think) is that they stay...and other businesses start popping up... the economy slowly grows... import/exporting increases...then in 25 years nike is hopefully paying their workers more because there are more places for them to work- competition.
Now, actually that probably wouldn't happen because Nike would probably move their factory to a country where they can still pay $2 a day... and the process starts over again. BUT, business in the former country has increased to the point where there are alternatives for people to pursue...
i am no expert...this is just my guesswork...
oops. i didn't think of the ramifications of one company raising the wages in terms of the people vying for those jobs. probably not a good scene. i was just trying to think if there were any alternatives to low wages v. no jobs at all. i guess the MNC's will resist shaking up the status quo in their own right, ie. moving to a different country. no easy answers here. BUT, with your degree i expect you to work it all out, alright Lewis?
Hey Chris
Recognizing that large pay hikes (we still could consider moderate pay increases I think...right?) could cause mass chaos, do MNCs invest into the economies of these countries in other ways? Contributions to foreign aid, I'm actually not sure what suggestions to offer here, but education, leadership development...fill in the blank.
There's no way around it that when people from the west become filthy rich off of the hard work of the citizens in developing countries there is still a huge problem.
I am recognizing the case for the need for work in developing countries but I cannot help but think that these people are still getting ripped off...well, taken advantage of, in some ways.
To give a little where there is nothing (when you could give much more) hardly seems heroic. It's like Donald Trump seeing a poor child on the street corner feeling bad and opening up his box of 300 crayons and handing her the grey one. Well, I guess they could have some quality of fun...better than nothing.
I respect your research and want to hear more...but I'm a little skeptical.
JL
Well, I suppose that's the beast of capitalism- to be able to make the most amount of money with the least amount of work- its not necessarily ethical but it's within the system we've created.
are the workers ripped off? don't know.
are they taken advantage of? absolutely.
I'm pretty sure the macro issue here is government structure in these countries- that is, corrupt governments prefer monopolies, stifle competition and muck up creative initiatives with systems of bribery. Also, a corrupt government usually means that its impossible for locals to get credit for loans.
This means that there is no competition for Walmart, so they can pay whatever they want- IF countries opened their markets, encouraged competition (ie. adopted capitalism) then you would see standards of living increase the way that our standards of living have increased in the last 125 years.
Hmmm...not sure if I believe that opening the markets will solve everything but its interesting to think about....
I don't have any references, but I think it's a bit more complicated then that. I don't think most countries go from dismal to praise God for walmart showing up.
I'll be looking into it, but I think we have the wrong picture.
Who says that capitalistic, democratic society is best. You stated that if jobs came to North America then nike would charge $300 instead of $100. The reality is that it already cost $200 for a good pair of shoes and why do companies like Nike need to make 200% profit. That is the lie that capitalism feeds. It is ok to charge that kind of money for a pair of shoes because its a fair market price. Well if that is the case then why is it people like Stephon Marbury can come out with a shoe line that cost 14.95 for every pair in the line. Sure they're not as flashy as a $200 pair of Jordan's but they do the trick.
Isn't interesting that both shoes are made in developing countries and pay the workers too little, but one shoe reflects this. Does that make thing better? Clearly nike is not interested in offshore labor in order to keep there prices down or for the good of the people in developing countries. However at least in the Starbury line his price is for the people and not for the profit. He still makes money off his shoes but obviously that is not is sole concern. Does that make using cheap labor right?
There is always talk about bring the level of developing countries up, however if we really wanted to help people would would not wish more money on them or better jobs. I'm not sure what the answer is but I know that it starts with us learning the difference between needs and wants. If we can learn to become less of consumers and teach our children this, we will begin to see that we have too much. It is only then that things will begin to change. Until that point we will continue to live in a world where it is ok for one country to make shoes that would cost a 1/2years salary and send them to another so we can spend a 1/2days salary on them. I say it’s us that need to lower our greed and standards, then may we might be able to see the suffering and oppression we are causing.
The truth is I would not wish are democratic, capitalistic society on anyone. It is a culture so filled with selfishness that is bred from the top down. Just my initial thoughts. Sorry that it may sound like rambling, I think it also be a little frustration coming out.
There has to be a better way.
j
First, 10 comments...I think that's a record.
Second...bfine-- you gotta give me something besides that... let's dialogue here.
Justin- what's up dawg? Okay- as far as I can tell the problem that we have is the unequal distribution of wealth... rich get richer, poor stay poor and this is immoral- so we don't like it.
Let's be clear about some stuff..
I side with the poor.
I despise what money does to people.
I hate exploitation of people.
The real question is: how to we alleviate world poverty? It shouldn't be: capitalist this, or marxist that or socialist this.. the question is how can we alleviate world poverty and what is the best way to do that?
It is NOT simply giving people money or transfer of wealth.
I think I disagree J- poverty and job creation are connected- even though you say you wouldn't wish a capitalist, democratic state on anyone- I don't know you've thought through those implications- it would mean the following for you:
1) you don't own a house anymore
2) you didn't go to university
3) you have no money, no bank account, no access to credit
4) you can't change the leadership structure of your country
5) you have almost no way to make a better life for you or your family.
despite the fact that capitalism is a beast, it can also be used to benefit a lot of people. In fact, it is the ONLY system in the modern era that has raised the standard of living in a poor country- no other system has worked- ever.
I'm sounding a little right wing here which is weird for me...
I need to put on my birks, hope in my VW and grab an Economist...(the magazine, not an actual economist).
J- I think my 'if you didn't live in a democractic capitalist country' statement wasn't entirely correct. It may lead to 1-5, but not necessarily.
In any case I'd take democracy over communism any day of the week(even though communism in theory seems so nice...)
For the record: I call bullshit.
How's that for dialogue? ;)
I don't shop at Wal-mart, I tell others not to shop at Wal-mart (there's the protest bit), but, and this is essential to the whole process, I'm also involved in developing a form of community that offers "the poor" a genuine alternative to Wal-Mart (both as consumers and workers).
Your argument strikes me as rather naive on a number of levels. For example, diverting the issue to that of "corrupt governments," fails to recognize the extent to which MNCs are responsible for installing, and perpetuating, those governments. Western based MNCs have been using Western foreign policy and military force to pursue their goals for decades in the two-thirds world. The pursuit of these goals has often meant training, funding, and maintaining military coups that overthrow democratically elected governments, so that the country can be sold to MNCs.
Niebuhr, of course, would be proud of the "Christian realism" demonstrated in this post. The problem is that this sort of "realism," isn't at all "realistic" from a Christian perspective. It simply demonstrates the loss of our prophetic theopolitical imagination, as Brueggemann and Cavanaugh continue to remind us.
The "end of history," did not occur with the triumph of Capitalism, as neo-cons like Fukuyama assert. The "end of history" occured when Jesus died and rose again. Thus, as Christians we do not see capitalism as the only alternative, we see a communal cruciform life lived by the power of the resurrection Spirit as the only option before us (for more on this way of thinking, cf. my article in "Stimulus" which is also available online -- http://www.stimulus.org.nz/index_files/STIM%2014_1%20Babel.pdf).
Grace and peace.
daniel
that's pretty good dialogue...
"an alternative to Walmart as consumers and producers"... have you written about this somewhere?
"...The pursuit of these goals has often meant training, funding, and maintaining military coups that overthrow democratically elected governments, so that the country can be sold to MNCs."
-Who, what, where?
"loss of our prophetic theopolitical imagination"... sounds like an exciting dissertation waiting to happen--although it probably already has...
coffee- march 24?
this is the best blog post i have seen in a while - considering the overhwleming response! i am by no means an expert on any of this - but I might be able to add a few thoughts.
I agree with the guy who called bull shit, if only because i think that MNC's are getting away with human rights violations at every turn, and they are not being held accountable for any of their atrocities. What is worse - consumers keep on buying these goods despite the immorality of their production. How can these MNC's be brought to account (along with governments - agree with you there Chris) is another dilemma altogether. I also agree with Chris that to simply boycott goods rarely results in a behavioural change on behalf of the corporation, but it definitely affects the livelihoods of those workers who produce these goods - and that hardly seems fair (Rat bastrad MNC's...)
Also, although I think that economics is an important component to consider in this kind of a discussion, I am not anxious to believe that every nation needs to develop and maintain the same economy we have. In fact, I think it's pompous and irresponsible to suppose that other nations need to take after us in their quest for development - capitalism is not necessarily the answer to alleviating poverty. I have a major problem with our obsession with consumtion, and I am appalled at the idea of transposing these values elsewhere. Espacially since the gaps between the rich and poor continue to widen in our democratic nations, and access to education, health care and social services are in decline. I would argue that capitalism is depentent upon inequality, and it creates a grossly unequal distribution of wealth.
As far as Christian realism - that whole concept is interesting to me. It appears that much of the Christian tradition in Western nations has danced hand in hand with capitalism for so long - we have a hard time seperating the two. That's a sweeping generalization, but I do think that these two systems have propped each other up in our Western liberal democracies... to the demise of the vulnerable, resulting in the oppression of the poor and weak - here in our own countries and internationally.
To agree again with the bull shit guy - Fukuyama was crazy to write the "end of history" - he asserted idiotic gibberish that history itself defies.
My biggest question concerning the terror of MNC's is: What can I do? There are so many different responses to injustice, taking on many forms be they political, spiritual, social... I want to do everything, yet I feel like I end up doing so little. I know a thousand stats on poverty and the injustice that billions suffer - and that just sounds so big that I bawk.
I don't want to bawk - I want to see change.
How do you move from discourse to action...
sorry for all my spelling mistakes.
Chris,
Re: alternative to Wal-mart -- I don't think I've written about this explicitly anywhere. This sort of thinking is implicit in posts where I have written about intentional Christian community, in general, and Christian community as a community of radical sharing, in particular.
Re: military coups, foreign policies and MNCs -- I was thinking mostly of U.S. foreign policy in relation to Latin America, the Middle East, and Asia over the last 60 years. For a broad survey of some of those things I recommend Necessary Illusions by Chomsky (read the appendices as well). For a more theological read on Pinochet's coup in Chile, I highly recommend Torture and Eucharist by William Cavanaugh.
Re: prophetic theopolitical imagination -- The Prophetic Imagination is the name of a great book by Brueggemann. Theopolitical Imagination: Discovering the Liturgy as a Political Act in an Age of Global Consumerism is the name of an equally great book by William Cavanaugh.
Finally, while we're on the topic of Capitalism, I would also highly recommend Liberation Theology after the End of History: the refusal to cease suffering by Daniel M. Bell Jr. For a sample of Bell's work, you can check out this online article: http://www.theotherjournal.com/article.php?id=55 -- it's called "What is Wrong with Capitalism? The Problem with the Problem with Capitalism" and I think you will find that it contributes to this discussion.
Grace and peace.
Post a Comment