More Jobs Versus Better Jobs: Which Helps More In The Developed World?
Introduction:
A column by Nicholas Kristof, of the New York Times questions whether fair trade does more harm than good. Kristof doesn’t like sweatshops, but he puts for the perspective that creating more jobs would better serve the poor people in the developing world than higher paying, fair trade jobs.
This resulted in an email correspondence between myself and an international jewelry supplier who employs several hundred people in the developing world.
~Marc Choyt, Publisher
William (name changed): I had a friend and customer in the other day and we were talking about fair trade. He is an older guy now retired from his business. He’s English, a Methodist minister, successful business person and a consultant to the UN on projects in Africa. He referenced Nicholas Kristof, editorial writer for the New York Times, who wrote:
“My point is that bad as sweatshops are, the alternatives are worse. They are more dangerous, lower-paying and more degrading. And when I struggle to think how we can really make a big difference in the development of the poorest countries, the key always seems to be manufacturing. If Africa, for example, can only develop an apparel industry, it will boom.”
I know if I paid below the minimum wage I could hire twice as many people and probably do more good… But I don’t want to go down that track. It also results in a downward wage spiral, which perhaps in essence takes away a job from a higher paid person in one country and transfers it to a lower paid person in another, without necessarily creating more jobs in the wider scheme of things. Any thoughts on this?
Marc: Some people, who perhaps are not as genuine as your friend below, would use low wage argument as a justification for their exploitation. We cannot really change this approach, and we cannot be who we are if we join it.
Buckminster Fuller said, “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing models obsolete.”
At present in the jewelry sector, and almost all industries except for organic food, the average customer is too disassociated from the making of the product. They do not see how their actions contribute to a world that they may not want to live in.
The marketing of jewelry is about seduction, not ethics. For ethical manufacturing to work, we cannot do it alone. We need a circle of retailers and they need a circle of customers who care about the effect of their economic activity. That group is small at the moment, and that is the struggle for those of us who are pioneering this perspective.
It is just a matter of time, however, because younger people care about sourcing issues and want to buy things in alignment with their values. They are inheriting a world where the natural capital is critical. If human communities are marginal, then the ecosystem suffers the most.
Eventually, when we launch the fair made label, people will look for it and support it and that will increase your business and allow you to hire more people at a good wage. Then, as your business increases, other people will want to join in and eventually, the low wage people will want to change.
This may be idealistic, but it is the only sane approach. Greg and I have started FJA (Fair Jewelry Action) to create a communications platform to support the entire circle, because we need a broad community of like minded people to build what we hope to achieve.
William: I am totally on your line here. I don’t believe we will see what we do create a bigger pie, but I hope that we can create an upward wage (cost) spiral as consumers put a value on ethical practices. We can prove we follow them – and break the downward transference of jobs cycle that has been common in this world since WWII.
It started out with the need for Japan to create income and jobs after WWII and they in the 60’s produced low quality goods! It then shifted to Korea as they emerged from the Korean war, and as the Japanese economy strengthen and prices started lifting and laborers became less content with sub par wages.
Where it became interesting after this, is that the Korean businesses (and to a much lesser extent Taiwan) saw the same thing start to happen in Korea and instead of losing out, they made the moves to shift their own production outside, first to Thailand, then to Indonesia, then to China and now more recently to Vietnam. They follow where they can get the lowest wages and weakest social and environmental compliance laws, which usually equates to the Governments with the greatest needs (and often the greatest corruption and greed.)
When North Korea opens up, it will be a bun fight for these companies to establish there and milk the North Koreans for all they can…. This is incentive for us to keep this work up.
All healthy debate aside, I sometimes think I might be a bit radical in my person perspectives to be digestible to most people. I have seen too many do-goodie-gooders doing too much damage while trying hard to do the right thing, and I have seen too much destruction through unfettered, despotic corporate and personal greed.
For this to work, it is the US public that must climb on board – or must be lead on board by people with the skills to convince them to get there.
