The collapse of the garment factory is Bangladesh brings to the forefront once again the inhuman conditions that make it possible for the developed nations to keep consumer spending up, inflation low, while ensuring that credit is still freely and cheaply available. Essentially ensuring that even though people are spending a lot of money- which they don't have- the prices of goods don't go up. Someone somewhere has got to pay the price for the excesses of today's consumption based societies. And as it happens, the people at the bottom of the food chain are the ones who are bearing the brunt of it.
In my lay person's understanding of the American economy, everything comes to a screeching halt if people don't consume more. But in order to get them to keep consuming more, the prices have to stay attractive. Now the cost of materiel things that go into the making a piece of clothing, say cotton, can not be brought down beyond a point. Global commodity forces are at play there. But what can be controlled are labour costs. And that is what happens. Suppliers out of developing nations are squeezed to pinch pennies and they cut the cost that is the easiest to cut- labour cost. Garment manufacturers are in the lime light here, but I am sure the working conditions of laborers in India and China who churn our household goods or kids toys aren't any better.
The question to ask is - are we as a consumer willing to pay the "actual" price of what it costs to produce a good. And by that I mean the cost that would be incurred if the labour was paid fairly, enough to lead a life that would be equitable to the similar person living here in America or any other developed country. Would we be willing to pay $2.00 extra for a pair of shoes if we knew that it was manufactured in a facility that treated its workers well? Would we perhaps be willing to cut down on the number of things we buy so we could buy more expensive things and yet not break our budget? Are we willing to sacrifice our quantity for the quality of another human being's life?
In my lay person's understanding of the American economy, everything comes to a screeching halt if people don't consume more. But in order to get them to keep consuming more, the prices have to stay attractive. Now the cost of materiel things that go into the making a piece of clothing, say cotton, can not be brought down beyond a point. Global commodity forces are at play there. But what can be controlled are labour costs. And that is what happens. Suppliers out of developing nations are squeezed to pinch pennies and they cut the cost that is the easiest to cut- labour cost. Garment manufacturers are in the lime light here, but I am sure the working conditions of laborers in India and China who churn our household goods or kids toys aren't any better.
The question to ask is - are we as a consumer willing to pay the "actual" price of what it costs to produce a good. And by that I mean the cost that would be incurred if the labour was paid fairly, enough to lead a life that would be equitable to the similar person living here in America or any other developed country. Would we be willing to pay $2.00 extra for a pair of shoes if we knew that it was manufactured in a facility that treated its workers well? Would we perhaps be willing to cut down on the number of things we buy so we could buy more expensive things and yet not break our budget? Are we willing to sacrifice our quantity for the quality of another human being's life?
No comments:
Post a Comment