Recently I've been pondering whether practicality helps determine ideology. I've always considered myself a Democrat because my disagreements with the Republicans are much more insurmountable (choice, marriage equality, guns, sex education, victimless crimes and most social issues). With Democrats, in spite of our disagreements (mostly economic issues), my disagreements are often because I believe if something has been shown to work counter to the goal, that has to be taken into account. That reason is one reason people think I'm less liberal than I am, but does that really make me less liberal?
For a hypothetical example, if someone supports the death penalty out of belief in deterrence (both in its proper usage and its effectiveness), and the death penalty was shown to increase murders, so the person now opposes the death penalty. Does that make the person less conservative? I will talk about various examples with Democrats and liberalism that I have pondered. Follow me over the flip...
For today, I will talk about workers in third world countries. Specifically, the opposition to sweatshop labor. When I say sweatshop, I am referring to many things we think of when we hear that word (by our standards: low wages, poor conditions, etc...). I am certainly excluding any sweatshop that employees are literally coerced or deceived into working at.
I used to be the mainstream liberal on this issue, arguing exploitation, unfair competition against our workers, etc... but then I was prompted to think more about it. If sweatshops are so terrible, why are people working there? Because it's their current best option. We have people in 3rd world countries who dream of making $2 a day, working only 6 days a week, indoors, and we demean or even boycott the companies who offer that. I share the goal of improving the workers' situation more, and we don't do that by ending their current best option. We are making the situation worse by boycotting.
How? What are the upper and lower limits of an employee's compensation? What is the most an employer is willing to pay an employee, and what is the least an employee is willing to accept? The employee's total contribution to the company, and the employee's next best alternative, respectively. Between those limits lies the agreed upon amount, and within that amount lies the mix of compensation. The mix's ingredients (cash, health care, breaks, working conditions, etc...) make no difference to the employer when it's the same amount off the bottom line, but they make a big difference to the worker. The employer has an incentive to offer the mix workers prefer.
When we buy their products, the workers are doing nothing different, but they're making the company more money. Their upper limit just increased. When we boycott, the workers are doing nothing different, but they make the company less money. Their upper limit just decreased. Boycotting therefore hurts the workers' well-being (either requiring a cut in compensation or laying off some workers). You may argue that the employer will just make more exorbitant profits if we buy their products. If that is true, we're providing an incentive for another company to come in and offer the workers higher compensation within that same range. Even with that aside, reducing the worker's total contribution to the company will still hurt the worker.
The question then is about their employing of children. Well, again, people aren't working there because they are coerced into; they are working there because they prefer it to the alternatives, children included. Children still need money, and when they are laid off, they often starve or turn to prostitution.
Another question is about allowing those labor standards to compete with ours, and driving certain companies and manufacturing jobs out. That is part of the picture, but it misses a key part: By spending less on the same goods, we are now able to spend more on other goods, making up for those jobs. For example, let's say I buy something for $6 when I used to for $10. Whatever I am now buying with that extra $4 is going to see an increase in their sales and be able to hire more workers. You may argue $4 is nothing, and that is true, but when we go beyond just me, we're talking about real money. The money is still circulating making jobs available in other areas. The main change is we're now able to get more what we want, with the same amount of money.
I would never want to work in sweatshop conditions, but unless I'm suffering in a third world country, I have no credibility in telling anyone else not to, and we are making their situation worse in trying to impose our standards. These people have few awful options, and destroying their best one helps them? How? Reverting back to the introduction, would taking this into account make someone less liberal?
If you're interested, here are two articles by Paul Krugman on this topic: In Praise of Cheap Labor: Bad Jobs at Bad Wages Are Better than No Jobs at All (warning: PDF)
Reckonings: Hearts and Heads