Post a response to this discussion thread
http://www.cato.org/dailys/04-25-01.html
"According to Edward Graham of the Institute of International Economics, in poor countries, American multinationals pay foreign citizens an average of 8.5 times the per capita GDP"
That sounds like a major improvement to me.
If I was making 10 cents an hour, and someone else offered to hire me for 85 cents an hour, I would be grateful.
And again, it's not usually the people who live in third world countries who protest sweatshops. Those people are glad to have those jobs.
How would you like it if someone who made 100 times as much you make stood outside your place of employment, and protested that you were being "exploited," and, as a result, you ended up losing your job? Would you thank this person for "protecting" you, or would you be mad at him for causing you to lose your job?
The two countries in the world that have the most free trade and the fewest restrictions on foregin investment are Hong Kong and Singapore. In the past several decades, both of these countries went from having lots of sweatshops to having some of the highest standards of living in the world. But if the liberal "do gooders" had had their way, then those first sweatshops never would have opened, and Hong Kong and Singapore would still be poor.
The third world countries that have put up the most barriers to sweatshops and globabalization are the countries that have remained the poorest. The third world countries that have embraced free trade, foreign investment, and sweatshops are the ones that have had the biggest increases in their standard of living. Thomas Friedman explained this very clearly in his great column in the New York Times a few days ago.
Every country in the world starts out poor. So the question is, do you want to stay pooor, or do you want to begin to climb the ladder of economic growth and development?
Post a response to this discussion thread