Do you believe using low-wage labor in developing countries to produce goods for U.S...?

Question

...or European multinational corporations like Nike is a form of "exploitation of labor"? Explain why

Answer 1

Yes I agree, it is. Simply because these companies are not encouraging other countries to institute policies that encourage and stimulate a higher standard of living amongst their populations. None of this is creating a healthy competitive marketability for any of us globally.

Sometimes I wonder if I am the only guy left who understrands that the only progress in man comes from technology and science. The progress in these areas are the only areas where our educations seem to elevate faster. How we treat and deal with one another is much slower to advance towards progress in mankind. Putting aside religion culture and tradition to come to one simple conclusion that each of us know down deep is the hardest thing to find.
These types of unfair trade practices affect us all, negatively. I see a lot of these countries advertising their populations as much like someone taking advantage of the homeless guy carrying a sign that says, will work for food. How does that promote a healthier and more prosperous lifestyle?

Answer 2

the exploitation of labor is from the American side of the fence. Just in hidden cost to "all" taxpayers for the displacement of dang fish is $9 billion a year. Companies don't pay a dime!
------------------
"Considering that there are over 30,000 ships at sea this morning," writes James Carlton, director of the Williams College-Mystic Seaport Maritime Studies Program, in an e-mail, "the total number of organisms and species in this global 'bioflow' on the morning your readers read your piece could be staggering - billions of individuals, and thousands of species."

Indeed, scientists have long considered ballast water the primary way invasive aquatic organisms are introduced. From the zebra mussel's arrival in the Great Lakes, to an American jellyfish severely disrupting Black Sea fisheries, the potential costs of accidental introduction of a species to new homes can be tremendous. Aquatic invasives cost the US $9 billion yearly, according to estimates by David Pimentel, professor emeritus of ecology and evolutionary biology at Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y. Zebra and quagga mussels (a cousin to the zebra) alone cost the $1 billion annually.
------------------------
so! as you can see........cheap is not "always" cheap and the "we the people" are the ones that get the shaft while Companies make .....bigger and bigger profits!

Answer 3

The idea is that the consumer gets the benefit of paying the least amount for their purchased goods. The reality is that multinational corporations sell their goods for the same amount of money and provide a somewhat inferior product.

Answer 4

it's selfish to use people from developing countries without paying them enough to have secured living, on top of the issues involving child labor. it's morally wrong. most people live on less than a dollar a day for the expense of greed in the rich countries. corporations buy land from families for their own benefit which forces them into sweatshops. i don't believe it's a choice to work for low wages. i believe that it's the only option they are left.

Answer 5

My employer hires workers in India to do software engineering projects. They make more than they could working for an Indian employer. That money goes right into the Indian economy. And, my employer saves money. It's a winner for both parties.

Answer 6

well,..in other countries...sometimes the wage is not as high...heck...if you pay me 8 dollars an hour,..Im not going to work...But, if you pay 3 dollars an hour in another country..people flock to you...and why? cuz their average pay could be a dollar a day....These companies did nothing wrong...