Some more free market discussion.

I mentioned oh, last month that I might be able to publish this discussion I've been having with Mr. Bill Powell (his blog here) just as soon as I received permission from him. Well, I finally got through and he gave me to go ahead. I think I'll post one letter at a time for simplicity's sake.

I already linked his post and my initial response. Here is his counter-response

Dear Mr. Stine,

Thanks for your note! Sorry it's taken me a bit to respond.

> It would seem that because people traveled so far just to get sweatshop
> jobs that they are better than the alternative, no?

Unfortunately, that only speaks poorly for the alternative. In fact,
your links were great, they shed a little light there. For instance,
the NYT article pointed out:

Government policy is playing a role in creating the coastal labor
shortages. Trying to close the yawning income gap between the urban
rich and the rural poor in China, the national government last year
eliminated the agricultural tax, and it also stepped up efforts to
develop local economies in poor, inland and western provinces, which
have mostly been left behind.

Perhaps some people, at least, were leaving their homes because of
intolerable taxation. There are precedents.

> Wage slavery can only exist where someone holds a monopoly on
> employment. With hundreds of companies owning factories in China,
> this is not the case.

Maybe we're using the term differently; the point is, if people will
work under such intolerable conditions, there must be some severe
external pressure at work, severe enough to be at least analogous to
that which keeps people enslaved. I don't see why you need a monopoly;
all you need are the majority of factories having the same deplorable
conditions. That's how it worked when Dickens wrote *Hard Times*, that's how
it works today.

Incidentally, the second article's report of a rising GNP and per
capita income in China proves very little regarding working
conditions. As you know, if a millionaire on a desert island employs
three people for 1 cent a year, the per capita income is about
$250,000.01. Nor is the example frivolous, when even in the U. S. the
compensation for an average CEO is hundreds of times that of the
average worker. Imagine the ratio in a country where people get paid
cents a day.

Now, the NYT article indicates that many factories are being forced to
improve their conditions because of labor shortages. This is a recent
development, but it's great. Of course it would be wrong to blame
foreign buyers like Home Depot for *all* China's internal
problems--merely another variation on imperialism. Still, we can take
responsibility for our part in the mess, and that's the point of
restricting imports from sweatshops. You may believe this would only
discourage more factories, but what is this belief based on? If these
factory bosses are raising wages in response to labor shortages,
mightn't they do the same if threatened with losing the U.S. market?

Lastly, there's the question of whether it's moral to knowingly buy
the fruit of such horrid labor. If the factory described in my article
was down your street, and the people were living in the same
conditions, an average of 5 of them losing fingers each month, getting
paid the U. S. equivalent of those wages...would you go to the gift
shop?

Thanks again for writing! No obligation to write back, of course, but
I'll welcome any further thoughts you have.

Bill Powell

I'll publish more of the discussion at a later date. Enjoy.

Also, coming soon, a controversial article!

God Bless.