7/27/2019 MRivera BAM311 Wk5 Notes

1/4

Question #1: When US corporations (this applies as well to multinationals based in

other industrialized nations) go to a third-world country to save on production

costs, Americans are sometimes aghast at the wages and working conditions our

American corporations offer these foreign workers. A foreign worker might earn 20

cents an hour for the same work her American counterpart would be paid 20 dollars

an hour, plus all the benefits American workers have become used to receiving.

In defending their employment practices American corporations rely on two

main arguments. First, the claim is that our corporations are only doing what is

customary or morally correct in that foreign culture. So if children are typically

employed--or hope to be employed--rather than attending school, and American

companies then hire children (as Nike has done in the past), there is nothing morally

wrong with this practice, even though it would be deemed morally wrong in the US.

For our discussion here, though, we'll look at the second argument used to

justify our foreign business practices. It is normally true that when an American

company goes to Indonesia or Mexico and employs the locals, the people--despite theextremely low wages, and poor working conditions--are better off than they would

be had the American company not set up business. We'll call this the "better off"

argument.

Assume that these foreign workers in American factories are "better off"

than they were prior to the arrival of the American business. That is, they have jobs

where before they didn't. Their income is higher than before. How good an

argument is this?

Answer #1: Its hard to answer this question. Let me start with the technicalities; yes,

these people are better off in the ways of financial stability or betterment. It can be saidthat they may have a more stable society now that there are more jobs, people makingbetter money than they did, and this does have a trickle effect on other avenues of life.The thing that disturbs me is not the pay of workers (though it is abusively low by ourstandards), or that they may employ children. The two biggest things that I findtroublesome are the conditions in which they work (this is a basic human condition; noone deserves such conditions) and the assumption that third world countries are betteroff if American companies are there. Americans have this blind, unsubstantiated notionthat everyone wants to be like them.

7/27/2019 MRivera BAM311 Wk5 Notes

2/4

Question #2: The typical American worker with a 401k has been the best of both

worlds. He or she has been reaping the benefits in higher stock prices as companies'

profits from these foreign operations increase. Also, many, many of our consumer

items are relatively cheaply priced because they are produced by third-world

workers. What would Nike charge for a pair of shoes if that pair had been made by

someone earning UAW wages and benefits? Either the price of the shoes woulddouble or the profits Nike makes would dramatically shrink and so the stock price

would dramatically shrink.

Is it hypocritical to reap the benefits of third-world labor and then say "shame on

Nike" or "shame on Ford?

Answer #2: Well, you could do the math of what a pair of Nikes would cost if a UAWworker made them. Now, lets assume that it costs Nike $5 to make a pair of shoes. Ihave checked on Nikes website and they have a pair of Jordans for $210. That is a4100% markup. You do the math by taking the cost of the product, subtracting it from

the retail price, and then dividing that sum by the original cost of said product. AnIndonesian worker only makes $2.46 per day. Assuming they work an 8 hour day, that isonly $0.307 and hour. If we assume that a UAW person makes $20 an hour, theyd make$160 a day (all of this is not taking into account taxes, benefits, insurance, etc). By thesenumbers, a pair of shoes would roughly cost $946.68 (this is with the assumption that theoriginal Indonesian markup would be applied). Im not sure if anyone would by fromthem.

I think it is hypocritical to an extent to reap the benefits from third-world laborand then place all blame and shame on those companies. I think, in general, Americansare aware that companies outsource because they can make products in third-worldcountries cheaper than in America. This can, not always, mean cheaper prices ofproducts. However, with Americans knowing this information, it does not stopAmericans from buying said products. Americans love a low price and a great deal.

7/27/2019 MRivera BAM311 Wk5 Notes

3/4

Question #3: Suppose you are walking in the desert alone and you fall in a deep

hole. The walls are smooth and you are stuck with no food or water, in the middle of

nowhere. Your future is bleak. But very unexpectedly along comes another person.

She looks down from the surface at you and asks if you would like her to lower a

rope. "Yes," you say. She says "I will, but only if you promise to pay me one-half of

all the money you will ever earn in your lifetime." You think about it. You have onlytwo options. One, decline and die in several days. Two, accept her offer and live, but

have half your income taken from you. Which would you choose?

This example is used to show, allegedly, that it's wrong for the woman with the rope

to take advantage of you in this way. She found a person in a desperate situation

and made a contract. If Nike goes to a desperate country and offers these people a

rope, is this wrong?

You can't deny you are better off taking the rope and climbing from the hole, even

deprived of your income. Better off, that is, than being dead.

You are better off than before the stranger arrived indeed, you were dying; but

have you been treated immorally?

Answer #3: I love that people think these are the only two options. Someone who wasdevilishly wicked would at first agree, and have her pull them up with the rope. Theywould then in turn, push her in the hole. They could give her the option she gave them,or let her die and call it Karma. Now as for me, I would take the deal. I would show mygratitude and then either refuse to pay, vanish, or have her killed (just trying to answerrealistically).

The comparison of me falling in a hole and a woman offering me a rope tosurvive is not a valid comparison to that of what Nike does. Theoretically, they are bothropes, but to say that people in third-world countries would die in the same manner as if Iwere trapped in a hole is not equal. I understand that people in third-world countries dieeveryday due to lack of food, clean drinking water, disease, and other treatable things.However, the rope that Nike is offering, does more good than it does harmin theory.People look at this as a simple right or wrong decision. Our ethnocentrism is so deep weassume the third world is so horrible that we, as Americans, are their only hope. I think itis dangerous to have every country on an equally industrialized platform. Our resourcesand planet would suffer if everyone adopted the American model of business. It maysound harsh, but there has to be a balance of all things in this world, including mankind.Now some people would say that you shouldnt negotiate with peoples lives; everyonedeserves to live a great life. I agree with that statement, but I dont believe that everyoneneeds to live like Americans. People in other countries live, what I would call, betterlives than a lot of Americans.

7/27/2019 MRivera BAM311 Wk5 Notes

4/4

Question #4: From your reading (and without looking at the text nor your notes), do

your best to define the moral theory "Ethical Relativism." This is the theory that

multinationals use to defend their foreign business practices and is crucial to this

week's discussion. What are the main strengths and weaknesses in this theory?

Answer #4: I would define Ethical Relativism as the theory that nothing is innately rightor wrong; the right or wrong of ethics is relative to an individual or group of people, orculture, society, or religion of said peoples point of view.

I can say the same arguments of wrong that most people will say. This type ofthinking could lead to the inequality of pay for workers across the world (issues ofworking conditions, child laborers, and physically/emotionally inhumane treatment ofwomen/children across the world is a human issue and should not apply to the EthicalRelativism Theory). A strength would be that cultures or societal point of views wouldcontinue persist; though some point of views definitely shouldnt (thats in my point ofview, but Im not shoving my POV down anyones throat).

Question #5: Are there any circumstances under which child labor is morally

justified?

Answer #5: Yes. Societies, like the Amish, use child labor everyday. It is part of theirculture and way of life. It instills values, sense of responsibility, and sense ofcommunity. The Amish have strong communities of helping your fellow man always,not just in time of need. Though not perfect, no group of people or individual is, they donot view child labor as a negative. Children are part of the family structure and give ofthem selves to assist the community, not the individual. I, personally, like that ideal.

(Note: I dont agree with all their oppressive views on religion or treatment of women,but like I said, no one is perfect.)