No Defense of Sweatshops

Bhagwati makes an argument for continuing to support companies like Walmart and Primark, and while it is attractive, it feels to me contradictory to the rest of his argument. To avoid a false analogy, I would say continuing to support Walmart is similar, but not exactly like, negotiating with terrorists. This country has a policy of not negotiating with terrorists because it only encourages awful acts of violence, and this same idea applies to the sweatshop situation. If consumers continue to buy goods from Walmart, the executives will not change anything. It’s fair to say that these companies have at least done something to address poverty in South East Asia. But they could be doing so much more. Now I understand very little about economics. Coming up with a reasonable living wage for these workers is difficult; who’s to know what’s appropriate. But a quick google search will tell you that the net worth of the CEO of Walmart is 19.7 billion US dollars. It’s fair to assume that there is some room for experimentation when it comes to determining what a living wage is for these workers. The hubris of these corporate executives combined with their complete disregard for the sanctity of the lives of their workers is appalling, and simply cannot stand. We cannot idly watch in complacency with these companies when their excess amount of profits is too much for the average person to even comprehend, or more than one person could ever hope to spend in a lifetime. I think when the personal accounts of the people who have had to work in the sweatshops are taken into consideration; there is no defense of the sweatshops.