Saturday, May 04, 2013

The Bangladesh clothing factory disaster and us. Not the US, but us

We consumers want to pay the lowest price possible for whatever we want to buy.  The market works, and works furiously, to get us products at those low prices.

This drive for low prices has led to China's rise as the world's factory.  In an earlier post, I wondered whether China's "cheap" manufacturing is worth all that.  I noted there:
We consumers all over the world are not willing to pay anything towards maintaining the environment, leave alone improving its quality.  Simultaneously, we seem to be addicted to inexpensive goods that come from China.  Even from a simple economic understanding, we can hypothesize that somebody is paying a price that we are not.
In China's case, there is one huge price that we already paying the piper: the effect on the natural environment.  Smoke and smog, and erosion, and more.

China's economic growth and development means that slowly wages have risen there, which then has spread the "cheap" manufacturing elsewhere, to poorer countries like Bangladesh.  Unlike China's environmental cost that we don't pay for because it is largely out of our sight, the drive towards lower and lower prices is a lot more visible in Bangladesh.  The latest was the collapse of the multi-level factory that has resulted in a body count that has already exceeded 550!

As consumers, we might be able to ignore the impacts on China's environment, but the loss of human lives in Bangladesh makes us pause, at least for a while, forcing us to re-evaluate our drive towards low prices.  What is the cost breakdown of the typical t-shirt manufactured in one of those factories?


Twelve cents!
To get prices that low, workers see just 12 cents a shirt, or two per cent of the wholesale cost. That’s one of the lowest rates in the world—about half of what a worker in a Chinese factory might make
But, those twelve cents are also why these jobs exist in Bangladesh.  This low wage is:
a major reason for the explosion of Bangladesh’s garment industry, worth $19 billion last year, up from $380 million in 1985. The country’s 5,400 factories employ four million people, mostly women, who cut and stitch shirts and pants that make up 80 per cent of the country’s total exports.
We forget that Bangladesh is one awfully poor country.  Matt Yglesias writes while situating "Bangladesh's GDP per capita in the context of American history":
It's common to compare Bangladesh to America's own sweatshop era in the late-19th century, but Krugman shows that Bangladesh is actually much poorer than that.

Yes, Bangladesh can do a lot more than it currently does to enforce labor regulations and occupational safety protocols.  But, ultimately,
Real reform will mean paying a lot more than $14 for a shirt.
We consumers have the power to influence favorable working conditions and lives for Bangladeshi workers, or workers anywhere, for that matter.  But, we have to be ready to put our money where our mouth is:
Babul Akhter, president of the Bangladesh Garment and Industrial Workers Federation, said buyers have a responsibility to check the safety and security of those making the clothes they order, but most overlook this.
Abdus Salam Murshedy, former president of Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association, adds: "The buyers and brands look for the most competitive offer. We cannot pay appropriate wages [to workers] unless we get proper prices for the orders."
It is easy to criticize "those greedy corporations" when they are merely responding to us greedy consumers!

As I noted in another post, it is bizarre that human life in some parts of the planet is held more valuable than human life elsewhere:
I find it terrible that a human life is not the same anywhere on the planet.  There seems to be a collective ennui when it comes to the loss of the lives of humans who were doing nothing but tending to their daily lives in some parts of the world.  The innocent civilians who die by the hundreds and thousands in many, many countries of the world do not make it even to the back pages of the papers, leave alone the front pages.
This Bangladesh incident will slowly move away from the front pages to some obscure spots, and will eventually disappear.  Soon it will be the holiday shopping season and we consumers will line up outside the locked stores for the early bird prices.  We will trample fellow-humans as we rush to pick up that remarkably low-priced product from China or Bangladesh.

The customer is always right!


New Portable Sewing Machine Lets Sweatshop Employees Work On The Go

5 comments:

Ramesh said...

Agree with some, disagree with a lot of your points. I can comment on this with reasonable first hand knowledge.

Firstly if manufacturing cost were only 32% of the price and if labour in that was miniscule, that item will never be offshored for foreign manufacture - its simply not worth it. Secondly, very few places have retail markups of 60% . So I would take those cost breakups with a large pinch of salt.

Manufacturing outsourcing happens for 3 reasons

- When labour cost is a significant part of the total cost (upwards of 30%). Otherwise offshoring to cheaper wage locations is simply not worth it
- When you cannot produce it on scale in your domestic country (Eg smartphone assembly)
- When the laws in your country make it absolutely foolish to employ anybody (Eg France)

Foreign companies outsourcing to third world countries actually bring about a huge improvement in worker conditions as compared to domestic buyers. The problem is that what are acceptable conditions varies widely from society to society. For example in lazy Western Europe, 7 day work week would be considered worker exploitation. In China if a company did not offer the possibility of earning overtime by working 7 days a week, workers would quit. Even in safety - wearing a saree to work would be unsafe practice in many countries. Can we ever implement that in India ?

Foreign buyers usually ensure that their suppliers pay minimum wages as per the law of the land. They do safety audits. They have minimum standards which they require compliance off. And say in China, the safety records of factories serving foreign customers is far better than say their domestic coal industry.

Therefore "us" need to make no apologies for buying a shirt for $14. We are actually doing a great deal of good to lots of people by doing so.

That doesn't mean that the tragedy in Bangladesh is excusable. Those guys broke the law of their own land. They deserve to be punished. But the entire outsourcing industry cannot be tainted with this and certainly customers need to have no guilty conscience.

Now I will stop :)

Sriram Khé said...

Hold it, old man, why think there is "disagreement" when we are in agreement? ;)

1. I pointed out that the clothing/export industry accounts for $$$ and jobs
2. I pointed out that "Bangladesh can do a lot more than it currently does to enforce labor regulations and occupational safety protocols"
3. The entire post was not to find fault with the outsourcing industry at all--I argue that the industry merely responds to what we as consumers state as our preference.

The market is amazingly wonderful that way--people all over the world work furiously to make our wishes come true. What we as consumers ought to understand is that when we focus only on price and nothing but prices, then we also have to understand that there are costs associated with that phenomenally inexpensive product that we pick up from a store, or online. In the case of China, the cost is increasingly environmental. The rising labor cost in China is also why there is a lot more clothing manufacturing in Bangladesh.

I don't imagine you will disagree with all those ...

The only place, if at all, where we disagree is this: you write that we consumers don't have to worry about all these and that we are doing a great deal of good to lots of people. We are doing good, while also doing bad is my view. This, of course, is a serious philosophical issue where our respective preferences might differ.

Now, in my preference, it doesn't mean that I don't think there should be any clothing manufacturing in Bangladesh. Au contraire! I want more and more sweatshops to open up in Bangladesh and India and Nigeria and all over because it is a win-win-win for everybody, but as long as we consumers tap into those same market mechanisms and help mitigate a pollution in China or the unsafe conditions in Bangladesh or ... For instance, a mere nickel or a quarter of an additional price for a $14 shirt won't matter much to us consumers. But, add up those quarters and that will amount to a whole lot of rupees that can be used in Bangladesh in ways that can make life better for those workers. Similarly, in China ... but, for that, we consumers ought to be willing to pay a higher price.

I do that in a few cases where I have the info. I but coffee that is certified as fair trade and grown in ways that don't screw up the environment. But, of course, that means I am paying a higher price for coffee, but not that much more when I break it down to the price per cup of coffee that I consume. I pay a tad more for the eggs that I buy--the higher price, which is barely a couple of pennies per egg, is to ensure that the animals were treated better and were fed only vegetarian feed ...

I can give more examples. The point is that as much as we consumers are the ones telling the suppliers that there is a certain bottomline price we are willing to pay and they then deliver that, we can also tell them that we are willing to pay a nickel or a dime or a quarter more if they can take care of some of the things that worries us ... but, it is all up to the consumer. I rarely ever blame the corporations or an industry--they are merely serving to our aggregated preferences ...

Now I will stop ;)

Ramesh said...

No don't stop :)

If you are arguing for a carbon tax (euphemism for a tax for environmental clean up), then I am , of course, completely for it. The problem with that is the practicality of imposing it

- It is devilishly difficult to calculate the cost. Remember all the posts of intended and unintended consequences of what appears to be an obvious course of action

- It is almost impossible to share it with nations. If US consumers pay for the environment pollution in China, there is no way to get the money there and actually get to use it for that purpose

- One of the largest polluters and richest nation on earth refuses to even consider such a proposal.

Even the less controversial fair trade premium or organic premium also has its problems. The organic one is an easier to see problem. If the whole world went organic, it will starve. Free range eggs, if adopted globally will simply mean a shortage of eggs. So it is good only if a few people adopt it !

Fair trade brings its own problems. What is fair trade ? Usually by western standards - so for example it means no overtime in China, which I have already argued is against what the Chinese want.

Now I WILL stop :)

Sriram Khé said...

Nope .... I am not asking for anything to be imposed at all.
I am not asking a China or a Bangladesh to change its labor laws to whatever we have here in the US or in Scandinavia.
I am not asking for any kind of global standards.

My point is way simpler than that: we consumers in the rich countries (and rich consumers in poor countries too) almost always know what the conditions are at these sweatshops, or with the eggs or coffee that we buy ... but, we choose not to do anything about it. Which is ok too, if that is what people want.

But, when they feel that moral indignation on seeing the graphic images that they are forced to deal with, I want to tell them they have a clear choice: if they feel that awful, don't blame those "greedy corporations" or some government somewhere. Instead, consumers can easily say, "hey, these matter to me, and I am willing to pay a tad more if you folks can address them." And, as is the case with the eggs and coffee that I buy, the market will respond.

As simple as that.

But, I have no faith in humans when it comes to such issues. We humans are wonderful in mouthing all the right things but behaving otherwise.

If this time I have effectively conveyed my points, then I WILL STOP NOW :)

Sriram Khé said...

The WSJ notes:
"for big apparel retailers seeking better standards—without giving up low-wage workers—the prospects aren't much better in other parts of the developing world." ...
"For too many Western brands, "it's the ugliest race to the bottom because the financial crisis in America and Europe means that people are getting very scared of buying expensive things," says Sanjiv Pandita, executive director of the Hong Kong-based Asia Monitor Resource Center, which tracks labor conditions across the region."

The last thing we want is to drive out of Bangladesh these factories and leave people without any gainful employment. If only we consumers will pay only a few cents more is my point ...

http://t.co/ebygaWiRUY