NPR Debate Moderators All Wet On Sweatshop Labor

The following piece is produced by HuffPost's OffTheBus.

At the NPR Democratic candidates' debate in Iowa on Tuesday, the topic of global sweatshops finally reared its head. But the way debate moderators framed the issue revealed ignorance about the realities of globalized trade and labor. And despite significant focus on U.S. trade with China throughout the evening, no candidates confronted the moderators' contentions directly.

An Iowa caller asked whether Americans would be willing to pay $600 for TVs instead of $300 for Chinese-made TVs. NPR's Michele Norris accepted the caller's logic and followed up by asking the candidates if they are willing to use their leverage to improve labor standards in China, "even if it means that consumers have to kiss those $300 televisions goodbye?" NPR reporter Steve Inskeep piled on. Referring to "the $300 TVs versus the $600 TVs," he asked, "Are any of you willing to state frankly" that if the U.S. cracks down on Chinese labor standards, "Americans are going to pay more for consumer goods at Wal-Mart. Is anyone willing to state frankly that that is the tradeoff?"

Barack Obama took the bait. He hadn't met a single worker in Iowa, he said, who "wouldn't rather pay a little bit more for sneakers at Wal-Mart and still have a job."

Whether he knew it or not, Obama was right, although he didn't directly challenge the reporters' contention that improving labor standards could double the cost of Chinese-made consumer goods in the U.S.

Improving labor standards would, in fact, only cost American consumers a "little bit" more, but it would dramatically improve the living conditions of Chinese workers.

The reality is that U.S. companies that manufacture sneakers, clothing, toys, and other goods can afford to significantly increase Chinese workers' wages without American consumers feeling any pain.

According to Jeff Ballinger, a labor studies professor at Webster University and an expert on sweatshops, Chinese workers only earn about one percent of the retail price of the clothing they produce. The Chinese workers who produce a Nike sneaker that costs $70 in American stores earn only 60 to 80 cents per sneaker, Ballinger said. He added that doubling that wage would bring Chinese workers up from that subsistence level to a "living wage" by Chinese standards. If Nike passed that wage increase on to U.S. consumers, the retail price of that sneaker would increase from $70 to no more than $71. Just like Obama said, a "little bit" more.

Ballinger calculates that Nike could afford to double the wages of the estimated 160,000 workers who produce its sneakers around the world -- about 40% of them in China -- without raising the consumer price at all. Nike sold about 280 million sneakers, cross-trainers and running shoes last year. Doubling manufacturing workers' wages in China would cost Nike, which last year had revenues of almost $14 billion a year, only $210 million a year.

During the 1970's, most Nike shoes were made in South Korea and Taiwan. When workers there gained new freedom to organize and wages began to rise, Nike moved most of its production to China, Indonesia, and Vietnam-- countries with weak labor laws and where workers are easily abused.

Nike products are made in giant factories owned by contractors, who operate under standards set by Nike management in Oregon. Nike tells its contractors what designs and fabric to use, and how much they'll pay for each sneaker. Nike knows in advance what Chinese workers will earn under that arrangement. Nike sets the rules.

If Chinese workers earn only 60 to 80 cents of a sneaker that sells for $70 in U.S. stores, who gets the rest of the money? The contractor in China pays for the materials, machines, overhead, and earns a profit. The U.S. retailers (dominated by large chains like Wal-Mart) pay for shipping, overhead, and advertising, and take a big slice in profits. Nike, of course, pays for designing the shoes, marketing and publicizing the brand so that every American recognizes the swoosh, and makes a huge profit. The Chinese workers get the scraps.

"Labor costs in the Third World are so small as a percentage of the retail price of products, and as a percentage of the revenues of US corporations, that the wages of overseas sweatshop workers could be doubled or tripled with little or no increase for American consumers," explained Scott Nova, executive director of the Workers Rights Consortium, a nonprofit labor rights group. "The corporations have made it very clear, however, that they will not pay a living wage - unless consumer pressure or public regulation compels them to do so."

For more than a decade, consumer, student and labor activists have held Nike's corporate feet to the fire, protesting its abusive sweatshop practices. In response, Nike has adopted "corporate social responsibility" standards, and made some improvements, but they are too weak and poorly enforced. The U.S. is the China's largest trading partner. Companies like Nike and Wal-Mart, who depend on their public image to generate consumer loyalty, will raise the standards of their Chinese workers if they are required to do so by trade agreements with the U.S. and other countries.

All the Democratic candidates agreed that the U.S. should "get tough" with China on environmental and labor standards. But cracking down on China also means challenging some of America's largest companies that move jobs to China to take advantage of cheap labor. As John Edwards said at Tuesday's NPR debate, U.S. trade policy has "catered to the interests of big corporate America" rather than U.S. workers and consumers.

Improving the living and working conditions of manufacturing employees in China -- or Mexico, Bangladesh, or other low-wage countries -- need not be at the expense of American workers or consumers. Using America's leverage to give workers in those nations the right to organize unions, a living wage, and safe workplaces benefits Americans. Wall Street and the WTO would prefer to foster a "race to the bottom," pitting US workers against those in low-wage countries. But if we're going to have a global market for US- made products, we need to help raise the wages and living standards of workers in China, Mexico and elsewhere.

Surveys show that American consumers are willing to pay more for consumer goods if they know they are made under decent conditions. Sweatshops -- or what Sen. Chris Dodd called "slave labor" -- are not inevitable or even necessary, in the U.S. or anywhere else.

The Democratic candidates should commit to supporting legislation that would require companies that manufacture goods for the US market pay its workers a living wage and respect their right to organize and have safe workplaces. The U.S. should put the legal responsibility on American corporations that import goods from China and elsewhere to make sure its suppliers comply with these workers' rights and, as in the recent controversy with Chinese toys, guarantee that these products are safe for consumers.

The candidates should support campaigns and policy proposals by United Students Against Sweatshops, the Worker Rights Consortium, the National Labor Committee, and UNITE HERE, the clothing workers union, to rid the world of sweatshops and allow American consumers to shop with a conscience.

Comments

[deminmo]

A name brand set of athletic shoes made in China
selling for $150 in the US will cost (w/o labor)
$25-30 to make. That is assuming better
materials are used.
People don't want to know that workers making
those shoes might live in crowded housing,
and may be as young as 10, maybe younger.
Even now knowing toys made in China have been
recalled, parents still go buy more. And even
dump toys on the recall list at charities.
China knows the US will not hold them to any
standard for long. It's all about toy company
profit.

[old73]

IF (?)...you all REALLY want to "fix" all of this incredible mess, you'll work to replace this numbing, suicidal Capitalism with a social/economic system of equality for All Peoples.
Talk to Anyone Anywhere, and understand-accept that we all have the exact same needs and wants.
Period.
Anything else is pissing up a rope and nothing but inneffectual band-aids that "we" have been struggling to apply since day one. None have ever been effective, all have been shot down-or gradually watered down/distorted to reverse their original intent.
We continue to rely on those who continue to undermine and profit from their domination.

A popular description of insanity is this: "Continuing to repeaqt the same failed practices over and over, expecting different results..."
Just how looney ARE WE GOING TO CONTINUE TO BE???
john l.

[FOXYLADY]

I JUST WANT TO SAY ONE THING.....IF WE HAD TO PAY $600 FOR A TV INSTEAD OF $300 == WE WOULD ALL BE MAKING MORE AS "JOBS WOULD BE 'STAYING' IN THE UNITED STATES"...YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE A BRAIN SURGEON TO REALIZE THAT FOLKS...MORE JOBS, BETTER PAY, MORE MONEY PER JOB, AND ALSO, NO NEED TO WORRY ABOUT OUR KIDS BEING POISONED...OR CONTAMINATED FOOD.......AND THE BEAT GOES ON AND ON AND ON!!

[wrabbitt]

Is this why jobs left America? We know that corporate America moved for cheaper labor,well, don't be surprised when it comes to the surface. They will keep doing this until brought to light, then say "we had no idea" Come on people we ain't that stupid! All the American jobs went away and, we are paying the same price but, corporations are making millions. On a trip to Mexico i purchased a hat. after looking inside it was made in China! The only thing we seem to doing is destroying our own economy. I buy American,I am American

[janmB]

If ALL TVs were made only HERE in the USA --wouldn't there would be a huge market for them here that would naturally bring prices down to the levels they are at now ?

Just ASKING

[dafl12]

Thank you for that highly revealing column.

May I offer one criticism? According to the piece, Norris and Inskeep suggested that televisions would double in price if Chinese workers' rights were protected. But the column changed the subject and discussed the story behind the price of footwear. Now it may very well be that the factors which obtain in the production of TVs are the same as those involved in the production of sneakers. But the lay reader has no way to know if that is so. And this column is clearly aimed at the lay reader. I regret to say that the case made against the NPR hosts was not proven.

This is really quite unfortunate, because I suspect that Norris and Inskeep really were pulling these numbers out of the air, in complete ignorance of the facts on the ground. And I'd like to know if that is so.

[whatsinaname]

The discussion about raising wages and improving working standard and conditions in China is step in the right direction. But a bigger step needs to be taken right here in our own back yard. Monday, Dec. 10, is International Human Rights Day—the day commemorating the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. The declaration states, “Everyone has the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of his interests.” Unfortunately, here in the United States this fundamental human right is under attack. When you look at what employers are permitted to do, and when you look at what the Bush administration's Labor Board has done to roll back workers' rights, it is clear that workers in America don’t have freedom to protect their own interests. The freedom to form a union to bargain for a better life is an internationally recognized human right, but workers in America are denied that right each and every day. Human Rights Watch, an internationally recognized watchdog organization, studied what happens to workers in the United States who try to form unions. The group found we’ve got a fundamental human rights issue on our hands.
And the International Labor Organization has said the United States is out of compliance with internationally recognized workers’ rights standards. Nothing says more to that than the fight in Senate right now to pass the Worker Free Choice Act. This piece of legislation is long over due. How can we spout the need for reforms in other countries when we can’t do the same in ours?

[linkunlovr]

How can Peter Dreir write this piece and ignore Kucinich who not only addressed these issues but has been hammering away at this theme throughout the campaign. You quote Edwards who voted for the China trade policy without mentioning that he didnt care at the tiem that there were no safeguards for Chinese workers.
It amazing to me that someone could write the article as if no one had spoken up for workers rights when Kucinich has and always has.

[heavyrunner]

Hersey’s Chocolate recently announced that they are closing their huge factory in Oakdale, CA and moving their operations to Mexico. One reason they gave was that they would save $190 million a year in labor costs.

Dennis Kucinich will cancel NAFTA his first day in office. If we had a bilateral trade relationship with Mexico we could then put an import duty on chocolate. In this case, it looks like it should be $190 million, per year.

[Sciguy]

How about doing something really radical - bring those manufacturing jobs back to the US?

I, for one, would gladly pay more for products that are made here in the US. I'm sick and tired of buying cheap (and possibly poisonous) Chinese crap, and I'd love to buy things made by US workers if only things made by US workers were available.

My next sneakers will be New Balance - if they haven't outsourced those jobs by then.

[Troubledgoodangel]

What can I say. America needs to produce its own consumer products! If Nike doesn't like it, it should be barred from selling on U.S. markets! We have paid in blood to end slavery! We do not need the fat-belly CEO's to sell us slave made products! I for one, will walk barefoot before I ever buy anything made in a sweetshop as long as I live! That's what America is about! We are against all forms of enslavement!

[research]

Kucinich already addressed this in the debates.

[cynara]

"Improving the living and working conditions of manufacturing employees in China -- or Mexico, Bangladesh, or other low-wage countries -- need not be at the expense of American workers or consumers. Using America's leverage to give workers in those nations the right to organize unions, a living wage, and safe workplaces benefits Americans. Wall Street and the WTO would prefer to foster a "race to the bottom," pitting US workers against those in low-wage countries. But if we're going to have a global market for US- made products, we need to help raise the wages and living standards of workers in China, Mexico and elsewhere."


I agree completely with this article. However, there is something I would like to add. Our willingness to tolerate labor and salary abuses committed by our companies abroad directly contributes to illegal immigration in our own country.

If our trade agreements and multinational corporations were not pressuring Mexico maintain its shamefully low blue collar wages and to ignore local labor and environmental laws, we would not have a generation of Mexican laborers fleeing north to escape these working conditions.

[lastams]

John Bowe in his recently published “Nobodies” makes some astute observations regarding slave labor, for want of a better term. Often enough it is not so much about economics as it is about control.
Even when an American worker might be economically viable, a corporation will still employ foreign labor which can be easily intimated with deportation or worse.
In addition, current trade agreements, such as the NAFTA expansion into Peru, are designed to bypass US laws and controls, such as inspections of imported food, and provide a back door method for “foreign” multinational corporations to set up shop on American soil. These ‘agreements” provide an end run around local zoning standards, buy American campaigns, and quotas for skilled foreign workers.
The Holy Grail of globalization, guest workers programs, will simply legitimize what is already occurring, the exploitation of third world workers by American employers.
According to the General Accounting Office, in 1999 the U.S. Immigration and customs Enforcement agency took action against 417 companies for employing illegal aliens. By 2005, that number had dropped to three.
The program to export American jobs while importing cheap, docile, foreign labor, is an agenda supported by both parties. While many candidates do and have stated their opposition to the deals, when the votes come out on the floor, they all seem to get in line.
Incidentally the Peru “Free” trade agreement, which was quietly passed this week, was not voted on by a single one of the five presidential candidates who are, supposedly, still members of the US Senate.

[WASanford]

How many times do I have to tell you that…Price is determined by the balance between supply and demand? When supply goes up, the price goes down when supply goes down the price goes up. When demand goes up the price goes up and when the demand goes down so does the price. It’s all relative, see? This is the basic premise of capitalism and free markets except for the fact that the producers have complete control of supply! See Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 1776.
The cost of labor has very little to do with the product’s price. When Nike pays $.80 to manufacture a shoe and sells it for $50 to $70, Nike is putting a very healthy profit in its pocket. That profit margin costs the purchaser much more than any possible savings, which are nil. The cost of lost jobs does not just effect the suddenly unemployed. We all pay. Welfare costs go up. Our city, county, state and federal governments lose tax income.
I’m a runner and I only buy New Balance shoes. They’re made here in America, and they don’t cost me a penny more than shoes that are made in low wage Chinese sweat shops! And more often than not, they cost me less!