|
The Sweatshop display is truly laughable.
The Seamstress was underpaid (I thought that prices were what the market would bear, but no matter) and had to rely on charity to survive. Um, if you are relying on charity, you might as well not bother to grab your needle, anyway. Much better off to just have the charity, and sit around sipping iced tea while the philanthropists send you a check.
The resurgence of the sweatshop, 1940-1997 was most intriguing. They talk about the problem as: "A combination of forces at home and abroad contributed to their reappearance: changes in the retail industry, a growing global economy, increased reliance on contracting, and a large pool of immigrant workers in the United States" What changed? The retail industry changed, true, but that was because people chose to buy from department stores, and later from discount retailers. It was not some evil force of businessmen, but through the billions of free choices Americans made on where to shop. Furthermore, in part this was due to the tax structure itself -- no Mom & Pop store can afford the kind of tax attorneys that WalMart can. No Mom & Pop store can afford the kind of lobbyists WalMart can to get the tax laws as favorable as possible, and as disfavorable to the competition. This is a consequence of Congress long ago exceeding their Article I, Section 8 enumerated powers.
Immigration is not a problem. The more people working, the more goods there are on the face of the earth, and thus the more wealthy we all are. Since US has the highest productivity on the face of the earth, it makes sense to allow as many people to flock here as want to work, since we would then have those goods produced as cost-effectively as possible. The problem is that the immigration laws prevent people without the right piece of paper from seeking employment from anyone who is not willing to overlook that. In other words, fear of the INS is the force that makes sweatshops even possible.
Where is that explained anywhere in that display?
|