Third World Workers Need Western Jobs

In the article, “Third World Workers Need Western Jobs,” Radley Balko pushes forth his argument that exporting jobs from the West to third-world and developing countries increases the quality of life of the citizens of those countries; in particular, the quality of life of the children. Throughout the article, Balko uses several reports and research projects as examples, evidence, and analogies to argue that moving low-paying jobs to developing countries is good for these countries. Unfortunately, primarily due to the way he words his recaps of these reports and projects, he ends up committing several fallacies.

In ¶3, Balko states that one report showed the majority of citizens in several developing countries had “’good’ or ‘very good’” views of multinational corporations, but points out that “only Poland and Russia had majority-negative views of multinationals.” Yet Balko never states why Poland and Russia had negative views. This leaves the reader “Begging the Question” of why these countries had negative views.

In ¶5, Balko states that several University of Minnesota professors report that many of these sweatshop workers earn significantly more than their country’s minimum and prevailing local wages. While this may very well be accurate, it also “begs the question” of whether or not even these higher wages are reasonable living wages. A counter-argument to the idea that these relatively higher-paying jobs are good is simple: If it costs $10 a day to survive, and the prevailing wage is $2 a day, earning $6 a day may improve your situation some, but it does not necessarily mean your living conditions are significantly improved, as Balko attempts to imply with this example.

In ¶8 and 9, Balko commits the fallacy of Suppressed Evidence when he infers and states that “West Africa continues to fester in abject poverty” because of British companies pulling jobs out of West Africa. This statement completely ignores the many other factors that contributed to and continue to contribute to the extreme poverty of West Africa, including but not limited to the lack of medical and sanitation facilities, epidemic levels of HIV and AIDS infections, corrupt government(s), and the near-absence of educational facilities. These factors were in existence before British companies brought jobs to West Africa, these factors continued to be in existence during the time that these jobs were available, and still exist today. The companies who brought their jobs to Western Africa did so to save themselves money; somewhat obviously, they rarely if ever used those savings to improve the living conditions of their employees and the society they lived within at large. The statement that “they did not get the work experience that would have allowed them to upgrade their skills and become valuable and higher-paid workers later on” assumes that menial sweatshop jobs lead to upgraded skills. This could be considered a mild Appeal to Ignorance fallacy: the possibility exists that sweatshop jobs do lead to greater opportunities, but it is also possible that these jobs do not. We simply do not know for sure that sweatshop jobs leads to greater skills and opportunities, especially when there is no concurrent investment in infrastructure and education. More likely, these jobs would lead to higher opportunity for a very few select employees but not the bulk of the employees.

The analogy and example of Hong Kong in ¶10 is a much stronger analogy supporting Balko’s argument, although it differs in some important ways to the other examples. In the other countries discussed, most of them have a history of governmental corruption and, of course, local governments, along with limited educational facilities and infrastructure. The big difference with Hong Kong is that it was a British protectorate, governed by Great Britain from afar, not by a local government such as occurs in Pakistan, India, and West Africa. Also, the government of Great Britain invested heavily in the infrastructure of Honk Kong, from sanitation to education, along with “importing” a stable monetary and legal system, while companies from Great Britain took advantage of low wages to build factories and other businesses. There has been little or no such investment in the infrastructure, educational and monetary systems in the other countries cited, by either the companies or government of the companies who built sweatshops. Balko’s statement that “Hong Kong has long moved on from sweatshops” is simply inaccurate: there are still sweatshops in Hong Kong, although less than in past years.

Balko’s point, also in ¶10, that it took Hong Kong “just 25” years to build up a Western-style economy compared to the 100 years it took the U.S. and Western Europe commits the fallacy of suppressed evidence. This statement ignores the fact that the U.S. and Western Europe developed the very technologies and systems from scratch that were exported to Hong Kong. Hong Kong “took advantage” of this existing knowledge. Of course it took less time to develop its Western-style economy.

In ¶11, Balko’s statement that “a Western company that stops using child labor in some Third World nations does not change the economic conditions that had those children working in the first place” and following statements are on point; however, they also create a false dichotomy. The inference is that by using child labor, you improve the living condition of the children, and that there is no other way to do so. This ignores the existence of other options, such as investing in education, medical facilities, and the infrastructure in order to improve the plight of children in developing countries. While it is true that ceasing the use of child labor does not “change the local cultural standards that accept and expect child labor,” it is also true that continuing the use of child labor also does not change those “same cultural standards.” This could be seen as a False Cause fallacy, or possibly one of Begging the Question. The final statement in this paragraph that closing these sweatshops “seals for them a far worse fate” is an obvious Appeal to Pity.

Balko once again commits the fallacy of Begging the Question – and possibly False Cause – in ¶12 when he states “that thousands of them later turned to prostitution, crime, or starved to death.” The question for the reader is “how many thousands?” Is it 2,000? Or 49,000? Stating these children turned to crime and prostitution solely because of the loss of sweatshop jobs ignores the possibility that other factors may have caused this to happen. Not the least of which that prostitution and crime may have paid better than other options, or the idea that these same children would have ended up in these same circumstances regardless of the existence of sweatshop jobs. (Especially if children willing to work for less money then they were earning became available.) These same fallacies exist in ¶13 and ¶14 when Balko uses Pakistan and Nepal as examples: Once again, the idea that other factors besides the loss of jobs may have contributed to (or even caused) lower incomes and children to fall into crime and prostitution is completely ignored. While the loss of such jobs in these examples very likely is a contributing factor, it is unlikely the only factor.

In ¶15, Balko is downright insulting when he states that “cheap labor is the developing world’s only real bargaining chip” and the “poorest people(‘s)…only marketable asset.” This could be considered a sort-of “twisted” Argument Against the Person, Circumstantial. The “abundant natural resources” exist in these same countries just as they exist in Western countries. Balko’s premises are simply untrue and wrong: The people of these countries have the same brains as Western people with the same ability to be educated and become “highly skilled workforces” as exists in developed countries. Of course, for companies looking to save a buck, the fact that people in the developing countries are not “highly skilled” is the attraction. It would not benefit profit-oriented companies to invest in education; on the contrary, it is more profitable to keep them uneducated and “stuck” with low-paying, menial jobs. Referring to “cheap labor” as the “only marketable asset” completely ignores the fact that other assets – marketable and otherwise – exist, and there are other job investment possibilities besides sweatshops, such as eco-tourism.

There is what could be a mild, sort-of “reverse” Slippery Slope fallacy in ¶16, starting with “Corporations get cheaper labor…” through “…benefits all of us.” Generally, Slippery Slope fallacies tend to end with “dire” consequences; in this case, Balko leads the reader “up” a “slope” to a world that is a better place for everyone. It is reasonable to believe that sweatshop jobs may be one of many factors for the poorest to “inch their way out of poverty,” but once again sweatshop jobs are not the only factor needed nor the only or best option, as these statements imply.

There are also several syllogisms in this article.

From ¶6:

“For laborers in the developing world, what we call Sweatshop jobs may actually be the best of a series of Bad employment options available to them, and/or the only or best option for supporting themselves and lifting their families out of poverty. “

One possible way to restate this would be:

All Laborers in the developing world are (people who want/need) Jobs that will lift their families out of poverty.

All Sweatshop jobs are Jobs that will lift families out of poverty

\ All Laborers in the developing world are people who want Sweatshop Jobs.

All L are J

All S are J

All L are S

In this, the middle term is undistributed, making the argument invalid (violating Rule #1).

From ¶16:

"Free" trade that utilizes slave or coerced labor isn't free, it's theft.”

Some Free trade systems are Systems that utilize slave or coerced labor.

All Systems that utilize slave or coerced labor are committing Theft

\Some Free trade systems are committing Theft.

Some F are S

All S are T

Some F are T

This “passes” all five rules for categorical syllogisms, the argument is valid.

Balko’s point that the economies of developing countries are negatively impacted when Western companies remove their sweatshop jobs is difficult to dispute: any economy is impacted negatively when jobs are lost, regardless of the geographical location. The primary weakness in Balko’s argument is his near-complete disregard of the many other factors that negatively affect these countries and his insistent implication that the loss of these jobs is the only factor. Yet this weakness does not negate Balko’s argument completely. His implication that so-called “do-gooders” may do more harm then good by creating situations that make it unprofitable for companies to keep their sweatshops open is an implication worth considering. The concept that these same “do-gooders” ignore the sociological and cultural norms of these developing nations to their detriment is legitimate: the idea that holding the rest of the world to our social standards possibly creates a worse situation is very persuasive. What is “wrong” for one society is “right” for another – or at least an improvement – is, particularly from a sociological point of view, absolutely correct. Despite the weaknesses in Balko’s argument, he does present a thought-provoking argument, one that deserves further consideration.

Written for Professor Trussell's Logic class at Pikes Peak Community College, 3rd August 2004