The New York Times recently announced that they would re-hire meaning bring back one
of their former reporters, gentleman by the name of Nicholas Kristof,
I'm sure you've heard of him, he will be an opinion writer.
So he's just basically going back to his old post.
Kristof has covered domestic and international affairs for
37 years at the times and has written countless articles.
But for the purposes of this discussion, I think it's worth taking
a look at which should be a super controversial opinion he has.
And he has maintained this opinion for at this point over a decade.
And it is the idea that sweatshops are great.
Not even kidding.
Have various examples.
Let's go to one example from January 5th of 2009 where
Kristof writes while it shocks Americans to hear it,
the central challenge in the poorest countries is not that sweatshops
exploit too many people, but that they don't exploit enough.
He wrote that.
>> [LAUGH] >> He wrote that, okay?
Maybe I'm being unfair.
It's just one snippet of his 2019 piece.
Let me read more.
Talk to these families in the dump and a job in a sweatshop is a cherished dream,
an escalator out of poverty.
The kind of gauzy if probably unrealistic ambition that parents
everywhere often have for their children.
I don't know about
your parents,
John, okay?
But I have come across many parents are like,
I really wish that my kids could end up in a sweatshop.
Now if you wanna take a look at what exploitation of labor looks like in some
of these countries.
I think one of the prime examples, is what we heard about Foxconn,
which is one of these factories in China that produces many
of the electronic items that we love and enjoy.
Things like iPhones.
There was a huge problem with their workers literally killing themselves as
a result of their terrible pay and terrible working conditions.
Here's a reminder of why they were so unhappy and
why some of these Chinese workers took their own lives.
>> Foxconn is notorious for its military style of management and
it has been blamed for the string of suicides 17 in total, in 2010,
that occurred in the factory premises.
The company tried very hard to stop the suicides though none of this was done with
any goodwill or intentions.
They did not do this by digging out the roots of the exploitation, but
instead actually erected anti jumping nets on their buildings.
Never before had a modern factory ever hidden behind such a suicide
prevention tactic.
It reminded people of the last time such a device was used on
transatlantic slave ships centuries ago.
Further investigation into the working conditions gives
us an even bleaker view of the whole situation.
There was a lot of outcry when it was revealed that Fox Cons approximately
400,000 assembly workers were making only a mere ¥900 a month.
This is equivalent to $138 US dollars.
>> According to Nicholas Kristof, that's a dream for
the children of parents everywhere.
John what do you think?
>> Yeah, it would be bad enough if it was just and
he sort of gets into this in the full piece.
Talking about, I'm really worried about like, well, if you increase the labor
standards here, then this particular type of industry will go here.
And then, so at this point, it's probably the most money that these people can make.
We can gradually raise the standard of living and the labor protections, but
we have to make sure that doesn't spook them.
Like if it was that sort of thing,
it would theoretically be annoying enough at that point.
But to try to cloak it in this like the gauzy ambitions of parenthood and
dreams of the next generation.
Don't try to be poetic when your entire argument that you're making
is just glorified boot licking its sure the status quote sucks capitalism
is a wheat thresher and we are the wheat were there to be thrashed for
labor but you really can't expect any better.
And honestly, I'm being paid well to defend this.
So I'm gonna continue to do that while at the same time getting
to get this aura that like I say bold things.
Everybody else seems to think sweatshops are a bad thing.
No, I'm gonna be bold and I'm gonna make the case that they're actually good
without ever actually making that case.
But the headline seems as if I'm a real maverick.
>> Yeah, I mean, look, to be fair to Kristof here, it is incredibly
bold to have the pro corporate anti worker stance in corporate media.
I mean, we've never seen that before.
So he's really unique in that regard.
As you can imagine. I'm being super sarcastic here.
Let me read some more from this piece and by the way,
this is just one of many, okay?
So he says, I'm glad that many Americans are repulsed by the idea of importing
products made by barely paid, barely legal workers in dangerous factories,
by the way, in some cases like clothing or
garment factories in various countries that get exploited for cheap labor.
The workers are children in a lot of cases, like literal children.
But let me continue.
Yet sweatshops are only a symptom of poverty, not a cause.
How about sweatshops are a symptom of capitalist greed.
How about that?
I think that's the correct take and I'll explain in a moment, but
let me continue that.
Let me just finish that graphic.
At a time of tremendous economic distress and
protectionist pressures, there's a special danger that tighter
labor standards will be used as an excuse to curb trade, okay?
So let's pause for a second.
Because the fact of the matter is what we're experiencing
with exploited labor in other countries.
Very much has to do with wages stagnating here in the United States.
So the idea was look, in order to kind of keep Americans happy,
even though their wages will remain stagnant for
decades to come, we got to provide cheaper products.
How do we provide cheaper products?
And the way they do that is by exploiting cheap labor in other countries.
So, all of this is done not to benefit poor people living
in impoverished countries, not to benefit ordinary Americans,
all of them, by the way, it doesn't benefit ordinary Americans.
We might get cheap goods that are manufactured in other countries.
But as we've noticed with something like a pandemic,
any disruption to our supply chain is a complete, utter disaster.
For instance, I haven't had a car for over a month at this point, because
there's one part that I need that is not manufactured here in the United States.
It's manufactured elsewhere and it has been back.
No, it's not an engine, although engines used to be manufactured here,
very few are now.
But no, it's called a body control module.
And I haven't had a car, right?
So, we don't manufacture it here.
It's a huge problem.
But that's not, that's not the end of the story, right?
We're also at a significant disadvantage because our
wages are intentionally kept low.
And on top of that, all of these manufacturing jobs that used to exist
within the United States were shipped abroad,
meaning jobs were outsourced in order to exploit this cheap labor.
So when we talk about the decimation of the manufacturing sector in America,
it's very much the result of these corporations looking to exploit
cheap labor in other countries.
And to make the argument that this is good that it benefits everyone is
ridiculous when in reality it only benefits one small group of people and
it's the corporate overlords who want to maximize their profits.
>> Yeah, yeah, 100%.
It seems crazy to have written it even in 2009.
But that said it was 2009, it is possible that now coming back to that position,
he will revisit some of this stuff.
And politically, there's been a lot of both evolution and devolution in America.
A lot of people have been exposed to progressive thought in a way that wasn't
nearly as common nationally at the national level.
I should say back then, we'll see what he has to say about that stuff.
In the meantime, one particular op-ed person, to me, it doesn't bother me as
much as the fact that so many politicians effectively make the same argument as him.
They may not make it specifically about sweatshops.
But they'll talk about how there's no, it would be a terrible, terrible thing for
the working class to raise the minimum wage.
Any time you advocate for an improvement to either the economic situation or
the working conditions.
They're gonna try to convince you that the boot pressing down in your neck is
actually keeping you in place.
That's that it's good for you.
And so, like having the op-ed person, right?
That is bad.
Having the articles reflect the same basic idea.
Having the news been barking at you night after night.
I think it's an even bigger problem.
>> Yeah, no, I mean, I think it's all a big problem, right?
Because you have this chorus of legacy and
corporate media outlets telling us everything.
It's like the upside down world.
Everything is sold to us in a way to make us think like the economic frustrations
we're feeling shouldn't be like we shouldn't feel frustrated.
Like everything's working the way it's supposed to work.
It's actually great that people are being exploited.
And by the way, real quick, I just wanna go through all the other examples because
this isn't one piece, It would be bad enough if it was one 2009 piece and
the New York Times decided to bring them back anyway.
September 24th of 2000, literal headline to his piece.
Two cheers for sweatshops.
There's more.
Excerpts from it.
The campaign against sweatshops risks harming the very people,
it is intended to help for beneath their grime sweatshops are a clear sign
of the industrial revolution that is beginning to reshape Asia.
We should be calling for working conditions and
pay to improve in Asia not to celebrate them being exploited fast forward to 2002.
This is June 25th of 2000 to Let Them Sweat.
The headline reads.
>> To be fair, we don't know for sure that he's choosing the headlines, but
he's definitely choosing the words and the articles.
Sometimes it's the editorial board that chooses those, but
still someone, it's a terrible decision for them to make.
Yeah, and there is a bit of good news.
Last October he announced that he was leaving the New York Times to run as
a Democrat in a race to replace Oregon governor, Kate Brown.
But in February, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that he cannot run for governor in
that state because he does not meet the state's three year residency requirements.
So, let's get some actual progressives to run for
these offices to represent people who are typically underrepresented in government.
Ordinary workers and people who demand better working conditions, better pay and
have a more internationalist perspective, where they don't celebrate the idea of
workers getting exploited in other countries.