Verdict
Nope. I just reread it and it doesn't really make sense the way it is written. In fact, I can hardly even tell what I'm talking about, especially in the first paragraph.
Back to the drawing board!!
Does this make sense?
I wrote this regarding "cheap labor" just now:
"
There is a difference between labor and other commodities that are paid for, that a deal is sought on. Whereas goods are inanimate, manufactured for a price including the cost of the materials (also goods), the cost of the energy it takes to produce them, the cost of the resources it takes to package and deliver them, taxes, and a profit for the manufacturer, labor is a commodity, and in that sense a “good” or a product, that differs from all others. It is the product of the human being’s body, his/her physical and mental energy, and by extension his or her entire life, even outside of working hours. And yet, when discussing worker’s rights with regard to wages, the issue is whether or not workers are receiving the minimum wage that is their due. Assuming that the minimum wage is also a liveable wage (a generous assumption since that is not always the case), and that it is calculated according to the same set of costs as the price of other goods, it should include the cost of food (energy it takes to produce labor), cost of clothing and transportation (resources for packaging and delivery), income tax, and a profit for the laborer. This is generally what income is used for. But what about the cost of the “material” itself, that which labor is comprised of, i.e. the intangible costs of the output of the human life that it takes to produce labor? When humans are overworked in sweatshop conditions, when they are treated as “cheap labor” to be bid for and bought at the best deal possible, this latter cost of the production of labor is ignored (and the other costs barely covered, if at all). The mental, physical, and emotional exhaustion that ensues after weeks of 15 to 20 hour days with no rest days is the result of exploitation not only of the workers’ capacity for labor, but of the intangibles that require cultivation in order for a worker to live as a human being. Exploitation of workers as “cheap labor” is most cruel because it treat the person as though s/he is a machine – unsuccessfully striving to transform him/her into a machine. The cost that is not covered by a minimum wage, and is not calculated into what may be a “liveable” wage – because it is not calculable – is the aspect of a worker’s life that takes place outside of his/her employment.
It is relationships with other humans, nurture of one’s spirit, time for thought and reflection, care for one’s physical health, time for beauty and for relaxation, for introspection and working toward one’s self-fulfillment through understanding of oneself and through contribution to the self-fulfillment of other beings. Few minimum wage standards offer a worker the opportunity for these things, unless s/he is capable of somehow escaping the physical circumstances that their monetary situation places them in, and the pursuit of “cheap labor” denies the worker these necessities."
Too airy fairy? Does it sound like it makes sense? What do you think? Pull no punches, please.
ridiculous
This is getting
ridiculous!!!!!!!!!!!! I can NOT work today!!! But I have to!!! I sat down at this infernal machine at 11:30 to start, and since then have typed one and a half single-spaced pages. So much for my delusions of grandeur about finishing this chapter today. I don't know what it is that is bothering me about this section. I feel like I'm missing something, or that I don't know what I'm talking about.
Really, I
don't know what I'm talking about. I've read 3 or 4 articles that sort of discuss neoliberal economics / the free market theory and now I'm including an argument about it in my paper. How naive is that. I'm just believing what these people are saying, when really I don't have a clue. But the way they describe it is fairly consistent -- consistently summarizing and then problematizing it, which makes me think that if I just were to read about what it is in a textbook -- dryly, how is it supposed to work -- it would probably be quite a bit more complex than what I've gotten. But I do not have time for a crash course in economics, so this will have to do. I take comfort in the fact that one of my profs, when I confessed my fear that one day my utter academic incompetence and bullshitting would be found out, told me that everyone feels sometimes like they don't really know what they're talking about and are just fooling everyone else. So, I will take that to it's pep rally extreme and talk about something that I actually really don't know anything about.
I guess the worst that could happen is they call my bluff and pass me a pile of books that completely contradict the essays I found because somehow my quackery magnet was turned on full power while I was researching. And then when I refuse to recant, they kick me out of school and I become a gardener and live happily ever after.
Maybe I should become a gardener and get out of this sickening bog while I still can. I guess I always can, if I want. Ok. OK. Just FINISH!!!
moment of panic
Having moved most of my things on Saturday, even though I am not actually leaving this apartment 'til the end of the month, all of my carefully arranged piles of papers had been transferred from their usual places on the kitchen table, chairs, and floor, to the bedroom bookshelf that will meet the garbage men pretty soon.
I managed to keep most of the pile-themes intact, I think. Except, I misplaced my outline. This is the only outline that I have for this chapter, and it has many arrows, and things scribbled out and transitional ideas and etc. -- i.e. one that there is no way in hell I could replace from memory.
I nearly shat my drawers. But, I found it. Holy of holies, hallelujah, mercy me. Now I will type it.
god i have to finish this thing.
doin' it to me one more time.
In certain ways I think my thesis is kind of juvenile. But it's true that people are being treated very badly just so we can have cheap t-shirts. But gay for me for writing a thesis about it. Big wanking deal.
chinteresting...
This is pretty interesting. I just learned that China doesn't really have an official minimum wage. Which makes sense, since it's so huge it's economy would be massively different from area to area. The minimum wage varies between provinces, which makes sense -- or, at least, is familiar, since Canada's does too -- but it also varies between regions, cities, and even areas in cities, according to the dictums of local officials! Even full-time work is paid differently per hour than part-time work; or, full-time work isn't paid hourly, it's paid monthly, I think.
Anyways, these are the couple articles I read:
People's Dailyand
Financial Times.The first one seems weird to me. I think it is some "official" Chinese news source. Also, the website of China Labor Watch isn't working anymore, which I find strange. I hope they didn't get censored or something. Maybe they ran out of money. That would also be too bad.
I'm cool
ok I fixed the "wrong time" problem. Thank god for me.
is the right time
I hate it when the night is coming but not quite all the way here yet. I never feel quite as solitary and alone in this project as at that time -- which is right about now. I always feel a sharp need for some company, just someone else in the house, maybe reading or getting ready to sleep, or anything, and not only is no one there but no one is coming and the hour is passing when it's too late to go anywhere or for anyone to come over. All that is ahead of me for the rest of today is 5 hours of concentration, cigarette smoking, and the night slowly growing quiet outside my window. I guess 5 solid hours for concentration is good. Maybe the sad feelings I get at this hour are the adjustments from daytime multi-tasking to nighttime focus. Maybe I'm just sad that one more day is gone. I think really what happens is the reality of my serious aloneness hits, and I am kind of tired, and I feel very very lonely. Homesick. Familiarity-sick. That plus the stress of having to write write write and I am overwhelmed. Usually around 10:30 it is mostly past.
Incidentally, the time that shows on these blogs is all wrong. It is actually 9:22pm right now. I don't know how to fix the time. I'm sure I could figure it out easily, but maybe later.
Anyways, here is a snippet of what I wrote today, pardon me if it's garbled or misspelled or whatever. It's the rough draft:
"
The power of the retailer stems from a variety of factors. Buying power, as outlined in the previous section on Wl-Mt’s relationships with its vendors, is one of these. Major retailers are today “also major importers. Among the top one hundred importers of apparel, retail chains controlled 48 percent of imports [to the U.S.] as of, roughly, 1995…”, and as of 2004, six retail chains sold “more than half of all apparel bought in the Unites States…”. Due to their movement of vast amounts of product, “a few large retailers can almost unilaterally determine price, delivery time, and quality for manufacturers and ultimately for thousands of tiny competing factories.” Manufacturers contract with firms that, though headquartered in specific countries, use factories set up in a variety of locations. These factories, run by local bosses, are highly mobile in that they require little to open and can be shut down and re-opened elsewhere, with a new local boss, at short notice. Location and movement of production depends almost solely on accessing the cheapest labor pools and lowest import/export tariffs possible. Even domestic manufacturers that supply American retailers have begun to outsource their production in order to be able to compete with foreign-based manufacturers because it is more to their competitive price advantage to send materials for assembly to low-wage factories abroad and then re-import them to the U.S. than to assemble them at home. The size of manufacturers places factories at their mercy since “any one of [their] orders might utilize a given factory’s annual output…”.
Wl-Mt, as the world’s largest retailer, “maintains an extensive global network of 10,000 suppliers. Whether American Bangladeshi, Chinese, or Honduran, Wl-Mt plays these producers against one another in search of [the lowest possible prices]. […] Overseas manufacturers are forced to engage in cutthroat competition…” in order to keep their contracts with the retailer. An integral part of this competition is the movement of production according to costs. In this way, the manufacturer channels the buying power of the retailer into its own buying power over factories. This, in actuality, is buying power over the labor and trade laws of poorer nations, and buying power over the wages of workers. (The issue of purchasing legal laxity will be further explained shortly, in the section on Export Processing Zones.)
Thus, rather ironically, it is the price determined by the retailer that determines what the actual cost of production will be, rather than the cost of production determining what will be charged the consumer. Pricing “doesn’t start at the bottom, from the real costs of making the garment. The retailer can always go down the street and find someone who can make it for less. The manufacturers and contractors are stuck. Everyone down the line is squeezed” by the retailer. Everyone also wants to make a profit and enough to keep their business running, and so the worst squeezed is the laborer."
Wowee wow, aren't I smart. There are a bunch of footnotes that go w/ this but I removed them because they looked dumb. If anyone who I'm quoting comes across this, don't worry, I'm sourcing you in my thesis, and if it really bothers you that I didn't source you here, I can change that. Ok? Thanks.
And it's back to China for me. Yippee!
time keeps on ticking... into the future
You'd think that, considering I have only 4.5 weeks to finish at least the rough draft of this thing, I'd have motivation to spare. Alas, all I feel like doing is sleeping. This is a counter-productive impulse.
