Is My Shirt a Sin?

After posting my explanation of Isaiah 1 yesterday, a related issue surfaced in the comments: don’t we all contribute to oppression in some way by the purchases we make? Good question.

If you look on the inside of your coat or on the bottom of your cheap toys or on almost any manufactured good you’ll notice it was probably made in a place like China or India or Bangladesh or Vietnam or Mexico. The shirt I’m wearing right now was made in Mauritius. I’m not exactly sure where that is but it sounds sunny.

Of course, multinational corporations (MNCs) don’t make shirts in Mauritius because they like the weather. They manufacture their goods in far off locales because the labor is cheap (and the regulations are lighter). This raises the uncomfortable question: when we buy inexpensive shoes or t-shirts or plastic toys are we indirectly exploiting the poor who made the product for a relative pittance?

Not necessarily.

We must differentiate between low wages (low to us anyways) and forced, child, or slave labor. It is not a sin to pay someone in the Philippines a wage that seems absurdly small to Americans. Hourly compensation costs for employees in the manufacturing sector in the United States was $30.56 in 2007. In Mexico hourly compensation averaged $3.91; in the Philippines $1.37. This is much lower than compensation in the U.S. But then the U.S. compensates at a lower level than does Europe. Manufacturing workers in Germany, for example, average $50.73 an hour. In Norway they make $55.03. Part of the difference in compensation stems from purchasing power disparities (a buck goes farther in some countries than others) and varying levels of governmental regulation.

But by and large we are not bothered by Norwegians making a lot of money. We are, however, concerned about the poor in the Two-Thirds world. Probably every American would agree that workers in America are better off than workers in the Philippines. We would all like to see Filipinos live more comfortable lives. But just because $1.37 seems low to us, does not mean MNCs are unjust to pay Filipinos 4% of what U.S. manufacturing workers make.

For starters, workers  in developing countries are less productive. This doesn’t mean they don’t work as hard or aren’t as bright. Productivity may be lower because the equipment is more primitive, proper training is less emphasized, management structures are less effective, or the infrastructure is less developed. Whatever the reason, the output of a worker in America is more than the output of workers in most other countries. Companies cannot survive by paying the same wage for less productivity.

More to the point, it can hardly be considered exploitative labor when, in many cases, people in other countries are eager for our manufacturing jobs. If we insist that MNCs pay workers in Mauritius what you can get in Grand Rapids, the MNCs will simply pull out of places like Mauritius. We will feel good about doing something for the poor (and perhaps for spending more money to buy American), but the workers in Mauritius (which is one of the better off African countries) now have less access to Western capital, one less opportunity for a job that by their standards is pretty decent. Good intentions, by themselves, count for very little. Sometimes they do more harm than good. Sound economics are needed if we are to actually help the poor and not just our consciences.

Yes, but…

But what about instances where children are forced to work grueling days in miserable conditions and suffer harsh penalties for the smallest infractions. This is a different story. If you knew that XYZ Industries manufactured their hats by stealing children from local villages and making them work 15 hours a day for a ration of cornmeal, there would be  good reason to start buying your hats from ABC Industries instead (I just made up the industries, so I apologize if they are real companies somewhere).

But unfortunately the circumstances are not always so blatant or easy to trace. There are usually many cars in the manufacturing train. It is hard to tell when, who, where, or what is genuinely oppressing its workers in the kinds of ways described above. This doesn’t mean consumers can do nothing. It does mean that refusing, out of principle, to buy anything made in, say, Malaysia is not the smartest way to help the poor.

I’m no expert on combating forced and child labor, but pressuring MNCs to be more transparent with their labor practices, including which indigenous businesses they hire, is a start. But getting business leaders to oppose oppressive practices (which is not the same as a lower wage) may be a more promising solution. Consumers have a role to play in signaling to MNCs that we won’t stand for slave labor, but expecting consumers to know who sheered the sheep that produced the wool for their scarf is a lot to ask. Expecting Christians to infuse their businesses with Christian principles is not.

The global economy is so complex that linking oppressive practices with the consumer who eventually buys the finished product is in most cases a stretch. Just like it would be a stretch to argue that Christians shouldn’t see a Tom Cruise movie because he uses his money to fund Scientology. But this doesn’t mean Christians don’t do anything about oppressive labor practices. It means we direct our energies higher up the food chain at those who know what is going on and have it in their power to do good or do evil.