http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/foxconn-and-labour-laws

Again, it often seems the way to win a debate is to change what it is people think the debate is about – even to twist the story altogether. So I think that saying: ‘refighting the “sweatshops, good or bad?” argument of the 1990s … is not what this is about’ is a useful intervention. Even with the typical liberalism of The Economist. (More fundamental questions about labour and economics might be asked.) What do you think?

Advertisements

One response »

  1. […] able to use whatever they can in struggling to better their conditions. In the case of Foxconn (see earlier posts), threatening suicide seems to have become an important tactic. Forbes, meanwhile, is […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s