The conundrum presented by the Bangladeshi building collapse

By now you probably realize that there is a company in China with a factory where most of the electronics in the world are manufactured. If you own an HP, Dell, Apple, or Sony desktop or laptop; if you own an iPhone or Android phone or Blackberry; or if you own a sound system, it was probably made in the Chinese FoxConn factory. Working conditions there are poor. 

However, FoxConn is a heavenly paradise by comparison with some garment manufacturing facilities in Third World countries. A recent 9-story building collapse in Dhaka, Bangladesh has resulted in a death toll of 400 and still counting. Apparently, several different garment contractors used the building to run sweatshops. 

The owner of the building was caught fleeing Bangladesh to India (which likely would have handed him back to Bangladesh anyway, had he been caught there). 

Now, the finger-pointing begins. 

To be sure, the building owner will get a lot of blame for operating a building that was, well, collapsible. But how much did he know? Was the construction company at fault for not following architect plans to the letter, or were their raw materials suppliers at fault for delivering substandard building materials. What about the architects?: did they cut corners in design to keep costs down (and in a poor country like Bangladesh, costs are always a consideration)?

Then, going in the other direction, how much blame should be laid on the doorstep of companies like Walmart, Sears, Target and others who, even if their products weren't manufactured in this specific building, contract to have products manufactured in similarly unsafe circumstances?

Do American companies have a responsibility to workers working under contract in other countries? or is this the business of the people and governments there?

Tags: Bangladesh, building, collapse

Views: 336

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

How about focusing closer to home?

US President Obama agrees trade boost in Mexico visit

US President Barack Obama and his Mexican counterpart Enrique Pena Nieto have agreed to boost trade and create jobs on both sides of the border.

After talks in Mexico City, Mr Obama said illegal immigration to the US was at a historic low due to the strength of the Mexican economy.

He also pledged to continue co-operation in combating drug-trafficking despite a shift in Mexico's policy.

Mexico wants to end the widespread access the US has to its intelligence.

This is Mr Obama's first visit to Mexico since Mr Pena Nieto took office in December 2012.

'No clash'

"I agreed to continue our close co-operation on security, even as the nature of that co-operation will evolve," the US leader said at a joint news conference.

US border agents detain undocumented immigrants near the US-Mexico border. Photo: April 2013
Washington is planning to further boost security at the US-Mexico border

For his part, President Pena Nieto played down notions that the recent shift meant less co-operation between the two countries.

"There is no clash between these two goals."

Mexico's Deputy Foreign Minister for North America, Sergio Alcocer, announced on Monday that an arrangement allowing US security agents unprecedented access to Mexican intelligence would come to an end.

All requests by the US security agencies would now have to be channelled through Mexico's interior ministry, which controls security and domestic policy.

Mr Alcocer insisted the new policy would improve co-operation rather than hamper it, but US analysts said the move could put an end to ties forged between agents on the ground.

Reversing trend

In Mexico City, Mr Obama also highlighted that an overhaul of the US immigration system was important for US-Mexican trade, which totalled $500bn (£322bn) in 2012.

Mexico is the third largest trade partner of the US.

Getting Mexico's backing on securing the 3,200km-long (2,000 miles) border could prove key for President Obama as he tries to sell his immigration reform to US politicians, analysts say.

Bipartisan senators currently debating the reform have insisted that tough border security be in place before undocumented immigrants can gain legal status.

A strong Mexican economy could also help cut down on emigration from Mexico, as workers do not feel the need to seek employment abroad.

Last year, for the first time in four decades, about the same number of Mexican migrants returned home as arrived in the US, bringing net migration to zero, according to the Pew Hispanic Center.

The trend has been ascribed to tougher border controls and immigration laws on the one hand, and the US recession and a growing Mexican economy on the other.

President Pena Nieto said the two leaders had agreed that the bilateral relationship be multi-themed - an inference that in recent years security concerns have dominated at the expense of economic and trade issues, the BBC's Will Grant in Mexico City reports.

Mr Pena Nieto said a deal had been reached to create a joint commission for the economy and bilateral trade, which would include US Vice-President Joe Biden and other senior officials.

A working group was also announced to support young entrepreneurs on both sides of the border as well as agreements on university education.

To underline the strength of the bilateral relations, Mr Pena Nieto used former US President John F. Kennedy's saying: "While geography has made us neighbours, tradition has made us friends."

However, the new tack on security combined with comprehensive immigration reform in the US will provide a strong test of that friendship, our correspondent adds.

There's an economic conundrum involved in solving the undocumented alien issue between the United States and Mexico. 

There is one change which, if it could be done overnight, would cut undocumented Mexicans from crossing the border to near zero, and that is for our economies to be on a par. If Mexico were a prosperous country (which it could be if the government, police, and upper class weren't so f*cking corrupt), Mexicans would come to the United States on vacation instead of in an effort to support their impoverished families.

The conundrum is that there is no way to increase trade to help the common Mexican that doesn't take jobs away from Americans.

I sometimes wonder if annexing Mexico to be a U.S. territory like Puerto Rico or as the 51st state might be the only solution with any real chance of working.

Fifty-six percent ( of Puerto Rican children live in poverty. What have we done for them?

Kept drug cartels out of PR? We could possibly do the same for Mexico.

Supermarkets destroyed the livelihood (pdf) ( of many, many millions of Latin Americans.

See this (pdf) ( for more details.

And this (

And this (pdf) (

I'm not much for lengthy reading assignments (I have a life outside TA and would like to follow several threads, not just one). How about an abstract?

Supermarkets are one of the major causes of illegal immigration. Millions and millions of Latin Americans are facing starvation, because supermarkets have taken away their only means of survival. What other options do they have?"

Is that so that the supermarkets can say they support U.S. agriculture?

Now, that's a stretch about America keeping drug cartels out of Puerto Rico. They don't even have the geography to support massive drug production. Meanwhile, our for-profit-only trade with China is nourishing China's own form of growing corruption-at-the-top.

It's true that it might be too late to use legitimate, free enterprise as a tool to quickly help motivate Mexico into modern commerce, but we're   empowering China to become a monster competitor, driven by corrupt, self-anointed "communist" idealists. Sure, Mexican drug cartels flourish in kahoots with Mexican corruption, but it's still all driven by American $, and guns. I'm just saying, lubricating legitimate commerce with Mexico may be the only way to compete with and quell corruption, besides the fact that they're living right next door.

The conundrum is that there is no way to increase trade to help the common Mexican that doesn't take jobs away from Americans.

So it's better to just stick with our default economic model, which is to bring China into our job market?

Sorry to sound presumptuous. I should have phrased that last paragraph more like a real question: "Is it then better to...?"

RE: "If Mexico were a prosperous country (which it could be if the government, police, and upper class weren't so f*cking corrupt)" - that becomes a - literally - vicious cycle, one might equally ponder that the government, police, and upper class wouldn't be so "f*cking corrupt" if the country were more prosperous, but then again, that hasn't prevented that from happening here, has it?

I suggested a year ago that in a hundred years, this country could possibly be, "The United States of North America," and include Canada and Mexico, but you ridiculed the idea.

BTW, the death toll has just exceeded 600 people. (source)


Services we love!

Advertise with

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service