The Role of Sweatshops

Here is a great short paper from Ben Powell on the importance of so called "sweatshops" and how they benefit the third world. From the conclusion:

Not only are sweatshops better than current worker alternatives, but they are also part of the process of development that ultimately raises living standards. That process took about 150 years in Britain and the United States but closer to 30 years in the Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, and Taiwan.

When companies open sweatshops they bring technology and physical capital with them. Better technology and more capital raise worker productivity. Over time this raises their wages. As more sweatshops open, more alternatives are available to workers raising the amount a firm must bid to hire them.

The good news for sweatshop workers today is that the world has better technology and more capital than ever before. Development in these countries can happen even faster than it did in the East Asian tigers. If activists in the United States do not undermine the process of development by eliminating these countries' ability to attract sweatshops, then third world countries that adopt market friendly institutions will grow rapidly and sweatshop pay and working conditions will improve even faster than they did in the United States or East Asia. Meanwhile, what the third world so badly needs is more "sweatshop jobs," not fewer.

How Does Your Candidate Rank?

The Club For Growth has published the voting record of all House and Senate members and how their record stacks up to pro-growth positions on issues.

B Hussein and Billary came in at a tie for 97th. McCain was not ranked, but did vote pro-growth 94% of the time. As for B Hussein and Billary, they never voted pro-growth.

As for Kansas, Pat Roberts continues to be an embarassment as he was ranked 32nd with a 57% pro-growth record. Brownback was better at 15th and 82% pro-growth vote.

See are the results here.

Exporting from Kansas

I have a question I would like to pose to Gov. Sebelius:

Since Kansans make more airplanes than we can use, should we stop making additional airplanes? After all, the extra airplanes we make do have an impact on the environment. The aircraft industry uses lots of solvents, chemicals, and not to mention energy to make all those extra planes. Wouldn't the State then be better off by making fewer of these toxic machines?

The above is absurd. Of course we would not be better off in Kansas. Now substitute power for airplanes above and see if it really changes anything. All Kansans would be better off we produced more power, especially if we were to export it to other states. Electricity is a great export product just like airplanes. Now we just need to get the Governor to see it the same way.