Goal Orientation

There's an interesting little editorial in the NYT regarding labor conditions across the world. What's interesting is the hypothesis that for the poorest of the poor, working in a sweatshop is a vastly better option than not having sweatshops to work in at all. Of course, this threatens many of our social sensibilities here in the U.S., as evidenced by some of the letters sent in response.

What struck me was the sentiment in this letter:

To the Editor:

Nicholas D. Kristof seems not to understand that the No. 1 reason for imposing higher labor standards on imports isn’t to improve living standards abroad but to maintain them here.

Americans shouldn’t be asked to compete with workers who think that toiling long hours under abysmal conditions is still better than living in the dump.

We should make every effort to eradicate poverty abroad, but not at the expense of creating it here.

Jeremy Weir Alderson
Hector, N.Y., Jan. 15, 2009

The writer is director of the “Homelessness Marathon” radio broadcast.

Interesting, isn't it? Three simple sentences that open up (at least) three cans of worms.

The first is that we're okay with protectionist policy. This should violate anyone with that takes the free market seriously. This implies that global policy should be made in order to better the domestic position.

The second is that one is entitled to maintain their current standard of living. Not only should this outrage anyone who believes in a free market, but it should also outrage anyone who believes in the notion of an egalitarian society. Maintenance of the status quo is probably more a hallmark of a caste system or the old feudal system.

And the third can of worms is that doing good for others is inherently tied to doing better for yourself. This sort of takes away from the notion of doing good for others, and is more indicative of an attitude of, "I'm going to do what's best for me and hope that it works out for you."

I'm certainly not entirely in agreement with these stances, but I can live with someone who has those ideas. However, what's intriguing is that the writer is trying to help the homeless in this country. And that's a noble cause. In fact, it's very much in line with my view of the world (at least from an outcome-based view). Where I think there is a problem is that if you apply his the logic from his letter. I'm not really suggesting that the free market has the best solutions for homelessness. Nor do I think that protectionist policies are inherently bad. I'm not entirely sure that an egalitarian system is most efficient. And I think that the combination of doing good for others so that there is good for yourself may have merit. What I'm failing to do is to really see how the combination of ideas that are there combine for form anything coherent.

If the ultimate goal is to get people aware of an issue, then you don't need anything that even resembles coherency. On the other hand, if you are looking for a way to address the issue, then you need to put things together in a coherent way. I'm finding that too much of what I read on the internet is characteristic of the former, and not enough of it resembles the latter.

I suppose that's why I don't claim to have much of a stance on anything that isn't absurd.

-Chairman