Norway could be heaven on Earth
Norwegians have an average life expectancy of 81 years, income of $58,810, and one of the best education systems in the world. With a highly social tax system, Norwegians benefit from incredible health care, free college opportunities, and more paid time off when compared to most of the world.
Other than brutal winters, Norway is a near-utopian country with a smaller divide between wealthy and impoverished. There’s incredible privilege in this economy.
A Norwegian newspaper, Aftenposten, decided to select three prominent fashion bloggers — Frida, Ludvig, and Anniken — to journey to Cambodia. These bloggers obsess and pour over the latest fashion trends. They write and photograph their latest finds for the world to see. Additionally, they make money from their features through advertisements and endorsement deals.
Welcome to Cambodia!
Aftenposten wanted to expose these bloggers to the garment workers on the other end of the manufacturing industry for their favorite clothes. As many of the worst worker conditions and best trade relations are in South Asian countries, they selected Cambodia.
With personal cameras, beaming smiles, and naive curiosity, these three traveled to Cambodia to “discover” what garment workers’ jobs are like — for a month. Almost instantly after they landed in the foreign land, they remarked about how they expected more “shops,” cleaner markets, and cheaper food prices.
They immediately experienced culture shock — from privilege to poverty in one flight.
Wages that keep people in poverty
Over the course of the next five episodes, the three explore their neighborhood and interview garment workers. The first, Sokty, tells about making around $3-4 per day. She usually works 7 days a week, and often works from 7 AM to 8 PM.
Sokty sleeps on her floor, covered in some blankets. Her shower is a bucket, where she pours water over herself. She has a clothes line that is about 5 feet long and has a few shirts. She can’t afford to buy the clothes she sews.
There’s a TV, and some photos are pasted to her walls. To many Americans, this austerity and poverty is likely uncomfortable. Societally, we tend to rationalize away these discomforts, rather than face them.
Empathy through exposure
Anniken initially appears uncomfortable, but explains away this feeling by saying they don’t know any better/different. Further, she points out that these Cambodian garment workers are probably used to it, and that’s why they’re okay with this disparity.
Without even a sliver of remorse, sadness, or regret, her explanation weighs heavy for the remaining episodes. They’re a harbinger for a painful self-discovery of ignorance.
See, as the month-long journey flies by, the group becomes increasingly aware of their false assumptions and prejudices about garment workers in far away places. They realize that these people deserve better. And that they — as fashion bloggers — have a role in changing it.
Sometimes it’s as simple as exposure. By accepting the request to appear in a reality series, these three Norwegians grew immensely. One aspect that seemed to change their understanding was trying to buy a dinner on three garment paychecks for the day ($9 total). They cooked the most basic food, which was heavily watered down to feel like more.
“We are rich because they are poor.”
By the conclusion, their voices were unified in disgust and shame for their buying habits. They suddenly realized the consequences of their shopping habits. The Norwegians wrapped up filming with a new resolution: go back home and share their story with others. Ultimately, they wanted to pressure major clothing retailers to choose more worker-friendly locations, paychecks, and rights.
Repeatedly, Ludvig noted how their lives were great in Norway, because theirs (Cambodian garment workers’) “suck.” His words spoke to the fundamental horror of capitalism: where one succeeds, another falls.
We’ve set up a system of trading and exchange, where some people’s money goes further than others. There’s a reason most of our clothing is manufactured elsewhere, and it’s not because they have vastly more productive workers — they just have fewer restrictions and depressed incomes.
That’s not a solution for a fair, just society.
Here are three ways we can correct these inequalities:
This is a helpful and thought-provoking read. What are the best resources for evaluating and comparing American retail chains? It seems like it should be easy to end sweat-shop labor and the like with awareness.
Justin,
That’s a terrific question!
Here are a couple websites you should check out:
Here are a few popular brands: http://www.treehugger.com/style/are-these-unethical-fashion-brands-hiding-in-your-closet.html
&
This is an article about dealing with sweatshop labor, and how to reform it: http://www.greenamerica.org/PDF/GuideSweatshops.pdf
&
Here’s another list of retailers: http://www.buzzfeed.com/alexrees/23-brands-caught-in-sweatshop-scandals#.jwa5zpmjZ
Hope this helps,
Sam
Great post! Thanks for sharing this. Even if one didn’t take this inequality into account, frugal and minimalist living probably helps, by leading us to buy fewer new things and make do with what we already own. Often things made locally cost more, but they’re likely to last longer. I wonder what those garment workers would think if they walked into a thrift store in the US and saw all the cast-offs.
Anne,
Wonderfully put! Thanks for commenting.
Sam
Great title for this post. Hearing about these situations really puts everything into perspective and makes us count our blessings. Lately I have been shopping more at consignment stores and thinking twice before I buy clothing. My closet is pretty bare for a female.
Logically, if we buy less clothing that originated in sweat shops, these people will receive even less money for the work they do. I am in no way condoning the practice at all but that would be the direct result.
Conditions must change to change their lives. Equality of pay and workers rights across the globe would be a goal.
How could we as the “little people” even begin to effect this change?
Larissa,
This is a great question and myth of the industry. Essentially, people ask, “If we don’t buy from them, will they make any money? Isn’t it better to at least support them a bit?” Well, I’m not going to say “no” outright, but there seem to be better ways to “give” to people in need then shopping through multinational corporations that pay for sweatshop-style labor. Perhaps we can take the money we would otherwise spend on these clothes and put them towards causes trying to change that? Just an idea!
I think we “little people” have lots more power to effect change than we lend ourselves!
Thanks for your comment,
Sam
I agree with 1 and 2, but only with 3 insofar as it makes it slightly more likely worker will have better living conditions (assuming the company you’re buying from doesn’t run an American sweatshop instead). However, as someone whose parents were in the commercial fashion industry a long time ago who set up shop in one of these cheap SE Asian countries, I do think there is a way to do off-shoring work ethically, in a way that benefits both consumers and workers (assuming they are paid good, living wages and these foreign businesses are adding to rather than killing off what other economic development would be happening in the region) and I commend companies that achieve ethical worker conditions, even if those workers don’t happen to be American.
Taylor,
Love this comment! Thanks for sharing about your parents’ experience and that with living wages, the work can be ethical. I’d agree with that entirely! But living wages must come first. Everyone deserves that…
Sam
I’m trying to be better about “voting with my dollars”. Admittedly, I’ll succumb to buying something I wouldn’t want to support just because it’s cheap, but I’m trying to make that the exception rather than the rule. Paying more for local, humane products is definitely worthwhile.
Check out Labourbehindthelabel.org…
I’ve got a different opinion.
A while ago Marketplace Money did a long report about the life of a t-shirt from the farm in the US to cast-off in Africa. One story was in Bangladesh focusing on 2 sisters working in a garment factory. The eldest sister was married off as a teenager, the younger, wasn’t. Why? Because the factory came and the younger sister had value to the family as a factory worker who sent money home and not a burden to the family, she wasn’t forced into child marriage. She was free to leave home, single, which allows her all sorts of freedoms. I am so good with that. If freedom for women in other nations come at the price of one less factory in the States, that’s a decent price for others’ liberation.
I have a neighbor who travels to South American ghettos. The saddest thing was that little boys aspired to be drug dealers and the girls prostitutes. Why? Because those are the only ones the kids see has having money. They need opportunities. My ancestors got opportunities during the Great Migration. A northern sweatshop gave a lot more opportunity than a southern sharecrop.
So lets look at the realistic alternatives for women in developing nations have without industrialization or opportunity. It looks like human trafficking, child marriage, and grinding rural poverty.
Realistically we need to be willing to pay more for clothing, other things and services from other nations and practice providing value for what they produce so they too can find value for their daughters beyond their sexuality and value for their sons beyond their brawn.
Marie,
Thank you so much for your comment and perspective. I agree that people need opportunities. Unfortunately, our society hasn’t exactly respected the laborers and workers on the other side of the trade. If we were to buy products and the people were given living wages, everyone would win. Yes, the products would be more expensive to manufacture, but there are many ways to deal with that.
All the best,
Sam