We read about similar disasters happening today in third world countries and we think "It's all due to the corruption in those places; such things could never happen in developed places". It is really thought-provoking to think about how not very long ago they did.
Had a conversation with a Chinese colleague after the huge explosion in Tianjin; they were worried that this sort of thing - industrial accidents, spillages, etc. - was happening in China all the time and they wondered why it didn't happen in the west. Of course these things all happened in western countries in the past - My feeling was that china is going through a hundred and fifty years of growth in a couple of decades. It takes an Aberfan, or a Boston molasses flood, or a Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire, to get a country to fix the liability and legal frameworks it needs. And China is going through all those learning events in a much compressed timeframe. Open question whether it's actually learning from these events, too.
But why should they even need to make the mistakes to learn from themselves? The lessons are already there from decades of other countries' disasters and solutions.
Because distance reduces disaster's cost, and in every industry the guys who operate on luck can deliver cheaper and faster than the guys who do it right. One of those groups will kill someone eventually, but until they do they'll out compete everyone.
Everything that can go wrong will go right, and you'll take more risks every time, winning every time, until you experience catastrophic failure.
I know it is cynical, but a part of it also is because it isn't worthwhile for them yet.
If large numbers of people cannot afford to say "I won't work/live there because it is too dangerous", a capitalist doesn't need to work on safety.
That's why, for example, clothes factories can get away with counteracting the "employees may steal stuff" risk by locking down windows and emergency exits or why coal mining companies can ignore all kinds of warnings of upcoming disasters, even if similar warnings have been followed by deadly 'accidents' recently and in the same company.
If someone does take these things into consideration, it will supposedly slow them down and cost them money. There's always someone else who is willing to do the job without these hindrances.
Similarly, one of my children hurt themselves climbing a tree and ended up in hospital. Our other child was taking high risks a week later. My second child said "it won't happen to me".
Because the foreign investors don't want to learn those lessons.
Textile mills moved from places like Lowell, MA and Utica, NY to the south for more docile workers and lower safety standards. They moved to Bangladesh for even cheaper workers and no regulation.
Indeed, and by pushing the production of goods far away from the people who consume them, modern industrial capitalism makes it easier for the consumer to ignore things like this when they do happen. After all, they're happening to foreign people far away, not to people next door, people Like Us™.
Exporting production to less developed countries inarguably raises the standard of living in those countries. There is a cost in the form of increased risk from some sources; manufacturing accidents, pollution, etc. However, this is more than offset by the increase in food production, lifespan, medical care, and everything else that comes with being a production economy.
The fact that you can sit there on your computer and say "oh, those poor foreigners would be so much better off if they just let me decide for them so I could keep them in a third-world subsistence farming economy" just indicates that you are from a culture that's forgotten what it takes to modernize and improve. You can't build an industrial base off nostalgic dreams of agrarianism.
It's not inarguable at all. There is a third option besides agrarian subsistence and modern industrial subsistence: global partnership an fair trade, instead of Westerners profiting from Eastern misery.
> The fact that you can sit there on your computer and say "oh, those poor foreigners would be so much better off if they just let me decide for them so I could keep them in a third-world subsistence farming economy"
Where did I say that, exactly? I welcome the opening up of economic opportunities to these populations. I just think that they deserve the same protections and pay for doing those jobs that Westerners would receive if they were the ones doing them, rather than just being pawns in a global system of labor arbitrage.
It's a bit rich to get up on a moral high horse and then declare from that elevated position that the life of a Bangladeshi worker is worth less than that of an American one. Companies aren't setting up in these countries because they are benevolent actors looking to help them develop their economies. They're setting up there because they can exploit the workers there in ways that they can't get away with doing back home anymore.
Workers in developed economies had to endure a century of bloody struggle to claw those protections into place; I would rather we construct an economy that allows this new class of workers to get them for themselves without having to suffer through that.
Nobody is claiming their lives are worth less: it's clear OP does not feel that way, and it's mean to imply otherwise. But very sadly their labor is currently worth a lot less, and regulations that try to force a change (like any other economic price floor) in that will severely reduce demand for their labor and limit their economic opportunities.
Matt Iglesias is the quintessential illustration of why US voters are flocking to politic outsiders and saying the D and R are just two sides of the same bad coin.
The problem isn't individual greed that keeps reappearing, it's the collective and cultural greed that makes the individual greed short-term attractive.
I always think that the sign of a good system (be it a country or a company or whatever) is not that mistakes don't happen. But that the same mistakes don't happen twice.
It's not as simple as don't have a school gathering under a landslide risk after heavy rain. The tips were a known danger. The mistake was in preventing their removal. This mistake happened because those at risk didn't have the power to act in their own interest. Preventing such mistakes in the future would require empowerment of the proletariat.
That's exactly it. Too often, management is judged on short term performance. Risks are often ensured, or taken by daughter company that can be dropped. And even when not, they may believe the risk is so small that it's worth taking.
Especially when margins are low, cutting some corners for a small drop in costs can lead to a large increase in profits. And when the damage done to society as a whole, the lives lost, the radiation released, and the animals drowned in your oil, are not on your balance sheet, they don't directly factor into the decision. Only the money they have to pay as a result does, and that's never enough to undo the damage, and often not even enough to scare other companies from cutting similar corners, because letting those companies really pay, would bankrupt it and costs jobs.
That's not how business works. If you wrecklessly drove a company into the ground, you're going to have a hard time finding another leadership position at another company.
That's not how business works. If you can show that you saved the corporation massive amounts of money, and that "the incident" was a one-in-a-million that would _never_ happen to the new corporation, then of course they will hire you for management. See: HP, Yahoo, etc.
He made the company tons of money. I'm sure he would claim it "would never happen" to the new company as well. Yet he's not exactly leading up another energy company, is he?
