Why does India not protect its people more ??

[parvifolia]

So very sad that so many people go to work without even the basic right to safety 😞  I know some say clothing companies should not use countries like this for garment making, but then so many people would be out of work in such poor regions, very hard to understand why the Indian Gov have such little regard for its poor population.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-04-24/south-asia/38789063_1_savar-bd-news-bodies

[algasmoon]

😞  Our government go to promote trade with India and should try and enforce safe working conditions are met if they want our business.  I feel so sorry for all those people who died and were injured, lots of families relied on the workers in the factory to keep them alive and now what will happen to them? Some people had talked of their fears about the building but were told to go to work or be sacked.  In 2013 this is an atrocity in my opinion.

[al**bear]

Because people shopping at Matalan, Walmart (owners of Asda) & Primark want dirt cheap clothing.

Btw

It's not India, the factory which supplied Primark& Matalan was in Dakar , the Capital of  Bangladesh (used to be East Pakistan), Seems the 2 Owners, have been arrested, they had gone into hiding

,Just over 5 mths ago, over a 100 workers died in a garment factory fire close by, it had been a supplier to Walmart.

[papko]

I agree with AL

 Consumers in UK , have a choice , they can buy from sweatshops , where workers are treated like sub humans , or they can pay for quality ethically sourced goods .

 No doubt they will all shout " I cant afford to pay more "

 Were clothes ever as cheap as they are now ? what did people do before ? when clothese dearer ?

[blackburn_stevie]

Does the fact that a shirt or jumper costs more automatically mean that it was produced in a factory with decent wages and good working conditions or does it just mean that the bosses are coining it in more?

Buy British.

[upthecreekyetagain]

Wherever a cotton shirt is made, be it Bangladesh or Saville Row - the chances are the cotton textile was made in a third world country.

[kiss*my*pixel]

I agree with AL

 Consumers in UK , have a choice , they can buy from sweatshops , where workers are treated like sub humans , or they can pay for quality ethically sourced goods .

 No doubt they will all shout " I cant afford to pay more "

 Were clothes ever as cheap as they are now ? what did people do before ? when clothese dearer ?   

Trouble is, wherever we buy from, we don't know where the clothes have been made, and under what circumstances. Personally, I don't buy from Primark/Matalan and suchlike. However, a lot of the higher end sellers also use these sweatshops.

How can one tell whether a garment is ethically sourced?

Moreover, even if a person buys from a high street store which uses sweat-shop labour, how can they possibly know if that is the wrong thing to do? The person employed in that factory is earning money. Pathetic wages by our standards, pitiful conditions in which to work - but if they weren't working there, what else would they be doing - begging on the streets? Even worse, I think.

In an ideal world, everyone would be working in good conditions and earning fair wages.

Regrettably, this is not an ideal world.

If I knew for sure that my money was going in the right direction, I would be so happy. None of us knows, though. You can't say, "Don't shop here, or don't buy such and such" because we don't know under what circumstances that product was produced.

[tommy.irene]

Does the fact that a shirt or jumper costs more automatically mean that it was produced in a factory with decent wages and good working conditions or does it just mean that the bosses are coining it in more?

Buy British.

Yes why not buy British..the only thing is nothing is made here anymore..its made in China and other countries look at your mobile  or TV..and car....were was it made 

[renomarvinm]

There is a Catch 22 situation here - if you don't buy shirts that were originally produced in a sweat shop where people are treated like sub-humans, than that sweat shop will go out of business, and the people there will starve - even worsening their condition...

There are may Catch 22 situations out there.  Here in America, people constantly complain about the Mexican population sneaking into the States, taking jobs, etc.  These people want to work!  I've suggested for a long time now that if we don't want the Mexican people doing this, we should find some way to repair their own infrastructure - their own economy.

Another Catch 22 situation - as the economies in the Third World Improve, there may be less money in the richer countries as the economic imbalance levels out.  

[lhasa.two]

There is a Catch 22 situation here - if you don't buy shirts that were originally produced in a sweat shop where people are treated like sub-humans, than that sweat shop will go out of business, and the people there will starve - even worsening their condition...

You right to a degree but only because in the case of the Bangladeshi government, no laws are in place to effectively protect workers. Employers have carte blanch to pay up to two months in arrears, so if people complain, they can't leave because they will lose the money owed to them. It's a hugely corrupt country and they have the audacity to call it a Parliamentary democracy...

There are may Catch 22 situations out there.  Here in America, people constantly complain about the Mexican population sneaking into the States, taking jobs, etc.  These people want to work!  I've suggested for a long time now that if we don't want the Mexican people doing this, we should find some way to repair their own infrastructure - their own economy.

I think right now the US has enough of its own problems to sort out!

Bangladesh receives about £2BILLION in annual donations - where does it all go? Once again there's no paper trail or accountability.

Another Catch 22 situation - as the economies in the Third World Improve, there may be less money in the richer countries as the economic imbalance levels out.

That may be so but it will take a long time just simply because of the differences in population figures. China and India would be examples...

[renomarvinm]

India, in a way, is approaching Malthusian limits, is approaching it now, has approached them in the past, and will certainly arrive at them in the future.  The only thing preventing this is the huge death rate, which is ferocious.

I am not, certainly not, advocating death.  But if more people are to survive, then there must be fewer born.

We are talking about a lifeboat mentality here - the more people there are in any one environment, then the less there will be of individual freedoms.

The quantity of life mitigates against the quality of life.

[renomarvinm]

Mr. Kippling said it better

[upthecreekyetagain]

India, in a way, is approaching Malthusian limits, is approaching it now, has approached them in the past, and will certainly arrive at them in the future.  The only thing preventing this is the huge death rate, which is ferocious.

I am not, certainly not, advocating death.  But if more people are to survive, then there must be fewer born.

We are talking about a lifeboat mentality here - the more people there are in any one environment, then the less there will be of individual freedoms.

The quantity of life mitigates against the quality of life.

You are assuming there is such a thing as a "Malthusian limit" - the counter argument is that as a population grows and develops ways are found to increase the food supply - in other words the population and rate of economic development determine the food supply rather than the food supply determining the population.

India, together with China and Brazil, is one of the fastest developing economies in the world, as this development continues then not only will the food  supply increase but also the economic welfare of the ordinary citizen.  As development slows then the birth rate will start to fall.

This is what happened in Europe during the 19th and 20th centuries.

[renomarvinm]

If the birth rate does decline then, yes, things may become better.  True, "Malthusian limits," as such, may not exist, but there must be theoretical population limits of some kind out there.  If you had enough people that there was no room to sit down, for instance, then you would have to agree that things had gotten out of hand.

When I worked as a police photographer in Las Vegas, Nevada, many, many years ago, we once encountered two men and a woman who were caught while involved in what I shall refer to as "intense recreational reproductive activity."   They were dirt poor.  No money changed hands, because they didn't have any.  They were, in fact, camping out in an abandoned building at the time, and were doing what they were doing because there was literally nothing else to do that they could afford.  The detectives let them go.  There was no point in arresting them.  But the thing that sticks in my mind is that they had not thought at all about diseases or possible children, or any other repercussions from what they were doing.  Morality, I suppose, is for those who can afford it.

I don't know the answers, but the questions trouble me.