Since trying it on a dev conference in Amsterdam, I am severely hooked on Tony‘s Chocolonely, which usually rates quite high in labor protection reviews [1] and has started to introduce traceability for the supply chains of its various ingredients. It also tastes unbelievably good.
I recommend https://www.grenadachocolate.com (though I haven't had one since hurricane Ivan) Some folks ideally named for making an organic chocolate company (Green, Brown, and Browne) decided that the cocoa farmers of Grenada would be better off if they also made chocolate there. The climate makes it a bit of challenge, and small batch is hard to begin with, but they make a great bar that I always feel is more like cocoa made into a food than a product containing cocoa.
It's a small company with poor global distribution because, well, it's a big planet and there are only so many chocolate bars. But if you look at the web site, and find "view, retail outlets" and then click on "Country" to reverse search, US is now visible for some reason and San Francisco has a lot of outlets and they are near the top of the results. New York also seems to have a lot of outlets. I'm 500 miles from the nearest outlet.
But, if you want more money to go to people closer to the dirt in the production chain, these are your guys.
So, I don't want to rain on your parades, guys, but what if child labor is the only alternative to extreme poverty or starvation for people in those countries?
As someone who immigrated from a country like that into 1st world I'm kind of torn about this. On one hand child labor is bad, on the other hand, starvation is worse. So now we block these kids from being able to make a living for themselves, or effectively force them to lie about their age.
My question back would be: why _is_ child labor the only alternative to extreme poverty or starvation? Why can't adults be paid a sufficient wage to avoid starvation, or why can't our society provide for these children without requiring them to work?
The fact that things are that way currently, is not an argument that things should be that way. It's worth discussing what in the current system necessitates that children work or starve, and whether that's fixable.
>My question back would be: why _is_ child labor the only alternative to extreme poverty or starvation?
That's been true for virtually all of human history. It was true even in the 20th century in agricultural parts of America.
> Why can't adults be paid a sufficient wage to avoid starvation, or why can't our society provide for these children without requiring them to work?
Those people don't live in our society, they live in some other society that doesn't generate the kind of surplus required to enable children not to have to work.
> Those people don't live in our society, they live in some other society that doesn't generate the kind of surplus required to enable children not to have to work.
The "other" less equal children from another society, clearly not connected to our own.
There is probably sufficient global surplus to ensure that children do not need to work to survive.
As described in the article, companies that control supply chains can squeeze suppliers so that all the surplus accumulates in wealthier countries, instead of with the suppliers. That is not an inevitability, it is a choice made by “our society”.
My point was against the sense of inevitability in the parent reply. We can imagine and enact a more equitable distribution. We don’t even need to mess around with socialism for decades to do it
not at all. all it would require is the will to actually do it.
while you may have a point that in the current state, companies won't willingly reduce their profits to do that, and maybe the only way to get them to make this change right now would be force them and create a massive bureaucracy to make it happen, this is not the only way this can be addressed.
for one, our governments could support african countries in charging more for the product. this could be done through trade agreements that are more supportive and less exploitative as they currently are.
say for example the price of raw cocoa may have to triple to ensure that the producers at the end get double of what they are getting now. (i think that was what was needed to bring the income to minimum living standards)
how much governance is needed to make that happen? once the trade agreements are fixed, it should mostly be spot checking the market prices to make sure the money ends up in the right places. that can't be that hard.
for the past half century poverty worldwide has been reduced drastically, and i see no reason for that trend not to continue.
public opinion on this topic continues to improve. the problem is not a lack of will in the individuals but a lack of awareness. and that is slowly changing, thanks to presentations like this one among others.
you see, just like you ridicule the belief that people can change and we can fix things, i could say:
ah, well, it is all hopeless. we will never be able to change the attitude of enough people for this to be ever successful. let's just give up. corporations will never change, and they will continue to exploit the world for their personal gain for the forseeable future.
HOW IS THAT ANY LESS DESTRUCTIVE?
nobody said anything about waiting. especially not for a savior. we all need to act. every one of us. to start holding corporations to account, and demand that they change their business practices.
that will does not come from nowhere. it comes from individual action.
i am talking to people almost every day to tell them what i am doing to improve lives of people in poverty, and what they could be doing as well.
you are free to choose to laugh at us, or you know, you could be doing something yourself as well.
the more of us become active, the sooner we can achieve a lasting change.
this is not an issue of white saviors rescuing africa. this is an issue of us colonialists cleaning up the mess that we created and are responsible for. that's why i am talking about change of trade agreements. we need to reign in our corporations and get them to stop their exploitative practices and we need to implement trade agreements that ensure that the resources we take out of africa are paid at a fair price. then it is up to african countries themselves to figure out how to invest that income to the benefit of their own people.
> for the past half century poverty worldwide has been reduced drastically, and i see no reason for that trend not to continue
Because of capitalism, not wealth redistribution from white saviors.
> this is not an issue of white saviors rescuing africa. this is an issue of us colonialists cleaning up the mess that we created and are responsible for.
You won’t do that, and anyone who waits around for that to happen or wasted energy or political capital engaging with that is a moron. A dangerous moron. For example, Britain will not give India back a cent of the trillions it stole from them, nor will the Muslim empires who came before them. The only non-idiotic course of action for a country like India is to try and get rich on the same course of development Britain pursued. Not sitting around with their hand out.
It occurred to me the other day that if my home country of Bangladesh had pursued capitalism from the outset, instead of fucking around for decades with socialism, my family might still be together in Bangladesh instead of scattered around a bunch of white people’s countries. What happened before doesn’t matter. What matters is economic development, as fast as possible. The prospect of white saviorism meaningfully fixing anything is so remote—because the sacrifice that would be required in their part is so massive—that even talking about it is destructive in distracting from the urgency of economic development.
> do you think fast economic development is possible if we continue to exploit those countries?
Yes, and it has already happened in many places. In 1950, the GDP per capita of South Korea and Taiwan were under $900, not much more than the $600 of Pakistan. Those East Asian countries rapidly industrialized and became rich. Nobody wasted time talking about fairness. Pakistan fucked around with socialism and other leftist garbage and doomed its people to decades more of poverty.
"The growth has been attributed to the hard work of the labor force. External factors include the enormous economic and technical assistance provided by foreign countries, particularly Japan (see: Treaty on Basic Relations Between Japan and the Republic of Korea) and the United States, access to Western and Japanese markets, and the acquisition of foreign currency by Korean migrant workers in the early stages of economic growth."
other east asian countries look similar. foreign investments and international trade play a large role in a countries economic development.
that doesn't look like continued exploitation that was and still is happening in africa.
sure, the countries need to do their part to develop on their own. but we can also contribute by actually trading fairly with them.
In the aftermath of WWII and the Korean War, the US invested significantly in rebuilding + supporting most of the rapidly industrialized countries that you've named.
Western Europe, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, all received extensive economic development support from the US from 1940's-1970's, which helped a lot with that rapid industrialization.
if we want this world to improve we have to do something about it. that's what i believe is the very purpose of our life on this planet. if i want to have a better life for myself, i need to help making life better for others too. that's not a burden. for me that's a conviction, which is true regardless of what "the white man" did or didn't do.
i am not talking about making up for past sins. i am talking about stopping the exploitative trading that still happens today.
it's not the only problem in this world, nor is it only white people who are causing problems, but it happens to be the problem that we are discussing here.
To add to your question, I would like to ask: Why is child labour the only alternative to extreme poverty and starvation in a world where we have excess calories?
Because we live in a society that requires a solid base of slavery to function. It always has. Base level resource extraction and processing (cocoa, cobalt, rubber, sulfur, et al.) is done with slaves in order to have an abundance of consumer items at the other end. It is not work people want to do. It is work people will only do under threat of death. It is a horrifying thought. Or it should be.
I think you are right in that it is worth discussing, but you must come at it from an honest standpoint. You can not pretend like this is some kind of aberration—it is the backbone of our capitalist society. You can not fix a systemic issue with small changes. A quarter of humans on this planet live in abject poverty. We accept this kind of inequality because "everyone is equal" is something we aspire to one day believe—currently we do not.
Just because the child labor isn’t happening on our soil, isn’t it still valid to say a lot of our supply chains are supported by it?
Chocolate, coffee, clothing, rare minerals from electronics, electronic assembly all have slavery and child labor issues globally. I don’t think the US and other wealthy countries are absolved of that horror just because we outlawed child labor for our own citizens but allow (and incentivize!) it when it’s outsourced.
I know it's not Bangladesh, but in nearby India, the state of Kerala is the one most influenced by communists, and is also the one with the highest standard of living in the country. Meanwhile there are countless countries that have followed neoliberal models and have terrible quality of life.
In 1950, India had a GDP per capita of $597. China was only a little higher at $614. Pakistan was at $650. Taiwan and South Korea were $922 and $876--significantly less than twice as much. Fast forward to 2023, India has increased by less than 5x, and is at $2,600. China has grown 20x, and is at $12,000. South Korea has grown 40x and is at $35,000. Taiwan grew 35x and is at $34,700.
The defense of Nehruvian economics--against all evidence and experience--would be funny if the consequences weren't so deadly. It, and the neighboring ideologies of Islamic Socialism in Pakistan and Bangladesh, left those countries far behind Asian competitors that didn't have that much of a head start at the time of independence. Pointing to the least bad implementation of that tragic idea isn't impressive to me.
When there have been dozens of experiments at the country level and at the province level with communism, and you mention only one experiment that supports your position, that is called cherry picking.
What do you expect -- for me to catalog and rate every country by economic development and political influence? This comment applies just as well to the post I was replying to, which happened to refer to a country immediately adjacent to the one I referenced.
> Capitalist societies are one of the few places where children don't work.
This is simply not true. Essentially every capitalist country has had extensive child labor for long periods in their capitalist development. There was widespread child labor in the early 1900s U.S. - a very capitalist economy then and now. Many developing countries with capitalist economies (such as Ivory Coast and Ghana - you know, the ones in the article) also have extensive child labor today.
None of them - capitalist or not, they all had it at that time, and many continue to have it to this day as seen with Ghana and the Ivory Coast. So capitalism doesn’t end child labor, which is my point. It can even expand it or worsen conditions where doing so is profitable.
All of these countries, like everywhere else, started with with child labor. The difference is that the countries who no longer need it are almost universally capitalist.
That’s true, but it supports my point not yours. In 1950, Pakistan and China both had a GDP per capita around $600. Today, China is probably within a generation of becoming a developed country and eliminating child labor. Pakistan is nowhere close.
Of course capitalism doesn’t eliminate child labor overnight. Villages in Pakistan and to a lesser extent China would starve to death if you eliminated child labor overnight. But capitalism is the only system that has proven capable of nearly eliminating it from a society over time.
Especially necessary for those who, for many centuries, have not been well-paid by the capitalists who took advantage of their situation. Sometimes called exploitation. A practice often maintained by keeping native governments de-stabilized. (See e.g. history of the Caribbean. Or Hawaii.)
Ah, yes, blame the failures of socialism on “exploitation” by foreigners instead of your ideology. Losers. Losers who condemn their countries to poverty because they can’t admit they’re wrong.
we are not blaming african families for making their children work. we are blaming western businesses for not paying africans enough so that they are forced to do this.
the problem is not the lying about the age. discovering that is not about saying those are bad parents, but instead this is proof that the price paid for cocoa is still to low.
there is really only one way to solve this: to stop exploiting labor and resources in those countries but actually pay them enough so that they can live a decent life.
and the way to make that happen is to create awareness in the consumer to make them demand from the chocolate producers that they actually make an effort to fix this.
> what if child labor is the only alternative to extreme poverty or starvation for people in those countries?
Many child laborers are in extreme poverty, as are their families. This has been going on for decades in Ivory Coast and Ghana, so child labor clearly hasn’t allowed the younger generations to escape poverty. It has definitely made it harder for many children to go to school, though.
Well, of course whoever is buying the chocolate doesn't want the workforce to die, so they're going to give them the absolute minimum to keep productivity at a particular level. Basically one step above slavery in the sense that you can either choose to to work and live at a subsistence level or die.
But instead of doing this, couldn't Cargill make a bit less profit to bring the standard of living up for the people farming?
Ofc there is an alternative. All it needs is enough people realising they outnumber their oppressors. If the US managed to get rid of most of its slaveowners, then those countries can too.
This is a late-night talk show recap, not an actual news article.
John Oliver might state some true facts, but his show is really about creating a weird mixture of outrage and humorous quips for entertainment. He wouldn't be doing is job if truth and accuracy weren't sacrificed for that goal.
The delta between the goals of journalism and comedy deserve scrutiny, but they do not, by definition, necessitate that comedy lies. Of course, it sounds like you are making a more direct criticism of this specific show - I'm not sure what "weird mixture of outrage and humorous quips for entertainment" means in this context. It sounds like you're just describing a normal comedic news show in deceptively harsh terms. Truth and comedy can be a valuable mix, despite (because of?) truth being frequently dark. Should people not be outraged by child labor in chocolate production, or are you saying that his specific reporting is so far from the truth that the truth is actually not even outrage-worthy? It's unclear.
> The delta between the goals of journalism and comedy deserve scrutiny, but they do not, by definition, necessitate that comedy lies.
There's a bit of double-think that goes on with these shows: they're are news but they're not news. People actually do treat them as news. And there are more ways to lie than telling bald-faced non-fact.
> I'm not sure what "weird mixture of outrage and humorous quips for entertainment" means in this context. It sounds like you're just describing a normal comedic news show in deceptively harsh terms.
It thought it was pretty clear: his episodes are engineered to get you mad and laugh. Which IMHO is weird combination of emotions. That may be typical of the comedic news show genre (which I don't think too highly of), but Oliver really cranks it up to 11.
As much as I like John Stewart and John Oliver I have to admit both shows tend to leave me feeling a bit helpless in the end despite the comedy. I have stopped watching them. So yes it makes me feel kind of weird.
The fact is no matter how much I know about child labor (put you impending disaster here) involved in chocolate, soccer balls, shoes etc there is very little I can do about it besides not buy that stuff. Yes I do want to know about it but it does not have to be part of my entertainment diet. Keeping my own child from getting into that situation is the best I can hope for and I worry about being able to do that sometimes.
Watching Jimmy Kimmel skewer Trump is priceless however:)
I agree with you about the feeling of helplessness on the child labour in chocolate episode, but John Oliver covers such a wide range of other topics, many of which are much closer to home (and therefore something you have a chance of being able to directly address).
Isn't having this knowledge a core part of making ourselves educated voters, to be better-equipped to advocate among friends and relatives for things we believe in, and having a greater ability recognise dodgy business practises?
It cherry picks what to talk about based on what's funny and literally creates outrage where there otherwise would not be, for entertainment. People enjoy being outraged at this stuff.
There are more slaves today than at any other time. Child labor is on the rise. It's not unique to chocolate at all. Chocolate, sulfur, bananas, cobalt, rubber, etc.. Modern capitalism requires a healthy base of slaves to mine, refine, and harvest base resources.
It's not that it isn't true. It's just not news in any significant way. This is just how things are. We all know that this is how things are, but we pretend like it's not so we can enjoy the feeling of being outraged. I know I do. John Oliver is great.
>We all know that this is how things are, but we pretend like it's not so we can enjoy the feeling of being outraged
This seems both factually wrong (the first part) and kind of an unnecessarily hostile oversimplification of people's emotions/motivations. It's also another example of the very common fallacy that we should patently not be outraged by things that we already know, or are common, for which there are essentially infinite counter-examples in the realm of human behaviors that are common and known, yet still outrage-worthy and shocking every time (e.g. child abuse). Just because we can't solve every problem instantly doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to express our thoughts and feelings about them - that's part of a healthy society.
Outrage only for outrage's sake surely is a thing, but it's also an easy thing to use as a label in dismissing things one doesn't like for other reasons.
You also have to put things in context. If %50 of the people on earth where slaves 2000 years ago means 100 million slaves. 150 million slaves today would be %2 so there are more free people alive today than ever. (I made those numbers up BTW)
It is also the case that Outage Attracts Viewers (OAV). Social Media is built on this principle and it seems hypocritical that these shows attract viewers on a similar model.
This is mentioned by John. Are there specific instances of misrepresentation in the episode you can point to?
"We all know..."
That's just not true. Besides being funny, this show presents a general audience with topics they won't be familiar with. I think one can expect some chocolate consumers to modify their buying habits after watching this infotainment.
I saw it too. Are these kids children of the people who own the farms? I didn't remember seeing anything to refute that. If so, barring their kids to work on the farm would be detrimental to the family farmer and would benefit bigger farms that can afford to hire more external labor.
They literally interviewed a girl who was sent to a coco farm "to take care of the kids" when she was 12 or something. She has taken care of zero kids and instead has been chopping coco since then. Hasn't been home either.
There's a clip in the show of a young female teenager who wants to go to school but has instead been separated from her family and forced to work on her (I believe) uncles farm.
You're probably asking about the general trend but this is an example of the show refuting that these kids are just the farmers children. The call with the nestle exec also mentions this objection.
The real question ia whether it is detrimental to the children themselves.
Everyone and his brother goes "you should not have children when you can't afford them" when people who fell into poverty need assistance or when someone can not provide own room to each kid or have trouble to pay for something. Guess what, having kids so that you have cheap labor for otherwise ineffective business is even worst.
It is different when they help an hour a day after school or during weekends etc. But, that us not what we are talking about here.
Yes and no. I am increasingly coming to the opinion that no, if you use comedy to spred lies, then it is exactly what you are doing. The comedy part is then just cowardly shield to make it hard to argue against your claims while making it more likely your lies spread.
And that goes for Carlin and all the other comedians too.
[1] https://www.chocolatescorecard.com/