I generally agree with Kristof's pieces and appreciate his efforts to reveal many dark realities to readers in the US. However, I found this video and his accompanying column on the subject frustrating and quite misguided. Showing the unbelievably unsafe, unsanitary and unpleasant conditions that some people are subjected to and trapped in does not support the argument that we should should allow alternatives opportunities (such as sweatshop labor) to offer only marginally better conditions. The better option is to support universally improved labor standards as well as opportunities for those currently scavenging. The former should be pursued through lobbying all importing countries to set such requirements, thus eliminating the comparative advantage of the firms with poor labor standards. This might increase textile costs marginally, but I doubt many would prefer to have the savings over the improved quality of life for those making our products.
Interdisciplinary Planning for Health is an interdisciplinary course offered by Columbia University's Urban Planning Program of the Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation (GSAPP), the Masters in Public Administration Program of the School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA), and the Department of Sociomedical Sciences of the Mailman School of Public Health (MSPH).
The goal of this course is to provide the ideas and information necessary to integrate environmental viability and sustainable development with other primary concerns of urban planners and public health scientists and practitioners, namely, social justice, human rights, environmental integrity, and health in the broadest sense, to include well-being and quality of life. Improved interdisciplinary education and research is vital if we are to better understand and meaningfully act upon the linkages between transportation, land use, physical activity, and population health.
1 comment:
I generally agree with Kristof's pieces and appreciate his efforts to reveal many dark realities to readers in the US. However, I found this video and his accompanying column on the subject frustrating and quite misguided. Showing the unbelievably unsafe, unsanitary and unpleasant conditions that some people are subjected to and trapped in does not support the argument that we should should allow alternatives opportunities (such as sweatshop labor) to offer only marginally better conditions. The better option is to support universally improved labor standards as well as opportunities for those currently scavenging. The former should be pursued through lobbying all importing countries to set such requirements, thus eliminating the comparative advantage of the firms with poor labor standards. This might increase textile costs marginally, but I doubt many would prefer to have the savings over the improved quality of life for those making our products.
Post a Comment