Tweet
I'm sure we've all heard how "evil" those who traffic in human beings are. How depraved one would have to be in order to profit off of the suffering of those who have had their freedom stolen. But what of the other side of the coin?
Only a total naif would be able to honestly claim that these hardworking men do not contribute to the greater good. In the developed world there are jobs in sweatshops and brothels being unfilled by domestic labour, while in the undeveloped world there is a huge pool of people perfectly suited to these occupations.
Nor are those in the developed world the only ones to profit from this relationship. In addition to the obvious benefit of ridding themselves of underproductive individuals, the exporters of this particular natural resource also receive a much-needed influx of foreign capital, accelerating their development so that one day they too may find themselves in a position to import talent from overseas. The traffickers themselves spend large amounts of money while in port, while the freight is often purchased directly from its family. In more mature markets, the existence of a mechanism to readily convert human capital into currency also allows the poor to more easily obtain loans secured by the collateral of a strong back or a pretty face. We have all heard recently of the "microcredit" scheme making a tremendous difference in places like Bangladesh, where relatively paltry loans are allowing small producers to modernise their production methods. When a particularly striking 12 year-old Filipina can bring up to 5000 $US (spot price, Long Beach Harbor), who would be afraid to lend her father 2000$ to fix the family tractor and install a modern irrigation system?
Those who perform the sadly necessary task of transporting people from where there is an excess of human capital and a shortage of demand for its use are usually drawn from the same rung of society as the cargo itself is. Some of them are even the children of previous generations of the less-voluntary labour force. This cycle of trafficking is a difficult one to break. The parents' unfortunate career situation often reduces the children's educational prospects, and less than half of them attend top tier universities. Often, it is a case of "enslave or be enslaved".
Many may simply turn up their noses at these unpleasant truths, but most of those who do are simply hypocrites. How many of us thoroughly research the clothes we wear to make sure they aren't produced with sweated labour? How many of us really know if the charming Russian girl we rented last night freely immigrated here to practice her art? How many of us would be willing to advance a few hundred dollars to a Somali cattle herder without knowing that in the event of default we could sell him and his son to a curtain manufacturer in Guatemala? And how many of us would really reject this choice of career when we had become inured to it through personal or family experience and when the alternative was a life of crushing poverty? Sure, freedom is precious, but would you really give up your iPod?
Only a total naif would be able to honestly claim that these hardworking men do not contribute to the greater good. In the developed world there are jobs in sweatshops and brothels being unfilled by domestic labour, while in the undeveloped world there is a huge pool of people perfectly suited to these occupations.
Nor are those in the developed world the only ones to profit from this relationship. In addition to the obvious benefit of ridding themselves of underproductive individuals, the exporters of this particular natural resource also receive a much-needed influx of foreign capital, accelerating their development so that one day they too may find themselves in a position to import talent from overseas. The traffickers themselves spend large amounts of money while in port, while the freight is often purchased directly from its family. In more mature markets, the existence of a mechanism to readily convert human capital into currency also allows the poor to more easily obtain loans secured by the collateral of a strong back or a pretty face. We have all heard recently of the "microcredit" scheme making a tremendous difference in places like Bangladesh, where relatively paltry loans are allowing small producers to modernise their production methods. When a particularly striking 12 year-old Filipina can bring up to 5000 $US (spot price, Long Beach Harbor), who would be afraid to lend her father 2000$ to fix the family tractor and install a modern irrigation system?
Those who perform the sadly necessary task of transporting people from where there is an excess of human capital and a shortage of demand for its use are usually drawn from the same rung of society as the cargo itself is. Some of them are even the children of previous generations of the less-voluntary labour force. This cycle of trafficking is a difficult one to break. The parents' unfortunate career situation often reduces the children's educational prospects, and less than half of them attend top tier universities. Often, it is a case of "enslave or be enslaved".
Many may simply turn up their noses at these unpleasant truths, but most of those who do are simply hypocrites. How many of us thoroughly research the clothes we wear to make sure they aren't produced with sweated labour? How many of us really know if the charming Russian girl we rented last night freely immigrated here to practice her art? How many of us would be willing to advance a few hundred dollars to a Somali cattle herder without knowing that in the event of default we could sell him and his son to a curtain manufacturer in Guatemala? And how many of us would really reject this choice of career when we had become inured to it through personal or family experience and when the alternative was a life of crushing poverty? Sure, freedom is precious, but would you really give up your iPod?
Comment