by-product: noun 2 an unintended but inevitable secondary result.[1]

The primary goal of a business is to increase profit. In 1970, the prominent free-market economist Milton Friedman echoed this statement in an article for The New York Times Magazine entitled “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits.” In closing his essay about the responsibilities of business, Friedman proclaims that “there is one and only one social responsibility of business–to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud.”[2] Friedman is right about two things, businesses do not have any social responsibilities and their only goal is to increase profits.

In a much more recent article in the New York Times, a group of “social entrepreneurs” discussed ways in which for-profit companies are becoming successful at fighting social problems. One business in particular proposes to replace (sell) solar powered lamps to poor in India and Africa in exchange for the dangerous kerosene lamps that they currently use. This seemingly noble mission is quickly squelched when the real reason for the project is given. The company founder is quoted as saying, “We could have done it as a nonprofit over a hundred years, but if we wanted to do it in five or 10 years, then we believed it needed to be fueled by profit. That’s the way to grow.”[3] The goal of the business is not to help the poor, but to exploit the poor. Their quest is not some moral mission; they are not looking to lend a helping hand. All they are doing is monetarily milking a group of deprived people. Their goal is growth, not goodwill. If a company such as the one mentioned, who is said to have some sort of a social cause, only sees profits as the end goal, then what happens with companies and people that have no cause other than profits? The short answer is that things can get intensely immoral.

From about 1885 to 1908, King Leopold II of Belgium controlled the entire Congo territory by himself (what is now considered the Democratic Republic of the Congo). He ironically dubbed his privately owned oasis the Congo Free State. Its sole purpose was to create a profit for Leopold and his European investors. In doing so, he raped the African landscape and its peoples. Using a combination of slavery and forced labor, Leopold extracted his wealth mainly from the harvesting of rubber and ivory. However, this beastly behavior was hidden under the cloak of Leopold’s words that his actions are “the work of moral and material regeneration.”[4] In order to maintain his “regeneration” plan, Leopold’s private army, the Force Publique, quelled any forms of rebellious actions through physical violence. To substantiate their message, the army would often cut the hands off of disagreeing citizens to further terrorize the peoples into submission.[5] In the end, Leopold’s greedy profit seeking was successful (to him). From 1890 to 1900, his rubber exports grew by 40-fold and amassed him a profit of approximately 70 million Belgian francs.[6] However, at what cost? Depending on the source, the death toll ranges anywhere from a low of 3 million to a high of 21.5 million people killed in Leopold’s selfish profit extortion experiment.[7] Surely this behavior can be blamed on the immorality of one man, or can it? Sadly, this mentality of seeking profits before people is alive and well in modern times.

With over 1 million people employed, maquiladoras in Mexico make up one of the largest production sectors in the Western Hemisphere.[8] A maquiladora is a manufacturing facility that imports raw goods and then exports the finished products. Thanks to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), American corporations are now able to setup their foreign owned shops in Mexico to take advantage of the cheap labor source. By paying workers an average of $37 to $60 for every 48-hour work week, companies can generate larger profit figures, at the expense of people.[9] These wages are not equivalent to the cost of living in Mexico either; they hardly supply the workers and their families with enough to get by. The work in these factories, aside from meager working conditions, often consists of highly monotonous, mind-numbing work, which can go on for up to 75 hours a week without overtime compensation.[10] Maquiladoras are essentially legal sweatshops. However, for those looking to turn an even bigger profit, they can just not pay their workers at all.

When one wants to turn the ultimate profit, slave labor can provide this fortune. The reason for why slavery exists can be attributed to cheap labor and hence more profit. Reasons such as racial and cultural differences (i.e., social Darwinism) are ineffective explanations as to why slavery exists. They are used more for a reason to rationalize the slave holder’s behavior. After all, a hand of any color can pull a plow. Notice that the word exists was used to describe slavery, not existed. That is because slavery still exists around the world. In fact, there are more slaves today than at any other time in human history. Kevin Bales, the world’s foremost expert on modern slavery, estimates that there are 27 million slaves alive today (15-20 million in South Asia alone).[11] To put that into context, there was only about 4 million slaves in the American south by 1860.[12] Aside from the difference in volume, is the difference in the price of slaves.

A slave in 1856 would cost about $40,000 in today’s money.[13] This “expensive property” was highly guarded by the slave holders. Contrary to popular belief, most slaveholders took decent care of their slaves. Although, strictly do to the fact that it was expensive to replace a slave. Legislation such as the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 further protected slaveholders’ property by allowing runaway slaves to be captured and brought pack to the plantation legally. This type of protective behavior is hardly the case today. A slave that cost $40,000 one hundred and fifty years ago can be bought for $100 or less today.[14] Today’s slaves are not worth the upkeep and protection as they can be replaced for little money. These disposable people are the direct result of seeking profit over people. A person is not worth keeping alive as it would cut into someone’s profit shares, think about it.

The by-product of profit is destroyed people. When seeking profits, it is inevitable that people will be displaced for profits. The examples in this essay are merely the tip of the iceberg when it comes to depriving people of a life in search of profits. Around the world, there are an estimated 158 million children engaged in child labor. That is one out of every six children on the planet going to work instead of school.[15] The accounts of human suffering in the pursuits of profit are seemingly endless. However, as Friedman noted in his article at the beginning of this essay, he says that the only things that have social responsibilities are people. What then is each of our responsibilities regarding these atrocities? Should we sit by and let them knowingly continue? Should we look the other way and act as if they do not exist? Should we buy products that were constructed by slaves or have the blood of a child on it? Do we continue to work for businesses that exploit these destitute people? These are all questions that each of us need to ask ourselves and answer.

[1] "by-product." AskOxford. <http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/byproduct?view=uk>.

[2] Friedman, Milton. "The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits." The New York Times Magazine 13 Sep. 1970. <http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedman-soc-resp-business.html>.

[3] Alboher, Marci . "A Social Solution,Without Going the Nonprofit Route." The New York Times 4 Mar. 2009. <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/05/business/smallbusiness/05sbiz.html>.

[4] "SLAVERY IN THE CONGO FREE STATE." The New York Times 21 Aug. 1903.

< http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9F00E6D61739E433A25752C2A96E9C946297D6CF>

[5] "Congo Free State." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/132463/Congo-Free-State>.

[6] Shillington, Kevin. Encyclopedia of African History, Volume 1. New York: Routledge, 2004. Page 306.

[7] White, Matthew. "Death Tolls for the Major Wars and Atrocities of the Twentieth Century." Historical Atlas of the Twentieth Century. <http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat2.htm>.

[8] Kourous, George. "Workers’ Health is on the Line: Occupational Health and Safety in the Maquiladoras." Center for International Policy. <americas.irc-online.org/borderlines/PDFs/bl47.pdf>.

[9] Chasnoff, Brian. "Profit & Poverty: Mexico's Maquiladoras." The Daily Texan 11 Feb. 2004. <http://www.dailytexanonline.com/2.4489/profit-poverty-mexico-s-maquiladoras-1.1039941>.

[10] "maquiladora." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/363663/maquiladora>.

[11] Bales, K., & Cornell, R. (2008). Slavery Today (Groundwork Guides). New York: Groundwood Books. 8.

[12] Ibid, page 28.

[13] Ibid, page 20.

[14] Ibid.

[15] "Child labour." UNICEF . <http://www.unicef.org/protection/index_childlabour.html>.