Sweatshops are good for the community! A Libertarian View!

Live forum: http://forum.freeipodguide.com/viewtopic.php?t=68221

KnightTrader

15-08-2007 16:09:42

Well before people jump the gun on self promotion. The site has a few adsense ads, but mostly well blended in, so you won't even notice them. Moreso interested in getting my views heard. I tend to write about controversial topics. Any responses to this?
http//thelibertarianforum.com/General/Sweatshops-are-good-for-the-community.html
Sweatshops provide people a choice. Ofcourse I oppose any sort of slavery, where people are forced to work for nothing but food.

Big War Bird

15-08-2007 16:16:38

I hear ya. I am always amazed at the callousness of those that oppose employment for the poorest peoples in the world.

KnightTrader

15-08-2007 16:19:21

Aye. its employment. The people have a choice. Imagine the area / town if they did NOT have that sweat shop. Are they better off? Heck no! At least when theres a factory nearby, they have a choice of working there or not.

JordanE

15-08-2007 16:42:21

I agree. I see any form of new employment as a good thing. If you don't like/want the job or if it dosen't pay enough DON'T TAKE THE JOB! And if "Chan" chooses to remain a farmer it still potentially benifits him. Becouse now there is more money in the economy. Better economy = better for business.

theysayjump

15-08-2007 17:19:11

If sweatshops are offering paid employment then fine, but why the fuck do companies like McDonalds, Wal-Mart, Coke, Nike etc need to use them when they could easily pay people a fair wage for the amount of work they do?

Greed.

That's what I've got a problem with.

It's easier said than done to "Not take the job if you don't like it or it doesn't pay enough". When you're trying to support a family and put food on the table, pay for bills etc, try turning down a job because you don't like it. You'll get a quick reality check on what REALLY matters (bust your fucking balls for 16 hours a day for $0.50 a day, or spend time looking for a job that you like whilst you and your family starve).

Big War Bird

15-08-2007 17:33:00

[quote33ba03ad16="theysayjump"]If sweatshops are offering paid employment then fine, but why the fuck do companies like McDonalds, Wal-Mart, Coke, Nike etc need to use them when they could easily pay people a fair wage for the amount of work they do?[/quote33ba03ad16]

The answer is they do pay a fair wage. These are companies that employee with very little in the way of job skills. Frankly their labor is not worth very much.

[quote33ba03ad16]Greed.[/quote33ba03ad16]

Can you give me a useful working definition of that?



That's what I've got a problem with.

[quote33ba03ad16]It's easier said than done to "Not take the job if you don't like it or it doesn't pay enough". When you're trying to support a family and put food on the table, pay for bills etc, try turning down a job because you don't like it. You'll get a quick reality check on what REALLY matters (bust your fucking balls for 16 hours a day for $0.50 a day, or spend time looking for a job that you like whilst you and your family starve).[/quote33ba03ad16]

Work or starve? I' d take the the work and be really glad that I'm not starving.

theysayjump

15-08-2007 18:48:21

[quote44d7ccab83="Big War Bird"][quote44d7ccab83="theysayjump"]If sweatshops are offering paid employment then fine, but why the fuck do companies like McDonalds, Wal-Mart, Coke, Nike etc need to use them when they could easily pay people a fair wage for the amount of work they do?[/quote44d7ccab83]

The answer is they do pay a fair wage. These are companies that employee with very little in the way of job skills. Frankly their labor is not worth very much.[/quote44d7ccab83]

You're right. I'd love to work my ass off for 16 hours every day and only be paid $0.50, that's a completely fair wage.

Their labour is not worth much? So the difference between someone in China slaving away all day making shoes and someone in America slaving away for half the day doing the same thing is what? Why is their labour for the same job not worth very much, but ours is? Sounds slightly elitist to me.

[quote44d7ccab83="Big War Bird"][quote44d7ccab83="theysayjump"]
Greed.[/quote44d7ccab83]

Can you give me a useful working definition of that[/quote44d7ccab83]

A working definition of common sense?

Why else would multi-billion dollar companies pay people overseas for $0.50 a day when they could pay someone here upwards of $6 or so?

Profit. And with profit, comes greed.

[quote44d7ccab83="Big War Bird"][quote44d7ccab83="theysayjump"]It's easier said than done to "Not take the job if you don't like it or it doesn't pay enough". When you're trying to support a family and put food on the table, pay for bills etc, try turning down a job because you don't like it. You'll get a quick reality check on what REALLY matters (bust your fucking balls for 16 hours a day for $0.50 a day, or spend time looking for a job that you like whilst you and your family starve).[/quote44d7ccab83]

Work or starve? I' d take the the work and be really glad that I'm not starving.[/quote44d7ccab83]

That's my point.

People can sit behind their fancy monitors on their comfortable chairs saying "If you don't like the job or it doesn't pay enough, don't take it", but unfortunately when it comes down to it people need money to survive, and if all they can get is something paying them $0.50 a day then they'll take it if it keeps them alive.

Only a fool would jeopordise their own life or others' by choosing comfort (nice job, job that pays enough) over necessity (food, shelter, etc).

tracemhunter

15-08-2007 19:17:21

Look at it this way

1) Pay somebody $40/day and have to worry about safety and other liabilities along with having to find people that would actually take the job
2) Pay somebody $4/day and not have to worry about safety and have people lined up outside to work if somebody gets injured.

Which option would you take? Making as much money as you possibly can is THE ENTIRE GOAL of business and finding ways to cut costs comes with that. Sometimes it works (almost all textile companies) and sometimes it doesn't.

It can benefit a country. Look at India and China.

theysayjump

15-08-2007 20:03:59

[quote6908bd0bde="tracemhunter"]Look at it this way

1) Pay somebody $40/day and have to worry about safety and other liabilities along with having to find people that would actually take the job
2) Pay somebody $4/day and not have to worry about safety and have people lined up outside to work if somebody gets injured.

Which option would you take? Making as much money as you possibly can is THE ENTIRE GOAL of business and finding ways to cut costs comes with that. Sometimes it works (almost all textile companies) and sometimes it doesn't.

It can benefit a country. Look at India and China.[/quote6908bd0bde]

Believe it or not there are people with ethics so not everyone would or does choose to opt for slave labour, just to make extra cash.

KnightTrader

15-08-2007 20:12:01

TSJ, I take it your a democrat (socialist in my book D). Their labor is worth that much. If they came to America, theirlabor would be worth more. The difference between their labor and in Americans is that American labor is LOCAL. IF you need people to work at your Burger king, You can't really send that job off shores. You need someone RIGHT here and there. And federal minimum wage dictates our wages. (I oppose minimum wage to)

Btw, What makes you think the sweatshops and corporations get to "SET" wages. They can't force people to work for them for 50 cents an hour. The fact is that there are A LOT OF PEOPLE LINING UP to work for 50 cents an hour. Why should the company pay 1$ An hour when thousands of people are EAGER to work for 50 cents an hour. It would be charitable for a business to pay anything more then what people are willing to work for. Businesses are NOT charities. They can be, but more aren't.

Whats a reasonable wage? Who gets to determine that? Sweatshop work is work that a trained monkey can do. UNSKILLED work. There are many well paid Chinese. The people who work as skilled doctors and lawyers. Instead of dictating morals, why don't you offer an alternative or YOUR Solution to the matter? I heard something about "forcing them to pay a reasonable wage". Why should they pay more then 50 cents an hour if people are lining up to work for that price? If no one, or few people were willing to work for 50 cents an hour. The employer would have to raise wages. That, and only then will wages go up for unskilled labor. The free market handles these things on its own.

Btw. Why should you despise greed? The profit motive drives innovation. Without greed nothing innovative happens. Why should it? Lets say im a doctor under your ideal socialist setting (you seem to think greed is evil, so I'll just use a socialist environment, since theres no greed and everything is shared). What's my motivation to innovate? Why should I try an invent something? I don't get anything out of it. There is no motivation or reason for me to strive to achieve A cancer drug, or AIDs drug. Only under capitalistic conditions do innovations emerge. Multi Billion dollar companies are not evil. You don't HAVE To shop at Wal Mart. They got successful by PLEASING THE CONSUMER (YOU!). When you go to walmart and you buy something, You benefit, and so does Walmart. Walmart wants your money more then the product you bought, and you want the product more then the money! See? They made money by making you happy!.

/end

Big War Bird

15-08-2007 20:12:46

[quotebba2e89162]You're right. I'd love to work my ass off for 16 hours every day and only be paid $0.50, that's a completely fair wage.

Their labour is not worth much? So the difference between someone in China slaving away all day making shoes and someone in America slaving away for half the day doing the same thing is what? Why is their labour for the same job not worth very much, but ours is? Sounds slightly elitist to me.[/quotebba2e89162]

All things being equal there would be difference. But all things are not equal. Americans and Chinese don't have the same skill sets. Its called comparative advantage. The reason you find a sweatshop so abhorrent is because you have skills that command a higher wage. You are capable of producing goods and services of very high value, for example microchips, financial services, biotechnology etc. It is likely that for the rest of your life you will add to those skills and will forever demand higher and higher wages. In order for

For the would be sweatshop employee, he has minimal job skills, therefore he produces good of very low value like socks and shoes. Illiterate farmers don't design satellites. Just like you however, the sweatshop adds to the skills of its workers. Added skills mean higher wages. Take South Korea for example. After WW2 it was as poor a country as any in the world. The first industries to be nuilt there were sweatshop like business. Now look at the place. within the span of a life time S. Korea went from being one of the poorest countries to one of the wealthiest, all because business moved into to "exploit" a poor population.

[quotebba2e89162]Why else would multi-billion dollar companies pay people overseas for $0.50 a day when they could pay someone here upwards of $6 or so?

Profit. And with profit, comes greed.[/quotebba2e89162]

Actually the reason is competition. Producers are always looking for an advantage over competitors. In this case they are looking for a price advantage from which everyone benefits.



[quotebba2e89162]That's my point.

People can sit behind their fancy monitors on their comfortable chairs saying "If you don't like the job or it doesn't pay enough, don't take it", but unfortunately when it comes down to it people need money to survive, and if all they can get is something paying them $0.50 a day then they'll take it if it keeps them alive.

Only a fool would jeopordise their own life or others' by choosing comfort (nice job, job that pays enough) over necessity (food, shelter, etc).[/quotebba2e89162]

Frankly you are the one missing the point. A sweatshop job is better than subsitance living, just like a Jumbo jet pilot is better than a taxi drive.

doylnea

15-08-2007 20:12:58

[quote1d7094a072]Letís analyze the situation above. Did the sweatshop moving into Chanís town actually adversely affect him? Of course not! Now Chan has a choice. He can choose to work at the sweatshop, or continue farming. If he chooses to work at the sweatshop, the pay and benefits of working there clearly outweigh the benefits of his previous occupation, a farmer. The only way Chan would choose to work at the sweatshop is if he made more money there then he would have made farming.
[/quote1d7094a072]

The land that the factory was built on came from somewhere - Chan or someone he knows lost their land to a government taking. If it was Chan, he doesn't have a place to farm anymore - if it was a friend, then that friend doesn't have a place to farm anymore. In either case, Chan may 'choose' to work in a sweatshop when he's forced to do so by the government.

[quote1d7094a072]Many workers donít mind the ďless-than perfectĒ working conditions, because they can get paid more. When the business owner saves money on working conditions, he can afford to pay his workers a larger salary. Besides, the workers always have the option to quit working, if they feel that they are unsatisfied with the pay / conditions.
[/quote1d7094a072]

Have you done a lot of field interviews with sweat-shop workers to make generalizations like that? And if they don't like it they can leave, really? So when Chan gives up his farming job, you posit that he keeps that land and lets it lay fallow? I doubt it, but even if he did, where would he get the money to buy the seed to begin farming again? If not, and Chan sells his land, there's not likely to be a surplus of land available at a price he can afford to buy. Think about it this way, if you're a farmer, Chan leaves to work in the factory - are you going to sell your land to him, a traitor?

[quote1d7094a072]With the additional money and experience Chan gains at the sweatshop, Chan can now further his education or develop new skills that can yield better income. Wages at Ďsweatshopsí are usually low because the workers usually have to perform tasks that require little to no education or skill. Workers also have the option to quit working at anytime if the conditions become unbearable. People must also understand that factory owners do not dictate wages. The free market does. If a large amount of people are willing to work for $0.50 an hour, why should the factory owner pay a penny more? Why do you think doctors and lawyers get paid 6 figure incomes? Because you canít find a doctor willing to work for a mere $0.50 an hour, or even $20 an hour![/quote1d7094a072]

I doubt Chan picks up skills and experience soldering a diode to a circuit board. It's more likely that Chan is going to do the same job for every day for the rest of his 'career' in the factory.

Factory owners certainly dictate wages. The way that factory gets the bid on the product is by paying their workers, sourcing their components cheaper than the next factory owner and keeping their factory running as cheaply as possible. The way they keeping their factory running cheaply is by using the most efficient cheapest technology whatever the cost to the environment and workers. The build the factories on the cheapest land, and with the cheapest materials. Worker safety is simply not a consideration in any developing country.

A doctor doesn't want to work for $0.50 an hour - well no, they've been to 30 years of school to become an expert in their field - Chan doesn't have the skills required to be a doctor, even if he wanted to be.

[quote1d7094a072]Most countries today have child labor laws. That includes the most typical locations for factories and sweat shops, China and India. Letís recap. If you were in Chanís position, wouldnít you want a factory or sweatshop to move into your town? It gives you an alternative to your current lifestyle, and the potential to earn more money. Unfortunately, everyone canít make 6 figure incomes, and those with little education or skill, simply cannot expect to make substantial income. The fact is there are a lot of workers willing to work for that $0.50 an hour factory job, and wages canít increase until the demand for those jobs decreases, which will only happen when workers become more skilled and demand higher wages, or they become educated and get higher positions.[/quote1d7094a072]

Child labor laws don't exist as you purport them to exist in China or India. In particular, have you read any of the coverage about the Olympics coming to China, and how China has tried to put on a happy face about their human rights abuses? China leads the world in executions - you argue that they're all that concerned about child labor? And to say that workers working in a sweatshop will "demand higher wages, or they become educated" is just plain ignorant. China just executes dissidents - you argue that they'll let someone "become educated" then "demand higher wages."

I'd enjoy this debate, if it was based in fact and not opinions. As you've written your post, you simply state opinions as facts, which is in no way convincing.

KnightTrader

15-08-2007 20:15:24

[quote2299a5f2e7]Letís analyze the situation above. Did the sweatshop moving into Chanís town actually adversely affect him? Of course not! Now Chan has a choice. He can choose to work at the sweatshop, or continue farming. If he chooses to work at the sweatshop, the pay and benefits of working there clearly outweigh the benefits of his previous occupation, a farmer. The only way Chan would choose to work at the sweatshop is if he made more money there then he would have made farming.
[/quote2299a5f2e7]

The land that the factory was built on came from somewhere - Chan or someone he knows lost their land to a government taking. If it was Chan, he doesn't have a place to farm anymore - if it was a friend, then that friend doesn't have a place to farm anymore. In either case, Chan may 'choose' to work in a sweatshop when he's forced to do so by the government.

Government taking? What government taking? They BOUGHT that land from whomever owned it before. I strongly oppose eminent domain. I don't believe the government should have the power to seize land because they deem it for the greater good.

doylnea
Please take me up on aim or messenger. I'd love to debate with you further. I dislike debating on forums... Too slow paced.
Aim=KnightTrader44
MSN=Remotay@gmail.com

doylnea

15-08-2007 20:19:34

[quoteb4482b019a="KnightTrader"][quoteb4482b019a="doylnea"][quoteb4482b019a]Letís analyze the situation above. Did the sweatshop moving into Chanís town actually adversely affect him? Of course not! Now Chan has a choice. He can choose to work at the sweatshop, or continue farming. If he chooses to work at the sweatshop, the pay and benefits of working there clearly outweigh the benefits of his previous occupation, a farmer. The only way Chan would choose to work at the sweatshop is if he made more money there then he would have made farming.
[/quoteb4482b019a]

The land that the factory was built on came from somewhere - Chan or someone he knows lost their land to a government taking. If it was Chan, he doesn't have a place to farm anymore - if it was a friend, then that friend doesn't have a place to farm anymore. In either case, Chan may 'choose' to work in a sweatshop when he's forced to do so by the government.[/quoteb4482b019a]

Government taking? What government taking? They BOUGHT that land from whomever owned it before. I strongly oppose eminent domain. I don't believe the government should have the power to seize land because they deem it for the greater good.[/quoteb4482b019a]

I try not to LOL in debates, but seriously, el O el. You argue the factory owner bought the land - why would they, the government will just take it from wherever they deem the best location for the factory.

KnightTrader

15-08-2007 20:23:31

Wait? What? The government does not own the factory. Why would they just take the land and give to a factory owner? Why would the government interfere? When a factory owner wants to open a factory. He doesn't just get the land free. He has to buy it. We're talking about normal conditions. Not if this one particular factory owner is buddy buddy with the leader of China who can just give him whatever he wants.

doylnea

15-08-2007 20:25:25

[quote1d42915e27="KnightTrader"]Wait? What? The government does not own the factory. Why would they just take the land and give to a factory owner? Why would the government interfere?[/quote1d42915e27]

Because it's China - that's what the Chinese government does.

hehehhehe

15-08-2007 20:26:48

[quote0a7627ed50="tracemhunter"]Look at it this way

1) Pay somebody $40/day and have to worry about safety and other liabilities along with having to find people that would actually take the job
2) Pay somebody $4/day and not have to worry about safety and have people lined up outside to work if somebody gets injured.
[/quote0a7627ed50]
Wow, that's shortsighted and ignorant. I really feel for the people that have to work for you one day.

Believe it or not, there are plenty of companies that do care about worker's rights because they have to, for business reasons. Any bad news about the company in terms of sweatshops or labor problems can kill your stock. Look what happened to Nike in the late 90's. Why do you think more and more companies are publishing Corporate Social Responsibility reports nowadays? It matters, even though it's not always because companies are 'good,' but rather it's sometimes good business. Look at Ben and Jerry's.

I can understand the 'it's better to have a sweatshop job than nothing' argument but the problem is that no one is doing it for these people's benefit. Guess what happens to your sweet sweatshop job when a neighboring country has workers willing to work for less? When companies actually make an effort to employ these people AND create a better environment for these people in the long term, then you can say they're helping.

That being said, we're culpable too, as I think most of us look to save a buck here and there by buying cheap items from these developing countries.

KnightTrader

15-08-2007 20:29:46

Its no worse in China then America. The government today can just "TAKE" your land and give it to someone else. When IKEA opens up in the states, The government forces you OUT of your house, and builds an Ikea. Its called eminent domain.

And in regards to kicking you out. If you have rights to that land via contracts with the government, they usually compensate you, just as in the states they compensate you when they enforce eminent domain.

doylnea

15-08-2007 20:32:35

[quotedead72215b="KnightTrader"]Its no worse in China then America. The government today can just "TAKE" your land and give it to someone else. When IKEA opens up in the states, The government forces you OUT of your house, and builds an Ikea. Its called eminent domain.[/quotedead72215b]

You have no idea how bad life is for the average person in China - it's clear from your responses.

KnightTrader

15-08-2007 20:35:55

I don't have 1st hand experience of life in China. But I do know, since they initiated market reform, the standard of living in China has improved dramatically, and continues to improve, even today. 30-40 years ago, They were all starving. Millions starved each year just because they were all poor. It was only since Mao's death, the communist party started marking reform, which shaped the economy into a more free market type. Since then, the standard of living has improved DRASTICALLY, and STILL is.

Big War Bird

15-08-2007 20:53:51

[quote2cebe64648]The land that the factory was built on came from somewhere - Chan or someone he knows lost their land to a government taking. If it was Chan, he doesn't have a place to farm anymore - if it was a friend, then that friend doesn't have a place to farm anymore. In either case, Chan may 'choose' to work in a sweatshop when he's forced to do so by the government.[/quote2cebe64648]

If the Chinese government is able to just take land without compensation then farmer Chan was really a slave to the state and worse off than we initially beleived. In that case sweatshop Chan is even better off provded the Chinese government doesn't also confiscate his wages.


[quote2cebe64648]Have you done a lot of field interviews with sweat-shop workers to make generalizations like that? And if they don't like it they can leave, really? So when Chan gives up his farming job, you posit that he keeps that land and lets it lay fallow? I doubt it, but even if he did, where would he get the money to buy the seed to begin farming again? If not, and Chan sells his land, there's not likely to be a surplus of land available at a price he can afford to buy. Think about it this way, if you're a farmer, Chan leaves to work in the factory - are you going to sell your land to him, a traitor?[/quote2cebe64648]

That makes no sense whatsoever can you rephrase that? However I believe that you just agreed with Knight, that the sweatshop offers a choice to farmer Chan and therefore the opportunity. To a.) abandon his farm for a potential better job at the shop or b.) remain a farmer and see demand for his agricultural products go up since the other local farmers have abandoned their farms for the factory and will me Chan to supply them with food.

[quote2cebe64648]I doubt Chan picks up skills and experience soldering a diode to a circuit board. It's more likely that Chan is going to do the same job for every day for the rest of his 'career' in the factory. [/quote2cebe64648]

If that is true why are there no sweatshops left in New York City? How did Seoul go from mud huts to skyscrapers in a sigle lifetime? Of course Chan's skills improve. If nothing else experience makes Chan a more productive worker (fewer mistakes, higher production rate.) Higher skills attract higher paying jobs and so on.

[quote2cebe64648]Factory owners certainly dictate wages. The way that factory gets the bid on the product is by paying their workers, sourcing their components cheaper than the next factory owner and keeping their factory running as cheaply as possible. The way they keeping their factory running cheaply is by using the most efficient cheapest technology whatever the cost to the environment and workers. The build the factories on the cheapest land, and with the cheapest materials. Worker safety is simply not a consideration in any developing country.[/quote2cebe64648]

Non of that is a credible explaination of how a factory can dictate wages. Wages are a function of supply and demand. Underemployeed labor pools attract jobs and eventually become the underemployeed become fully employeed and wages rise.


[quote2cebe64648]Child labor laws don't exist as you purport them to exist in China or India. In particular, have you read any of the coverage about the Olympics coming to China, and how China has tried to put on a happy face about their human rights abuses? China leads the world in executions - you argue that they're all that concerned about child labor? And to say that workers working in a sweatshop will "demand higher wages, or they become educated" is just plain ignorant. China just executes dissidents - you argue that they'll let someone "become educated" then "demand higher wages."[/quote2cebe64648]

Labor and safety laws drive up the cost of goods produced. Since developing countries rely on lower cost rather than qaulity being their competive advantage such measures would be a negitive force stunting the development of the county. Such laws are unaffordable luxuries to developing countries. It is not callousness, it is practical. In the USA child labor is perfectly legal on family farms. Policy makers, having decided that family farms are desireable, exempt such farms from labor laws in order to keep them running.

[quote2cebe64648]I'd enjoy this debate, if it was based in fact and not opinions. As you've written your post, you simply state opinions as facts, which is in no way convincing.[/quote2cebe64648]

Yes please bring facts and some economic sense next time. wink

KnightTrader

15-08-2007 21:07:37

Thanks Big War Bird for the additional information. I mentioned that factory owners don't dictate wages in the article, and in my other posts. If you enjoy discussing Free market ideas, I'd love for you to write some articles for the site. You'd get labeled as the author of course. If you're passionate about the subject, It's a nice way to get your views heard.

theysayjump

15-08-2007 21:17:27

[quote2ef9da3a7f="KnightTrader"]TSJ, I take it your a democrat (socialist in my book D).[/quote2ef9da3a7f]

I'm nothing in this country as I'm not eligible to vote, but if I had to choose, I'd affiliate myself with the Green Party (as I did back home).

[quote2ef9da3a7f="KnightTrader"]Their labor is worth that much. If they came to America, theirlabor would be worth more. The difference between their labor and in Americans is that American labor is LOCAL. IF you need people to work at your Burger king, You can't really send that job off shores. You need someone RIGHT here and there. And federal minimum wage dictates our wages. (I oppose minimum wage to)[/quote2ef9da3a7f]

Are you trying to say that the only jobs in countries who employ sweatshops are sweatshops themselves?

[quote2ef9da3a7f="KnightTrader"]Btw, What makes you think the sweatshops and corporations get to "SET" wages. They can't force people to work for them for 50 cents an hour. The fact is that there are A LOT OF PEOPLE LINING UP to work for 50 cents an hour. Why should the company pay 1$ An hour when thousands of people are EAGER to work for 50 cents an hour. It would be charitable for a business to pay anything more then what people are willing to work for. Businesses are NOT charities. They can be, but more aren't.[/quote2ef9da3a7f]

Corporations can set how much they pay their employees. If they want to pay people what they deserve, they can. Is it the law in China to only pay as little as possible?

[quote2ef9da3a7f="KnightTrader"]Why should they pay more then 50 cents an hour if people are lining up to work for that price? If no one, or few people were willing to work for 50 cents an hour.[/quote2ef9da3a7f]

Perhaps because people have a difficult time getting by on $0.50 a day and they'd like to make the world a better place, with less poverty, hunger, crime and death?

[quote2ef9da3a7f="KnightTrader"]Btw. Why should you despise greed? The profit motive drives innovation. Without greed nothing innovative happens. Why should it?[/quote2ef9da3a7f]

Are you really that cynical?

The only reason you can see to innovate or make things better is for your own personal fucking gain? That's greedy and selfish and if you're happy being that way then fine, but I and millions of others aren't.

[quote2ef9da3a7f="KnightTrader"]Lets say im a doctor under your ideal socialist setting (you seem to think greed is evil, so I'll just use a socialist environment, since theres no greed and everything is shared). What's my motivation to innovate? Why should I try an invent something? I don't get anything out of it. There is no motivation or reason for me to strive to achieve A cancer drug, or AIDs drug.[/quote2ef9da3a7f]

Maybe this view is why the health care in this country is so corrupt.

Doctors in most countries don't really innovate or invent shit. Those are called inventors. The people looking for cures for diseases are called scientists and researchers.

Now......what possible reason could there be for ANYONE out of the 6,000,000,000 people on this planet to innovate or find cures for diseases other than profit?

..........
...


...................

Oh.....the well being and continued existence of mankind possibly? Nah, nobody really cares about other people when money is involved right?

Never heard of non-profit organisations? Charities? Open-source software? Why is it free? Why do they volunteer their time to make something for nothing in return?

[quote2ef9da3a7f="KnightTrader"]Only under capitalistic conditions do innovations emerge. Multi Billion dollar companies are not evil. You don't HAVE To shop at Wal Mart. They got successful by PLEASING THE CONSUMER (YOU!). When you go to walmart and you buy something, You benefit, and so does Walmart. Walmart wants your money more then the product you bought, and you want the product more then the money! See? They made money by making you happy!.

/end[/quote2ef9da3a7f]

I despise big corporations, some more than others because of the way they treat their workers, the environment, their customers etc, but I was desperate for a job and my family couldn't live off of $600 a month, so I took the first job I could which just so happened to be at a multi-billion dollar company I didn't care for too much.

Just because I buy something from a store, doesn't mean that everything is good just because they make money and I get what I want. I think of everything else that comes into play, such as how do they treat their workers, how many family run businesses did they run into the ground, how much of the environment did they lay waste to when they moved in and how much are they ruining by being there, where do their products come from, what are the processes used in obtaining these products and so and so forth.

It's sad that you seem to be so driven by money when there are far more important things going on in the world to be concerned about.

doylnea

15-08-2007 21:20:41

[quotebb060145c4="Big War Bird"][quotebb060145c4]The land that the factory was built on came from somewhere - Chan or someone he knows lost their land to a government taking. If it was Chan, he doesn't have a place to farm anymore - if it was a friend, then that friend doesn't have a place to farm anymore. In either case, Chan may 'choose' to work in a sweatshop when he's forced to do so by the government.[/quotebb060145c4]

If the Chinese government is able to just take land without compensation then farmer Chan was really a slave to the state and worse off than we initially beleived. In that case sweatshop Chan is even better off provded the Chinese government doesn't also confiscate his wages.[/quotebb060145c4]
Well no. No matter who owns the land, the Chinese government will simply take the land and give it to one of their supporters.

[quotebb060145c4][quotebb060145c4]Have you done a lot of field interviews with sweat-shop workers to make generalizations like that? And if they don't like it they can leave, really? So when Chan gives up his farming job, you posit that he keeps that land and lets it lay fallow? I doubt it, but even if he did, where would he get the money to buy the seed to begin farming again? If not, and Chan sells his land, there's not likely to be a surplus of land available at a price he can afford to buy. Think about it this way, if you're a farmer, Chan leaves to work in the factory - are you going to sell your land to him, a traitor?[/quotebb060145c4]

That makes no sense whatsoever can you rephrase that? However I believe that you just agreed with Knight, that the sweatshop offers a choice to farmer Chan and therefore the opportunity. To a.) abandon his farm for a potential better job at the shop or b.) remain a farmer and see demand for his agricultural products go up since the other local farmers have abandoned their farms for the factory and will me Chan to supply them with food. [/quotebb060145c4]

No, don't put ignorant words in my mouth.

[quotebb060145c4][quotebb060145c4]I doubt Chan picks up skills and experience soldering a diode to a circuit board. It's more likely that Chan is going to do the same job for every day for the rest of his 'career' in the factory. [/quotebb060145c4]

If that is true why are there no sweatshops left in New York City? How did Seoul go from mud huts to skyscrapers?[/quotebb060145c4]

Well, Unions changed NYC. And for the ROK, the government made decisions about what new factories and businesses would be built, based on their profitability and export of products. Oh, and with the help of the US government. Next you're going to argue Japan as a model of a country pulling itself up by the bootstraps, right?

[quotebb060145c4][quotebb060145c4]Factory owners certainly dictate wages. The way that factory gets the bid on the product is by paying their workers, sourcing their components cheaper than the next factory owner and keeping their factory running as cheaply as possible. The way they keeping their factory running cheaply is by using the most efficient cheapest technology whatever the cost to the environment and workers. The build the factories on the cheapest land, and with the cheapest materials. Worker safety is simply not a consideration in any developing country.[/quotebb060145c4]

Non of that is a credible explaination of how a factory can dictate wages. Wages are a function of supply and demand. Underemployeed labor pools attract jobs and eventually become the underemployeed become fully employeed and wages rise.[/quotebb060145c4]
If you can't understand that a factory owner builds and maintains a factory as cheaply as possible, and also pays his workers the lowest wage possible, then I'm not sure why I'm even bothering to respond. But to flesh it out further - how does a factory owner get a bid on a product? By sourcing it to the customer cheaper than everyone else. How do that do that - see above, and at the expense of the worker. Not a lot of worker safety laws in China after all. If one of your workers is electrocuted when soldering that diode - no worries, there are 1B other people "lining up to take his place." roll

[quotebb060145c4][quotebb060145c4]Child labor laws don't exist as you purport them to exist in China or India. In particular, have you read any of the coverage about the Olympics coming to China, and how China has tried to put on a happy face about their human rights abuses? China leads the world in executions - you argue that they're all that concerned about child labor? And to say that workers working in a sweatshop will "demand higher wages, or they become educated" is just plain ignorant. China just executes dissidents - you argue that they'll let someone "become educated" then "demand higher wages."[/quotebb060145c4]

Labor and safety laws drive up the cost of goods produced. Since developing countries rely on lower cost rather than qaulity being their competive advantage such measures would be a negitive force stunting the development of the county. Such laws are unaffordable luxuries to developing countries. [/quotebb060145c4]

Luxuries? I quit. I'm done.

Big War Bird

15-08-2007 21:47:46

[quotef8123124e5]If you can't understand that a factory owner builds and maintains a factory as cheaply as possible, and also pays his workers the lowest wage possible, then I'm not sure why I'm even bothering to respond. But to flesh it out further - how does a factory owner get a bid on a product? By sourcing it to the customer cheaper than everyone else. How do that do that - see above, and at the expense of the worker. Not a lot of worker safety laws in China after all. If one of your workers is electrocuted when soldering that diode - no worries, there are 1B other people "lining up to take his place." [/quotef8123124e5]

If a factory can dictate wages why wouldn't he dictate no wages at all? Of course you know that is rediculous. No one will work for nothing. Therefore he must pay a wage that attracts works. By definition that is a fair wage.

[quotef8123124e5]No, don't put ignorant words in my mouth.[/quotef8123124e5]

Please explain what you meant then.

[quotef8123124e5]Well, Unions changed NYC. And for the ROK, the government made decisions about what new factories and businesses would be built, based on their profitability and export of products. Oh, and with the help of the US government. Next you're going to argue Japan as a model of a country pulling itself up by the bootstraps, right? [/quotef8123124e5]

And why were unions able to form? Because works gained skills and economic advantage over employeers. In short employeers needed their employees a lot more than the employees need the employeers.

So you are telling me that in 1945 that in South Korea illiterate peasant farmer left their fields to build Hondas? That the government just willed it to be so and it happened?

[quotef8123124e5]Luxuries? I quit. I'm done.[/quotef8123124e5]

I'm glad you realize you are defeated.

KnightTrader

15-08-2007 21:58:19

[quoteeb9704f592][quoteeb9704f592]Factory owners certainly dictate wages. The way that factory gets the bid on the product is by paying their workers, sourcing their components cheaper than the next factory owner and keeping their factory running as cheaply as possible. The way they keeping their factory running cheaply is by using the most efficient cheapest technology whatever the cost to the environment and workers. The build the factories on the cheapest land, and with the cheapest materials. Worker safety is simply not a consideration in any developing country.[/quoteeb9704f592]

Non of that is a credible explaination of how a factory can dictate wages. Wages are a function of supply and demand. Underemployeed labor pools attract jobs and eventually become the underemployeed become fully employeed and wages rise.[/quoteeb9704f592]
If you can't understand that a factory owner builds and maintains a factory as cheaply as possible, and also pays his workers the lowest wage possible, then I'm not sure why I'm even bothering to respond. But to flesh it out further - how does a factory owner get a bid on a product? By sourcing it to the customer cheaper than everyone else. How do that do that - see above, and at the expense of the worker. Not a lot of worker safety laws in China after all. If one of your workers is electrocuted when soldering that diode - no worries, there are 1B other people "lining up to take his place." roll

Oh you mean a factory owner TRIES TO MAKE as much money as possible? Thanks for clearing that up. I thought he was in the business to lose money. Why wouldn't factory owners TRY to make as much money as possible. Thats what every business does. Hey, Those workers that risked electrocution could observe their working conditions BEFORE they take the job, Or quit if they realize its too dangerous.

[quoteeb9704f592][quoteeb9704f592]Child labor laws don't exist as you purport them to exist in China or India. In particular, have you read any of the coverage about the Olympics coming to China, and how China has tried to put on a happy face about their human rights abuses? China leads the world in executions - you argue that they're all that concerned about child labor? And to say that workers working in a sweatshop will "demand higher wages, or they become educated" is just plain ignorant. China just executes dissidents - you argue that they'll let someone "become educated" then "demand higher wages."[/quoteeb9704f592]

Labor and safety laws drive up the cost of goods produced. Since developing countries rely on lower cost rather than qaulity being their competive advantage such measures would be a negitive force stunting the development of the county. Such laws are unaffordable luxuries to developing countries. [/quoteeb9704f592]

Luxuries? I quit. I'm done.

They are luxuries. Developing countries try to make cheap products, rather then ones of the highest quality. I personally think laws that enforce safety at the work place are absolutely stupid. As an employee, I can observe the work place on my own, and decide if I want to work there. When having countless ridiculous safety regulations, chances are, your employer will lower your salary to offset the cost of your safety on the business. I personally don't like minimum wage at all either. What sounds better, The government TELLING YOU what you HAVE to pay your employee? Or the Business owner and the Employee MUTUALLY AGREEING on a salary for that particular job/labor?

doylnea

15-08-2007 22:07:02

Big War Bird I won't dignify your tripe with a response - suffice it to say, I disagree with everything you posted. The fact that you consider the welfare of a human being a luxury speaks volumes about you and your character. I don't associate with people who think like you.

KnightTrader Have you ever worked in a factory where there are real safety issues? If not, how can you possibly think you're qualified to say a worker safety rule is "stupid?"

d11m

15-08-2007 22:08:00

http//thelibertarianforum.com/General/Sweatshops-are-good-for-the-community.html
government propaganda. wants you to think. it's ok. and that we're helping.
but it's really not.

KnightTrader

15-08-2007 22:13:31

I'm saying that when the government Forces employers to meet certain requirements, it's stupid. Factory workers can evaluate the risk themselves, and choose whether they want to work there or not. Believe it or not, when a business has to spend MORE on safety, whether its an office job, factory, service, ANYTHING, the employer adjusts your salary to offset that cost.

I don't see how me working in a factory supports your argument. I Don't work in a factory, and never have. I wouldn't work in a factory where there are real safety issues. Because It's my choice if I want to work there. Sweatshop workers have the exact same option. If they don't like the safety conditions, they don't have to work there. No one is forcing them to.

Doylnea, At least admit this. Chan was better off with a sweatshop in his community. Now Chan has an additional choice. He can CHOOSE to work at the sweat shop, or not work there.

theysayjump

15-08-2007 22:15:46

[quote81a3e2a14e="KnightTrader"]I personally think laws that enforce safety at the work place are absolutely stupid. As an employee, I can observe the work place on my own, and decide if I want to work there. When having countless ridiculous safety regulations, chances are, your employer will lower your salary to offset the cost of your safety on the business.[/quote81a3e2a14e]

This part is a joke right? I mean, you're not serious? Are you?

You'd rather work somewhere that paid you more to be less safe? Holy fuck your drive for money is worse than I thought.

I work where safety is a huge deal, not just some figure on an accountants book, it saves lives, prevents serious injuries and also lawsuits. I don't know how many times these safety measures have stopped serious injury, not only to myself but to other employees.

KnightTrader

15-08-2007 22:18:24

I'd like to have the OPTION of working somewhere thats less safe, but pays more. I'm not saying I'd choose to work there. I'm saying that HAVING that option is good.

Safety regulations are sometimes quite absurd. Take the FDA for example. They're a ridiculously inefficient / slow bureaucratic government organization. Sometimes taking 10+ years to approve "life saving" blockbuster drug. No one is allowed to compete in "drug safety" except the FDA. That makes them a monopoly. They have no innovate and do a better job.

Also, In regards to your humanitarian side. Believe it or not, "Saving lives" is NOT the best motivator. Money and greed do better to save lives then just the notion that saving lives is good.

The video with Stossel shows how Life Guards trained by the Red Cross do a lousy job compared to life guards trained by this Private company that is FOR PROFIT. It shows how plenty of state run and local pools are switching life guards, to ones trained by that private company. The For profit company constantly creates new and better ways to tackle drownings / emergencies. The Red Cross doesn't . The red Cross eventually adopts their techniques, but without it goes to show that "saving lives" apparently isen't motivation enough.

hehehhehe

15-08-2007 22:20:49

[quote2b2ade458d="Big War Bird"]So you are telling me that in 1945 that in South Korea illiterate peasant farmer left their fields to build Hondas? That the government just willed it to be so and it happened? [/quote2b2ade458d]
I think doylnea wants to quit because you don't even know how countries can pour money into certain industries and shift their workers into different kinds of work that are more advantageous for them. Like how Singapore went from textiles to semiconductors. I don't know if you just don't understand what he is clearly saying or just don't understand that that's how countries work.

[quote2b2ade458d="Big War Bird"]I'm glad you realize you are defeated.[/quote2b2ade458d]
You seem to like to put people down even though you're not displaying the best writing or reading comprehension. Just discuss the subject and avoid the cheap shots.

I think what doylnea is getting at is that you guys are discussing your ideals and opinions, not reality or past cases. For example, you guys say sweat shops are great (ideal or opinion), but I say (again) look what happened to Nike in the late 90's (reality and a past case) or Kathie Lee Gifford. Being such great capitalists, I assume you know corporate finance right? Social costs? Helloooo?

Saying you think workplace safety laws are stupid can be totally ridiculous to some people, especially those that have first hand knowledge of working in factories, even though you would love it in your hypothetical world.

d11m

15-08-2007 22:21:44

[quotef4722ebbca="KnightTrader"]I'd like to have the OPTION of working somewhere thats less safe, but pays more. I'm not saying I'd choose to work there. I'm saying that HAVING that option is good.[/quotef4722ebbca]
you don't know what you'd like till you been in a communist third world country

KnightTrader

15-08-2007 22:23:50

d11m. None of my ideas / Opinions support communism. Im advocating Capitalism and Libertarianism. Both which are quite the opposite of communism.

theysayjump

15-08-2007 22:24:26

[quote6cdb9d5056="KnightTrader"]I'd like to have the OPTION of working somewhere thats less safe, but pays more. I'm not saying I'd choose to work there. I'm saying that HAVING that option is good.[/quote6cdb9d5056]

You're also saying

[quote6cdb9d5056="KnightTrader"]I personally think laws that enforce safety at the work place are absolutely stupid......When having countless ridiculous safety regulations, chances are, your employer will lower your salary to offset the cost of your safety on the business.[/quote6cdb9d5056]

I'd rather pay less if it meant I'd be safer at work, regardless of the work involved and I think most other people would too.

Even though this country is trying it's hardest to, you can't put a price on good health.

h3x

16-08-2007 01:30:03

[quotee0d8394f0a="KnightTrader"]TSJ, I take it your a democrat (socialist in my book D)[/quotee0d8394f0a]

U.S. Democrat Party = Socialist? I think not.

Admin

16-08-2007 02:01:53

i'm way too ignorant on this subject to state any kind of opinion but after reading the thread i think i'll just mention....

- there is a difference between greed and the profit motive but i'm not sure that a distinction has been acknowledged here

- in high school, the CEO of walmart.com spoke to our modern politics class. one of the subjects we discussed was of course sweatshops and she mentioned something interesting. if she is to be believed (and personally i didn't find this too strange), american labor is heavily overpriced. according to her, walmart has to pay 5-15x as much for a shirt to be made in America, and often the end result is often of shoddy quality. naturally she'd be anti-union and blamed this on unions.

another thing she mentioned was the issue of COLOR in fabric. if i understood her correctly, basically the deal is that americans like to buy brightly colored fabrics, but we also passed a bunch of laws that forbid the use of dyes strong enough to actually turn a shirt that color. so even "responsible" american labor merchants like everyone's favorite american apparel[=http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Apparel]american apparel have to source their [b4cb3f9bb62]fabric[/b4cb3f9bb62] from mexico or elsewhere, where the environmental and public safety laws are lax enough to let them dye the fabric. check out that wikipedia entry on AmApp for more disturbing allegations.

again i'm not trying to defend sweatshops here, just give a little perspective. i don't have the answer.

Big War Bird

16-08-2007 04:34:08

[quoteec5cec434c]I think doylnea wants to quit because you don't even know how countries can pour money into certain industries and shift their workers into different kinds of work that are more advantageous for them. Like how Singapore went from textiles to semiconductors. I don't know if you just don't understand what he is clearly saying or just don't understand that that's how countries work.[/quoteec5cec434c]

That's exactly what I was saying! Hong Kong, Singapore, S Korea and Tiawan, the four Asian Tigers, are all case studies on how poor undeveloped countries can become wealthly nations in a relatively short period of time. In all four cases that evolution started with sweatshop type industries. That's why sweatshops are good. They lead to better things! It was doylnea that said skills remain stagnant.

[quoteec5cec434c]You seem to like to put people down even though you're not displaying the best writing or reading comprehension. Just discuss the subject and avoid the cheap shots.[/quoteec5cec434c]

I do sometime lose my patience explaining high school economics to adults.

[quoteec5cec434c]I think what doylnea is getting at is that you guys are discussing your ideals and opinions, not reality or past cases. For example, you guys say sweat shops are great (ideal or opinion), but I say (again) look what happened to Nike in the late 90's (reality and a past case) or Kathie Lee Gifford. Being such great capitalists, I assume you know corporate finance right? Social costs? Helloooo?[/quoteec5cec434c]

Well I am talking about basic solid economic theory that has been proven time and again throughout history in in the specific places I've mentioned. As for the the outrage over Nike and what not the point of the original article is that that outrage could be harmful to people is was supposed to help. Becasue at that point, a sweatshop is the best job in town. Social pressure to adopt stricter labor laws would cripple a country without the skills for more productive work.

[quoteec5cec434c]Saying you think workplace safety laws are stupid can be totally ridiculous to some people, especially those that have first hand knowledge of working in factories, even though you would love it in your hypothetical world.[/quoteec5cec434c]

I didn't say they were stupid. I explained the economic reasons why some places have them and some don't.