NationStates Jolt Archive

Many people on this forum are always bashing America, or saying, oh now China has a bigger economic growth, or oh how can you be the most powerful nation in the world when you cant hold a proper election, or crap like that. But going back in time, America wasnt founded to be the most powerful nation in the world, I bet if you went back in time and told the founding fathers that America would be the worlds most powerful nation they would say two words; ha ha.

Moving up a bit, people moved here from all around the world, that means that you Europeans or Asians and whoever else bashes us could have a relative here :eek: its very likely. People moved here from all over Europe and had little apartments and often lived in the slums, or little bording houses, but America is about trying to make your life better, and freedom (although Bush isnt helping) So just think about that.

Why should I listen to a talking stomach? You're not even a whole person!

perhaps, but at the same time your governments fuck the world up and your multinational corperations use sweatshops and destroy the world's resources. until the US can use its power in a positive and selfles way people will always argue!

Moving up a bit, people moved here from all around the world, that means that you Europeans or Asians and whoever else bashes us could have a relative here :eek: its very likely. People moved here from all over Europe and had little apartments and often lived in the slums, or little bording houses, but America is about trying to make your life better, and freedom (although Bush isnt helping) So just think about that.

Nope. The American branch of my family all died/returned/were accused of witchcraft long ago.

perhaps, but at the same time your governments fuck the world up and your multinational corperations use sweatshops and destroy the world's resources. until the US can use its power in a positive and selfles way people will always argue!

Ok, but sweatshops help people, you cant tell me they dont.

Why should I listen to a talking stomach? You're not even a whole person!

*sniffle*

Ok, but sweatshops help people, you cant tell me they dont.

Yikes....

Sweatshops USE people, mainly women and children. You may have the most loosest definition of help that I have ever heard.

Yikes....

Sweatshops USE people, mainly women and children. You may have the most loosest definition of help that I have ever heard.

Nobody forces them to work there, if it didnt help them in any way they wouldnt work they.

Good post, although it's probably futile to try and convince anyone. Most Americans were the castoffs from "elite" Eurpoean society, so they already have reasons ( in their own minds, at least ) to look down their collective nose at the "American rif-raf." In all truthfulness, I feel sorry for them.

The best thing for America is Americans and their self-approval.

perhaps, but at the same time your governments fuck the world up and your multinational corperations use sweatshops and destroy the world's resources. until the US can use its power in a positive and selfles way people will always argue!

Hmm. A very contentious issue this one. Lots of people say, "Oh, you only pay them less than a dollar a day!" and so call them sweatshops. Not true, I'm afraid, because you've completely ignored the state of the local labour market. Most multinationals benefit the local population: they provide jobs and pay more and offer better conditions than others in the same region - you can't expect them to raise standards to Western levels from the word go - they'll go bust.

Ah, I hear you cry, but they are forced to work long hours. No, they're not. Mostly, the workers want to work around the clock because it gives them a better chance of working their families out of poverty - if you force labour laws on them they can't work the long hours that they want to.

That doesn't mean that workers never get exploited, just that if you actually look, they're usually not. The big corporations, in this example, are usually the nice guys.

The oil/mining companies are a whole other matter, though, as they are removing natural resources, and not necessarily putting anything else back into the host nation's economy.

The other big issue is producers of crops, who often aren't paid enough at source. Another primary industry - again it's more vulnerable to exploitation. So if you want to start pointing fingers, learn the facts first. Some pretty nasty things go on in the name of profit, but find out what they are before you start your accusing.

Nobody forces them to work there, if it didnt help them in any way they wouldnt work they.

It helps them in the same way I help the prostitute on the corner every weekend. In other words, not much. If any.

Nobody forces them to work there, if it didnt help them in any way they wouldnt work they.

They have no choice. Companies take advantage of that and pay them jackshit. No pesky minimum wage or labour laws to worry about. Isn't unregulated capitalism great?

Yikes....

Sweatshops USE people, mainly women and children. You may have the most loosest definition of help that I have ever heard.

Ooh, I was busy answering this already. You can't apply Western standards to developing world working practices. So don't. Judge "sweatshops" against regional standards.

Hmm. A very contentious issue this one. Lots of people say, "Oh, you only pay them less than a dollar a day!" and so call them sweatshops. Not true, I'm afraid, because you've completely ignored the state of the local labour market. Most multinationals benefit the local population: they provide jobs and pay more and offer better conditions than others in the same region - you can't expect them to raise standards to Western levels from the word go - they'll go bust.

Ah, I hear you cry, but they are forced to work long hours. No, they're not. Mostly, the workers want to work around the clock because it gives them a better chance of working their families out of poverty - if you force labour laws on them they can't work the long hours that they want to.

That doesn't mean that workers never get exploited, just that if you actually look, they're usually not. The big corporations, in this example, are usually the nice guys.

The oil/mining companies are a whole other matter, though, as they are removing natural resources, and not necessarily putting anything else back into the host nation's economy.

The other big issue is producers of crops, who often aren't paid enough at source. Another primary industry - again it's more vulnerable to exploitation. So if you want to start pointing fingers, learn the facts first. Some pretty nasty things go on in the name of profit, but find out what they are before you start your accusing.

Thank you, but two things, I wouldnt exactly call them the "nice guys" but to an extent you're right, and the oil thing, its not always true, the Alaskan tundra is commonly drilled and wildlife around there has quadroupled. So sometimes it helps. And about the oil mined in Texas and the middle East, its mostly barren wasteland, and yes that includes Texas, in America, so dont acuse me of being rascist or something.

They have no choice. Companies take advantage of that and pay them jackshit. No pesky minimum wage or labour laws to worry about. Isn't unregulated capitalism great?

Multinationals usually treat the workers much better than other employers in the region - so actually they are the driving force for raising standards in those regions. That's not to say bad practices don't go on - but usually the multinationals are benefitting their employees.

They have no choice. Companies take advantage of that and pay them jackshit. No pesky minimum wage or labour laws to worry about. Isn't unregulated capitalism great?

Man your stupid, if you paid them minimum wage do you think those jobs would exhist? NO! Than the pay would cost more than the profit. Nobody forces them to work, end of story.

Thank you, but two things, I wouldnt exactly call them the "nice guys" but to an extent you're right, and the oil thing, its not always true, the Alaskan tundra is commonly drilled and wildlife around there has quadroupled. So sometimes it helps. And about the oil mined in Texas and the middle East, its mostly barren wasteland, and yes that includes Texas, in America, so dont acuse me of being rascist or something.

And open-cast gold-mining in Ghana. Big craters right next to villages. And do the villagers see any of that money? Um...

What do you all have against America? Okay, so we're messed up, but were on the way out anyways. Can't you focus on the good things about everything as opposed to the negative things? I like America, not for its government, but for its people. You know, the average people, not the politicians. I don't know anyone around me who doesn't do community service or donate to the poor. Normal Americans care not only about each other, but also the less fortunate people in other parts of the world. Many of my friends work with groups that build schools in other countries, or that have raised millions of dollars to help refugees. Why can't that be enough to just lay off a little bit?

It helps them in the same way I help the prostitute on the corner every weekend. In other words, not much. If any.

Ive adressed this issue way too many times, so one more cant hurt. If it didnt help them they wouldnt do it, it gives them money, whether they are a whore or a sweatshop worker, it helps them, it helps the world (Im sure Europeans buy stuff made in sweatshops too, dont forget that.

Ooh, I was busy answering this already. You can't apply Western standards to developing world working practices. So don't. Judge "sweatshops" against regional standards.

Fuck that noise.

They don't sell their products to that country, they sell them here. They could pay workers a nominal wage but in the name of profit they take advantage of people in poorer conditions so they can make more money.

And open-cast gold-mining in Ghana. Big craters right next to villages. And do the villagers see any of that money? Um...

I was talking about oil, not mining, I agree with you on the mining, except that its not always American mining companys.

I just want to say this, and then people can flame me all they want.

Nothing is worse for human rights movements are the campaigners who just go around pointing fingers, saying, "Environment Good, Corporations Bad!" It's just not that simple - to really attack corruption, you need to actually learn what you're fighting against, and recognise that it's not all bad.

Fuck that noise.

They don't sell their products to that country, they sell them here. They could pay workers a nominal wage but in the name of profit they take advantage of people in poorer conditions so they can make more money.

Lets see how much "Better" off they are if the sweatshops closed over there.
Yes they would be poorer.

Fuck that noise.

They don't sell their products to that country, they sell them here. They could pay workers a nominal wage but in the name of profit they take advantage of people in poorer conditions so they can make more money.
God forbid that someone with a business should seek a profit. :rolleyes: Yeah, good idea, pay someone an arbitraly set minimum wage and watch your competitor take the legs out from under you. You live in a fantasy land if you think that a business is going to compete by paying health care, large salaries and other benifits for a job that can be shopped overseas.

Oh, about the 'sweatshops', I'm against those. They underpay their employees, and in return, take jobs away from the normal American populace because the majority of those jobs go to illegal foreigners.

Ive adressed this issue way too many times, so one more cant hurt. If it didnt help them they wouldnt do it, it gives them money, whether they are a whore or a sweatshop worker, it helps them, it helps the world (Im sure Europeans buy stuff made in sweatshops too, dont forget that.

There is a huge difference between help and employ. If the corporations wanted to "help" them, they would offer them humane employment. They would use their considerable economic power to raise the standards in the nation. Instead they exploit it.

Fuck that noise.

They don't sell their products to that country, they sell them here. They could pay workers a nominal wage but in the name of profit they take advantage of people in poorer conditions so they can make more money.

Yes, and we live in an entirely different economy. Do you have any idea what costs go into producing the clothes - the money spent on putting the bits together is a fraction of the total cost. They have to transport it, they have to rent and equip their stores, they have to pay the employees who sell the clothes in the store, so don't give me that crap.

I've just come back from Tanzania, and I was living there off a 45,000 shilling allowance a month - that's $45. Yes, they get paid a lot less, but living costs are much lower too - it's just that their currency is worth a lot less. I was endlessly having to explain the reverse to the people I knew out there, that I wasn't as rich as I seemed, it was just my money was worth a lot more in their country. They're poor - they're very poor - but it doesn't take much money (in our terms) to be a rich man out there.

There is a huge difference between help and employ. If the corporations wanted to "help" them, they would offer them humane employment. They would use their considerable economic power to raise the standards in the nation. Instead they exploit it.

I've just pointed out that they do raise standards. But it can't happen very quickly because, as has been pointed out, they'll be undercut by competitors.

Many people on this forum are always bashing America, or saying, oh now China has a bigger economic growth, or oh how can you be the most powerful nation in the world when you cant hold a proper election, or crap like that. But going back in time, America wasnt founded to be the most powerful nation in the world, I bet if you went back in time and told the founding fathers that America would be the worlds most powerful nation they would say two words; ha ha.

Moving up a bit, people moved here from all around the world, that means that you Europeans or Asians and whoever else bashes us could have a relative here :eek: its very likely. People moved here from all over Europe and had little apartments and often lived in the slums, or little bording houses, but America is about trying to make your life better, and freedom (although Bush isnt helping) So just think about that.

Interesting argument, that people shouldn't take issue with the policies of the most powerful nation in the world, simply because the nation was not originally formed to be the most powerful nation.


In a related story, criminals should not be held to justice because at one point they were innocent babies....


And talking about what the citizens believe that the nation stands for also doesn't fly. After all, there are internal divisions within the US as well on how policy should be formulated. You don't simply say "well, the country stands for freedom so we won't bother debating government policy. After all - surely any and all policies will by definition live up to this high ideal." Do you? No.


The US is the most powerful nation inthe world. It's administrations have the ability to set policies that can have far-reaching effects on many citizens of this planet. Sometimes those policies may be to what we feel is our detriment, at which point we will say so.

It's called "freedom of speech", which is also supposedly one of the lofty ideals championed by the US. Interestingly enough - it's not called "Freedom of speech agreeable to me".

I agree that blind bashers are just pains in the ass, but not every critic is a basher. Some actually have valid and well constructed points of view.

God forbid that someone with a business should seek a profit.


Greed is a-okay, am i rite guys?


Yeah, good idea, pay someone an arbitraly set minimum wage and watch your competitor take the legs out from under you.


The "If I don't do it, someone else will" rationalization. Nice try. It's still wrong.


You live in a fantasy land if you think that a business is going to compete by paying health care, large salaries and other benifits for a job that can be shopped overseas.

I don't expect corporatons to be ethical. The idea of maximizing profit at the expense of people is abhorrent. If you hadn't noticed, I'm not exactly a great fan of capitalism.

I've just pointed out that they do raise standards. But it can't happen very quickly because, as has been pointed out, they'll be undercut by competitors.

Do they raise standards? Or do they do their best to maintain them?

Man your stupid, if you paid them minimum wage do you think those jobs would exhist? NO! Than the pay would cost more than the profit. Nobody forces them to work, end of story.
the pay would no where near cost more then the profit! But the companies would leave because they're selfish and would go somewhere else to pay as little as they can to the workers.

Do they raise standards? Or do they do their best to maintain them?

No, they do actually raise them - they get the best employees by offering the best conditions. So, slowly but surely, it pushes up standards throughout the region - this works best, of course, when there is competition, because without competition there is no incentive. Ideally, everyone would get the same standards that we all do, but the world doesn't work like that - for example, what would a massive wage hike do to local inflation? The other factor is the growing awareness of world poverty amongst people in the West, and a tendency to favour companies that operate the most ethical practices. Competition and capitalism in its purist form, having a positive effect.

Once again, I'm not saying there are no negative effects, but to say it's all bad is to say the world is black and white.

America seems to believe itself to be the Nation chosen by God itself and police the world just as the British did and it was they who passed that idea on to America and they can hardly blame the Americans for doing what they taught them to do when they first went there. All the same I believe that before America can accuse other countries of owning wmds they should get rid of their own and get themselves sorted out first especially their foreign policies and their gun crime!!!

Yes, and we live in an entirely different economy. Do you have any idea what costs go into producing the clothes - the money spent on putting the bits together is a fraction of the total cost. They have to transport it, they have to rent and equip their stores, they have to pay the employees who sell the clothes in the store, so don't give me that crap.


So they maxmize profit at the expense of people.


I've just come back from Tanzania, and I was living there off a 45,000 shilling allowance a month - that's $45. Yes, they get paid a lot less, but living costs are much lower too - it's just that their currency is worth a lot less. I was endlessly having to explain the reverse to the people I knew out there, that I wasn't as rich as I seemed, it was just my money was worth a lot more in their country. They're poor - they're very poor - but it doesn't take much money (in our terms) to be a rich man out there.


You can see the laughable disparity here. You are just some guy yet to them you're a high roller. Why shouldn't they get what an American worker would get for the same product, sold in the United States?

They aren't getting much you get. Let's not forget that a lot of these people also have to support families and while they can "survive" they'll never move higher up the ladder or gain higher education. They're stuck making shoes.
Not to mention, I'm sure the quality of life is excellent there right? Considering moving there?

America seems to believe itself to be the Nation chosen by God itself and police the world just as the British did and it was they who passed that idea on to America and they can hardly blame the Americans for doing what they taught them to do when they first went there. All the same I believe that before America can accuse other countries of owning wmds they should get rid of their own and get themselves sorted out first especially their foreign policies and their gun crime!!!


I agree, and I'm American.

Considering moving there?

Yes.

I'll agree though I'm not American, so you can discount my opinion freely.

Yes.

With or without a stream of high-valued currency to support you?
Would you work in one of those fantastic sweatshops?

So they maxmize profit at the expense of people.

You can see the laughable disparity here. You are just some guy yet to them you're a high roller. Why shouldn't they get what an American worker would get for the same product, sold in the United States?

They aren't getting much you get. Let's not forget that a lot of these people also have to support families and while they can "survive" they'll never move higher up the ladder or gain higher education. They're stuck making shoes.
Not to mention, I'm sure the quality of life is excellent there right? Considering moving there?

Poverty is the state at which people can merely survive. These people are living in poverty. They need to be paid more. But as I said, living costs are also much lower, so they don't need to be paid as much as an American would expect. If I had a job in London, I would expect better pay than I would get in the Westcountry, because living costs are much higher. I'm not saying they're paid enough, I'm saying you have to analyse their situation within the correct context - their own economy, not ours.

As a side point, quality of life isn't just about money and possessions. I've never met friendlier, more motivated people, so stoptalking about them as victims who need to be protected from the evil West - they're perfectly capable of achieving greatness, and the main thing that's holding them back is AIDS and a shite education system, as provided by their very own government. Multinationals are the least of their worries.

With or without a stream of high-valued currency to support you?
Would you work in one of those fantastic sweatshops?

There are no sweatshops in the villages. The women and children work on the farm while the men get drunk. Oh, they're so much better off as a result.

Poverty is the state at which people can merely survive. These people are living in poverty. They need to be paid more. But as I said, living costs are also much lower, so they don't need to be paid as much as an American would expect. If I had a job in London, I would expect better pay than I would get in the Westcountry, because living costs are much higher. I'm not saying they're paid enough, I'm saying you have to analyse their situation within the correct context - their own economy, not ours.


You don't need much to survive. You need more than that if you want to do something with your life.

The whole point of sweatshops is to expliot the cheaper cost of labour and looser laws in less developed countries. Corporations are not altruisticly helping the people out, they're taking advantage of their situation so they don't have to pay regular American wages to workers and can maximize profit.
They could pay them more, but they won't.


As a side point, quality of life isn't just about money and possessions. I've never met friendlier, more motivated people, so stoptalking about them as victims who need to be protected from the evil West

Rather than "protected", how about "treated fairly/equally"?


- they're perfectly capable of achieving greatness, and the main thing that's holding them back is AIDS and a shite education system, as provided by their very own government. Multinationals are the least of their worries.

Sweatshops aren't helping the situation. They could pay them more, so they could afford better medical treatment and education, but they won't.

Greed is a-okay, am i rite guys?



The "If I don't do it, someone else will" rationalization. Nice try. It's still wrong.



I don't expect corporatons to be ethical. The idea of maximizing profit at the expense of people is abhorrent. If you hadn't noticed, I'm not exactly a great fan of capitalism.

You own a compony that makes those Beany Babies, you sell them to Toys 'R' Us for $1.00 each, you pay your workers $5.00 say they can make 10 per hour. That is a profit of $10.00 5 of which goes to your employee. Congrats, you are making as much as an employee! That is called communism.

Not to mention the expense of materials. Now your employee is making more than you! He wants health and dental care. You are now broke, your competetors laugh at you.

You own a compony that makes those Beany Babies, you sell them to Toys 'R' Us for $1.00 each, you pay your workers $5.00 say they can make 10 per hour. That is a profit of $10.00 5 of which goes to your employee. Congrats, you are making as much as an employee! That is called communism.

Not to mention the expense of materials. Now your employee is making more than you! He wants health and dental care. You are now broke, your competetors laugh at you.
pretty stupid of them to keep the price at $1.00 then isnt it! :rolleyes: ;)

People also ignore that usually the people who run the sweatshops are the same type of people who they employ. So while the company might be American the so called "slavedrivers" are Chineese, and they are the employers, the employees are also Chineese, its not like Americans will move to China. They have headquarters set up in say, Oregon, they just send very low paying jobs to China, or Taiwan, because it would be impossible to support those jobs in America. Those jobs used to exhist in America, than we got a higher standard of living, along with many western European countries, England, France, Spain, etc. So the very low paying jobs went to poor countries.

Many people on this forum are always bashing America, or saying, oh now China has a bigger economic growth, or oh how can you be the most powerful nation in the world when you cant hold a proper election, or crap like that. But going back in time, America wasnt founded to be the most powerful nation in the world, I bet if you went back in time and told the founding fathers that America would be the worlds most powerful nation they would say two words; ha ha.

Moving up a bit, people moved here from all around the world, that means that you Europeans or Asians and whoever else bashes us could have a relative here :eek: its very likely. People moved here from all over Europe and had little apartments and often lived in the slums, or little bording houses, but America is about trying to make your life better, and freedom (although Bush isnt helping) So just think about that.

The question really should be that if you had a choice would you live in the United States? Despite the bad publicity from Bush's foreign policies, I would still say yes, because of our freedoms and fabulous wealth. You can debate the morality of having it or how we got it or keep it but the point is we have it and if someone in an impoverished part of the world can move here to enjoy it, then I'm sure they would.

pretty stupid of them to keep the price at $1.00 then isnt it! :rolleyes: ;)

That is usually the case you dont sell the goods to a store at market value cause than the store makes no profit, ex. you work at the Hershey Chocolate factory, you sell your chocolate to a store in a huge crate, for a set amount of money perhaps, 2 cents per chocolate bar, than the store sells them for 50 cents to a dollar. And that is how society works.

The question really should be that if you had a choice would you live in the United States? Despite the bad publicity from Bush's foreign policies, I would still say yes, because of our freedoms and fabulous wealth. You can debate the morality of having it or how we got it or keep it but the point is we have it and if someone in an impoverished part of the world can move here to enjoy it, then I'm sure they would.

Sorry to say but that part of the conversation went hours ago :p somehow we got into a sweatshop debate. Dont ask how. As this threads creator not even I know. Anyway, Ohio sucks now.

I agree with you with somethings. But look at shoes(eg nike) over $100 for some pairs. they pay less then a dollar to the worker who makes much more then 1 per hour! You can't say they cant afford to pay more, I don't expect them to but nearly all the companies using them can pay more

I agree with you with somethings. But look at shoes(eg nike) over $100 for some pairs. they pay less then a dollar to the worker who makes much more then 1 per hour! You can't say they cant afford to pay more, I don't expect them to but nearly all the companies using them can pay more

Yeah thats true, it costs like 5 cents to make those shoes. But I am refering to the sweatshops that make things like pillows, or stuffed animals where the product is like 3 bucks at the store.

Being the one who holds all the cards.

Sweatshops aren't helping the situation. They could pay them more, so they could afford better medical treatment and education, but they won't.

What education? All the money in the world isn't going to help them if there's no education to pay for. You're looking in the wrong place for solutions mate. Cancelling world debt, putting pressure on Governments to reduce corruption, and broadening the knowledge and skills base is the only way to reduce poverty.

And once again, mostly, they're not sweatshops. And they get paid more than employees elsewhere - compare the conditions with others locally, not with those in America - it's a completely different economy. If multinationals didn't employ people in these regions, conditions would be much worse than they are now.

Moving up a bit, people moved here from all around the world, that means that you Europeans or Asians and whoever else bashes us could have a relative here :eek: its very likely.

Nope, most of my relatives are either in Canada or Oz. I can't trace any of my family to america.

I agree with you with somethings. But look at shoes(eg nike) over $100 for some pairs. they pay less then a dollar to the worker who makes much more then 1 per hour! You can't say they cant afford to pay more, I don't expect them to but nearly all the companies using them can pay more

True - I don't know the details of Nike - but try not to ask whether the money is enough for you to live off in America - more, is it a fair wage where that person lives - is it enough for them to live off with a little bit to spare - how does it compare to other local wages? It might well be unfair, but you have to compare it to local, not Western, standards.

More often than not, though, the mulitnationals will offer better wages and conditions than other local employers, and so do tend to push standards up. This isn't just being driven by getting the best, most loyal employees, either. Most multinationals are now recognising that Western awareness of world poverty has increased massively, and that their product becomes more desirable to many customers if it is produced ethically.

Conditions improve only slowly under these forces, but if you try to push it too fast, it would almost certainly put too much strain on local economies (think of the inflation caused by a sudden hike in wages).

Many people on this forum are always bashing America, or saying, oh now China has a bigger economic growth, or oh how can you be the most powerful nation in the world when you cant hold a proper election, or crap like that. But going back in time, America wasnt founded to be the most powerful nation in the world, I bet if you went back in time and told the founding fathers that America would be the worlds most powerful nation they would say two words; ha ha.

Moving up a bit, people moved here from all around the world, that means that you Europeans or Asians and whoever else bashes us could have a relative here :eek: its very likely. People moved here from all over Europe and had little apartments and often lived in the slums, or little bording houses, but America is about trying to make your life better, and freedom (although Bush isnt helping) So just think about that.

I agree. And most of the people who argue are losers, who must go to work tomorrow (and forever) for minimum wage (which is too high).

I agree. And most of the people who argue are losers, who must go to work tomorrow (and forever) for minimum wage (which is too high).

"They must go to work tomorrow and forever" because minimum wage is just enough to live off (in Britain, anyway). Foster, the architects used to have a rule that no one should earn so many times more pay per hour (can't remember the exact factor) than the lowliest employees in the company (the cleaners, presumably). Now that's what I call a fair minimum wage.

Many people on this forum are always bashing America, or saying, oh now China has a bigger economic growth, or oh how can you be the most powerful nation in the world when you cant hold a proper election, or crap like that. But going back in time, America wasnt founded to be the most powerful nation in the world, I bet if you went back in time and told the founding fathers that America would be the worlds most powerful nation they would say two words; ha ha.

Moving up a bit, people moved here from all around the world, that means that you Europeans or Asians and whoever else bashes us could have a relative here :eek: its very likely. People moved here from all over Europe and had little apartments and often lived in the slums, or little bording houses, but America is about trying to make your life better, and freedom (although Bush isnt helping) So just think about that.

Agreed. We also produce (via our employment projects) 50% of the world's products, and consume 25% of them. Keep griping, and you will be unemployed.

pretty stupid of them to keep the price at $1.00 then isnt it! :rolleyes: ;)

So you raise the price of your beanie babies to something more reasonable, like a fiver. Now you can get $50 per hour off the employee, give the employee five, pay for the insurance and other benefits, and keep 30 for yourself.

Unfortunately, no one wants beanie babies that cost more than a dollar. So you end up closing shop, and the employee gets nothing. Or you sell to some unscrupulous bastard that is going back to the dollar plan.

So in the end, you have to blame the consumer. People want cheap stuff. They can't get it without cheap labour. Marx's dream society ends up castrated by the very prolotariat he sought to liberate, all over a bunch of plush animals.

You own a compony that makes those Beany Babies, you sell them to Toys 'R' Us for $1.00 each, you pay your workers $5.00 say they can make 10 per hour. That is a profit of $10.00 5 of which goes to your employee. Congrats, you are making as much as an employee! That is called communism.


Everyone gets a fair share of the value of what they produced?
Curse you, Lenin! That will never fly in Amerikkka!


Not to mention the expense of materials. Now your employee is making more than you! He wants health and dental care. You are now broke, your competetors laugh at you.

Should have factored that in when determining the value then.
No, wait, let me guess. The goal of profit justifies can means used to attain it! "If I don't do it, someone else will." is a perfectly valid ethical justification, am i rite?

People also ignore that usually the people who run the sweatshops are the same type of people who they employ. So while the company might be American the so called "slavedrivers" are Chineese, and they are the employers, the employees are also Chineese, its not like Americans will move to China.


Amazing what people will do for money, no?


They have headquarters set up in say, Oregon, they just send very low paying jobs to China, or Taiwan, because it would be impossible to support those jobs in America.


You mean they wouldn't be nearly as profitable.

Those jobs used to exhist in America, than we got a higher standard of living, along with many western European countries, England, France, Spain, etc. So the very low paying jobs went to poor countries.

So the corporations can't play their old tricks on the developed countries now, all those nasty regulations and workers rights they have now, they go to the undeveloped countries to take advantage of the people. Do you even realize what you're saying?


What education? All the money in the world isn't going to help them if there's no education to pay for. You're looking in the wrong place for solutions mate. Cancelling world debt, putting pressure on Governments to reduce corruption, and broadening the knowledge and skills base is the only way to reduce poverty.


... and my obvious point is corporations operating solely on self-interest, capitalizing on the situation, if you will, aren't helping just being opportunists. Imagine if they put that power to use for the purpose of geniuely helping that country.


And once again, mostly, they're not sweatshops. And they get paid more than employees elsewhere - compare the conditions with others locally, not with those in America - it's a completely different economy.


Except the products they make aren't sold locally. They get paid nothing compared to what their work is worth. Just because they're poor doesn't mean they should be kept poor forever.

I'd be interested in seeing some data about this so we could have something more substantive to examine.


If multinationals didn't employ people in these regions, conditions would be much worse than they are now.


"It could be worse, so you'd better shut up and like it." doesn't fly.

One of the problems with capitalism is that is it motivated by self-interest, so people don't give a damn about workers conditions until it starts to affect their profits, be it by strikes or bad press. That's why it has to be regulated. I'd like to think the fact we had to catch these corporations doing this before they considered how wrong it was should speak for itself.

Except the products they make aren't sold locally. They get paid nothing compared to what their work is worth. Just because they're poor doesn't mean they should be kept poor forever.

Erm, which part of "living costs are less, so fair wages are less" don't you understand? If you pay them the same as an American, you'll trigger runaway inflation in that country, and screw everyone there. You can't give economies short sharp shocks like that without tearing them to pieces.

I'm not saying that they are being paid enough, just that you have to compare like for like. You can have the same living standards on far less money - fair pay is relative to where you are, and what costs are where you live, not what someone else is being paid on the other side of the world.

And the costs of transporting the finished goods, paying the rent on the premises in the West, paying the shop assistants (who have much higher living costs), and paying for packaging, marketing etc, boost the cost of the product massively - just because something costs $2 to you and the person who made it only got $0.03, it doesn't mean that the company is making a $1.97 profit - the reality is that on massed produced goods, margins are around 2-5%.

Erm, which part of "living costs are less, so fair wages are less" don't you understand? If you pay them the same as an American, you'll trigger runaway inflation in that country, and screw everyone there. You can't give economies short sharp shocks like that without tearing them to pieces.

I'm not really aruging against that. Capitalism is capitalism after all. My point is that all this energy put towards making money could be put to better use. Besides, their living conditions are hardly fair as it is.


Population: 36,588,225
note: estimates for this country explicitly take into account the effects of excess mortality due to AIDS; this can result in lower life expectancy, higher infant mortality and death rates, lower population and growth rates, and changes in the distribution of population by age and sex than would otherwise be expected (July 2004 est.)

Infant mortality rate:
total: 102.13 deaths/1,000 live births
male: 111.62 deaths/1,000 live births
female: 92.35 deaths/1,000 live births (2004 est.)

Life expectancy at birth:
total population: 44.39 years
male: 43.2 years
female: 45.61 years (2004 est.)

Total fertility rate:
5.15 children born/woman (2004 est.)

HIV/AIDS - adult prevalence rate:
8.8% (2003 est.)

HIV/AIDS - people living with HIV/AIDS:
1.6 million (2003 est.)

HIV/AIDS - deaths:
160,000 (2003 est.)



I'm not saying that they are being paid enough, just that you have to compare like for like. You can have the same living standards on far less money - fair pay is relative to where you are, and what costs are where you live, not what someone else is being paid on the other side of the world.


Except they don't get the same living standards. While I'm not about to lay the blame for their troubles at the feet of capitalism, I'm not about to welcome it as the saviour of poor and downtrodden either. Corporations are only there to profit from the cheap labour situation, despite what small economic inertia they might generate.


And the costs of transporting the finished goods, paying the rent on the premises in the West, paying the shop assistants (who have much higher living costs), and paying for packaging, marketing etc, boost the cost of the product massively - just because something costs $2 to you and the person who made it only got $0.03, it doesn't mean that the company is making a $1.97 profit - the reality is that on massed produced goods, margins are around 2-5%.

That's what led corporations to try to squeeze where they could, before some started to take notice and slapped them on the hand. The fact remains that while the workers are a vital part of the process, they're getting the short end of the stick.

I think we've taken the argument as far as we can mate!

I think you understand what I'm saying - the situation is improving, but slowly, and you can't rush it because of the negative effects of doing so. You also can't expect it to be exactly the same as America, as many of the factors are different, so the workers have different requirements.

In an ideal world, this isn't good enough, as you say, but we have to have realistic aims (that's not to say more can't be done) - but as we become more aware of these situations, it's in the corporations interests to continue to improve it, as it makes them look good to the customer. Commercial interest-driven again, of course, but they'll never do it because they actually care, will they?

I seriously suggest you read In Defense of Globalization (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195170253/qid=1101373566/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_11_4/026-5260318-4567648) by Jagdish Bhagwati. It's a very good book, with very good arguments, even if the author is a bit of an egoist (something that actually makes the book at times unintentionally very funny - like when he spends nearly a whole page criticising people who misuse a term he coined - the "Wall Street-Treasury Complex"). He also doesn't seem to know the difference between England, Britain and the United Kingdom. But it's not too heavy-reading, and presents a very balanced view of both the positive and negative sides of globalisation.