NationStates Jolt Archive

I notice that the sweatshops in the world today are similar to those that existed in the West in the late 19th century. Then the workers here discovered labour rights and socialism and improvement was brought about by political process.

When will today's sweatshop workers stand up for their rights? Will they ever?

I notice that the sweatshops in the world today are similar to those that existed in the West in the late 19th century. Then the workers here discovered labour rights and socialism and improvement was brought about by political process.

When will today's sweatshop workers stand up for their rights? Will they ever?on a serious note: they could try... then they would loose their jobs and be known as troublemakers thus never getting another job again... and the companies would either hire others or move to another country.

On a not-so-serious note: also they just might be too tired to try.

When the governments that kill them for protesting are removed and fair democracy is installed. Then the abuse will end.

When the governments that kill them for protesting are removed and fair democracy is installed. Then the abuse will end.

Fair democracy, I'd prefer the real deal and go for anarchism.

I notice that the sweatshops in the world today are similar to those that existed in the West in the late 19th century. Then the workers here discovered labour rights and socialism and improvement was brought about by political process.

When will today's sweatshop workers stand up for their rights? Will they ever?


Only when they purchase some sort of transportation will they be mobilized.

The only rights they should have is to make my damn tube socks.

Fair democracy, I'd prefer the real deal and go for anarchism.

And therefore destroying any realistic chance of attaining their rights.

Today! We shall instigate the revolt and create a worker's paradise, comrade.

Today! We shall instigate the revolt and create a worker's paradise, comrade.

K.

I notice that the sweatshops in the world today are similar to those that existed in the West in the late 19th century. Then the workers here discovered labour rights and socialism and improvement was brought about by political process.

Honest question: was an improvement actually brought about, or was the misery just exported?

There will always be winners and losers. Guess what group these mangled sweatshop kids fall under.

There will always be winners and losers. Guess what group these mangled sweatshop kids fall under.


Must people be exploited for capitalism to exist? I mean, can capitalizm exist if all workers are paid a wage that allows their families to live in decency, outside of poverty. I seriously wonder.

sorry for poor spellling :(

Big Haliburton, I hope you're just playing a part, or being an asshole on porpose. Otherwise, you are of the very worst of humanity.

About the sweatshops, because if they try, they get beaten and shot. What we need is for the west to require the same standards of labor rights for all products that come into their country that they require for produects made in their country. Take the profit out of it, and the abuse with slowly vanish.

Big Haliburton, I hope you're just playing a part, or being an asshole on porpose. Otherwise, you are of the very worst of humanity.



I come from a long line of assholes, my daddy helped beat those colored kids going to school. Worst part of humanity. Nope. I am the best part of society. Wanna know why? Cause I know what I want, and I don't beat around the bush. The ends certainly justify the means.

Nations move out of sweatshop conditions naturally. The West did it first, nowadays it's happening in China and India, and it will happen in other countries if they get their fucking acts together.

I come from a long line of assholes, my daddy helped beat those colored kids going to school. Worst part of humanity. Nope. I am the best part of society. Wanna know why? Cause I know what I want, and I don't beat around the bush. The ends certainly justify the means.

Ah, quit trolling, no one is biting.

Must people be exploited for capitalism to exist? I mean, can capitalizm exist if all workers are paid a wage that allows their families to live in decency, outside of poverty. I seriously wonder.

Well, the vast majority of workers earn far more than minimum in the United States, so pure capitalism would be able to do this in countries with economies developed enough to require large numbers of skilled workers (supply/demand keeps wages up). In undeveloped nations, abuse would be rampant and poverty would be widespread.

Big Haliburton, I hope you're just playing a part, or being an asshole on porpose. Otherwise, you are of the very worst of humanity.

Ignore him. He's a reincarnated troll.

Must people be exploited for capitalism to exist? I mean, can capitalizm exist if all workers are paid a wage that allows their families to live in decency, outside of poverty. I seriously wonder.

sorry for poor spellling :(


Like I said...winners and losers. Don't you think any non-capitalist societies ever exploited any ignorant locals?

Nations move out of sweatshop conditions naturally. The West did it first, nowadays it's happening in China and India, and it will happen in other countries if they get their fucking acts together.

And what happens when there are no more countries down the line to operate the sweatshops in: when all the countires 'get theit fucking acts together' and there are no more LDCs for multinationals to exploit?

Ah, quit trolling, no one is biting.


I don't need anyone to bite, moron. I just spew as much crap as I can.

Like I said...winners and losers. Don't you think any non-capitalist societies ever exploited any ignorant locals?


I never said capitilistic countries had a monopoly on exploitation. I only questioned if gross exploitation was a requirment of capitilism

When the governments that kill them for protesting are removed and fair democracy is installed. Then the abuse will end.

There's no such thing as a "fair democracy" in the real world. Democracy is an ideal no one has reached. And if you say America is a fair democracy, be prepared for some pretty loud laughter.

There's no such thing as a "fair democracy" in the real world. Democracy is an ideal no one has reached. And if you say America is a fair democracy, be prepared for some pretty loud laughter.

Fair enough to give people a voice in their government. It isn't America's system, it's political apathy and corruption (along with no term limits or financing restrictions) that have made our system unfair.

Well, the vast majority of workers earn far more than minimum in the United States, so pure capitalism would be able to do this in countries with economies developed enough to require large numbers of skilled workers (supply/demand keeps wages up).

The US is nowhere near a pure capitalism. Corperate welfare, gov subsidies, contracts, it's bullshit. It's the worst parts of capitalism mixed with the worst parts of socialism, in my opinions.

Well, not quite that bad, but it has elements of the bad points of both systems

The plain and simple truth is that in every economy somebody gets taken advantage of. Either the ignorant, poor, or weak, somebody get stomped on. What needs to be done is finding someone weaker/poorer/ignoranter (I like making words up) so that those in sweat shops can take advantage of someone else or at least point their task masters in the right direction and (hopefully) get a promotion...probably beating on the new guys as the new task master. You see, boys and girls, this is how the real world works. The corporate ladder isn't a metaphor. It's real and made of all of the people underneath the CEO. As the saying goes: "The road to success is paved with the bones of those slower and weaker than you." If those in sweat shops are vulnerable and easily taken advantage of, then so be it. Honestly, would you really deny all of those poor, hungry, sad little children the only means of survival they have? Would you rather that they dig through land-fills to find the one half-eaten McDonalds hamburger to live off of a week? Shame on all of you against child labor. You sicken me...

Well, the vast majority of workers earn far more than minimum in the United States, so pure capitalism would be able to do this in countries with economies developed enough to require large numbers of skilled workers (supply/demand keeps wages up). In undeveloped nations, abuse would be rampant and poverty would be widespread.

I'm sorry...you're just asking to be flamed here. Your views on a pure capitalist economy are HORRIBLY ignorant. Specifically about the supply/demand keeping wages up. In a country where there are 10,000 people ready and able to take your place at the sewing station if you fuck up, are wages really going to be that high? Consumers are obviously oblivious to any suffering that occurs in the sweat shops that make their Nike shoes and ADIDAS soccer balls (or foot balls for those of you who like it that way). If they aren't oblivious, they simply don't give a damn. Those few who don't fall under either catagory don't make much of an impact on either company (Nike and ADIDAS for those with short-term memory problems). SO explain to me, oh economics wizard of shit-spewing, how a purely capitalist economy would be able to keep wages high enough for workers to buy the products that they are making? Remember, now, both the company and worker have to make enough money to live. Show your work.

In Brazil, sweat shop union leaders are assasinated. They're stuck. They need outside help to escape.

Coke is a big user of intimidation and murder to keep their Brazilian workers in line. Bastards.

I notice that the sweatshops in the world today are similar to those that existed in the West in the late 19th century. Then the workers here discovered labour rights and socialism and improvement was brought about by political process.

When will today's sweatshop workers stand up for their rights? Will they ever?

Usually about 2 months before America comes in and imposes a military dictatorship.

The US is nowhere near a pure capitalism. Corperate welfare, gov subsidies, contracts, it's bullshit. It's the worst parts of capitalism mixed with the worst parts of socialism, in my opinions.

Well, not quite that bad, but it has elements of the bad points of both systems

Both? Try all.
Soclialist - Labor laws. Food Stamps. Unemployment Insurance. Workman's Comp.
Communist - Government owned utilities (water, electricity etc.)
Facist - Corporate Welfare, Privatization of public utilities, Corporate "personhood," Bechtel, KBR, and Haliburton. Revolving door government.
Capitalist - ... I'm sure there's an example somewhere.

SO explain to me, oh economics wizard of shit-spewing, how a purely capitalist economy would be able to keep wages high enough for workers to buy the products that they are making? Remember, now, both the company and worker have to make enough money to live. Show your work.

In a purely capitalist economy the government will not dish out such things as police forces to keep the poor from burning down rich people's homes and disemboweling them in the street. If the rich want the poor to spare them then they will either have to hire private security guards, or pay them a living wage. And even if they opt for the private security option, well at least there are going to be more jobs. American corporations have the police to do that for them domestically, and the military to do it for them overseas.

When will today's sweatshop workers stand up for their rights? Will they ever?

No, they probably ever will, unfortunately. If they did, you'd end up paying alot more for your clothes and other consumer goods, and Wal-Mart wouldn't like that.........

Both? Try all.
Soclialist - Labor laws. Food Stamps. Unemployment Insurance. Workman's Comp.

I don't concider those the worst aspects, some of them are just mis-used in this country.

What is your problem with labor laws? You think that it should be legal to have kids working 18 hour days? Or unsafe factories? Or rat shit in your meat? Or have the corperation have total control of your personal life?

And what's wrong with workman's comp? You get hurt on the job, your family shouldn't starve. Also, it encourages businesses to keep the job site safe.

Food stamps- Horribly mis-managed in this country, but a good idea, overall, in my opinion.

Capitalist - ... I'm sure there's an example somewhere.

Little safty net, explotation of workers, strict stratification of society, coperate control of society that kind of shit.

You were dead on with Communism and Facism, though.

And what happens when there are no more countries down the line to operate the sweatshops in: when all the countires 'get theit fucking acts together' and there are no more LDCs for multinationals to exploit?
At that point the tech will probably be advanced enough that machines can do most of the work.

The union Leaders in brazil got to start arming themselves.

When I tell people that I want to get the hell out of this 'Humanitarian torture chamber,' this is the kind of rhetoric I'm talking about. Folks like to think that because we're so enlightened, everyone else in the world is too. They love to pretend to know just how third world citizens think, and they [apparently] revel in dictating the virtues of socialism to them.

I find it a rather amusing overestimation of leftist policies to declare proudly "We discovered socialism and it's benefits" and as a result, we have this warm fuzzy enlightened workforce. I've got news for you: paying a fair wage isn't called 'socialism,' it's called 'morality.' Leftists love to argue that since labor conditions were largely deplorable in the 19th century, that they automatically will be today on virtue of capitalism alone. They also love to argue that capitalism is the root of all evil, but it's not; irrationality is, and irrationality can and does exist in any economic model you can find on the planet.

You have no idea what it's like to be a sweatshop worker, and neither do I. Please stop pretending to think for them; they'll find a solution to their problems if they are mentally able, as we have done in the past. If they're not, then I guess you're just going to have to continue your fruitless anti-corporate crusade.

But in the meantime, try going to a sweatshop sometime and see how the workers feel about striking. Many of them are too goddamn happy to have a freaking [i]quarter in their pocket to even contemplate the idea.

Honestly, would you really deny all of those poor, hungry, sad little children the only means of survival they have? Would you rather that they dig through land-fills to find the one half-eaten McDonalds hamburger to live off of a week? Shame on all of you against child labor. You sicken me...
I would favour the elimination of child labour when there is an alternative. I recognise the unfortunate reality that this is their only means to survival, and even a terrible job is better than no job.

Shame on all of you who think the status quo is just fine.

No, they probably ever will, unfortunately. If they did, you'd end up paying alot more for your clothes and other consumer goods, and Wal-Mart wouldn't like that.........
That does not bother me. (No, i am not fabulously rich; I just don't buy many clothes.)

But in seriousness, it would not need to cost much more if the profits were shifted down the corporate ladder. It's wrong that a worker gets next to nothing while a CEO rakes in millions. If we could somehow force corporations to distribute more pay from the CEOs to the workers, possibly with the imposition of a maximum wage (this would have to be on a global scale).

When I tell people that I want to get the hell out of this 'Humanitarian torture chamber,' this is the kind of rhetoric I'm talking about.
Oh I feel so sorry for your suffering. :rolleyes:

I've got news for you: paying a fair wage isn't called 'socialism,' it's called 'morality.'
Corporations don't care about morality. Their one and only priority is profit. If most corporations were moral enough to pay fair wages, there would be no need for minimum wage laws.

Fair wages are a part of socialism, which is what makes it a moral economic system.

Leftists love to argue that since labor conditions were largely deplorable in the 19th century, that they automatically will be today on virtue of capitalism alone.
There is no reason to believe that we would not revert to those conditions if minimum wage laws were abolished.

But in the meantime, try going to a sweatshop sometime and see how the workers feel about striking. Many of them are too goddamn happy to have a freaking [i]quarter in their pocket to even contemplate the idea.
I'm not pulling statements out of my ass. I've read books such as No Logo by Naomi Klein and other journalists who have visited sweatshops and spoken with the workers. The workers know that they are being exploited, beaten and paid unfairly and they're not happy about it.

I think that it is likely that the workers will fight their own way out of oppression in the third world, but it is our moral duty here in the first world to help them in any way we can.

Oh I feel so sorry for your suffering. :rolleyes:
You should. Nearly a third of my time at work is state-sanctioned slavery to pay for your poorly contrived 'Altruism' doctrine. My time is my time; my money is my money. Period.

Corporations don't care about morality. Their one and only priority is profit. If most corporations were moral enough to pay fair wages, there would be no need for minimum wage laws.
Ahhh, the blanket-statement, the favored weapon of the socialist automaton. Take off the blinders sometime and you'll realize that a company, in order to turn a profit, has to stay in business which means things like not aleinating their customer base or employee base by doing things like forcing them to buy shit at company stores or making them work 18 hours in a day or what-have you. The people who did this in the 19th century were idiots, not capitalists; they were theives and extortionists, not businessmen. Business is about trade, not extortion and lies. If leftists want to get in a snit whenever the rest of us try to call the USSR 'Communist,' then I have a right to get in a snit when you try to tell me that the 19th century was 'proper capitalism.'

Furthermore, there would also be no real need for minimum wage laws if the government would stop taking my goddamn money. They might still have to exist, but we'd get to make them a lot lower and--guess what! More jobs.

Fair wages are a part of socialism, which is what makes it a moral economic system.
Fair wages are also part of Capitalism. Way to prove nothing.


There is no reason to believe that we would not revert to those conditions if minimum wage laws were abolished.
With our current rates of taxation, you bet you're right. But you can't suggest a change like this without making the attendant adjustments in other places; if we got rid of minimum wage, we'd have to get rid of a multitude of government programs as well to even it out.

I'm not pulling statements out of my ass. I've read books such as No Logo by Naomi Klein and other journalists who have visited sweatshops and spoken with the workers. The workers know that they are being exploited, beaten and paid unfairly and they're not happy about it.
Excuse me? Where in my post did I say that sweatshop conditions were a hoax? Where did I say they were anything other than what they were? That's right--I didn't. Your logic just lept a chasm rivalling the size of the Marianas Trench.

If they want to do something about it; fine: I've got no problem with people being paid the money they deserve. But I do have a problem with you telling me it's my problem.

I think that it is likely that the workers will fight their own way out of oppression in the third world, but it is our moral duty here in the first world to help them in any way we can.
"Any way we can," taken at face value, means I'm morally obligated to dig my .50 cal out of the closet and fly to Taiwan to shoot some factory foreman. I call bullshit.

I'm sorry...you're just asking to be flamed here. Your views on a pure capitalist economy are HORRIBLY ignorant. Specifically about the supply/demand keeping wages up. In a country where there are 10,000 people ready and able to take your place at the sewing station if you fuck up, are wages really going to be that high? Consumers are obviously oblivious to any suffering that occurs in the sweat shops that make their Nike shoes and ADIDAS soccer balls (or foot balls for those of you who like it that way). If they aren't oblivious, they simply don't give a damn. Those few who don't fall under either catagory don't make much of an impact on either company (Nike and ADIDAS for those with short-term memory problems). SO explain to me, oh economics wizard of shit-spewing, how a purely capitalist economy would be able to keep wages high enough for workers to buy the products that they are making? Remember, now, both the company and worker have to make enough money to live. Show your work.


If there are 10,000 people who want your job, there is a supply problem. Wages will be depressed no matter what because those who want it will accpet lower pay to have it; in a pure capitalism economy, it is the individual's responsibility to become competitive in a field where demand exists. Again, pure capitalism only works in a mature economy, because there is enough diversification to balance out supply problems. Human labor is like any other commodity, it's price fluctuates based upon supply and demand.

The consumer wants what is cheapest for them. If they want to pay more to avoid such abuses, more credit to them. But if they don't, then there isn't much that can be done other than to let the abuses continue.

You make a flaw in assuming the workers will be manufacturing goods for export and work under foreign corporations in an underdeveloped economy. I believe pure capitalism only works in a mature, diversified economy; the demand for workers is much higher and supply is much tighter than it is in underdeveloped economies. If a company needs 3,000 workers and there are only 2,500 available for the position, then they pay more to attract the workers to their company; if there are 3,000 workers and 2,500 positions, it is the opposite. The workers have to either accept company terms or find another job; in a developed economy there are always multiple options available and so they are not forced in to sweatshop labor instead of a decent-paying job.

Human labor is nothing more than an investment commodity; you pay for it expecting a return on your investment greater than the amount you put in, and if there is too much supply relative to demand, the price goes down (and the opposite if demand exceeds supply). Otherwise, companies fail.

In a purely capitalist economy the government will not dish out such things as police forces to keep the poor from burning down rich people's homes and disemboweling them in the street. If the rich want the poor to spare them then they will either have to hire private security guards, or pay them a living wage. And even if they opt for the private security option, well at least there are going to be more jobs. American corporations have the police to do that for them domestically, and the military to do it for them overseas.

Again, I'd have to disagree. In a purely capitalist economy, the police would still exist. They are a measure of law and order, not making sure that a rich guy is able to keep paying poor people a low wage. A purely capitalist economy is one where there is a free exchange of goods, one without laws/regulations to bar/hinder the exchange. The police have nothing to do with this. What you are talking about is a riot. Economics has nothing to do with riots and everything to do with the law. In a pure capitalist state, there would be nothing to stop the rich guy from offering low wages unless EVERYONE decided to stop working for him. As you SHOULD know, it's damn-near impossible to convince everyone not to work. Hell, even if people stopped working I doubt the rich guy would care. He's got enough money to live off of, let the little people suffer. Your ignorance is amazing. I salute you.

You should. Nearly a third of my time at work is state-sanctioned slavery to pay for your poorly contrived 'Altruism' doctrine. My time is my time; my money is my money. Period.

Are you refering to taxes? Sorry, but in society, you give to get. You give money, you get roads, cops, firemen, that sort of thing. If you're mad about taxes being high because of welfare and the like, don't be. Much much more of your taxes go to the un-nessicarily high military budget (we could have a strong, effective military without so much of the budget going towards it), land grants and subsidies in the Mid West (the middle "red" states take in more in government aid then they pay in taxes, and the east coast "blue" states pay more in taxes then they take in in government aid. And the damn cowboys complaine about the gov taking their money to pay for poor people) and Corperate Welfare. Those are the things you should be mad about, not the puttince we give the poor.


Fair wages are also part of Capitalism. Way to prove nothing.

Fair wages are part of morality. Fair wage *laws* are a part of socialism. Fair wage laws are not a part of pure capitalism. Both fair wages and unfair wages are part of capitalism. Only socialism enforces fair wages.


"Any way we can," taken at face value, means I'm morally obligated to dig my .50 cal out of the closet and fly to Taiwan to shoot some factory foreman. I call bullshit.

That's not what (s)he ment and you know it. Don't be obnoxious.

You have no idea what it's like to be a sweatshop worker, and neither do I. Please stop pretending to think for them; they'll find a solution to their problems if they are mentally able, as we have done in the past. If they're not, then I guess you're just going to have to continue your fruitless anti-corporate crusade.

But in the meantime, try going to a sweatshop sometime and see how the workers feel about striking. Many of them are too goddamn happy to have a freaking quarter in their pocket to even contemplate the idea.

I guess you could say the same for Holocaust victims. We should have just left those Jews alone in Auchswitz, if they were mentally able they would have gotten out themselves. Yeah, both are equally ignorant statements.

Obviously slave/child labour is not the same as genocide, but it is no less disgusting and wrong.

So you think it's fine that workers are happy to have a quarter? You don't think that they should desire a bit more? Have we learned nothing from the oppression of blacks and slavery?

If there are 10,000 people who want your job, there is a supply problem. Wages will be depressed no matter what because those who want it will accpet lower pay to have it; in a pure capitalism economy, it is the individual's responsibility to become competitive in a field where demand exists. Again, pure capitalism only works in a mature economy, because there is enough diversification to balance out supply problems. Human labor is like any other commodity, it's price fluctuates based upon supply and demand.

The consumer wants what is cheapest for them. If they want to pay more to avoid such abuses, more credit to them. But if they don't, then there isn't much that can be done other than to let the abuses continue.

You make a flaw in assuming the workers will be manufacturing goods for export and work under foreign corporations in an underdeveloped economy. I believe pure capitalism only works in a mature, diversified economy; the demand for workers is much higher and supply is much tighter than it is in underdeveloped economies. If a company needs 3,000 workers and there are only 2,500 available for the position, then they pay more to attract the workers to their company; if there are 3,000 workers and 2,500 positions, it is the opposite. The workers have to either accept company terms or find another job; in a developed economy there are always multiple options available and so they are not forced in to sweatshop labor instead of a decent-paying job.

Human labor is nothing more than an investment commodity; you pay for it expecting a return on your investment greater than the amount you put in, and if there is too much supply relative to demand, the price goes down (and the opposite if demand exceeds supply). Otherwise, companies fail.

Wow... a steaming pile of feces escapes from your ignorant mouth. Your statements are quit obvious to anyone with a brain. Perhaps, though, you should think about this from the REAL WORLD perspective rather than a text book theory. People are lazy, ignorant, uncaring fucks. Most of the time they will not care to do any research on the product they are buying other than "How much does it cost and where can I buy it." Those that do, only find what others want them to. The select few that dig deep enough to uncover the horrific truth will most likely boycott. They don't make much of a dent on the income of the company, but its makes them feel good anyway. In your example of a pure capitalist economy, you rely too much on people. That is the major flaw in your little theory. Rather than playing "Sim City" and testing out your economic model, try appying it to a real-life economy. Not only would the poor get poorer and the rich get richer, it'll happen even faster than you know. Lets take a corprate giant notorious for this, McDonalds. Did you know that there has never been a union in McDonalds? DO you want to know why? They close down the store and fire all the staff at the mere hint of rebellion. That's one way to keep wages low. ANother lovely tactic is to hire a bunch of morons who don't know they're getting screwed over. Does this effect any of the millions of customers who eat at McDonalds each and every day? Of course not, otherwise MD would actually have to offer better wages. The truth is that in a purely capitalist economy there would be a plethora of ways to screw people over. Try to think a little for yourself next time rather than give a speech ripped from an economics professor.

Well that is what guns and bombs are for, if there is a powerful corporation the only anwser is a good old fashioned bombing.

Are you refering to taxes? Sorry, but in society, you give to get.

Quite correct. Only the thing you're leaving out of this equation is the concept of a fair exchange, i.e., when I spend money I should gain equal value from it.

You give money, you get roads, cops, firemen, that sort of thing. If you're mad about taxes being high because of welfare and the like, don't be. Much much more of your taxes go to the un-nessicarily high military budget (we could have a strong, effective military without so much of the budget going towards it), land grants and subsidies in the Mid West (the middle "red" states take in more in government aid then they pay in taxes, and the east coast "blue" states pay more in taxes then they take in in government aid. And the damn cowboys complaine about the gov taking their money to pay for poor people) and Corperate Welfare. Those are the things you should be mad about, not the puttince we give the poor.
I'm mad about all of it. In fact, I am rigorously opposed to everything you mentioned here, excepting roads, police, firemen and the like.

Fair wages are part of morality. Fair wage *laws* are a part of socialism. Fair wage laws are not a part of pure capitalism. Both fair wages and unfair wages are part of capitalism. Only socialism enforces fair wages.
Capitalism, realying on the concept of 'trade' as a central tenet of its philosophy, cannot remain consistent if the concept of trade is not applied to wages for labor. This is an oversimplification and you [should] know it.

That's not what (s)he ment and you know it. Don't be obnoxious.
Ummm, I'm sorry, but I have the money in the bank for an airfare to Taiwan and a .50 caliber in the closet. Since I am capable of doing this, i.e., it is within my means and Swimminpool says 'we have to help by any means necessary,' the implication that I'm morally obligated to shoot a factory foreman, while indirect, can logically follow from his statement. Is it implicit in his message? No. But, like I said, the statement taken at face value dictates the exact action I have described. If he wishes to endorse a new form of helping these people out, via a means other than the full extent of our aid, he should denote it properly.

Quite correct. Only the thing you're leaving out of this equation is the concept of a fair exchange, i.e., when I spend money I should gain equal value from it.

Melkor, love to see you get by without the military, roads, and the numerous things government spending has gotten us in R&D. Tell you what, you give me a rundown of your tax bill, and what you think that you're being cheated on and we'll see then.

I guess you could say the same for Holocaust victims. We should have just left those Jews alone in Auchswitz, if they were mentally able they would have gotten out themselves. Yeah, both are equally ignorant statements.
Except that sweatshop workers aren't experimented on, they are not political prisoners, and while their conditions are shit, they're still getting some kind of remuneration for their work. Is it worth it? No, probably not. Does that make them comparable to concentration camps? No. The main difference is you get to actually go home, and you get to actually buy things. Invoke the sweatshop parallell to a Holocaust survivor and I'm pretty certain you wouldn't get a favorable reaction.

Obviously slave/child labour is not the same as genocide, but it is no less disgusting and wrong.
Er.... that's a contradiction. If they're not the same thing, then they're not the same thing. I agree with you on some sort of vague, ethereal level; genocide and slavery are both wrong, but the former is obviously far more deplorable. I don't see how one can possibly argue otherwise. Not convincingly, at least.

So you think it's fine that workers are happy to have a quarter? You don't think that they should desire a bit more? Have we learned nothing from the oppression of blacks and slavery?
Sweet Mother of Christ, what is with you people and putting words in my goddamn mouth?! I didn't say it was "fine" that they're happy to have a quarter, I said just that they are happy to have a quarter; that doesn't justify what's more or less 'slave' labor, that doesn't validate the sweatshop nor does it do much to alleviate anyone's concerns about the situation.

But the fact of the matter is, for many of these people, it's the only income they can find. The reason for that varies from country to country.

Melkor, love to see you get by without the military, roads, and the numerous things government spending has gotten us in R&D. Tell you what, you give me a rundown of your tax bill, and what you think that you're being cheated on and we'll see then.
Read my post again.

I notice that the sweatshops in the world today are similar to those that existed in the West in the late 19th century. Then the workers here discovered labour rights and socialism and improvement was brought about by political process.

When will today's sweatshop workers stand up for their rights? Will they ever?
Never. The evil corporate barons have learned their lessons and will never permit an organized labor movement to take hold in their industry.

I guess you could say the same for Holocaust victims. We should have just left those Jews alone in Auchswitz, if they were mentally able they would have gotten out themselves. Yeah, both are equally ignorant statements.

Obviously slave/child labour is not the same as genocide, but it is no less disgusting and wrong.

So you think it's fine that workers are happy to have a quarter? You don't think that they should desire a bit more? Have we learned nothing from the oppression of blacks and slavery?

YAY! Two flames in one day! Really, think before you speak. How much is a quarter worth in many of these countries? Its not much different than offering somebody minimum wage here in America. You are stuck thinking that a quarter is such a small amount. Perhaps we should give them nothing then? That is the only other option they have. Let's weigh the two for a moment. Would you rather a) survive but work for an asshole with a whip or b) go on strike, get replaced, and live off of the things you find in the nearby land-fill? If you are wise, you'd be happy with the quarter-a-day thay you're being offered. Otherwise, get out your swimming trunks, its time for the dumpster dive! Those against sweatshops are too ignorant to think about the value of a quarter. By the way, how can you possibly compare a sweatshop with the Holocaust? This isn't genocide, you moron. This is business. Hitler wasn't paying the Jews a nickle a day until they rebelled. He was killing them systematically. There is a HUGE difference...ass...

Quite correct. Only the thing you're leaving out of this equation is the concept of a fair exchange, i.e., when I spend money I should gain equal value from it.

Here, we agree. It is in the spacific that we disagree.



I'm mad about all of it. In fact, I am rigorously opposed to everything you mentioned here, excepting roads, police, firemen and the like.

I see. Forgive me, I mistook you for someone less inteligent, it seems. I now know more about your position and thinking, and can respect it alot more.


Capitalism, realying on the concept of 'trade' as a central tenet of its philosophy, cannot remain consistent if the concept of trade is not applied to wages for labor. This is an oversimplification and you [should] know it.

Tuche'

I suppose this goes along with the whole "19th centruy America was not capitalism" thing. You are, of course correct, sir.


Ummm, I'm sorry, but I have the money in the bank for an airfare to Taiwan and a .50 caliber in the closet. Since I am capable of doing this, i.e., it is within my means and Swimminpool says 'we have to help by any means necessary,' the implication that I'm morally obligated to shoot a factory foreman, while indirect, can logically follow from his statement. Is it implicit in his message? No. But, like I said, the statement taken at face value dictates the exact action I have described. If he wishes to endorse a new form of helping these people out, via a means other than the full extent of our aid, he should denote it properly.

While it is true that what you have said is a logical extention of Swimminpool's statement, I believe that it can be saftly assumed that (s)he was not implying that you should do that. Perhapse the lesson here is to chosse your words more carefully with Melkor around.


So far, I have found this exchange to be quite enjoyable, and above the usual attacks I see on the forum. Forgive me if I sometimes use such faulty logic and oversimplifications, I am used to that level of debate, and it is a bad habbit I am trying to break my self of. It came as a bit of surprise to be up against a knowledgeable debater.



"98% of the teenage population does or has tried pot, if you're one of the 2% that hasn't, MAN THE HELL UP AND TAKE A HIT"

Zarbia, I love the sig :)

YAY! Two flames in one day! Really, think before you speak. How much is a quarter worth in many of these countries? Its not much different than offering somebody minimum wage here in America. You are stuck thinking that a quarter is such a small amount. Perhaps we should give them nothing then? That is the only other option they have. Let's weigh the two for a moment. Would you rather a) survive but work for an asshole with a whip or b) go on strike, get replaced, and live off of the things you find in the nearby land-fill? If you are wise, you'd be happy with the quarter-a-day thay you're being offered. Otherwise, get out your swimming trunks, its time for the dumpster dive! Those against sweatshops are too ignorant to think about the value of a quarter. By the way, how can you possibly compare a sweatshop with the Holocaust? This isn't genocide, you moron. This is business. Hitler wasn't paying the Jews a nickle a day until they rebelled. He was killing them systematically. There is a HUGE difference...ass...

Zarbia wasn't flaming, but you were.

Thus, you have been WARNED! For flamebaiting.

Don't say things like "This isn't genocide, you moron." or "There is a HUGE difference...ass..." in the future if you want to avoid the nasty red text. Since it's a relatively minor offense and I'm lazy, I'm not going to open the Centre and issue an official warning on your account, but I will be keeping an eye on you.

That aside, I agree with you almost completely.

YAY! Two flames in one day! Really, think before you speak. How much is a quarter worth in many of these countries? Its not much different than offering somebody minimum wage here in America. You are stuck thinking that a quarter is such a small amount. Perhaps we should give them nothing then? That is the only other option they have. Let's weigh the two for a moment. Would you rather a) survive but work for an asshole with a whip or b) go on strike, get replaced, and live off of the things you find in the nearby land-fill? If you are wise, you'd be happy with the quarter-a-day thay you're being offered. Otherwise, get out your swimming trunks, its time for the dumpster dive! Those against sweatshops are too ignorant to think about the value of a quarter. By the way, how can you possibly compare a sweatshop with the Holocaust? This isn't genocide, you moron. This is business. Hitler wasn't paying the Jews a nickle a day until they rebelled. He was killing them systematically. There is a HUGE difference...ass...

Perhaps if you would pull your head out of your ass you would see that there is another option. Free these slaves and pay them the money that any other human being on the planet would receive. Your logic is so...stupid that it makes me want to vomit. It's almost as if you think slave labour is a huge step above the nothing you mentioned. They are slaves and nothing more.

To be honest I would rather die than work in a sweatshop my entire life.

I wasn't comparing sweatshops with the Holocaust, I was comparing the two statements. You think before you speak, you ignorant ass.

If you think slave labour is so great, you go fucking work in a sweatshop.

>SNIP<
Heh, thanks. Can't really say I can argue with too much of that. And yes, one should choose his words very carefully when I'm around!

And I love that sig too. Just polished off a half ounce yesterday.

Perhaps if you would pull your head out of your ass you would see that there is another option. Free these slaves and pay them the money that any other human being on the planet would receive. Your logic is so...stupid that it makes me want to vomit. It's almost as if you think slave labour is a huge step above the nothing you mentioned. They are slaves and nothing more.

To be honest I would rather die than work in a sweatshop my entire life.

I wasn't comparing sweatshops with the Holocaust, I was comparing the two statements. You think before you speak, you ignorant ass.

If you think slave labour is so great, you go fucking work in a sweatshop.

As I've done with Anatsu so too I am forced to do the same to you:
You're WARNED! For flaming. As with Anatsu, I'm not going to do the centre thing unless I see y'all do it again. Please stop now or I have to lock the thread.

YAY! Two flames in one day! Really, think before you speak. How much is a quarter worth in many of these countries? Its not much different than offering somebody minimum wage here in America. You are stuck thinking that a quarter is such a small amount. Perhaps we should give them nothing then? That is the only other option they have. Let's weigh the two for a moment. Would you rather a) survive but work for an asshole with a whip or b) go on strike, get replaced, and live off of the things you find in the nearby land-fill? If you are wise, you'd be happy with the quarter-a-day thay you're being offered. Otherwise, get out your swimming trunks, its time for the dumpster dive! Those against sweatshops are too ignorant to think about the value of a quarter. By the way, how can you possibly compare a sweatshop with the Holocaust? This isn't genocide, you moron. This is business. Hitler wasn't paying the Jews a nickle a day until they rebelled. He was killing them systematically. There is a HUGE difference...ass...

A quarter in their cuontry's standards. Many get payed the equivilent of making a quarter a day in America, not a quarter a day in China or where ever. You convert what they make, and it's practically nothing.

Sweatshops are wrong, just plain wrong. Please don't devalue the suffering of these people.

Except that sweatshop workers aren't experimented on, they are not political prisoners, and while their conditions are shit, they're still getting some kind of remuneration for their work. Is it worth it? No, probably not. Does that make them comparable to concentration camps? No. The main difference is you get to actually go home, and you get to actually buy things. Invoke the sweatshop parallell to a Holocaust survivor and I'm pretty certain you wouldn't get a favorable reaction.

Again, I wasn't comparing slave labour to the Holocaust. Read what I wrote. And if you refuse to do that then I will rephrase it so that it relates better. But seriously, it wasn't that hard to read and understand, jesus.

We should have left the blacks to figure out the slavery thing on their own. If they were mentally able they would be able to escape by themselves. Especially when they have a shotgun staring them in the face.


Er.... that's a contradiction. If they're not the same thing, then they're not the same thing. I agree with you on some sort of vague, ethereal level; genocide and slavery are both wrong, but the former is obviously far more deplorable. I don't see how one can possibly argue otherwise. Not convincingly, at least.

I'm not trying to compare either to eachother..

Sweet Mother of Christ, what is with you people and putting words in my goddamn mouth?! I didn't say it was "fine" that they're happy to have a quarter, I said just that they are happy to have a quarter; that doesn't justify what's more or less 'slave' labor, that doesn't validate the sweatshop nor does it do much to alleviate anyone's concerns about the situation.

But the fact of the matter is, for many of these people, it's the only income they can find. The reason for that varies from country to country.

Oh, ok. Then I'm sorry, just the way you said it made it appear that way.

If the only income one can find is working several hours in a factory for extremely low pay, then something is obviously wrong.

Heh, thanks. Can't really say I can argue with too much of that. And yes, one should choose his words very carefully when I'm around!

Isn't it wonderful when a debate leads to an understanding, rather then a flame war?

And I love that sig too. Just polished off a half ounce yesterday.

I lost about $80 worth of the orange stuff in my friend's car on the 4th (fireworks were amazing ^_~ ), and we can't find it :( She probably smoked it ::shakes fist::

If you aren't trying to invite a comparison, one would do well to select a different arrangement of words besides "I guess you could say the same for Holocaust victims."

That's a pretty strong invitation to comparison, methinks. From where I sit, you're simply backpedaling since your comparison has been rather throroughly dragged through the dirt.

EDIT: that being said, the implication you're making is that people cannot solve their own problems; you're painting man as in impotent beast who will slave away at the behest of others simply because he can find no recourse. Blacks did find their way out of slavery; many of them did in fact escape. Quite frankly, their emancipation was in fact more of an economic maneuver rather than a political one. If you think the Civil War was fought over slavery, you've got another thing coming.

Secondly, the Jews in the Holocaust were held in camps fo anywhere from a few weeks to a few years; the horrible things that happened to these people only lasted a handful of years [thank God], but that's not to say some other mode of escape or emancipation could not possibly be found. I agree with you in this instance that they shouldn't have had to resort to that, but you're really selling the human psyche short by declaring that it inevitably requires a greater force to solve it's problems; whether that greater force is God or White prophets makes no difference.

Today! We shall instigate the revolt and create a worker's paradise, comrade.

I'm down. ;)


Problem is, workers aren't even scared as much of losing their jobs as they are of getting kidnapped, tortured, or killed, or having the same happen to their families if they try to organize fellow workers.

Bringing "democracy" to these countries is NOT the answer. Half of the sweatshop countries are democracies anyways... including the US.

The only solution is to make it more economically viable to put human life above corporate profits, and I can't see that happening with the current G8/IMF/WTO/CAFTA situation.

Honest question: was an improvement actually brought about, or was the misery just exported?

interesting.
regardless, you need a supporting government in place to back you up before change can take place. And frankly, why would someone who relies heavily on that money earned at possibly the only job available to them to support and feed their family want to risk losing it by revolting? They may be very fortunate to have this job.
Put your effort and ideas towards encouraging the American companies and engineers into ensuring proper safety/health standards in the machinery and equipment and materials those people are using to make their products. The fact is, overseas production is not going to stop anytime soon. Designers and engineers are increasingly aware of the small changes they can make to the design system that can make the jobs of those on the assembly line a bit easier and safer. Lets encourage more of that.

even so, little girls in China will still be getting brain damage from painting toys for little American children to play with and forget about.

Painting in cramped, enclosed conditions, the paint fumes permiate the factory, causing brain damage and death

Read my post again.
Yes, you said you don't agree with taxes in which you don't get your fair share. Please tell us where you think you are being cheated, along with a rundown of your taxable income.

Wow... a steaming pile of feces escapes from your ignorant mouth. Your statements are quit obvious to anyone with a brain. Perhaps, though, you should think about this from the REAL WORLD perspective rather than a text book theory. People are lazy, ignorant, uncaring fucks. Most of the time they will not care to do any research on the product they are buying other than "How much does it cost and where can I buy it." Those that do, only find what others want them to. The select few that dig deep enough to uncover the horrific truth will most likely boycott. They don't make much of a dent on the income of the company, but its makes them feel good anyway. In your example of a pure capitalist economy, you rely too much on people. That is the major flaw in your little theory. Rather than playing "Sim City" and testing out your economic model, try appying it to a real-life economy. Not only would the poor get poorer and the rich get richer, it'll happen even faster than you know. Lets take a corprate giant notorious for this, McDonalds. Did you know that there has never been a union in McDonalds? DO you want to know why? They close down the store and fire all the staff at the mere hint of rebellion. That's one way to keep wages low. ANother lovely tactic is to hire a bunch of morons who don't know they're getting screwed over. Does this effect any of the millions of customers who eat at McDonalds each and every day? Of course not, otherwise MD would actually have to offer better wages. The truth is that in a purely capitalist economy there would be a plethora of ways to screw people over. Try to think a little for yourself next time rather than give a speech ripped from an economics professor.

Thanks for the compliments. Flaming tells me I've got something to talk about. Oh, and comparing me to an economics professor is quite a compliment.

The consumer may be ignorant, but all a business cares about is that they buy things from the company....is that not true? They would rather have cheap products, and companies will oblige. In a developed, pure capitalist economy there is no labor cost disparity to allow sweatshop labor, and so prices are regulated by consumer demand; in fact, in the US's modified capitalist economy the GM discounts prove that competitive pricing rules all. They sell more the cheaper prices are.

People are always needed to run the economy, because someone has to run the machines, program the computers, and transport the goods that automatons make. The poor only became poor because the economic model either wasn't pure capitalism, there was a preexisitng economic gap due to trends dating back far into the past, or because there was too much supply for the available work. As long as there is an economy, labor supply will dominate the fluctuation of wages. Look at the late 90's; computer programmers were earning ridiculously high salaries for basic work because there was so much demand and comparatively little supply.

I'm happy McDonald's doesn't unionize. I don't want expensive food, nor do I want burger flippers earning 10 dollars an hour to do menial work that 16 year olds could do. They don't deserve it, because most of them squandered their opportunity when they were younger and are getting their reward for lack of effort. Not to mention it would hurt my portfolio quite severely and result in the loss of higher paying jobs in the company.

Yes, you said you don't agree with taxes in which you don't get your fair share. Please tell us where you think you are being cheated, along with a rundown of your taxable income.
Thank you. But in your previous post, you say something about how you'd "like to see [me] get by without roads..." policemen, etc.

In those situations, the payers are receiving a benefit merely because it provides them a service that they use or may have use for every day. The road system works under our system because the people that pay for it are the people who use it; funds for roads if I'm remembering correctly, come primarily from tickets and license fees and assorted other fees and service costs collected by the local DOT or DMV agencies. The Postal service works because the people that pay for it are the people who use it.

I don't generally share the details of my taxable income to complete strangers on the internet, but suffice to say after evaluating all the results [as far as I know them] of the money I am losing, I'm hardly satisfied.

If I were to wave a magic wand right now and put the stolen tax revenue [for services I've never used, refuse to use, and/or cannot support for moral reasons, leaving aside nominal tithes for things like roads, possibly a delivery service, and law enforcement/disaster control agencies] back into my check, I'd have enough money to get out of this dead end job and go to school. Are you going to tell me that 5 people eating with old silverware instead of their fingers is a more sizeable contribution to society than me getting the eductation I need to do my own thing, which will probably amount to something more than not being able to find a job?

so you think taxes should be direct, toll fees pay for roads, those with kids in school support the schools, instead of all money taken goes to a general pot that is then spent as the gov sees fit?

When will today's sweatshop workers stand up for their rights? Will they ever?

When the boot of first world countries is removed from their necks.

so you think taxes should be direct, toll fees pay for roads, those with kids in school support the schools, instead of all money taken goes to a general pot that is then spent as the gov sees fit?
In most cases, yes, but it's all contextual. I'm willing to pay to support the police, despite my disagreements with them concerning what I choose to ingest, and despite the fact that I don't get robbed every day.

Proponents of welfare and other government aid programs will generally retort that you don't go broke every day either, but it's still something we all should be thinking about. However, the flaw in this argument is that it argues that productivity presupposes affluence. It's also a different thing to pay for someone else's life than it is to merely safeguard your own; the two principles aren't compatible, so the comparison would be erroneous.

Charity certainly has it's place, but it should not be a forced virtue. It would be like if a cop led you to the Salvation Army tin at gunpoint; it's moral cannibalism.

Capitalism, realying on the concept of 'trade' as a central tenet of its philosophy, cannot remain consistent if the concept of trade is not applied to wages for labor. This is an oversimplification and you [should] know it.
In the long term, that of course makes sense. But you are assuming that every employer around actually would go for higher wages to get the long term profit rather than cut wages and go for the short term profits.

If just one single factory owner could pay his workers half, he would immediately have an advantage over other factory owners. So he would make more money, expand and buy the others up.

The others can only stand against that by also cutting their wages. And once they are cut, it is not likely that any of the "capitalists" would raise them again. He'd go out of business in no time.

Now, you could say "But if the one owner cuts wages, then the workers would leave for another job!". In a perfect world that might be possible, but in fact every factory would already be working at close to full capacity. Other employers could not just quickly employ more people. Even moreso as it would require additional investments in capital, which might not be possible.

If that wasn't the case, there would be absolutely no natural rate of unemployment (which even die-hard capitalists acknowledge), as any worker would immediately be snatched up by a new employer.

Thank you. But in your previous post, you say something about how you'd "like to see [me] get by without roads..." policemen, etc.

In those situations, the payers are receiving a benefit merely because it provides them a service that they use or may have use for every day. The road system works under our system because the people that pay for it are the people who use it; funds for roads if I'm remembering correctly, come primarily from tickets and license fees and assorted other fees and service costs collected by the local DOT or DMV agencies. The Postal service works because the people that pay for it are the people who use it.

I don't generally share the details of my taxable income to complete strangers on the internet, but suffice to say after evaluating all the results [as far as I know them] of the money I am losing, I'm hardly satisfied.

If I were to wave a magic wand right now and put the stolen tax revenue [for services I've never used, refuse to use, and/or cannot support for moral reasons, leaving aside nominal tithes for things like roads, possibly a delivery service, and law enforcement/disaster control agencies] back into my check, I'd have enough money to get out of this dead end job and go to school. Are you going to tell me that 5 people eating with old silverware instead of their fingers is a more sizeable contribution to society than me getting the eductation I need to do my own thing, which will probably amount to something more than not being able to find a job?
Again, I stress, what stolen revenue? What are you talking about? Five people eating with old silverware could be a jab at any number of things. Most of our money goes into the military (over 50 cents on the dollar). Are you saying that is the waste?

Oh, and the USPS gets a fair bit of a subsidy from the US government, as does the highway system (the big stick the US government has over the states).

In the long term, that of course makes sense. But you are assuming that every employer around actually would go for higher wages to get the long term profit rather than cut wages and go for the short term profits.

If just one single factory owner could pay his workers half, he would immediately have an advantage over other factory owners. So he would make more money, expand and buy the others up.
That depends on too many variables, like what other kinds of jobs there are in the area, what they're paying, and just why exactly the workers would stick around after a cut like that. A lot of it depends on the culture of the country in question; this may be true in some places and not in others. Most of the political arguments I make deal only with the US, since cultural standarads are different in different places.

That said, this kind of shit wouldn't fly in the US, and not just because of it's laws.

The others can only stand against that by also cutting their wages. And once they are cut, it is not likely that any of the "capitalists" would raise them again. He'd go out of business in no time.

Now, you could say "But if the one owner cuts wages, then the workers would leave for another job!". In a perfect world that might be possible, but in fact every factory would already be working at close to full capacity. Other employers could not just quickly employ more people. Even moreso as it would require additional investments in capital, which might not be possible.

If that wasn't the case, there would be absolutely no natural rate of unemployment (which even die-hard capitalists acknowledge), as any worker would immediately be snatched up by a new employer.
A marginal unemployment rate has become, unfortunately, a fact of life. As our population and its demands grow, more and more often we'll find a percentage of people with no skills or no real ability to find or keep a job, but that fact alone doesn't justify forcing me to pay for them.

Unfortunately, if you go too far with regulation, the same thing ends up happening only on the other side of the spectrum; businesses end up having to pay such a high wage that they start outsourcing and specializing their jobs back home so that only people who have been going to college for 8 years can afford them. As a result, you have wages, tuitions, and taxes rising at the same time, though the latter two unfortuantely sometimes faster than the first.

That said, I suck at economics. I'm still trying to wrap my head around some of it; it's one of my shakier subjects.

Again, I stress, what stolen revenue? What are you talking about? Five people eating with old silverware could be a jab at any number of things. Most of our money goes into the military (over 50 cents on the dollar). Are you saying that is the waste?
Given what we're doing with said military, you're damn right it's a waste. We're sticking our head in another hornet's nest that's just gonna get us stung in the eye a lot more than we already have been.

It wouldn't be a waste if that military kept to itself and worried more about keeping the country safe than who controls $LAND in the Middle East.

Given what we're doing with said military, you're damn right it's a waste. We're sticking our head in another hornet's nest that's just gonna get us stung in the eye a lot more than we already have been.

It wouldn't be a waste if that military kept to itself and worried more about keeping the country safe than who controls $LAND in the Middle East.
Fair, you could cut a bit out of the military, though not too much (about half of the military's budget goes to paying medical costs of vets, etc), so what besides the military do you advocate cutting?

That said, this kind of shit wouldn't fly in the US, and not just because of it's laws.
Why not?

I would say that wage laws could be seen as a measure to protect business from itself.
Almost by definition competition makes it impossible for anyone to forsake short-term advantages for long-term gains. So if we all know that everyone would be better off if wages are above a certain level, but we all know also that businesses would never pay at that level, wouldn't it be a good idea to introduce wage laws no matter what the philosophy?

I would say that wage laws could be seen as a measure to protect business from itself.
Almost by definition competition makes it impossible for anyone to forsake short-term advantages for long-term gains. So if we all know that everyone would be better off if wages are above a certain level, but we all know also that businesses would never pay at that level, wouldn't it be a good idea to introduce wage laws no matter what the philosophy?

Higher wages have a very appreciable long term gain: They keep the best and most productive people working for you and to your benefit. Companies compete for skilled workers as much as they do for market share.

Well, the level of pay should always be up to the company that is hiring. As long as they have to compete for skilled workers, labor costs will be higher (to the workers' benefit). A person deserves pay equal to the value of the work they do. Wage laws are good in some cases (minimum wage), but for others they are unfair because it forces companies to pay people the same amount regardless of their quality of work. Competition is the best means for keeping wages high.

Fair, you could cut a bit out of the military, though not too much (about half of the military's budget goes to paying medical costs of vets, etc), so what besides the military do you advocate cutting?
Just about all of it. Welfare, Social Security, the more ridiculous labor restrictions, the Drug War, Corporate Welfare, and so on.

Why not?

I would say that wage laws could be seen as a measure to protect business from itself.
Almost by definition competition makes it impossible for anyone to forsake short-term advantages for long-term gains. So if we all know that everyone would be better off if wages are above a certain level, but we all know also that businesses would never pay at that level, wouldn't it be a good idea to introduce wage laws no matter what the philosophy?
Why not? Because we're too proud of ourselves, we're too selfish [thank God] to allow ourselves to be compromised by shitty conditions. Unless we elect incompetent assholes who force them on us, which may be in the process of happening as we speak.

And yeah, wage laws make sense, but the minimum wage is higher than it has to be because of the tax rate; and that's why we're seeing a lot of companies outsource--more jobs are going overseas. If you want to end sweatshop labor, the real answer is to cut taxes back home and allow for some breathing room in the wage department. The corner most people fail to think around when they talk about minimum wage is that the government is essentially forcing a revenue increase on itself: people get angry when congressmen vote pay raises for themselves yet don't bat an eyelash when our politicians play games like this.

Higher wages have a very appreciable long term gain: They keep the best and most productive people working for you and to your benefit.
Agreed.

Companies compete for skilled workers as much as they do for market share.
Well, almost but agreed.

Well, the level of pay should always be up to the company that is hiring. As long as they have to compete for skilled workers, labor costs will be higher (to the workers' benefit).
We're not talking about skilled workers though. Whether it is sweat shop labour now or in the 19th century, we're talking about workers that are essentially homogenous and easily replacable.
Nonetheless, those workers are consumers too, and it would be in the Capitalist's best interest to provide them with enough money to buy stuff. In the long term.
I'm not advocating wage laws and minimum wages for skilled, educated labour.

A person deserves pay equal to the value of the work they do. Wage laws are good in some cases (minimum wage), but for others they are unfair because it forces companies to pay people the same amount regardless of their quality of work.
Well I agree with you, but that is a somewhat moralistic standpoint, and difficult to argue for if confronted with someone of different values.

Competition is the best means for keeping wages high.
That is where I disagree. In the long term? Maybe. In the short term? No, not for unskilled workers.

Why not? Because we're too proud of ourselves, we're too selfish [thank God] to allow ourselves to be compromised by shitty conditions. Unless we elect incompetent assholes who force them on us, which may be in the process of happening as we speak.
Proud enough to starve rather than work in bad conditions?

Are the people in the 3rd world not proud?

Just about all of it. Welfare, Social Security, the more ridiculous labor restrictions, the Drug War, Corporate Welfare, and so on.

Social security is a highly regressive tax, agreed, but it should be kept optional, government secured retirement is rather difficult to beat in times when banks/funds are prone to defaulting. Low returns, but low risk. Welfare...well, everyone falls down on their luck sometime, and on the average the system is not abused, and it does help to keep people going until they find another job. Better we paying them then to start another cycle of crime.

Which are the more ridiculous ones? Are you in favor of destroying the USDA and OSHA?

Why not? Because we're too proud of ourselves, we're too selfish [thank God] to allow ourselves to be compromised by shitty conditions. Unless we elect incompetent assholes who force them on us, which may be in the process of happening as we speak.

And yeah, wage laws make sense, but the minimum wage is higher than it has to be because of the tax rate; and that's why we're seeing a lot of companies outsource--more jobs are going overseas. If you want to end sweatshop labor, the real answer is to cut taxes back home and allow for some breathing room in the wage department. The corner most people fail to think around when they talk about minimum wage is that the government is essentially forcing a revenue increase on itself: people get angry when congressmen vote pay raises for themselves yet don't bat an eyelash when our politicians play games like this.
Outsourcing is, on average, a myth. We get more jobs and dollars through insourcing then we lose through outsourcing. The jobs we gain are the high-value ones, on the whole (as how IBM/Lenavo have their management over here) while the low-value jobs go overseas, as they can't afford to pay for unskilled labor. Yes, unskilled labor gets the stick, but that's why we have schemes with which to train them with.

Oh, and how do you feel about public education?

We're not talking about skilled workers though. Whether it is sweat shop labour now or in the 19th century, we're talking about workers that are essentially homogenous and easily replacable.
Nonetheless, those workers are consumers too, and it would be in the Capitalist's best interest to provide them with enough money to buy stuff. In the long term.
I'm not advocating wage laws and minimum wages for skilled, educated labour.

Well, then I agree with you, although I feel the minimum wage should be as low as possible while still offering the workers the opportunity to support their families, and should be chained to inflation.

The problem of sweatshop labor exists primarily due to the anticompetitive policies of the late 19th century. Much of the Third World was denied the opportunity to develop local industry because their colonial rulers limited and suppressed internal competition with the industries of the mother country; the end result being poverty and dependence on foreigners despite their natural resources. To solve the sweatshop problem, we need to create sustainable economic growth in these regions while at the same time giving workers the opportunity to fight abuses. I'd support temporary and limited unionization in these countries, albeit only to fight real abuses (not like the manufacturing killing US monoliths)


Well I agree with you, but that is a somewhat moralistic standpoint, and difficult to argue for if confronted with someone of different values.

That is an example more suited for a developed economy rather than the ones where sweatshop abuses occur, so it's not really applicable now that I reread it.

That is where I disagree. In the long term? Maybe. In the short term? No, not for unskilled workers.

When combined with a reasonable minimum wage and health economic growth, compeition will gradually become the best method. Immediately it is not; it requires a well developed economy to work.

The easiest way to stop outsourcing is to make it affordable. Give companies a tax deduction equal to 1.25 times the payroll costs they incur by hiring in the US and we'd see a turnaround. That 25% helps offset the percent return on offshoring that is common in the Third World.

To solve the sweatshop problem, we need to create sustainable economic growth in these regions while at the same time giving workers the opportunity to fight abuses. I'd support temporary and limited unionization in these countries, albeit only to fight real abuses (not like the manufacturing killing US monoliths)
Actually, I never really understood why conservatives/right-wingers/other capitalists have such a problem with unions. Here in Australia our PM is now (thanks to ridiculous stupidity on behalf of the Australian people) a dictator for the next three years and is using it to end his personal vendetta with the unions...
The worst thing about unions in my opinion is that not everyone is in one. The best thing is that they can balance the imbalance of power (a distortion of the market) between employer and employee.
Anyways, I know a little bit about economic growth theory, and one could say that unions and worker's rights movements would be part of social infrastructure.

When combined with a reasonable minimum wage and health economic growth, compeition will gradually become the best method. Immediately it is not; it requires a well developed economy to work.
So you accept that capitalism only works if it exists in a certain framework of laws and guidelines.

The easiest way to stop outsourcing is to make it affordable.
My views on outsourcing are rather more like CSW's. Everyone benefits from it in the long term, and no matter how much protectionism you throw at it, the fact of the matter remains.
As Standard of Living rises, unskilled labour from your country becomes less competitive. So what do you suggest? Throw money at it to make them more competitive.
I however say: Let them have the jobs they are obviously "better" at doing. Instead make tertiary education as cheap as possible, and raise the skill level of your population. Concentrate on Finance, R&D and Service provision for your economy, and drop manufacturing and agriculture by the wayside.
That is what Globalisation is all about. If there is one global market, you are not going to be able to do everything. Specialise!

If you aren't trying to invite a comparison, one would do well to select a different arrangement of words besides "I guess you could say the same for Holocaust victims."

That's a pretty strong invitation to comparison, methinks. From where I sit, you're simply backpedaling since your comparison has been rather throroughly dragged through the dirt.

Alright, perhaps it wasn't the best comparison, fine. It still compares two groups of people in helpless positions.

EDIT: that being said, the implication you're making is that people cannot solve their own problems; you're painting man as in impotent beast who will slave away at the behest of others simply because he can find no recourse.

When the hell did I say this? Don't you put words in my mouth.

Blacks did find their way out of slavery; many of them did in fact escape. Quite frankly, their emancipation was in fact more of an economic maneuver rather than a political one. If you think the Civil War was fought over slavery, you've got another thing coming.

They had a lot of help though. Do you think without any help they would made it? Or at least as many of them? Also I never said anything about the Civil War.

Secondly, the Jews in the Holocaust were held in camps fo anywhere from a few weeks to a few years; the horrible things that happened to these people only lasted a handful of years [thank God], but that's not to say some other mode of escape or emancipation could not possibly be found. I agree with you in this instance that they shouldn't have had to resort to that, but you're really selling the human psyche short by declaring that it inevitably requires a greater force to solve it's problems; whether that greater force is God or White prophets makes no difference.

Again, no. When did I say that?

Actually, I never really understood why conservatives/right-wingers/other capitalists have such a problem with unions. Here in Australia our PM is now (thanks to ridiculous stupidity on behalf of the Australian people) a dictator for the next three years and is using it to end his personal vendetta with the unions...
The worst thing about unions in my opinion is that not everyone is in one. The best thing is that they can balance the imbalance of power (a distortion of the market) between employer and employee.
Anyways, I know a little bit about economic growth theory, and one could say that unions and worker's rights movements would be part of social infrastructure.

Free market capitalists by nature should have no opposition towards unions as long as they do not use strong arm tactics to force other workers in the industry to join. To oppose workers ability to unionize imposes a large restriction on the ability of the workforce to fight for fair wages.

So you accept that capitalism only works if it exists in a certain framework of laws and guidelines.

Capitalism begins to regulate itself as the economy grows and develops.

>snip<
Zarbia, I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm explaining the philosophical implications of the statements you're making. If I'm mistaken feel free to correct me, but it seems like you're saying major moral injustices must be solved by third parties. While this is true some of the time, and is necessary in a self-regulatory sense, it becomes untenable when you try to solve problems for another nation. Human history is filled with examples of bad things happening, but these problems have a way of resolving themselves. Yes, slavery will probably exist in some incarnation in corners of the world, spawned by the ignorance and irrationality of men.

My case for the situation consists mainly of not making me a part of this, and while you're free to flush your money down the enormous toilet that is the Humanitarian cause, you cannot possibly justify forcing me to do the same.

Zarbia, I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm explaining the philosophical implications of the statements you're making. If I'm mistaken feel free to correct me, but it seems like you're saying major moral injustices must be solved by third parties.
I don't believe anyone claims that in all cases. Rather, they believe that it's a moral imperative to intervene when a dispute can't be resolved on its own without unnacceptable loss of human life.

While this is true some of the time, and is necessary in a self-regulatory sense, it becomes untenable when you try to solve problems for another nation. Human history is filled with examples of bad things happening, but these problems have a way of resolving themselves.
I disagree historically. The Holocaust didn't work itself out. Rwanda didn't really work itself out. Kosovo didn't work itself out. These events weren't going to stop until all of the prospective victims were dead or outside intervention stopped them. Most often, what you refer to as "resolving themselves" involves a third party turning itself into a direct participant.

Yes, slavery will probably exist in some incarnation in corners of the world, spawned by the ignorance and irrationality of men.
I thought one of the tenets of Objectivism was that people are inherently rational beings.

My case for the situation consists mainly of not making me a part of this, and while you're free to flush your money down the enormous toilet that is the Humanitarian cause, you cannot possibly justify forcing me to do the same.
Of course you can justify it. You can justify almost anything. Whether you agree with that justification is a different matter.

I don't concider those the worst aspects, some of them are just mis-used in this country.



Oops. Somewhere between reading yours and composing mine I forgot about the "worst aspects" bit. I don't actually oppose food stamps and such. I'd say we've got the bad aspects of socialism in the fact that government run businesses and utilities tend to be grotesquely inefficient and bloated making them unresponsive to public demand. The E train through Queens in NYC (http://www.nycsubway.org/maps/route/) for example.

It routinely goes local from Lexington to Roosevelt ave. where no one gets off, but then goes express from Roosevelt to 71st, which skips three shopping malls and the majority of the major north/south bus routes connecting subways to uptown manhattan with SE Queens. Meaning that thousands of straphangers are inconvenienced everyday when it would be much more efficient to go express from Lexington to Roosevelt and Express from Roosevelt to 71st, forcing fewer people to transfer and saving money on the under-used stations.

I'd say we've got the bad aspects of socialism in the fact that government run businesses [are] unresponsive to public demand.
Isn't that the point?

Again, I'd have to disagree. In a purely capitalist economy, the police would still exist. They are a measure of law and order, not making sure that a rich guy is able to keep paying poor people a low wage. A purely capitalist economy is one where there is a free exchange of goods, one without laws/regulations to bar/hinder the exchange. The police have nothing to do with this.

A purely capitalist economy is one in which all services and products are provided by private entrepeneurs. Security is a service. Under most countries, it is a service provided by the government. That is a small measure of socialism.

What you are talking about is a riot. Economics has nothing to do with riots and everything to do with the law.

Jeez, learn your history dude. Most the riots in history have had to do with economics. Plenty of riots during the unionization movement were the direct result of strikers being forced back to work by the employers thugs. Your "law, not economics" distinction is a false one. All of economics and law ultimatly boils down to politics.

In a pure capitalist state, there would be nothing to stop the rich guy from offering low wages unless EVERYONE decided to stop working for him. As you SHOULD know, it's damn-near impossible to convince everyone not to work.

That's what we call a union. They work better when it's obvious that people are being ripped off, but there's an awful lot of anti union propaganda (http://www.ksworkbeat.org/Issues/Walmart_s_Opinon_of_Union_Memb/walmart_s_opinon_of_union_memb.html) these days. But the fact that this propaganda is making a resurgence tells me that people are starting to realize that they're being ripped off, and companies are getting nervous.

Hell, even if people stopped working I doubt the rich guy would care. He's got enough money to live off of, let the little people suffer.

He'll care when the truck drivers who deliver the things he wants to buy go on strike. Or the telecommunications engineers who let him wire funds. You can't eat money.

Your ignorance is amazing. I salute you.
Is this another example of conservative projection? Sure sounds like it.

YAY! Two flames in one day! Really, think before you speak. How much is a quarter worth in many of these countries? Its not much different than offering somebody minimum wage here in America. You are stuck thinking that a quarter is such a small amount. Perhaps we should give them nothing then? That is the only other option they have. Let's weigh the two for a moment. Would you rather a) survive but work for an asshole with a whip or b) go on strike, get replaced, and live off of the things you find in the nearby land-fill? Snip repetative and pointless flaming

I'm primarily interested in the bit about the pitance that they're being paid being better than them not having the job at all. Jim Keady, a soccer coach at St. John's university, told the university that they could not, in good conscience do business with Nike because of their sweatshop practices. They told him "they're lucky to get that dollar a day." So he went and tried living there for a dollar a day. Long story short, they're not lucky.

If Nike never went there, those people would have been able to subsist satisfactorily on farming (potatos and grain), then gradually transition to cash crop farming (coffee, and sugar cane), and eventually a labor economy.

Instead, following the US's overseas fascism policy, Nike bribes a corrupt dictatorship into throwing those people off their farms to make a factory, and then doesn't pay the people enough to buy the food they used to farm. Then it pollutes the rivers so that they have to buy bottled water. And if you think we're innocent in this, America has a history of going in and invading countries that overthrow these dictatorships to go back to farming.

well, I'm glad that this has stayed civil. Good night everyone, I shall return ere long

I don't believe anyone claims that in all cases. Rather, they believe that it's a moral imperative to intervene when a dispute can't be resolved on its own without unnacceptable loss of human life.
Well, when people take power and kill lots of folks they tend to make themselves a security risk in the process anyway so... sure, I'll bite. Agreed.

I disagree historically. The Holocaust didn't work itself out. Rwanda didn't really work itself out. Kosovo didn't work itself out. These events weren't going to stop until all of the prospective victims were dead or outside intervention stopped them. Most often, what you refer to as "resolving themselves" involves a third party turning itself into a direct participant.
Heh yeah, I did think twice about posting that, it is a crock of shit. Given the strength of the opposition [until you showed up :p] I thought I'd get away with it.

I thought one of the tenets of Objectivism was that people are inherently rational beings.
Not exactly no; we have the ability to be so, but this belief would amount to intrinsicism, which I most certainly don't endorse.

Of course you can justify it. You can justify almost anything. Whether you agree with that justification is a different matter.
Not rationally, you can't.

Well, it's difficult for sweatshop workers around the world because they don't have functioning, or even semi-functioning systems of democracy. The U.S. and Britain did, which is one of the reasons why they were so successful.
With that said, however, sweatshop workers around the world are mobilizing. Their mobilizing in and of itself, however, won't make a difference. Most of the third world does have minimum wage laws, however their governments are so corrupt that the laws aren't enforced. And, yes, while their cost of living is significantly lower than the cost of living here, for the most part they aren't making enough to live on. Many sweatshop workers work 12 or more hours a day and still have to borrow money to live.
However, the anti-sweatshop movement still wields a certain amount of power. Take Kathie Lee Gifford, for example. When it was revealed that her clothing line was made in sweatshops, the line immediately folded.
www.nlcnet.org has more info on this and other sweatshops, and other tactics as well.

As far as minimum wage laws here go, the minimum wage isn't high enough. A poster mentioned that s/he felt that the minimum wage should be lowered, but only to the point that someone can support their family. Unfortunately, however, minimum wages are significantly lower than the living wage (the wage that someone would have to make to support themselves and their families) so therefore the minimum wage would have to be raised, not lowered, for the person making minimum wage to support their families.

I am also puzzled at how the assertion can be made that there being more jobs without minimum wage laws is a good thing. Two people making significantly less than they need to live (remember the cost of living) is not an improvement over one person making more, as the other person could simply go on welfare.

As far as welfare goes, Melkor mentioned that he didn't feel that the safety net provided for him via welfare was worth paying for the safety net provided to others. And he has a right to that opinion. But I will compare it to the police force. The safety net provided by the police force is there for everyone. Personally, I couldn't give a damn whether or not some rich person had their stuff stolen. However, the only way to prevent myself from having a crime committed against me is to also prevent crimes from being committed against rich people. Therefore, I support the idea of a police force. The same applies to welfare: the only way to provide yourself with that safety net is also for it to be provided for other people.

I notice that the sweatshops in the world today are similar to those that existed in the West in the late 19th century. Then the workers here discovered labour rights and socialism and improvement was brought about by political process.

When will today's sweatshop workers stand up for their rights? Will they ever?

I hope never, because if they do then my country is out of business.

I would hope you'd be more concerned about human suffering.

Melkor is, of course, right in saying that no one can force someone else to care, or should think they have the moral right to. That being said, the author of this topic was not, in fact, trying to do that, they were simply lamenting a deplorable situation.

As far as welfare goes, Melkor mentioned that he didn't feel that the safety net provided for him via welfare was worth paying for the safety net provided to others. And he has a right to that opinion. But I will compare it to the police force. The safety net provided by the police force is there for everyone. Personally, I couldn't give a damn whether or not some rich person had their stuff stolen. However, the only way to prevent myself from having a crime committed against me is to also prevent crimes from being committed against rich people. Therefore, I support the idea of a police force. The same applies to welfare: the only way to provide yourself with that safety net is also for it to be provided for other people.
Um, if you'd have cared to actually pay attention to my argument, I already put the police force/welfare comparison to bed:

... I'm willing to pay to support the police, despite my disagreements with them concerning what I choose to ingest, and despite the fact that I don't get robbed every day.

Proponents of welfare and other government aid programs will generally retort that you don't go broke every day either, but it's still something we all should be thinking about. However, the flaw in this argument is that it argues that productivity presupposes affluence. It's also a different thing to pay for someone else's life than it is to merely safeguard your own; the two principles aren't compatible, so the comparison would be erroneous.

Charity certainly has it's place, but it should not be a forced virtue. It would be like if a cop led you to the Salvation Army tin at gunpoint; it's moral cannibalism.
Basically what I'm getting at here is that the police safeguard lives, the Welfare State directs them. Besides, funding for local police is generally a State Income Tax situation, except in places like Tennessee and one of those New England states I keep forgetting. Police are a legitimate function of government because they prevent [or, at least, they're ostensibly charged with preventing] the use of force on other individuals.

Welfare, on the other hand, says 'Pay for this bum's lunch or we'll audit you.' It's a pity you can't see the difference between the two; as the comparison you drew speaks volumes to that effect. A police force as a concept speaks to reason; it says 'Don't hurt others or we'll hurt you back,' Welfare appeals to emotionalism; it says 'Give this man some money because it's the right thing to do.'

Emotions, not being a viable method for acheiving knowledge of reality, should not be legislated.

A police force as a concept speaks to reason; it says 'Don't hurt others or we'll hurt you back,' Welfare appeals to emotionalism; it says 'Give this man some money because it's the right thing to do.'
I regard it as "Give this man some money or you'll get hurt". In societies without welfare, such as America c.1900, robbery and assault are rampant.

I regard it as "Give this man some money or you'll get hurt". In societies without welfare, such as America c.1900, robbery and assault are rampant.
Robbery and assault ar rampant anyway, they are products of vice and folly, not of poverty. One can be poor and moral, but one cannot be moral and forceful. I actually just posted a big thing on the use of force in another thread at http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9274124&postcount=19

The statement you make here if anything proves my point; it proves that irrational people will use force to get what they want, which is the antithesis of any rational mind. Do you see me at the Welfare office with a gun demanding my money back? No. But I am trying to deploy my reasons in the hopes that maybe--just maybe--next generation's electorate might have more clarity on the issue. Welfare circumvents this line of thought and demands that I pay my cut. Morally, this is unacceptable.

Robbery and assault are rampant anyway, they are products of vice and folly, not of poverty.
Robbery and assault were even more rampant before the age of the welfare state. The idea that societal conditions have no effect on crime rates is a load of individualist theoretical waffle without grounding in reality. It's the places like Brazil and South Africa, with the greatest gaps between rich and poor that have the highest crime rates. The more egalitarian countries like Sweden and Norway have relatively little crime.

I hope never, because if they do then my country is out of business.
:confused:
huh? what country?

Actually, I never really understood why conservatives/right-wingers/other capitalists have such a problem with unions. Here in Australia our PM is now (thanks to ridiculous stupidity on behalf of the Australian people) a dictator for the next three years and is using it to end his personal vendetta with the unions...
The worst thing about unions in my opinion is that not everyone is in one. The best thing is that they can balance the imbalance of power (a distortion of the market) between employer and employee.
Anyways, I know a little bit about economic growth theory, and one could say that unions and worker's rights movements would be part of social infrastructure.

They are, so long as they remain fair. The unions today are very politicized and do not fight for the benefits of their workers; many jobs have been lost because of extremely heavy benefit costs. GM is barely profitable because of its healthcare costs; eliminaing these would reduce prices, increase demand, and so lead to more hiring to cover the demand. If unions moved back to their roots, where the workers bargained rather than union leaders and could make decisions, then they would help much more than hurt.


So you accept that capitalism only works if it exists in a certain framework of laws and guidelines.

Yes, but only those absolutely necessary to ensure competition and avert abuses. It is impossible to be 100% laissez faire in the real world, just like any system translated from theory to reality.


My views on outsourcing are rather more like CSW's. Everyone benefits from it in the long term, and no matter how much protectionism you throw at it, the fact of the matter remains.

Outsourcing makes products cheaper and increases demand, which in turn leads to more hiring in the home country at higher levels to manage it. Generally, the jobs created from outsourcing are better than those lost.

As Standard of Living rises, unskilled labour from your country becomes less competitive. So what do you suggest? Throw money at it to make them more competitive.
I however say: Let them have the jobs they are obviously "better" at doing. Instead make tertiary education as cheap as possible, and raise the skill level of your population. Concentrate on Finance, R&D and Service provision for your economy, and drop manufacturing and agriculture by the wayside.
That is what Globalisation is all about. If there is one global market, you are not going to be able to do everything. Specialise![/QUOTE]

Exactly. I agree 100%. Manufacturing is going the way of agriculture; it's being surpassed by technological services that are eliminating these positions. The jobs created are better than manufacturing and are better specialized to the global economy; the world of the 1950's is gone and no longer is the US unrivaled; we have to change to fit the times.

GM is barely profitable because of its healthcare costs; eliminaing these would reduce prices, increase demand, and so lead to more hiring to cover the demand.
Is that really the reason? Or is it just unfortunate managers not coming up with the proper strategies to deal with the change in market environment?
Some other car companies (BMW and Porsche come to mind) manage very well without firing workers or cutting their benefits.

Is that really the reason? Or is it just unfortunate managers not coming up with the proper strategies to deal with the change in market environment?
Some other car companies (BMW and Porsche come to mind) manage very well without firing workers or cutting their benefits.

Well, GM pays 5.8 billion a year on healthcare, and revenues are 45,773,000,000; healthcare is 12% of their budget, and each car has healthcare costs built in to it that are greater than the steel costs to make the car. Next year this will rise to 7.8 billion.

These costs build up over time, and in addition to the high cost of paying the workers on the factor floor seriously hurt their bottom line; GM's primary responsibility is to make a proft and if they don't, they will go out of business.

What I don't understand is why these workers deserve healthcare benefits far more extensive than other workers; if I was managing GM I'd offshore the manufacturing and lower prices, which increases demand for cars which in turn increases demand for the industries that supply it and would help the economy much more than it hurts. We can't sacrifice good jobs for these lower level positions.

The situation isn't looking good for BMW either. Their healthcare is going to be 400% greater than it was in 1994 by next year. Porsche isn't as burdened because it's stock is trading at $670 a share and isn't publically traded.

They should have to get their healthcare like everyone else who isn't unionized, or at least reduce the company's share of it.

Porsche isn't as burdened because it's stock is trading at $670 a share and isn't publically traded.
No idea really. Here is a link, but I have no idea whether I could buy one if I wanted to...but it is clear that it is not yet on the top-30 DAX, although there are plans to include them.
http://boersen.manager-magazin.de/mmo/kurse_einzelkurs_uebersicht.htm?u=0&p=0&k=0&s=693773&n=Porsche%20Vz.&l=276

But what is the reason their stock is so high? Good decisions, good products, good sales.
And that is primarily what GM has been lacking over the past years. BMW may have rising health care costs, but that doesn't stop them at all from hiring more people, in Germany, where labour costs are still notoriously high. They too are making good money, the develop sound strategies and new products and are set for the future.
GM just isn't. Health Care shouldn't really be an issue, they should be able to pay for that if they were doing well. In Germany it is now common for companies to fire hundreds and sometimes thousands to lower costs - but their problems don't get any better.

Robbery and assault were even more rampant before the age of the welfare state. The idea that societal conditions have no effect on crime rates is a load of individualist theoretical waffle without grounding in reality. It's the places like Brazil and South Africa, with the greatest gaps between rich and poor that have the highest crime rates. The more egalitarian countries like Sweden and Norway have relatively little crime.
Of course, none of this justifies Welfare as far as I'm concerned. How about this: Give me my money back, and I'll defend myself from crime?

Furthermore, it's a bit of a stretch to claim that the differences in crime are the product of welfare alone; it seems slightly more possible to me that those are primarily cultural differences. Scandinavians don't think like Latin Americans; hell, Scandinavians don't think like most other people, which is probably why socialism works so well up there.

Welfare as a concept is amusing to me because it amounts to the theory that we can stop robbery and assault by robbing my wallet and assaulting my bank account. People are stealing?! Let's give them free money!

Also, be very careful about what you claim has 'no grounding in reality' to an Objectivist. We get pretty nasty sometimes when people distort reality to suit their political agendas.

EDIT: Although I must confess, I am rather intrigued by the nature of your cherry-picking. The selection you quoted was in no way the meat and bones of my argument. I'll take that to mean you have no sufficient counter to it.

There is definatly a corilation between poverty and crime rate, and though corilation does not imply causeation, nessicarily, the relationship is fairly consistant around the globe. Should we not, then, to ensure a safe environment for all people, do what we can to fight poverty? And when certain models are shown to reduce poverty, should we not then fallow those models, tailored to the spacific set of circumstances, of course?

There is definatly a corilation between poverty and crime rate, and though corilation does not imply causeation, nessicarily, the relationship is fairly consistant around the globe. Should we not, then, to ensure a safe environment for all people, do what we can to fight poverty? And when certain models are shown to reduce poverty, should we not then fallow those models, tailored to the spacific set of circumstances, of course?
Depends on what kind of country we're talking about here. I'd never advocate the use of Welfare in the 'States, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't work somewhere else. I'm usually pretty cautious about suggesting policy or economics to other cultures, since [not being a member of most of them] I don't know quite how they think, what they value, etc. etc. That said, a part of me still clings to the notion that eventually, possibly, these things may work on a global scale. But then we'd be talking about an entire planet which thinks in more or less the same fashion, which scares me on a number of levels; even if they were all Objectivists.

Fighting poverty is fine--so long as it's done voluntarily and without the application of force. Values extracted at gunpoint do not lead to virtue; mouthings made at gunpoint are not truths.

Um, if you'd have cared to actually pay attention to my argument, I already put the police force/welfare comparison to bed:Oh, I read your argument, it's simply not sufficient to put the police/welfare comparison to bed. You stated that "It's also a different thing to pay for someone else's life than it is to merely safeguard your own; the two principles aren't compatible, so the comparison would be erroneous." Compatible isn't the exact word I would use, but they are related. By paying for someone else's life, you safeguard your own. In other words, the simple fact that welfare exists means that you can use it if you need it. The same goes for the police force. And fire companies, and public schools...etc.


Basically what I'm getting at here is that the police safeguard lives, the Welfare State directs them. The welfare state doesn't "direct" lives by definition. I do admit that that is how it has worked out, but that's not how it *has* to work out.


Besides, funding for local police is generally a State Income Tax situation, except in places like Tennessee and one of those New England states I keep forgetting. Police are a legitimate function of government because they prevent [or, at least, they're ostensibly charged with preventing] the use of force on other individuals. I'm not sure why you brought this up, unless you're saying that something paid for by state taxes is preferable to something paid for by national taxes.


Welfare, on the other hand, says 'Pay for this bum's lunch or we'll audit you.' It's a pity you can't see the difference between the two; as the comparison you drew speaks volumes to that effect. A police force as a concept speaks to reason; it says 'Don't hurt others or we'll hurt you back,' Welfare appeals to emotionalism; it says 'Give this man some money because it's the right thing to do.'
Emotions, not being a viable method for acheiving knowledge of reality, should not be legislated.Oh, it is the right thing to do, but that wasn't the argument that I was attempting to make. See below:


Robbery and assault ar rampant anyway, they are products of vice and folly, not of poverty. One can be poor and moral, but one cannot be moral and forceful. I actually just posted a big thing on the use of force in another thread at http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.p...24&postcount=19

The statement you make here if anything proves my point; it proves that irrational people will use force to get what they want, which is the antithesis of any rational mind. Certainly it's is possible to be poor and moral. It also possible to starve to death because you refuse to steal food. But do you really think that this is going to happen on a large scale? And I agree that people who use force are irrational...people tend to get that way when faced with a lack of food.

Now, I can see how on the surface, my saying "people are starving to death" might be seen as an appeal to emotion. But, really, it is simply a way of describing something, such as "the sky is blue."

In summary, welfare is beneficial to the public good because it provides a safety net for people to use when they need it, and also helps to lower crime, or at least the crimes that happen because of need, which is most of them.

Fighting poverty is fine--so long as it's done voluntarily and without the application of force. Values extracted at gunpoint do not lead to virtue; mouthings made at gunpoint are not truths.

This is very true. You have given me much to think on.

For the porpose of this next paragraph, forget the debate of whether or not welfare is beneficial to society, and simply answer the question as it is presented:

You say values should not me forced, should be volentary. What if there are simply too few people willing to help fight poverty? What if there are too few people willing to not use force, to be rational? What if there are too few people willing to have certain virtues that society is worse because of it? If force is justified in preventing or countering the force of others, why not then in setting up conditions that will be benficial to the whole? (I already see a problem with this, but let's see what you have to say about it.)

Oh, I read your argument, it's simply not sufficient to put the police/welfare comparison to bed. You stated that "It's also a different thing to pay for someone else's life than it is to merely safeguard your own; the two principles aren't compatible, so the comparison would be erroneous." Compatible isn't the exact word I would use, but they are related. By paying for someone else's life, you safeguard your own.
Bullshit. I can safeguard my own life by myself, I don't need the government to nanny me. To suggest that I do is hardly and endorsement of my rights. It never ceases to amaze me the amount of peopole who think that it's reasonable to 'safeguard' my life by taking a portion of it away.

In other words, the simple fact that welfare exists means that you can use it if you need it. The same goes for the police force. And fire companies, and public schools...etc.
I've got news for you: I don't use Welfare, I would never use Welfare, and I have, in fact, refused to use it in the past. I lived in Akron Ohio for 10 months on about $550 a month--well below the poverty line. For the last six or so weeks of my residency there, I had no money. Did I run crying to my government? Did I beg other people to solve my problems? Did I steal from your wallet [even if it was via tax] to feed myself? No, you bet your ass I did none of these things. I got up off my ass and fucking did something about it.

So don't try to use that poverty bullshit argument against me; I've been there.

The welfare state doesn't "direct" lives by definition. I do admit that that is how it has worked out, but that's not how it *has* to work out.
Here you're introducing a popular dichotomy; one frequently used by proponents of Communism: the Theory-Practice dichotomy. It states, in essence, that a concept can have solid grounding in theory, and not work [or work a completely different way] in practice. This dichotomy is completely bogus. Theory dictates practice--it is not at war with it. If this is how Welfare has ended up, it's an inevitability based on it's inherent flaws as a concept.

I'm not sure why you brought this up, unless you're saying that something paid for by state taxes is preferable to something paid for by national taxes.
I'd venture to say that it is. A state, in my opinion, has a more direct connection with its populace than the Federal Government does; as a legislative entity it strikes me as being nominally more competent than the Feds.

Oh, it is the right thing to do, but that wasn't the argument that I was attempting to make. See below:
Bullshit it is. If you believe that individual rights should be overriden by government sometimes, whether for God or the 'public welfare' [to secularize a mistake is still to make it, mind you], then you've conceded that rights are not inalienable, but rather they're contingent on the requirements of some higher value. This amounts to the belief that Man is not a self-serving entity [which he is], but rather that his rights should be replaced with duty; his freedom with servitude.

Fuck that.

Certainly it's is possible to be poor and moral. It also possible to starve to death because you refuse to steal food. But do you really think that this is going to happen on a large scale? And I agree that people who use force are irrational...people tend to get that way when faced with a lack of food.
See my earlier argument re: me and no money. I don't care who you are, you can scrounge up a dime for some ramen noodles.

And if people who use force are irrational, aren't you irrational on virtue of the fact that you support the use of force against my property? I don't care that it's being used to feed other people--the motive for taking one's money doesn't make a goddamn bit of difference, because I'd still be arrested if I used your wallet to buy lunch for a pack of hobos. The fact that the government is allowed to do it completely eradicates the 'By the People For the People' premise that our government was built on. It's one last grotesque attempt to grant to the government a vast array of 'special powers' to impose upon our lives.

Now, I can see how on the surface, my saying "people are starving to death" might be seen as an appeal to emotion. But, really, it is simply a way of describing something, such as "the sky is blue."
True, but saying "People are starving so please give us money" is an appeal to emotionalism. Most of us already know by an early age that people are starving, so a restatement of this at a later age does not constitute an introduction of new knowledge; it is merely a restatement of fact intended to acheive an emotional response.

When you give money to a bum on the street, most people don't generally stand there and think about it for ten minutes, they don't find reasons to do it; they do it more or less out of an emotional response: they feel bad for the guy [and perhaps rightly so] so they throw him a bone. Welfare appeals to the same basic idea.

In summary, welfare is beneficial to the public good because it provides a safety net for people to use when they need it, and also helps to lower crime, or at least the crimes that happen because of need, which is most of them.
And locking everyone in small cells with tiny telescreens like in 1984 would reduce crime to nothing, it would be beneficial to the public good since no one could possibly hurt each other, income would be equal, and we wouldn't need a safety net because the government would control everything.

See my point? Happiness is the purpose of virtue, not its standard.

I've got news for you: I don't use Welfare, I would never use Welfare, and I have, in fact, refused to use it in the past. I lived in Akron Ohio for 10 months on about $550 a month--well below the poverty line. For the last six or so weeks of my residency there, I had no money. Did I run crying to my government? Did I beg other people to solve my problems? Did I steal from your wallet [even if it was via tax] to feed myself? No, you bet your ass I did none of these things. I got up off my ass and fucking did something about it.

Just because you did what you did, doesn't mean other people can do the same. A lot of people are better off on welfare than they would be otherwise (a sad thought, really).

Please, for the sake of people with shorter attention spans, make smaller posts. Big posts don't prove your point more or make you more right. They take up space and give you ample time to ramble. If you can't contain your argument to a paragraph or so, perhaps your thoughts are too broad.

Just because you did what you did, doesn't mean other people can do the same. A lot of people are better off on welfare than they would be otherwise (a sad thought, really).
I know, but It was in response to his supposition that because Welfare exists, I can use it. He was personalizing the argument, so I responded in kind.

And no, I'm not truncating my posts for the sake of people with 'shorter attention spans.' I have plenty to say on the subject, and if you would prefer not to read it that's your perogative.

I know, but It was in response to his supposition that because Welfare exists, I can use it. He was personalizing the argument, so I responded in kind.

Okay then. Makes more sense, I see.

This is very true. You have given me much to think on.
Awesome!

For the porpose of this next paragraph, forget the debate of whether or not welfare is beneficial to society, and simply answer the question as it is presented:

You say values should not me forced, should be volentary. What if there are simply too few people willing to help fight poverty?
Don't care. Not my problem.

What if there are too few people willing to not use force, to be rational?
There already are.

What if there are too few people willing to have certain virtues that society is worse because of it?
See above.

If force is justified in preventing or countering the force of others, why not then in setting up conditions that will be benficial to the whole? (I already see a problem with this, but let's see what you have to say about it.)
Because happiness is the purpose of virtue, not its standard. The 'greater good' concept taken as a whole has little or no philosophical merit; simply because no group should have any additional rights beyond that of its members. One should not gain new rights by joining a group; men do not have the right to be happy , rather they have the right to [i]pursue their happiness; to work towards their values and to keep the product of their labors.

so force is only justified in the countering of force (ie, police), but not in indirectly preventing it? (fighting poverty)

Also, I know that this is a whole nother can of worms that I don't feel like getting into right now, but do you believe that welfare, properly managed, can help fight poverty in an apreciable way?

I shall have to look further into the Objectivist phylosophy. A friend of mine owns Atlas Shrugged, I'll barrow it from him. Not that I agree with everything that you have said on this or other threads, but the reasoning looks like it's something I'd like to learn more about.

Judging from the only two objecitivists I know, you and my friend, it certainly seems to breed a certain amount of arrogence ^_~

EDIT: In your opinion, what is the standard of virtue?

Awesome!
Don't care. Not my problem.


Most people at least give lip service to the fact that poverty is a problem, which is a Bad Thing (TM), and should be tackled. Saying you don;t care about the problems of others sounds selfish and childish.

Most people at least give lip service to the fact that poverty is a problem, which is a Bad Thing (TM), and should be tackled. Saying you don;t care about the problems of others sounds selfish and childish.
Selfish? Yes. Childish? No. I didn't cause these problems, I should not have to be responsible for solving them. If you want to 'tackle' it, fine, but keep your goddamn hands out of my wallet.

so force is only justified in the countering of force (ie, police), but not in indirectly preventing it? (fighting poverty)
It's not quite as cut and dry as that, but in essence, yes.

Also, I know that this is a whole nother can of worms that I don't feel like getting into right now, but do you believe that welfare, properly managed, can help fight poverty in an apreciable way?
If by "welfare" you mean "Tax funded releif for the poor," then my answer is "no." If, however, you mean "Welfare" as "a means of helping the impoverished," then it's fine so long as you don't force that particular value on every single taxpayer in the country. To do so amounts to the imposition of values; it amounts to telling people rightly or wrongly that $PROBLEM trumps their property rights. Like I told Jello, it is more or less an admission that rights are not inalienable, but rather that they're contingent on the needs of some higher value.

I shall have to look further into the Objectivist phylosophy. A friend of mine owns Atlas Shrugged, I'll barrow it from him. Not that I agree with everything that you have said on this or other threads, but the reasoning looks like it's something I'd like to learn more about.
Well, Objectivists disagree on a lot of things. Leonard Peikoff, for example [the preeminent Objectivist writer today] supports the Iraq war. I, by stark contrast, do not.

Judging from the only two objecitivists I know, you and my friend, it certainly seems to breed a certain amount of arrogence ^_~
Oh my yes.

EDIT: In your opinion, what is the standard of virtue?
Life.

childish coz you see, and even acknowledge a problem, but adamandtly refuse to help. Its like a child throwing a hissy fit coz his mum's making him play with the new kid and he has to share his toys.

childish coz you see, and even acknowledge a problem, but adamandtly refuse to help. Its like a child throwing a hissy fit coz his mum's making him play with the new kid and he has to share his toys.
Whatever you say. If you have anything meaningful to contribute, I'd love to hear it. If you want to have a discussion with someone, the correct method of doing so would be to counter my arguments with points of your own rather than hurling crude insults at him.

Furthermore, I seriously doubt the comparison due to the fact that I know how to spell, how to deploy grammar, and when to capitalize words.

It's not quite as cut and dry as that, but in essence, yes.

Sorry, I have a bad habbit of oversimplifying. Yes, I realise there is much more to it, I was just looking for an "in essence" answer, anyway.

If by "welfare" you mean "Tax funded releif for the poor," then my answer is "no." If, however, you mean "Welfare" as "a means of helping the impoverished," then it's fine so long as you don't force that particular value on every single taxpayer in the country. To do so amounts to the imposition of values; it amounts to telling people rightly or wrongly that $PROBLEM trumps their property rights. Like I told Jello, it is more or less an admission that rights are not inalienable, but rather that they're contingent on the needs of some higher value.

I didn't ask if you agreed with it, I asked, as a seperate question, if you thought that the former can in fact help fight poverty?


Well, Objectivists disagree on a lot of things. Leonard Peikoff, for example [the preeminent Objectivist writer today] supports the Iraq war. I, by stark contrast, do not.

Exactly why I am more interested in the reasoning process and rational then the spacific result.


Life.

Care to elaborate?

just saying how it looks to me. you agreed to the selfish point but denied the childish one, so i tried to explain why i thought it was childish, maybe my analagy was a poor one? maybe i'm just wrong coz i'm using a wrong definition? i'm reading the points you make and its quite interesting. I'll sit down and let Katzistanza ask constructive q's for me, i was more commenting on how it seemed than asking a q.

my spelling is poor at the best of times, especially when not using word which auto-corrects, i've become to acustomed to it. same with capitalisation, i'm used to the com doing it for me. more typos might be creeping in too coz i've been up all nioght. Similarly, my grammar is also poor. In itse;f it doesn't make my comparison a bad one, it just shows i'm crap at english. The post isn't of as higher standard as teh previous ones coz it's not questioning the philosophy in a high level of detail, but is stating an opinion about the general philosophy. You are free to refute the claim that it's childish, i assume you do, or my definition of childishness, or my analagy, or what ever you took offense at. it wasn't a personal attack, it was if like someone said to me 'socialism seems stupid coz you're taking more money from the rich, and that isn't fair.'

I didn't ask if you agreed with it, I asked, as a seperate question, if you thought that the former can in fact help fight poverty?
Oh, sorry. Yes, it probably can. However, this in and of itself does not necessarily mean it's the right thing to do; like I said earlier we could [that is, it is within our ability to do so] go the Orwell route, but that don't make it right.

Care to elaborate?
Actually, I misspoke. Value is the standard of virtue, and life is the standard of value. So in effect I was right, but only in a roundabout way. I can, if you'd like, elaborate on this point, but I have the feeling this isn't the time or place. I know it's not the time, because it's 4:30 in the morning.

Bullshit. I can safeguard my own life by myself, I don't need the government to nanny me. To suggest that I do is hardly and endorsement of my rights. It never ceases to amaze me the amount of peopole who think that it's reasonable to 'safeguard' my life by taking a portion of it away.I completely support the idea of people safeguarding their own lives. However, it is wise to have a contingency plan. Furthermore, wouldn't you rather have a system in place that would punish someone in the hypothetical scenario that you're murdered? Unless, of course, you support the militia system.


I've got news for you: I don't use Welfare, I would never use Welfare, and I have, in fact, refused to use it in the past. I lived in Akron Ohio for 10 months on about $550 a month--well below the poverty line. For the last six or so weeks of my residency there, I had no money. Did I run crying to my government? Did I beg other people to solve my problems? Did I steal from your wallet [even if it was via tax] to feed myself? No, you bet your ass I did none of these things. I got up off my ass and fucking did something about it.

So don't try to use that poverty bullshit argument against me; I've been there.That was your decision to not use welfare. Many people in your position have also chosen not to. But nonetheless it is there. Also, it could be seen that going on welfare would be the equivalent of a tax rebate, if one chose to view it that way.
Furthermore, it's absurd to assume that just because you can do something, that 100% of other people can, too.


Here you're introducing a popular dichotomy; one frequently used by proponents of Communism: the Theory-Practice dichotomy. It states, in essence, that a concept can have solid grounding in theory, and not work [or work a completely different way] in practice. This dichotomy is completely bogus. Theory dictates practice--it is not at war with it. If this is how Welfare has ended up, it's an inevitability based on it's inherent flaws as a concept. Really? So then even though there's nothing within the theory of capitalism that suggests it will end up as corporatism (or mercantilism), the fact that it always has must mean that capitalism has inherent flaws as a concept, right?


I'd venture to say that it is. A state, in my opinion, has a more direct connection with its populace than the Federal Government does; as a legislative entity it strikes me as being nominally more competent than the Feds.I have no issue with this, I support direct democracy, and direct democracy works much easier in smaller groups. I am, however, not satisfied with the idea that states would have equal power as the government, as states can be quite large, as well.


Bullshit it is. If you believe that individual rights should be overriden by government sometimes, whether for God or the 'public welfare' [to secularize a mistake is still to make it, mind you], then you've conceded that rights are not inalienable, but rather they're contingent on the requirements of some higher value. This amounts to the belief that Man is not a self-serving entity [which he is], but rather that his rights should be replaced with duty; his freedom with servitude.

Fuck that. Hm. I will try to use capitalist terminology for this point: You live in society. You choose to live in society. Society provides you with more options than you would have if you lived outside of society. Said options include the ability to do something other than subsistence farm, provide you with more entertainment options, and many other things. In effect, society is a service that you use for your convenience.
As a service, society has the right to charge whatever it wishes for the use of said service. Furthermore, society has the right to dictate how it wishes to implement its service fees.
Now, being a member of society, you have the right to influence both the service fee and how it is used. But that doesn't change the fact that society has the right to the fee and how it is used. Don't like it? Don't use the service.


And if people who use force are irrational, aren't you irrational on virtue of the fact that you support the use of force against my property? Well, I'm sure you and I have a different concept of what legitimate property rights are. <shrug>


I don't care that it's being used to feed other people--the motive for taking one's money doesn't make a goddamn bit of difference, because I'd still be arrested if I used your wallet to buy lunch for a pack of hobos. True, but I'd imagine that you'd get a more lenient sentence for doing that than taking my wallet for most other reasons.


The fact that the government is allowed to do it completely eradicates the 'By the People For the People' premise that our government was built on. It's one last grotesque attempt to grant to the government a vast array of 'special powers' to impose upon our lives.Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not fond of governments having special powers (or of governments at all) but it seems to me that if man is a "self-serving entity" then he is capable of coming up with a concept of what it means to be a self-serving entity that is separate from another man's. There needs to be some uniform code that dictates where a man is able to be a self-serving entity, and when his doing so violates someone else's ability to be a self-serving entity, and what should happen when someone does so. There also needs to be an entity that enforces the uniform code. Or do you have a better idea?


True, but saying "People are starving so please give us money" is an appeal to emotionalism. Most of us already know by an early age that people are starving, so a restatement of this at a later age does not constitute an introduction of new knowledge; it is merely a restatement of fact intended to acheive an emotional response.

When you give money to a bum on the street, most people don't generally stand there and think about it for ten minutes, they don't find reasons to do it; they do it more or less out of an emotional response: they feel bad for the guy [and perhaps rightly so] so they throw him a bone. Welfare appeals to the same basic idea. I agree there, but I don't believe that I was doing that.


And locking everyone in small cells with tiny telescreens like in 1984 would reduce crime to nothing, it would be beneficial to the public good since no one could possibly hurt each other, income would be equal, and we wouldn't need a safety net because the government would control everything.

See my point? Happiness is the purpose of virtue, not its standard.True, although I find it odd that you're using the work of a socialist against me. But it is a damn good book.

Oh, sorry. Yes, it probably can. However, this in and of itself does not necessarily mean it's the right thing to do; like I said earlier we could [that is, it is within our ability to do so] go the Orwell route, but that don't make it right.

Well then, I suppose that it comes down to how much balanceing you are willing to do between the indevidual rights and the public good. Which it seems is different for each person.

Actually, I misspoke. Value is the standard of virtue, and life is the standard of value. So in effect I was right, but only in a roundabout way. I can, if you'd like, elaborate on this point, but I have the feeling this isn't the time or place. I know it's not the time, because it's 4:30 in the morning.

TM, or e-mail me? [Email erased for privacy concerns --Melkor]
I'd be very interested

HAve just finished reading most of this thread, and have got to say that I am impressed by the level of debating that has been present.

I wondering whether anyone here actually knows how much a sweatshop worker earns in [insert country]. Also how does this compare with standard wages in [insert country]?

I'll try to address all of the ignorance in this thread,but it will be hard.

1) the US is not a democracy. It is a republic. The difference between the two systems is that in one, the people vote on EVERYTHING themselves, and in the other, they elect representatives to make decisions and vote for them. There are no federal decisions that are ever made by the public at large, the public elects the representatives that make the decisions. Some states (like California) implement more Democracy than others with ballot initiatives, but this does not exist on a Federal level.

2) In a pure free-market system (read pure capitalism), there can be no minimum wage established. A minimum wage is in fact a restriction on the workings of the market because it does not allow employees/employers to decide for themselves how much their time is worth, making it no longer pure capitalism, but regulated capitalism. This restriction is allegedly done to prevent a powerful employer from taking advantage of his bargaining position to the employees disadvantage. While this may be a positive effect, it also has the effect of inflating prices on the most basic products needed, and these inflated prices afect the poorest the most.

3) Once there is no one in the world who is willing to perform work in "sweatshops", hopefully because we have moved away from manual labor completely, there will be machines that will replace the workers. Thankfully, it is currently cheaper to use these laborers than to replace them with machines, as have the machines available now would result in many people in the places that need this low skill work the most would be unemployed and have few ways of feeding their families. It is Ironic that these factories are called sweatshops as they offer a rather sweatfree alternative to the other options available to these workers, such as long days in the fields for less pay. For a rather interesting article on sweatshops see: http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20000924mag-sweatshops.html .

Although I am sure I will be accused of being a heartless conservative, which is the traditional response from people who approach politics from an emotional and not rational perspective, I would hope that you one day get the opportunity to converse with someone who works at on of these "sweatshops". While they would indeed perfer to be wealthy americans, most will talk about how much harder life was before working at the sweatshop was an option. Before you go and become an advocate for these "poor oppressed peoples" you should consider talking to them yourself, and finding out whether they want you to do so. From my conversations with Mexican "sweatshop laborers" I can tell you that they do fear for their jobs every time someone comes to make a documentary or a "special report", not because they think their boss will fire them for talking to the reporters, but because the consecuences of these reports often lead to factories closing down and their source of income being lost, and many have to go back to being farmers.

Bring on the hate. Please include words such as propaganda, capitalist pig, idiot, etc.

I live in a city in Mexico where approximately 200k people a year come to find jobs in these "sweatshops". Most have to go back home because there arent enough of these shitty horrible jobs to go around.

it amounts to telling people rightly or wrongly that $PROBLEM trumps their property rights. Like I told Jello, it is more or less an admission that rights are not inalienable, but rather that they're contingent on the needs of some higher value.
This is what I believe. No rights are inalienable, because they can all be taken away by authority. That doesn't mean I think that they should be taken away; I'm just saying it's possible.

Selfish? Yes. Childish? No. I didn't cause these problems, I should not have to be responsible for solving them. If you want to 'tackle' it, fine, but keep your goddamn hands out of my wallet.
I can only dread to imagine the hell that this world would be if everyone thought like you. That's what life would be if nobody ever helped anyone else.

This is what I believe. No rights are inalienable, because they can all be taken away by authority. That doesn't mean I think that they should be taken away; I'm just saying it's possible.
And there you have it folks, take it or leave it.

Suffice to say, it is my belief that rights, like any other aspect of reality, are not dictated by a 'higher' consciousness, i.e. God or society, but rather by reality itself.


I can only dread to imagine the hell that this world would be if everyone thought like you. That's what life would be if nobody ever helped anyone else.
Two things:

First; you're misunderstanding my premise here. I'm not demanding other people to refrain from 'helping others,' I'm not advocating that the scenario you describe be the case. Generosity is moral as long as it is done in accordance with the correct principles, just like any other action. It is not, however, justified to demand that other men pay their way. You can do as you choose with your money, just as I should be free to do the same.

Second; from where I sit it really speaks volumes as to the strength of your ideology if, having read page after page of my rebuttals, that you can offer no better counter than to invoke a fantasy world where 'everyone [thinks] like you.' This is a perversion of the 'Everyone is doing (or should[n't] be/were doing) it' argument and has just about as much merit in the context of proper debate.

For the record, I would prefer not to live in a world where everyone thought alike; it would disturb me immensely even if they were all like me as well.

I would hope that you one day get the opportunity to converse with someone who works at on of these "sweatshops". While they would indeed perfer to be wealthy americans, most will talk about how much harder life was before working at the sweatshop was an option.
I've spoken with a few. They essentially say that life is hard either way.
Before you go and become an advocate for these "poor oppressed peoples" you should consider talking to them yourself, and finding out whether they want you to do so. The ones that I've spoken to do.
From my conversations with Mexican "sweatshop laborers" I can tell you that they do fear for their jobs every time someone comes to make a documentary or a "special report", not because they think their boss will fire them for talking to the reporters, but because the consecuences of these reports often lead to factories closing down and their source of income being lost, and many have to go back to being farmers. My conversations with sweatshop workers, as well as most compiled data suggests that sweatshops typically do close down as a result of those reports, so you're right. The reason for this is that once a report goes out, the location of the sweatshop becomes known. Once the location is known, the sweatshop becomes easier to monitor. If the sweatshop is monitored, then the managers and owners can't get away with the abuses that they could if the sweatshop's location was unknown to the outside world. So the sweatshop moves.
I do admit that sometimes when American companies hear about sweatshops, their first kneejerk reaction is to stop doing business with them. However, there are many ways to be an anti-sweatshop advocate, and one of them is to suggest that the American companies not do this, but rather pressure the owners of the sweatshops to increase wages and stop the abuse that goes on.

I live in a city in Mexico where approximately 200k people a year come to find jobs in these "sweatshops". Most have to go back home because there arent enough of these shitty horrible jobs to go around.Well, I can't say anything about your particular example, but historically in these situations the companies advertise to cities further away, talking up the wonders of working in the area, then, of course when people get there, they find thousands of other who've heard the same message, thus driving wages down. So, yes, the companies use propaganda. (There, I used that word, are you happy? :))

I completely support the idea of people safeguarding their own lives. However, it is wise to have a contingency plan. Furthermore, wouldn't you rather have a system in place that would punish someone in the hypothetical scenario that you're murdered? Unless, of course, you support the militia system.
What? What does murder have to do with this? When did I say I didn't want to hvae cops around? Oh wait: I didn't.

Welfare and murder are two different things; I'm having some trouble figuring out just why you chose to include this example. Furthermore, the fact that its 'wise to have a contingency plan' is a flimsy answer for ripping money out of my paycheck. Don't worry about my life; don't beat yourself up over my 'contingency plan.' Is it too much to ask that I be expected to take care of that myself?

That was your decision to not use welfare. Many people in your position have also chosen not to. But nonetheless it is there. Also, it could be seen that going on welfare would be the equivalent of a tax rebate, if one chose to view it that way.
Furthermore, it's absurd to assume that just because you can do something, that 100% of other people can, too.
Potaria already said this. Also, it's circular logic. You seemed to imply earlier that the existence of Welfare was fair [from a personal standpoint] because I had access to its benefits. By saying this, you're dodging the issue you brought up . Since the antecedant elements behind your argument have changed completely, it throws this line of reasoning out the window.

Really? So then even though there's nothing within the theory of capitalism that suggests it will end up as corporatism (or mercantilism), the fact that it always has must mean that capitalism has inherent flaws as a concept, right?
Always has? Excuse me? A purely capitalist economy has never existed in the history of man; the closest thing we've got right now is a mixed economy like in America [which I'm also not a huge fan of]. Argument rejected.

I have no issue with this, I support direct democracy, and direct democracy works much easier in smaller groups. I am, however, not satisfied with the idea that states would have equal power as the government, as states can be quite large, as well.
I think It'd be nice to go back to One Man, One Vote too.

Hm. I will try to use capitalist terminology for this point: You live in society. You choose to live in society. Society provides you with more options than you would have if you lived outside of society. Said options include the ability to do something other than subsistence farm, provide you with more entertainment options, and many other things. In effect, society is a service that you use for your convenience.
Social interaction would not exist without mutual benefit. Any benefit I extract from society is [i]properly repaid with the exchange of money. Socialists love to parade about this idea that we all have some sort of ethereal obligation to everyone else beyond what we already pay them to provide services for us.

As a service, society has the right to charge whatever it wishes for the use of said service. Furthermore, society has the right to dictate how it wishes to implement its service fees.
This is a disgusting way to think. Society does not have the right to 'charge whatever it wishes,' for two main [and many other] reasons: first, like I keep saying, no individual should gain new rights by joining a group, and no group should have any rights above and beyond that of its constituents.

Second, society already does charge for services, and I pay said charge. Just ask my grocer.

It is a serious perversion of the concept of 'rights' to assume they subsume anything other than the individual.

Now, being a member of society, you have the right to influence both the service fee and how it is used. But that doesn't change the fact that society has the right to the fee and how it is used. Don't like it? Don't use the service.
Wait, you're saying I get to choose how my money gets spent after I spend it? This is a classic example of one trying to have one's cake and eat it too. Sorry, but you only get to spend money once, not twice.

Well, I'm sure you and I have a different concept of what legitimate property rights are. <shrug>
Yes, and I happen to be correct.

True, but I'd imagine that you'd get a more lenient sentence for doing that than taking my wallet for most other reasons.
Nonsense. The only determining factor in an American court of law would be how much was in it.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not fond of governments having special powers (or of governments at all)
So your solution is to give them more powers and make them bigger?

but it seems to me that if man is a "self-serving entity" then he is capable of coming up with a concept of what it means to be a self-serving entity that is separate from another man's. There needs to be some uniform code that dictates where a man is able to be a self-serving entity, and when his doing so violates someone else's ability to be a self-serving entity,
They're called Laws.

and what should happen when someone does so. There also needs to be an entity that enforces the uniform code. Or do you have a better idea?
You're basically saying "we should have laws and a government" here. You may be making the mistake of assuming I'm an anarchist.

I agree there, but I don't believe that I was doing that.
Wait, if you agree, then why do you still endorse policies built on emotionalism? Since emotional response [and the simulus for it] is subject to immense change from person to person, why does it make sense to make an over-arching policy of it? Why does it make sense to force that value onto myself and my family?

There's a time to help others and a time to help yourself, and I'm at a point in my life where I really need to be helping myself.

True, although I find it odd that you're using the work of a socialist against me. But it is a damn good book.
Wait.. 'true?' Whats 'True?' I need some clarification here, especially regarding that very last sentence of mine; as that [not my Orwell analogy] is more or less the most important part of that particular point.