Gauthier
16-05-2006, 17:30
Reporter Rebecca Clarren was being interviewed on today's Fresh Air where the topic was her newest Ms. Magazine article titled Paradise Lost: Greed, Sex Slavery, Forced Abortions and Right-Wing Moralists. Basically the Marianas Islands are U.S. Territory where sweatshops can make make clothings at near non-existent wages and horrible working conditions that can still have the "Made in the USA" label. Most notably, Congressional attempts at reform there have been blocked by our wonderful friends Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff. In fact, the title of this post is a quote from DeLay who praised what was going on in the Marianas.
I searched online for a full copy of the article; unfortunately all I could find is a promotional excerpt but that alone is enough to make buying a copy of Ms. very tempting:
http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/sweatshops/3922.html
However, the tone of the article seems to show what really happens when you implement laissez-faire capitalist practices such as say... eliminating minimum wage.
Disraeliland 5
16-05-2006, 17:58
However, the tone of the article seems to show what really happens when you implement laissez-faire capitalist practices such as say... eliminating minimum wage.
The article doesn't show much of anything, being almost devoid of content.
Anyway, were one to advocate instituting a minimum wage, one must ask what the effects of it will be. The answer to that is simple: No sweatshops in the Marianas, more sweatshops in (insert name of Third World country here).
You can't make labour worth more by making it illegal to offer less.
I find it ironic that the title makes reference to "sex slavery", because Oxfam conducted a study in Bangladesh a few months after sweatshops had been closed, and found thousands of Bangladeshis, former sweatshop workers and their relatives, on the streets prostituting themselves.
Clamatoatoll
16-05-2006, 18:21
Reporter Rebecca Clarren was being interviewed on today's Fresh Air where the topic was her newest Ms. Magazine article titled Paradise Lost: Greed, Sex Slavery, Forced Abortions and Right-Wing Moralists. Basically the Marianas Islands are U.S. Territory where sweatshops can make make clothings at near non-existent wages and horrible working conditions that can still have the "Made in the USA" label. Most notably, Congressional attempts at reform there have been blocked by our wonderful friends Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff. In fact, the title of this post is a quote from DeLay who praised what was going on in the Marianas.
I searched online for a full copy of the article; unfortunately all I could find is a promotional excerpt but that alone is enough to make buying a copy of Ms. very tempting:
http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/sweatshops/3922.html
However, the tone of the article seems to show what really happens when you implement laissez-faire capitalist practices such as say... eliminating minimum wage.
Hmmm,....
Well,.. it it really were "laissez-faire" capitalism, then "labor" would have the
ability to simply say "NO!" to working in conditions that they found offensive,
and "capital" would have to deal with that in some non-coercive (non-use-of-
force) way.
Why does "labor" put up with their wages and conditions?
When you can answer THAT question, you'll also have the answer as to how
this situation is NOT "laissez-faire" capitalism.
What did the people of the Marianas do before there were "sweatshops"..?
Why can't they go back to doing that, if they don't like being workers in
the "sweatshops"..?
I suspect it would be more "painful" to go back to their "primitive" ways than
it would to continue working in "sweatshops" like "slaves".
The real question is not "should we raise the minimum wage",.. it's "should we
police the 'islands' to ensure that no coercive force is applied to people who
would rather fish and farm than work in conditions they very much don't like."
If the people had an alternative to "slavery", they'd more than likely take it.
The job of the government is to make sure that no one HAS to do anything
they don't want to do,.. and to clearly spell out the consequences of not
doing whatever that may be.
There seems to be a misconception as to what "laissez-faire" capitalism is.
It ISN'T he who has the most gold makes the rules.
It's he who has the most gold has more wealth to entice people to do things,
but no amount of gold is license to coerce anyone into doing anything,.. with
one exception: It's OK to coerce coercers into quiting coercing people to do
things.
It's all about the CARROT, and the STICK only gets used on bad guys who
COERCE people to do things, instead of ENTICING them to do things.
-Clamato, ..what a FREAKY idea..!