Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nikov]

I bring up "deserving" because Nikov is insisting how all social programs are wrong because the blue collar people don't deserve any money from the rich, and should just roll over and die when they get sick/lose their job/can't afford to send kids to college. Yet the wealth of all those rich has been made over the backs of those same blue collar people.

And LAWL @ money buying happiness.

You seem to believe that the rich exploit the poor.

You do not seem to consider that the poor agree to work for their wage.

[DJ]

Kids sewing Nikes also agree to work for 2 cents a day, that doesn't make it right.

[Realmfighter]

So what, we should help them by taking those 2 cents away?

[DJ]

No, you should employ their parents and pay them a living wage, so that kids can go to school and have a shot of advancing in life. Creating a climate where they're forced to forgo school in favour of work is a modern-day serfdom because it deprives them of all work mobility.

[ed boy]

And LAWL @ money buying happiness.

It does buy happiness, just not directly.

My mother likes to go on holidays and to eat in fancy restaurant. These things bring her happiness. By spending money on these things, she can make herself happy. Money can buy happiness.

Kids sewing Nikes also agree to work for 2 cents a day, that doesn't make it right.

If working at Nike is worse than not having a job, they wouldn't do it. They work at Nike because it is the best course of action for them. Closing down these places would make them worse off.

Besides, they don't get paid two cents. They get pain in their own currency, and even if you translate it all into equivalent currency terms, their costs of living are much better off. There are places in Indie where one can buy a meal for ten rupees, yet I'd like to see you buy a meal for $0.21 in america.

No, you should employ their parents and pay them a living wage, so that kids can go to school and have a shot of advancing in life. Creating a climate where they're forced to forgo school in favour of work is a modern-day serfdom because it deprives them of all work mobility.

Their parents are more productive elsewhere, hence they get employed elsewhere. Forcing them to be employed at Nike would make them less productive.

They are geing paid a living wage. If they weren't, they wouldn't be living, and we wouldn't have this disagreement.

[Nikov]

Kids sewing Nikes also agree to work for 2 cents a day, that doesn't make it right.

The absence of the work opportunities provided by sweatshops can quickly lead to starvation. After US Senator Tom Harkin's Child Labour Deterrence Act was introduced in the 1992-3, an estimated 50,000 children were dismissed from their garment industry jobs in Asia, leaving many to resort to jobs such as "stone-crushing, street hustling, and prostitution." UNICEF's 1997 State of the World's Children study found these alternative jobs "more hazardous and exploitative than garment production,"[5] and the article concludes, "The world owes child workers a meaningful alternative if they are not to suffer from some of the very measures designed to help them. "

A little twelve year old girl shouldn't be in a factory sixteen hours a day, but she's in healthier conditions than barefoot in a malaria-infested rice paddy and far safer there than turning tricks.

If you force the employer to pay them a living wage, the employer can't make money. I hate tell you this, but quality checking footballs is not worth $12 an hour, and a Cuban doctor makes $15 a month.

[Realmfighter]

Education isn't very useful if you've starved to death.

[Phmcw]

If you force the employer to pay them a living wage, the employer can't make money.

OK. The question is why?
I mean, you seems to think that it's an optimal system. I can understand that. If there is no way to make it better, then we will have to make it that way, right?
But why do you think that there is no better way to make these shoes then that?

[ed boy]

Shoes are made in these countries because it is cheap. Companies wish to maximise profits, so they invest money into moving their operations into these places.

Generally, people with a low standard of living are a good source of cheap labour. If the standard of living somewhere increases, then the cost of labour there increases.

If the cost of employing people in these countries were to go up, then they would either move somewhere else or employ less people to do more work each.

[Nikov]

Well I suppose we could just have a machine do it or charge a hundred dollars for a football, but I don't see either way working out very well for people who want jobs or footballs.

And that's true, Ed, but the factories, the infrastructure, the skilled workforce still exists there. And then locals with some clout buy the old buildings and keep making money with them, paying the higher wages the locals begin to demand, but making more expensive products.

[DJ]

If dinners and holidays are sufficient to make you feel you're living a fulfilling life, I pity you. Same if absence of these things prevents you from living a fulfilling life.

I'm sure that the Cuban doctor lives fairly comfortably, other than shortages of stuff like milk (all thanks to USA's embargo).

I'm not suggesting you have to pay overseas employees American minimal wage, but you have to pay them enough that two of them can feed a family. This is obviously not the case, since children are working. Or do you think that parents *like* that their kids work in sweatshops?

Bottom-line is, just because you can exploit someone, doesn't mean you should. How would you feel if doctors charged everything you own for removing your appendix? You'd die if you didn't get it removed, so if they all formed a cartel they could get away with it.

Oh, and I really doubt that Nike would go bankrupt if their profit margin from these sweatshops went down from 700% to 400%.

[Phmcw]

Nike shoes aren't by any means cheap.
Generally, companies want to maximize profit, it's true. So?
You two seems to think that, for instance, forbidding child's labor, or imposing minimal wage, as it is done in our country would be terrible for the economy.
Why do you believe it?

[ed boy]

And that's true, Ed, but the factories, the infrastructure, the skilled workforce still exists there. And then locals with some clout buy the old buildings and keep making money with them, paying the higher wages the locals begin to demand, but making more expensive products.

In the short term they would not move out, but in the long term they would not invest in a place unless they were confident that it would remain a cheap place for labour.

In the short term, they would certainly cut their employment numbers. Each person is slightly more or less productive than the next, so they would employ people in order of productivity until it no longer would be viable to employ more. If the cost of labour goes up, then this viable point would reduce, so those who are least productive would get cut until they would be at the viable point again.

Bottom-line is, just because you can exploit someone, doesn't mean you should. How would you feel if doctors charged everything you own for removing your appendix? You'd die if you didn't get it removed, so if they all formed a cartel they could get away with it.

Wrong. These people are logical and rational human beings. According to logic, if you can exploit someone, you should. Although it is not the best outcome overall, it is the best outcome for those that get a choice in the matter. This is why we have governments, essentialy: To prevent situations like this occuring within a country. The problem with large multi-national corporations is that they deal in more than one country, and they thrive of these discrepancies in the law.

Oh, and I really doubt that Nike would go bankrupt if their profit margin from these sweatshops went down from 700% to 400%.

No, but if their profit margin halved, an awful lot of people would get awfully angry, and those running the company would not want to see that happen.

[Criptfeind]

How would you feel if doctors charged everything you own for removing your appendix?

This is what they do. True.

[Nikov]

Because those children are working specifically because their families are too poor for them not to?

Because a quarter an hour pays for their shoes and clothes?

Because, I don't know... clearly they need to work or else they wouldn't work?

And yeah, Nike doesn't make 700% on their money. Its more like 12%, pre-tax. And with US corporate tax rates being what they are, its no wonder they're moving everything they can overseas.