[Kazan]

exactly bobboau!

[Gank]

Wankers

[SadisticSid]

People love to denounce sweatshops in their almighty moral crusades. But if one looks at them rationally for a moment, they are ALWAYS better than the rural poverty third-world citizens would 'enjoy' as the alternative. To deny this is to deny the notion that an African or whoever we're talking about can be a rational person. If being unemployed led to a better life for them, they would be unemployed. But that isn't the case, and that is why they are willing to work for what we consider trifling amounts.

Westerners denounce sweatshops out of guilt that their own way of life is better than those who work in them. Capitalists who exploit third world countries may profit by it, but third world citizens also profit from this practice. Those who express their moral outrage to it aren't thinking things through.

[Bobboau]

Originally posted by Gank
Wankers

oh, so now it's insult time, ok
fucktard!

[SadisticSid]

Bob gets it.

[Rictor]

Thats the most common arguement among supporters of globalization.

OK, first of all let me say this. The current form of globalization is just one method of "global integration". Global integration is not by itself a bad thing, I am just against the current mode of it. It could be made to work, though many of the rules would need to be changed.

OK, now, why are these people working in sweatshops and where were they working before. They were surviving by some other means before globalization showed up. This is mostly from agirculture and government works AFAIK. A country like Canada employs a HUGE number of people in all the various governmental areas. They are a major source of jobs. When an ecnomy becomes privatized, all those jobs are gone. Or most of them anyway. Some remain, employed by the mutlinationals who buy up the public works. Thats one thing. The other source of income, agrivulture, disappears when borders are opened up to foreign imports. The peasants cant comepete, so they are forced to find a new source of income.

You have to look at the whole system, before and after "globalization". You can't just take away one aspect of it. This includes opening up borders and liberalizing the economy (privatization).

______

Kaz: even when adjusted to local prices, these wages are still next to nothing. There is a difference between minimum wage and a living wage. The corporations mostly pay the former.

I have found very little good coming from globalization. If you can find me some examples of places that have benefited, by all means show me. I am not getting a biased picture, at least not much. Its just that I haven't seen anywhere where the fantasies of globalization's *expected* performance have been the same as the much harsher realities on the ground.

[Kazan]

It's insult time.. alright

Du bist einen arschleckendenschweinehund

SadisticSid: Hole in one

[Gank]

Sorry Bobbaou but sitting at your computer saying its ok for corporations to treat people like ****, work them for most of the day and pay them **** makes you a wanker. You offer one alternative to this, close down the factorys. How about they get decent working conditions instead? Cant you retards see that there could possibly be a middle ground?

As for the countrys economys being ****, the fact that the west colonised most of them and ****ed them over has nothing to do with that, the fact that most developing countrys are busy paying off the wto and world bank to improve the quality of life at home has nothing to do with that.

[SadisticSid]

They were surviving by some other means before globalization showed up. This is mostly from agirculture and government works AFAIK.

First off, agriculture (in the subsistence sense) is what most people would do without working as cheap labour. Third world governments do NOT provide millions of jobs, and those that they would provide would probably pay as much as sweatshops - because the states are already incredibly poor and rake in **** all from tax revenue.

Kaz: even when adjusted to local prices, these wages are still next to nothing. There is a difference between minimum wage and a living wage. The corporations mostly pay the former.

I have found very little good coming from globalization. If you can find me some examples of places that have benefited, by all means show me. I am not getting a biased picture, at least not much. Its just that I haven't seen anywhere where the fantasies of globalization's *expected* performance have been the same as the much harsher realities on the ground.

You don't get it. If these wages, whatever you want to classify them as, made people worse off, then there would be no-one willing to work for them. No doubt you see this as one-way exploitation, which you'd realise is an absurd concept if you knew anything about basic economics. Any kind of employment benefits ALL the parties involved - the employer expends money to obtain what is to them a service of greater value. Likewise, the employee exploits the opportunity to expend effort and use their skills to earn money that to them is of greater value than what they have given for it.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by SadisticSid


First off, agriculture (in the subsistence sense) is what most people would do without working as cheap labour. Third world governments do NOT provide millions of jobs, and those that they would provide would probably pay as much as sweatshops - because the states are already incredibly poor and rake in **** all from tax revenue.



You don't get it. If these wages, whatever you want to classify them as, made people worse off, then there would be no-one willing to work for them. No doubt you see this as one-way exploitation, which you'd realise is an absurd concept if you knew anything about basic economics.

And again I say, you have to look at the whole thing. Sure, any wages are better than no wages. Lets just assume for a minute that these people were not surviving pre-globalization. So, lets assume it sweatshops or nothing.

Whats wrong with requiring corporations to pay better wages, improve conditions and generaly treat the workers fairly. First World workers were being exploited just as Third WOrld workers are now, a century ago. How did the wages and work conditions improve? Unions came in and forced the corporations to act fairly. The same would happen in the Third World if not for two thing.

1. Unions are put down by force, often by the military or private security hired by the corporations.

2. When a factory is unionized, the corps just pick up and move somewhere else where there is no union. And obviously, getting the entire Third World to unionize at once is not possible.

You may think unons are crap, but thats in a modern country under very different citcumstance. When workers are exploited, unions are a way for them to band together and get real improvements.

Whats wrong with forcing corporations to double worker wages. They can afford it. As it stands, the workers have barely enough to live on, and the situation shows no sign of improving. The general idea here, at least according to the pro-globalization economists, is that though sweatshops etc are bad, they will lead to an improved economy and improved living standards in the future. But this just ain't happeneing, the local ecnomy is not profiting from the corporation's presence.

[Gank]

Methinks the three of you should be sent to work in one for a week, then come back and tell us how much of a service its providing. Preferably one in Burma.

[SadisticSid]

Whats wrong with forcing corporations to double worker wages. They can afford it. As it stands, the workers have barely enough to live on, and the situation shows no sign of improving. The general idea here, at least according to the pro-globalization economists, is that though sweathsops etc are bad, they will lead to an improved ecnomy and improved living standards in the future. But this just sin't happeneing, the local ecnomy is not profiting from the corpoartion's presence.

You are wrong about the local economy not profiting from this, first of all. Taking your hypothetical about 'sweatshops or nothing', NO trade and thus zero economic benefit is generated by anyone without the inflow of money from outside. And if it's better worker conditions you're after, time has shown that Western interference - in the monoubiquitous form of aid - only creates a dependency which distorts things. The problem here is not the corporations but the governments which lavish what tax revenue they do generate on armies and things they don't need, rather than making their countries better.

Originally posted by Gank
Methinks the three of you should be sent to work in one for a week, then come back and tell us how much of a service its providing. Preferably one in Burma.

Do you have a point to make or are you just going to resort to this emotional blackmail garbage? Read Kazan's point on normalisation - applying first world standards to this problem isn't valid

[Rictor]

China and India have it worst, I think. 96 hours a ****ing week, and they say I'm overreacting.

seriously....96 hours...

[Kazan]

96 hours is very excessive - but are they forced at gun point, or threatened with their jobs if they don't work that much

remember also - there is very LITTLE western interference in China since it's a very staunch communist country.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by Kazan
96 hours is very excessive - but are they forced at gun point, or threatened with their jobs if they don't work that much

remember also - there is very LITTLE western interference in China since it's a very staunch communist country.

Actually, they are threatened with their jobs is they don't work this much. Check the picture I posted, and look at the "Circumstances" column or whatever. See how many of these factories have "fired is refusing to work overtime", or "fined if refusing to work overtime". For that matter check how many include "overtime not payed" or "forced to work for 24-hour streches at time of high demand" or something along those lines.

Though Western governments have little influence in China, the corporations choose to go there, preciesly becuase the control is lax. And there are many, many nations which have sweatshop and their governments are nowhere near as powerful as China. You can't put pressure of China to imrpove conditions, but you can on the vast majority of other countries. But, as I said, its the corporations that are in charge, the governments play a minor role.

[Bobboau]

if we preasure every nation but china, and are sucsesful then everyone will go to china, and thousands of people will die.
if it wasn't better than the alternative they wouldn't be doing it.

[Kazan]

Originally posted by Bobboau

if it wasn't better than the alternative they wouldn't be doing it.

Econ 101

[Grey Wolf]

Union policy for the last 50 years is what has screwed over the American economy.
Company: We're upgrading your factory. 5% will lose their jobs.
Union: You fire anyone, we're striking.
Company: On second thought, never mind.

Then, 20 years later:
Company: Since this factory has very low productivity, we're closing the entire building and moving production to China.
Union: You've betrayed us!

Unions have served a purpose. But that purpose is largely complete. They are not needed in a First World country.

[Rictor]

Not disputing that, or atleast not here. I'm talking about the Third World where they are badly, badly needed.

Originally posted by Bobboau
if we preasure every nation but china, and are sucsesful then everyone will go to china, and thousands of people will die.
if it wasn't better than the alternative they wouldn't be doing it.

The choice is not the government's hand, but rather in the corporations. They go where they can exploit the workers the most. Put pressure on the corps, not the governments, to stay in unionized factories. Some corporations like Nike have already done this IIRC, though in very, very limited ways, such as staying in one unionized factory out of 100.

If the corporations run like hell away from factories and countries that have managed to improve their wages and work conditions, this quite clearly shows their commitment to exploiting the Third World for all it's worth.

_________________________

Originally posted by Milton Friedman, economist and father of globalization
Asking a corporation to be socially responsible makes no more sense than asking a building to be.

edit: fixed, thats the exact quote.

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Unions have served a purpose. But that purpose is largely complete. They are not needed in a First World country.

I dunno. If there was an IT workers union, I might still have a job, and all the jobs I used to do might not be in ****ing India.

But I'm not bitter.