[Gank]

Originally posted by SadisticSid
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

Emotional blackmail? **** off. My point would be that a company that pays someone 20 cents a day to make a pair of runners and then sells the same runners for 80 euros can afford to treat its workers like human beings instead of pack animals. You three are saying its ok to treat these people like ****e because they have no other choice but to let you. I suppose you'd be the sort that would have argued slavery was a benefit to the black man in the 1800s, class A wankers.

[Kazan]

Gank: you're still missing the point about economic normalization

in some econonmies around the world paying your worker $0.20/day is the equivilent of getting $80/day (8 hours @$10/h) in the us, due to economic normalization

if you were to pay them first-world payrates their economy would crash because you would have just caused galatic levels of inflation

[Bobboau]

/*looks back*/
/*fails to find my endorsement as it being 'OK'*/

I never said it was ok or a great thing, I said it was better than the alternative, yes it could quite definatly be better for all parties involved (except the corperations) but just becase there is room for improvement deasn't mean it's the most horable thing ever.
I do however find someone makeing personal atacks wich is generaly considered the last line of defence when someone has lost an argument and has no more points to put forward.

[Gank]

Originally posted by Kazan
Gank: you're still missing the point about economic normalization

in some econonmies around the world paying your worker $0.20/day is the equivilent of getting $80/day (8 hours @$10/h) in the us, due to economic normalization

if you were to pay them first-world payrates their economy would crash because you would have just caused galatic levels of inflation

Kazan you're missing the point. Nobodys saying pay them the same as we get, they're saying stop abusing them for profit. the fact that you seem to think its all a matter of paying them more shows how little you know about the subject, else you're deliberatly simplifing it to justify it.

Originally posted by Bobboau
/*looks back*/
/*fails to find my endorsement as it being 'OK'*/

I never said it was ok or a great thing, I said it was better than the alternative, yes it could quite definatly be better for all parties involved (except the corperations) but just becase there is room for improvement deasn't mean it's the most horable thing ever.
I do however find someone makeing personal atacks wich is generaly considered the last line of defence when someone has lost an argument and has no more points to put forward.

You're making excuses for it, and if you didnt think it was ok I cant see why you would want to do that. Your alternative is bull****, you're saying its either a case of treat them like ****e or dont employ them at all. As for me losing an arguement and having no more points to put forward, why the hell are you agreeing with me?

Originally posted by Bobboau
yes it could quite definatly be better for all parties involved (except the corperations) but just becase there is room for improvement deasn't mean it's the most horable thing ever.

Originally posted by Gank
How about they get decent working conditions instead? Cant you retards see that there could possibly be a middle ground?

And if you dont want personal attacks, dont defend something like sweatshops.

[Kazan]

gank: i'm talking about pay because that's what most of people ***** about... employee treatment should have standards, and if they're substandard *****

however people hyperinflate the number of sweatshops by including 'low pay' which they haven't normalized that that countries economy.

sweatshops happen everytwhere, globalization doesn't cause them

[Rictor]

Originally posted by Kazan
Gank: you're still missing the point about economic normalization

in some econonmies around the world paying your worker $0.20/day is the equivilent of getting $80/day (8 hours @$10/h) in the us, due to economic normalization

if you were to pay them first-world payrates their economy would crash because you would have just caused galatic levels of inflation

Quick fact, one which I know off the top of my head without having to dig around for it.

Workers in Haiti in a factory producing Disney shirts make hundreds of shirts a day. They get paid 00.20 per hour,  and the shirts are sold in America for around $11. It would take a worker 5 full day's wages to afford a single shirt. Does this seem like fair compensation?

The thing is, paying them 00.50 per day is NOT the same as someone making $70 in America. It is much, much less. Consider for a minute the cost of AIDS medicine in Africa. If the people there were to purchase the medicines by brand name US manufacturers, as they are mostly forced to, its costs between 5000 and 10,000 per year for the medicine. Can someone making 2 dollars a day afford this? You assume that if their wages are X times lower, that their prices and costs of living are also X times lower. This just isn't true. If it was, the workers wouln't be complaining, they'de be too busy living the high life.

And like Gank said, this isn't just about money, though that is a very important issue. There is also the matter of work conditions, forced overtime and no unions. No matter the matter, employers have no right to beat their workers, fire women for being pregnant, force them to work 24 hour shifts, work in seriously unsafe conditions and so on.

[Kazan]

Rictor: actually it DOES because those shirts cost a lot less in Haiti than they do here, do your ****ing econ homework

gank is halfway intelligent, you keep ranting half-cocked

[Gank]

Originally posted by Kazan
gank: i'm talking about pay because that's what most of people ***** about... employee treatment should have standards, and if they're substandard *****

however people hyperinflate the number of sweatshops by including 'low pay' which they haven't normalized that that countries economy.

sweatshops happen everytwhere, globalization doesn't cause them

Yeha well thats not what I'm *****ing about Kazan, maybe you should read my posts before you get up on your high horse. I'm talking about people being treated like ****e and you're spouting off about normalizing economys. The fact that they're poor is no excuse for exploiting them.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by Kazan
Rictor: actually it DOES because those shirts cost a lot less in Haiti than they do here, do your ****ing econ homework

gank is halfway intelligent, you keep ranting half-cocked

You're right, I'm wrong. Your logic is beyond question, and I am simply unable to sort through the vast amounts of proof you have provided. You've proven me wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt, I'm sorry for wasting your time on something so obvious.

Think what you want, but please be sure to notify me becuase I also would very much like to also think what you think from now on.

[Janos]

Originally posted by Kazan
Rictor: actually it DOES because those shirts cost a lot less in Haiti than they do here, do your ****ing econ homework

gank is halfway intelligent, you keep ranting half-cocked

Hey, off to Myanmar we head to buy those cheap Nike shoes since they only cost 2-5 dollars there!

oh wait

[Kazan]

i don't buy nike here, there's a total ripoff

anyway - it's like the others said, if they thought it was so bad they'd quit

[Gank]

Originally posted by Kazan
anyway - it's like the others said, if they thought it was so bad they'd quit

Wanker. THEY HAVE NO ****ING CHOICE.

[Kazan]

they have more of a choice than you think, but less than you think i meant

[Rictor]

You quite simply don't get it. If I HAD to choose between having my hands chopped off, or having my head chopped off, I would choose the hands. Better something than nothing, right?

Buit thats bull**** logic. Why shouldn't the corporations pay a living wage? Why should they be able to abuse the workers, force them to work overtime without paying them, fire them at random, have them work in conditions where they are exposed to toxins? There are basic human rights, and no one has a right to infringe upon them.

These people didn't put thrmselves in the situation where they either work in the sweatshops or starve. They never chose that, it was forced upon them. Perhaps you live in a perfect world where every Third World schmuck is asked for his say so before the IMF proceeds to **** over their economy, but reality speaks differently. They never chose to privatize the public works, they never chose to open the borders. The decisions was made for them, without consultation, by their government under enormous pressure by the US.

Go back to page 6 and read the quote by Milton Friedman. This is the guy who wrote the book on globalization, its his lifes work. Now, if he wrote the rules, and he believes that corporartions have no responsibility to be ethical, what does that tell you about how thr system functions.

You don't want to have a dicussion, you just want people to listen to you and then shut the hell up. See, you've got the listen to what I'm saying as well, cause your statements have 0 proof backing them up and frankly I call bull****.

[Liberator]

A corporation is a legally recognized entity with the sole purpose to make as much money as they can legally.  Anything beyond this is superfluous and not necessary.

The treatment of their citizens falls within the purview of the government of the nation where the company is doing business.  It is their responsibility to ensure that their citizens are treated fairly by external entities, not the Company that they work for.

[Kazan]

Rictor: YOU CONTINUE TO FAIL ****ING ECON 101, Jesus christ - yes some of them really don't pay a living wage, but a great deal of them that get accused of being sweatshops based off pay DO because people like you neglect to calculate what a LIVING WAGE is in THAT COUNTRY.

"Abuse workers" as in poor treatment, i already said i'm all for standards on how they can treat workers
"Force them to work overtime without paying them" do you mean without paying period or without paying 'time and a half' - if the first the corp should be in trouble, if the second then not every country mandates time and a half
"Fire them at random" *cough* cry baby *cough* you can be "fired at random" here too
"work in conditions exposed to toxins" see: worker treatment standards
You do not have a basic human right NOT to get fired, actually you don't have a basic human right to a job nor do you have a basic human right to a certain ammount of pay - certain ammount of pay is a NICETY that is almost always necessary for the company to get the worker, but even here in the united states there are a lot of jobs that don't pay what i consider a living wage in this economy.   Minimum wage laws don't help either, because if you raise the minimum wage you just caused inflation and therefore you just raised the cost of living - the raise in the mimimum wage had no effect on "real wages"

"Work in the sweatshop or starve" very bloody unlikely, you act as if the sweatshop is the ONLY job available, i'm sorry but in most of the places we outsource those type of jobs too this situation doesn't happen.  

Stating that the "IMF proceeds to **** over" places economies just shows a lack of understanding for economics.  
"privatize the public works" their governments **** up, 'US govt leaning on them' our government being assholes - don't blame it on the people

Friedman wrote _A_ book on globalization as HE knows it/wants it, that's not globalization the PROCESS.  Friedman is a known arsehole

I want to have a discussion with people who aren't hyperemotional and believe everything they're guilt-tripped into.

"your statements have 0 proof" GO READ A REAL ECONOMICS TEXT

[Kazan]

Originally posted by Liberator
The treatment of their citizens falls within the purview of the government of the nation where the company is doing business.  It is their responsibility to ensure that their citizens are treated fairly by external entities, not the Company that they work for.

I hate to have to agree with liberator, but once in a while he does make an accurate statement

[Rictor]

Originally posted by Liberator
A corporation is a legally recognized entity with the sole purpose to make as much money as they can legally.  Anything beyond this is superfluous and not necessary.

The treatment of their citizens falls within the purview of the government of the nation where the company is doing business.  It is their responsibility to ensure that their citizens are treated fairly by external entities, not the Company that they work for.

But, as you may have noticed, corporations have grown powerful enough to circumvent governments or bend them to their agenda. Like it or not, corporations are the predominant insitutions of our time. When 51 of the world's top 100 economies are private entites, with no obligation to uphold morals, we're in trouble.

Why is it that no person or government has a right to ignore ethics, while a corporation does. Do you feel it is fine and dandy to have amoral insitutation determining government policy? Because they are.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by Kazan
Rictor: YOU CONTINUE TO FAIL ****ING ECON 101, Jesus christ - yes some of them really don't pay a living wage, but a great deal of them that get accused of being sweatshops based off pay DO because people like you neglect to calculate what a LIVING WAGE is in THAT COUNTRY.

Can you make one post without the use of caps? I can hear you just fine. Do you think people would really be dumb enough not to wager in the cost od living difference when calculating wages? Its convenient to tell yourself that these people are making enough money, if we only compensate for the difference in prices. But the fact is that most workers working in these places are not paid a living wage, even when this is factored it.

Also, enough with the Econ 101 crap, I know how economies work damnit. And yes, I;'ve taken econ courses, so shut up about it.

Originally posted by Kazan
"Abuse workers" as in poor treatment, i already said i'm all for standards on how they can treat workers
"Force them to work overtime without paying them" do you mean without paying period or without paying 'time and a half' - if the first the corp should be in trouble, if the second then not every country mandates time and a half
"Fire them at random" *cough* cry baby *cough* you can be "fired at random" here too
"work in conditions exposed to toxins" see: worker treatment standards

Abuse workers: Yes, but what should the punishment be if corpporations fail to uphold these standard?

Forced overtime: It means forcing them to work overtime without paying them the legal wage for it. This is not necessarily 1.5x, it is whatever it is in that country. They don't pay what is legal overtime.

Originally posted by Kazan
You do not have a basic human right NOT to get fired, actually you don't have a basic human right to a job nor do you have a basic human right to a certain ammount of pay - certain ammount of pay is a NICETY that is almost always necessary for the company to get the worker, but even here in the united states there are a lot of jobs that don't pay what i consider a living wage in this economy.   Minimum wage laws don't help either, because if you raise the minimum wage you just caused inflation and therefore you just raised the cost of living - the raise in the mimimum wage had no effect on "real wages"

How about if pregnant women are regularly fired becuase the company does not want to pay benefits. Is that fair?

And yes, the empoyer does have an obligation to pay living wages. Miminum wages are whatever some jackass politician decides, living wages are what is required to eat. And don't pretend like this is anything akin to the situation in the US., Yeah, workers are getting ripped off in the US too, but there's a million ways to get by . Welfware, homeless shelters. And the standard of living in the US that is provided by a "low paying" job is nothing like what the living standard is in the third world.

Originally posted by Kazan
"Work in the sweatshop or starve" very bloody unlikely, you act as if the sweatshop is the ONLY job available, i'm sorry but in most of the places we outsource those type of jobs too this situation doesn't happen.  

Would you like to see some figures as to what percentage of employment in certain third world countries is in the textile industries? Or what even more significant, how much this percentage has gone up in the past 20 years?

Originally posted by Kazan
Stating that the "IMF proceeds to **** over" places economies just shows a lack of understanding for economics.  
"privatize the public works" their governments **** up, 'US govt leaning on them' our government being assholes - don't blame it on the people

Would you like me to find some IMF "action plans" for various third world countries? I'll post it tommorow, and you tell me if it ****ing up the economy or not. the WTO et al are not interested in improving the lives of Third World people, they interested in creating cheap sources of labour. That, or they are the single most inept organization in the history of mankind. Globalization has not helped the working class in a single country. The rich profit, the poor are screwed.

Originally posted by Kazan
Friedman wrote _A_ book on globalization as HE knows it/wants it, that's not globalization the PROCESS.  Friedman is a known arsehole

I want to have a discussion with people who aren't hyperemotional and believe everything they're guilt-tripped into.

"your statements have 0 proof" GO READ A REAL ECONOMICS TEXT

Actually, he wrote many books. Friedman is the architect of globalization. It is his vision made real. The people spearheading the globalization movement all studied economics in Chicago under Friedman. Just like Marx could be said to be the intellectual father of Communism, Friedman is the guy who's ideas were implemented.

For all his faults, I consider him to be a pretty brilliant man. Its just his vision that I don't like. Don't pretend like he's a minor player, his the "man with the plan".

[Kazan]

Originally posted by Rictor


Can you make one post without the use of caps?  

Not when the other person is being thick skulled incessantly

Do you think people would really be dumb enough not to wager in the cost od living difference when calculating wages?

I don't "think" i KNOW - when i've had the time and the patience to sit down with people taking your position before and they've shown me numbers i've quickly refuted their position because I pulled up economics info on that country and properly normalized the numbers.

You would be astonished how often people do not properly normalize

Its convenient to tell yourself that these people are making enough money, if we only compensate for the difference in prices.

I don't deal in matters of convience when it comes to whether something is real or not, remember I easily overcome my emotions when it comes to making decisions and judging what is factual

But the fact is that most workers working in these places are not paid a living wage, even when this is factored it.

Obviously 'living wage' must include a car, and tv for you or some really unncessary **** for a 3rd world person

Also, enough with the Econ 101 crap, I know how economies work damnit. And yes, I;'ve taken econ courses, so shut up about it.

define:
LRAS
SRAS
LRAD
SRAD

tell me how you find equalibrium given an equasion for supply (tons in terms of price) and an equasion for demand (price in terms of tons)

Abuse workers: Yes, but what should the punishment be if corpporations fail to uphold these standard?

Fines large enough that it actually hurts them (determine fine in percent of how much they made internationally the previous year)
Disallow them to do business in that country

Forced overtime: It means forcing them to work overtime without paying them the legal wage for it. This is not necessarily 1.5x, it is whatever it is in that country. They don't pay what is legal overtime.

Then it's a simple pay dispute since they are atleast paying them - the local govt should have the balls to take care of it

How about if pregnant women are regularly fired becuase the company does not want to pay benefits. Is that fair?

See: WORKER TREATMENT - emotionally loaded questions piss me off because using them is a sign of a weak arguement.  This is CLEARLY a descriminatory practice and should be illegal.  If you don't know enough about me by now to know that I would think this than you're just as large of a bigoted moron as I sometimes think you are

And yes, the empoyer does have an obligation to pay living wages.

Incorrect - price of labor is determined by basic supply and demand curves.  "Labor" = service, "Job" = demand for service

Miminum wages are whatever some jackass politician decides, living wages are what is required to eat.

Then a lot more places are paying living wages then what you are implying.

You also seem to think this is their ONLY incoming / only means of aquiring food [legally] which is just about gauranteed to be incorrect.

And don't pretend like this is anything akin to the situation in the US.,

It all follows the rules of economics, time for a reality check if you don't know this

Yeah, workers are getting ripped off in the US too, but there's a million ways to get by .

JUST LIKE IN MOST EVERY OTHER COUNTRY - EVEN THE THIRD WORLD and that's ignoring government help

Welfware, homeless shelters.

Which are descreasingly existant thanks to the neoconservative movement.  These facilities help women escape abusive relationships and help them escape the environment where they're treated as property - therefore the NeoCons (Christian Taliban) are opposed to these

And the standard of living in the US that is provided by a "low paying" job is nothing like what the living standard is in the third world.

**** happens - while you're *****ing about their standard of living not being high enough a lot of them are busy wondering WTF "I have a job that's paying me more than bare minimum to live, go worry about something else"

Would you like to see some figures as to what percentage of employment in certain third world countries is in the textile industries?

A lot

Or what even more significant, how much this percentage has gone up in the past 20 years?

ditto

Would you like me to find some IMF "action plans" for various third world countries?

Sure

I'll post it tommorow, and you tell me if it ****ing up the economy or not.

ok

the WTO et al are not interested in improving the lives of Third World people

that's not they're job, and they have no moral obligation - thats the job of said third world country

they interested in creating cheap sources of labour.

That's business

That, or they are the single most inept organization in the history of mankind.

Or you're trying to attribute tasks to them which are not their responsibility

Globalization has not helped the working class in a single country. The rich profit, the poor are screwed.

Just because the people in those countries are not standing up to the rich assholes.  Economic Globalization is a REQUIREMENT for the furtherance of governments and economies on this planet.  What is done with that global access is completely different from globalization itself

Actually, he wrote many books. Friedman is the architect of globalization. It is his vision made real.

Globalization as he sees it - so let's become specific capital G Globalization for Friedmans, lowercase g globalization for nonspecific from now on

The people spearheading the globalization movement all studied economics in Chicago under Friedman. Just like Marx could be said to be the intellectual father of Communism, Friedman is the guy who's ideas were implemented.

most the pity

For all his faults, I consider him to be a pretty brilliant man. Its just his vision that I don't like. Don't pretend like he's a minor player, his the "man with the plan".

i don't pretend he's a minor player, but he is an ass