The free market will correct unethical business practices.

[Free Tristania]

I believe that we have heard this story before. Free-market has become a free-for-all-and -eff-everyone-else fest. It does not autocorrect anything except for the spread of wealth and it will lead to the autocorrection of that: from a general wealth to a wealth in fewer and fewer hands.

[EnragedMaldivians]

Sirbisky is right on this issue Xomic; sweatshops are a necessary evil - and their alternatives to employment are much much worse. Anyone well informed on this issue agrees - read any economic sources you want, or heck, even Nicholas Kirstoff.

The practical effect is more important than any abstract moral stance you take.

Minimum wage and child labor laws in sweatshop countries would be a better alternative.

If the minimum wage is above the cost of production, it will simply make it less profitable to employ people. The people work for these factories because it is a marginally better alternative to unemployment.

I know some folks mean well, but good intentions don't always mean good legislation.

But yes, the goal should be to moving towards an economy that can sustain such safety nets.

[Xomic]

That's not to say that anyone thinks the situation is fundamentally good, just that reforms need to be made on their side, rather than the western side punishing their already struggling economy and trade relations until they can comply (which is often impossible).

Sibirsky certain seems to believe it's fundamentally good. As for the reforms being made on their side, it's likely true, since any sort of global min wage would be impossible to enforce. But that doesn't mean we should celebrate corporations like Nike or Apple's abuse of their employees, and we should try to make unionising easier.

[The Parkus Empire]

No, they don't need to. However, charity would be cheaper than having to deal with crime.

I'm not sure whey the rich would care about that, as crime is largely a plague of poverty.

They'd also be more likely to provide jobs instead of charity. Lower crime and make money at the same time.

Yeah, see, trickle down--no. The idea the if we cut back on taxes to the rich, then wages and jobs will go up proportionately. We tried it, it didn't work.

[Sibirsky]

I believe that we have heard this story before. Free-market has become a free-for-all-and -eff-everyone-else fest. It does not autocorrect anything except for the spread of wealth and it will lead to the autocorrection of that: from a general wealth to a wealth in fewer and fewer hands.

Incorrect. Regulations increase income disparity due to barriers to entry. Hence why big business loves big government and regulation.

[Bosiu]

Sirbisky is right on this issue Xomic; sweatshops are a necessary evil - and their alternatives to employment are much much worse. Anyone well informed on this issue agrees - read any economic sources you want, or heck, even Nicholas Kirstoff.

The practical effect is more important than any abstract moral stance you take.

Minimum wage and child labor laws in sweatshop countries would be a better alternative.

I agree with child labor, however, minimum wage laws cause an unneeded surplus of labor. That is why I disagree with them.

[Gthanp]

Minimum wage and child labor laws in sweatshop countries would be a better alternative.

Only if they are ready.

If a child has no ability to consent as you argued before what makes child labor any different than slavery?

[The Parkus Empire]

If the minimum wage is above the cost of production, it will simply make it less profitable to employ people.

But see, it wouldn't be. Those sneakers sell for $60 to hundreds a pair.

[Xomic]

Sirbisky is right on this issue Xomic; sweatshops are a necessary evil - and their alternatives to employment are much much worse. Anyone well informed on this issue agrees - read any economic sources you want, or heck, even Nicholas Kirstoff.

The practical effect is more important than any abstract moral stance you take.

I'm merely seeing a consensus of economists that do not agree to such a large degree on most issues. Therefore they must be right. And their view is supported by common sense.

Argumentum ad populum.

And lunch break is over. tata for now

[Sibirsky]

That's not to say that anyone thinks the situation is fundamentally good, just that reforms need to be made on their side, rather than the western side punishing their already struggling economy and trade relations until they can comply (which is often impossible).

Sibirsky certain seems to believe it's fundamentally good. As for the reforms being made on their side, it's likely true, since any sort of global min wage would be impossible to enforce. But that doesn't mean we should celebrate corporations like Nike or Apple's abuse of their employees, and we should try to make unionising easier.

I said they were better than the alternative, not good.

You support the alternative. Poverty and child prostitution.

[Hydesland]

And what part recognizes the jobs lost in the West when companies outsource? Western workers are not immune to the effects of becoming unemployed.

It's not as simple as that, some studies suggest, due to feedback and wealth effects, that the net job loss of outsourcing, at least long term, is not negative. Similar arguments are used for increasing immigration into western countries: initially they may displace workers, but other positive effects from immigration causes unemployment to decrease overall.

[Central Slavia]

Considering how the US manufactures 70% more goods than China (the #2 producer) I would say no.

China's pretty third world, both by original definition (with the Americas being the second world) and by--well, what we generally think of as third world.

Please , learn the terms.

First world - the capitalist world
Second world - countries of the socialist international
Third world - everyone else.

[Gthanp]

If the minimum wage is above the cost of production, it will simply make it less profitable to employ people.

But see, it wouldn't be. Those sneakers sell for $60 to hundreds a pair.

Simply adjust the minimum wage to Purchasing Power Parity

[Farnhamia]

No, they don't need to. However, charity would be cheaper than having to deal with crime.

I'm not sure whey the rich would care about that, as crime is largely a plague of poverty.

They'd also be more likely to provide jobs instead of charity. Lower crime and make money at the same time.

Yeah, see, trickle down--no. The idea the if we cut back on taxes to the rich, then wages and jobs will go up proportionately. We tried it, it didn't work.

That's because the Democrats and the Socialists and all those other leftists kept threatening to let the tax cuts President Bush enacted expire. The rich were concerned that if they did hire someone, in a few years they might have to let them go because their taxes went up. Being sensitive human beings, they didn't want to give their prospective employees false hope of a lifetime position, so, despite their deep desire to hire as many people as possible, they didn't.

Why do you hate freedom?

[Sibirsky]

No, they don't need to. However, charity would be cheaper than having to deal with crime.

I'm not sure whey the rich would care about that, as crime is largely a plague of poverty.

Right. So they can donate to charity so the poor would be less likely to steal from them.

They'd also be more likely to provide jobs instead of charity. Lower crime and make money at the same time.

Yeah, see, trickle down--no. The idea the if we cut back on taxes to the rich, then wages and jobs will go up proportionately. We tried it, it didn't work.

Either or. Both are good.

[The Parkus Empire]

Minimum wage and child labor laws in sweatshop countries would be a better alternative.

I agree with child labor, however, minimum wage laws cause an unneeded surplus of labor. That is why I disagree with them.

No they don't.

[Farnhamia]

And what part recognizes the jobs lost in the West when companies outsource? Western workers are not immune to the effects of becoming unemployed.

It's not as simple as that, some studies suggest, due to feedback and wealth effects, that the net job loss of outsourcing, at least long term, is not negative. Similar arguments are used for increasing immigration into western countries: initially they may displace workers, but other positive effects from immigration causes unemployment to decrease overall.

That's a new one. Outsourcing creates jobs now? Ah, but you said long-term. How long?

[Free Tristania]

I believe that we have heard this story before. Free-market has become a free-for-all-and -eff-everyone-else fest. It does not autocorrect anything except for the spread of wealth and it will lead to the autocorrection of that: from a general wealth to a wealth in fewer and fewer hands.

Incorrect. Regulations increase income disparity due to barriers to entry. Hence why big business loves big government and regulation.

Nonsense. As they have made legislation in their favour. Let's just realize that this present notion has failed miserably at all counts and let's get over it, clean up the mess and adjust our economies to that knowledge. And no.. I am not talking full-blown socialism here.

[Sibirsky]

Only if they are ready.

If a child has no ability to consent as you argued before what makes child labor any different than slavery?

Children always worked. It was not only after the industrial revolution that incomes were high enough to be able to have children not work, and even provide them with education. The third world is not there yet.

Would stricter, European or American building codes prevent the devastating effects of the earthquake in Haiti?

[Bosiu]

I agree with child labor, however, minimum wage laws cause an unneeded surplus of labor. That is why I disagree with them.

No they don't.

Basic economics of supply and demand. Any government imposed price floor of cieling will cause an unneeded surplus and shortage respectively.

[The Parkus Empire]

Right. So they can donate to charity so the poor would be less likely to steal from them.

The poor rob the poor, maybe some small businesses. Rarely the middle class. Almost never the rich, do the location discrependy ("We leave miles up in the hills, yo!") and the security systems. Charity can not be construed as profitable, at least not financially.

Either or. Both are good.

But neither happened. We just got the rich having more money and everyone else footing the bill for it.

[EnragedMaldivians]

If the minimum wage is above the cost of production, it will simply make it less profitable to employ people.

But see, it wouldn't be. Those sneakers sell for $60 to hundreds a pair.

Well, I'm just deferring to the experts on this issue - I myself am probably not qualified to make a good arguement on this topic yet.

If minimum wages can be implemented in a way that does not cause unemployment, I am for then 100%.

Argumentum ad populum.

And lunch break is over. tata for now

There is a difference between majority opinion of the general public, and majority opinion of qualified individuals.

[Hydesland]

That's a new one. Outsourcing creates jobs now? Ah, but you said long-term. How long?

For the wealth effects allow businesses to expand in their own country, causing them to hire more workers in the services or courier sectors, for example.

[UCUMAY]

About child labor... I see nothing wrong with it as long as it's not dangerous work. That should be for the age of majority. In that an anarcho-capitalist system makes better sense.

[The Parkus Empire]

But see, it wouldn't be. Those sneakers sell for $60 to hundreds a pair.

Well, I'm just deferring to the experts on this issue - I myself am probably not qualified to make a good arguement on this topic yet.

If minimum wages can be implemented in a way that does not cause unemployment, I am for then 100%.

Minimum wage only causes unemployment when businesses can hire somewhere or someone it doesn't apply to. Which is really just a shift in employment, not unemployment.