The free market will correct unethical business practices.

[Sibirsky]

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?

No, it's not new. Companies that outsource create more jobs domestically. Also, there is insourcing. Foreign businesses hiring in the US.

[UCUMAY]

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.

And the above is illegal depending on company size.

[EnragedMaldivians]

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.

I will respond to this in 4 years.

[Sibirsky]

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.

They make legislation in their favor. How is what I said nonsense?

[Gthanp]

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?

Working in an industrial environment is different than working on a subsistence farm. Publicly funded education systems, agitation by labor unions, and social activists, and yes legislation put an end to child labor.

As for your other question yes they would if the construction of the buildings was properly funded. And if not properly funded and the people all live on the street or in tents because they can't afford the new building codes then they don't have wood and stone walls falling on them either.

[Sibirsky]

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.

If it saves money, versus having to deal with crime, it may be profitable.

[The Parkus Empire]

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.

If it saves money, versus having to deal with crime, it may be profitable.

I don't see how it would save money as the rich hardly have to deal with crime.

[UCUMAY]

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.

If it saves money, versus having to deal with crime, it may be profitable.

Profit is not the end all and be all. I'm all for balancing the budget, cutting spending, and making most social taxes optional. However I don't think anarcho-capitalism is the correct path. It leaves out the middle, working, and poor.
When you do that all you have to do is look at the French Revolution, and the Over throw of Czarist Russia to see what happens.

[Gthanp]

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

Also, there is insourcing. Foreign businesses hiring in the US.

Yeah they like to take advantage of our lax labor laws in the south

[Sibirsky]

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?

Working in an industrial environment is different than working on a subsistence farm. Publicly funded education systems, agitation by labor unions, and social activists, and yes legislation put an end to child labor.

As for your other question yes they would if the construction of the buildings was properly funded. And if not properly funded and the people all live on the street or in tents because they can't afford the new building codes then they don't have wood and stone walls falling on them either.

The increase in production allowed the funding of public education. An increase in production helped end child labor.

Haiti does not have proper funding to comply with Euro-American building codes. Therefore such legislation would only ensure mass homelessness.

[Sibirsky]

Also, there is insourcing. Foreign businesses hiring in the US.

Yeah they like to take advantage of our lax labor laws in the south

They create jobs.

[UCUMAY]

Yeah they like to take advantage of our lax labor laws in the south

They create jobs.

More like no state income tax for Texas. That's reason enough to work here.

[Ordo Drakul]

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.

Actually, minimum wage laws raise the cost of production and cost of living, since that money has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is in raising prices. Minimum wage laws hurt most the people they claim to benefit, as a hike in the minimum wage is a hike in the cost of everything, as man-hours become more expensive. The only people who benefit are unions who use the minimum wage to hike their own pay. Minimum wage has two immediate effects-raising costs and cutting employment, as the employers expect to get the same amount of work done for the same amount of money.

[Free Tristania]

Yeah they like to take advantage of our lax labor laws in the south

They create jobs.

At low pay while they take the profits to offshore banks. Profits that could have been used to update healthcare, education, the transport network etc.

[Gthanp]

Working in an industrial environment is different than working on a subsistence farm. Publicly funded education systems, agitation by labor unions, and social activists, and yes legislation put an end to child labor.

As for your other question yes they would if the construction of the buildings was properly funded. And if not properly funded and the people all live on the street or in tents because they can't afford the new building codes then they don't have wood and stone walls falling on them either.

The increase in production allowed the funding of public education. An increase in production helped end child labor.

Haiti does not have proper funding to comply with Euro-American building codes. Therefore such legislation would only ensure mass homelessness.

Increased production may have helped create the conditions but child labor would have never been eliminated without collective action.

If Haiti does not have the funding for proper construction then the international community should assist them. However in the mass homelessness scenario there would ironically be less casualties. Because having no roof over your head is safer than having a poorly built one in an earthquake. You can't argue with physics.

[Gthanp]

They create jobs.

More like no state income tax for Texas. That's reason enough to work here.

Try dealing with their shitty worker's comp system sometime then tell me how good it is to work there.

[EnragedMaldivians]

I think the following are good reads on this topic, thought I would share.

Op-Ed ColumnistWhere Sweatshops Are a Dream
Nicholas D.Kristoff

Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Nicholas D. Kristof

Before Barack Obama and his team act on their talk about “labor standards,” I’d like to offer them a tour of the vast garbage dump here in Phnom Penh.

This is a Dante-like vision of hell. It’s a mountain of festering refuse, a half-hour hike across, emitting clouds of smoke from subterranean fires.

The miasma of toxic stink leaves you gasping, breezes batter you with filth, and even the rats look forlorn. Then the smoke parts and you come across a child ambling barefoot, searching for old plastic cups that recyclers will buy for five cents a pound. Many families actually live in shacks on this smoking garbage.

Mr. Obama and the Democrats who favor labor standards in trade agreements mean well, for they intend to fight back at oppressive sweatshops abroad. But while it shocks Americans to hear it, the central challenge in the poorest countries is not that sweatshops exploit too many people, but that they don’t exploit enough.

Talk to these families in the dump, and a job in a sweatshop is a cherished dream, an escalator out of poverty, the kind of gauzy if probably unrealistic ambition that parents everywhere often have for their children.

“I’d love to get a job in a factory,” said Pim Srey Rath, a 19-year-old woman scavenging for plastic. “At least that work is in the shade. Here is where it’s hot.”

Another woman, Vath Sam Oeun, hopes her 10-year-old boy, scavenging beside her, grows up to get a factory job, partly because she has seen other children run over by garbage trucks. Her boy has never been to a doctor or a dentist, and last bathed when he was 2, so a sweatshop job by comparison would be far more pleasant and less dangerous.

I’m glad that many Americans are repulsed by the idea of importing products made by barely paid, barely legal workers in dangerous factories. Yet sweatshops are only a symptom of poverty, not a cause, and banning them closes off one route out of poverty. At a time of tremendous economic distress and protectionist pressures, there’s a special danger that tighter labor standards will be used as an excuse to curb trade.

When I defend sweatshops, people always ask me: But would you want to work in a sweatshop? No, of course not. But I would want even less to pull a rickshaw. In the hierarchy of jobs in poor countries, sweltering at a sewing machine isn’t the bottom.

My views on sweatshops are shaped by years living in East Asia, watching as living standards soared — including those in my wife’s ancestral village in southern China — because of sweatshop jobs.

Manufacturing is one sector that can provide millions of jobs. Yet sweatshops usually go not to the poorest nations but to better-off countries with more reliable electricity and ports.

I often hear the argument: Labor standards can improve wages and working conditions, without greatly affecting the eventual retail cost of goods. That’s true. But labor standards and “living wages” have a larger impact on production costs that companies are always trying to pare. The result is to push companies to operate more capital-intensive factories in better-off nations like Malaysia, rather than labor-intensive factories in poorer countries like Ghana or Cambodia.

Cambodia has, in fact, pursued an interesting experiment by working with factories to establish decent labor standards and wages. It’s a worthwhile idea, but one result of paying above-market wages is that those in charge of hiring often demand bribes — sometimes a month’s salary — in exchange for a job. In addition, these standards add to production costs, so some factories have closed because of the global economic crisis and the difficulty of competing internationally.

The best way to help people in the poorest countries isn’t to campaign against sweatshops but to promote manufacturing there. One of the best things America could do for Africa would be to strengthen our program to encourage African imports, called AGOA, and nudge Europe to match it.

Among people who work in development, many strongly believe (but few dare say very loudly) that one of the best hopes for the poorest countries would be to build their manufacturing industries. But global campaigns against sweatshops make that less likely.

Look, I know that Americans have a hard time accepting that sweatshops can help people. But take it from 13-year-old Neuo Chanthou, who earns a bit less than $1 a day scavenging in the dump. She’s wearing a “Playboy” shirt and hat that she found amid the filth, and she worries about her sister, who lost part of her hand when a garbage truck ran over her.

“It’s dirty, hot and smelly here,” she said wistfully. “A factory is better.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/15/opini ... ml?_r=2&hp

My sweatshop column
By NICHOLAS KRISTOF
I’m just about the only person in America who favors sweatshops, and I expect a few brickbats for my Thursday column. Let me clarify a couple of things. First, I don’t deny the criticisms that are usually made of sweatshops — the unhealthy conditions, the abuses, the low wages, and so on. Indeed, I think sweatshops are often worse than commonly perceived, because some kinds of factories — such as those manufacturing leather garments — often use chemicals that are dumped in nearby streams, raising environmental concerns as well.

My point is that bad as sweatshops are, the alternatives are worse. They are more dangerous, lower-paying and more degrading. And when I struggle to think how we can really make a big difference in the development of the poorest countries, the key always seems to be manufacturing. If Africa, for example, can only develop an apparel industry, it will boom.

Now, there are lots of reasons why Africa doesn’t have a garment industry (except for Lesotho, Namibia and a few other places), and they include corruption, poor infrastructure, and quality control. But it’s also true that if a major apparel maker went into, say, Liberia, it would be competitive only if it paid very low wages — and that would get the company in trouble with the press and sweatshop watchdogs. So there is zero apparel export from Liberia (a fragile country with huge unemployment and a wonderful president whom we should be trying to support).

One of the best aid programs for Africa is AGOA, which creates incentives for American imports from Africa, and it should be expanded. The European equivalent, EBA, is a farce and should be combined with AGOA. But to do all this, we need to rethink sweatshops. We need to build a constituency of humanitarians who view low-wage manufacturing as a solution. And that’s the point of my column.

Incidentally, I’m all for “fair-wage” clothing that is based on paying decent wages and providing decent working conditions. More power to those brands. But I think they reflect a modest niche, and the denunciations of sweatshops end up taking jobs away from the poorest countries.

http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/0 ... op-column/


Sometimes I think that well meaning people in the developed world don't understand the reality of viable choices faced by people from the third world.

[Bosiu]

Also, there is insourcing. Foreign businesses hiring in the US.

Yeah they like to take advantage of our lax labor laws in the south

Yup. Low taxes and a good work ethic tend to do that.

[Gthanp]

I think the following are good reads on this topic, thought I would share.

Op-Ed ColumnistWhere Sweatshops Are a Dream
Nicholas D.Kristoff

Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Nicholas D. Kristof

Before Barack Obama and his team act on their talk about “labor standards,” I’d like to offer them a tour of the vast garbage dump here in Phnom Penh.

This is a Dante-like vision of hell. It’s a mountain of festering refuse, a half-hour hike across, emitting clouds of smoke from subterranean fires.

The miasma of toxic stink leaves you gasping, breezes batter you with filth, and even the rats look forlorn. Then the smoke parts and you come across a child ambling barefoot, searching for old plastic cups that recyclers will buy for five cents a pound. Many families actually live in shacks on this smoking garbage.

Mr. Obama and the Democrats who favor labor standards in trade agreements mean well, for they intend to fight back at oppressive sweatshops abroad. But while it shocks Americans to hear it, the central challenge in the poorest countries is not that sweatshops exploit too many people, but that they don’t exploit enough.

Talk to these families in the dump, and a job in a sweatshop is a cherished dream, an escalator out of poverty, the kind of gauzy if probably unrealistic ambition that parents everywhere often have for their children.

“I’d love to get a job in a factory,” said Pim Srey Rath, a 19-year-old woman scavenging for plastic. “At least that work is in the shade. Here is where it’s hot.”

Another woman, Vath Sam Oeun, hopes her 10-year-old boy, scavenging beside her, grows up to get a factory job, partly because she has seen other children run over by garbage trucks. Her boy has never been to a doctor or a dentist, and last bathed when he was 2, so a sweatshop job by comparison would be far more pleasant and less dangerous.

I’m glad that many Americans are repulsed by the idea of importing products made by barely paid, barely legal workers in dangerous factories. Yet sweatshops are only a symptom of poverty, not a cause, and banning them closes off one route out of poverty. At a time of tremendous economic distress and protectionist pressures, there’s a special danger that tighter labor standards will be used as an excuse to curb trade.

When I defend sweatshops, people always ask me: But would you want to work in a sweatshop? No, of course not. But I would want even less to pull a rickshaw. In the hierarchy of jobs in poor countries, sweltering at a sewing machine isn’t the bottom.

My views on sweatshops are shaped by years living in East Asia, watching as living standards soared — including those in my wife’s ancestral village in southern China — because of sweatshop jobs.

Manufacturing is one sector that can provide millions of jobs. Yet sweatshops usually go not to the poorest nations but to better-off countries with more reliable electricity and ports.

I often hear the argument: Labor standards can improve wages and working conditions, without greatly affecting the eventual retail cost of goods. That’s true. But labor standards and “living wages” have a larger impact on production costs that companies are always trying to pare. The result is to push companies to operate more capital-intensive factories in better-off nations like Malaysia, rather than labor-intensive factories in poorer countries like Ghana or Cambodia.

Cambodia has, in fact, pursued an interesting experiment by working with factories to establish decent labor standards and wages. It’s a worthwhile idea, but one result of paying above-market wages is that those in charge of hiring often demand bribes — sometimes a month’s salary — in exchange for a job. In addition, these standards add to production costs, so some factories have closed because of the global economic crisis and the difficulty of competing internationally.

The best way to help people in the poorest countries isn’t to campaign against sweatshops but to promote manufacturing there. One of the best things America could do for Africa would be to strengthen our program to encourage African imports, called AGOA, and nudge Europe to match it.

Among people who work in development, many strongly believe (but few dare say very loudly) that one of the best hopes for the poorest countries would be to build their manufacturing industries. But global campaigns against sweatshops make that less likely.

Look, I know that Americans have a hard time accepting that sweatshops can help people. But take it from 13-year-old Neuo Chanthou, who earns a bit less than $1 a day scavenging in the dump. She’s wearing a “Playboy” shirt and hat that she found amid the filth, and she worries about her sister, who lost part of her hand when a garbage truck ran over her.

“It’s dirty, hot and smelly here,” she said wistfully. “A factory is better.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/15/opini ... ml?_r=2&hp

My sweatshop column
By NICHOLAS KRISTOF
I’m just about the only person in America who favors sweatshops, and I expect a few brickbats for my Thursday column. Let me clarify a couple of things. First, I don’t deny the criticisms that are usually made of sweatshops — the unhealthy conditions, the abuses, the low wages, and so on. Indeed, I think sweatshops are often worse than commonly perceived, because some kinds of factories — such as those manufacturing leather garments — often use chemicals that are dumped in nearby streams, raising environmental concerns as well.

My point is that bad as sweatshops are, the alternatives are worse. They are more dangerous, lower-paying and more degrading. And when I struggle to think how we can really make a big difference in the development of the poorest countries, the key always seems to be manufacturing. If Africa, for example, can only develop an apparel industry, it will boom.

Now, there are lots of reasons why Africa doesn’t have a garment industry (except for Lesotho, Namibia and a few other places), and they include corruption, poor infrastructure, and quality control. But it’s also true that if a major apparel maker went into, say, Liberia, it would be competitive only if it paid very low wages — and that would get the company in trouble with the press and sweatshop watchdogs. So there is zero apparel export from Liberia (a fragile country with huge unemployment and a wonderful president whom we should be trying to support).

One of the best aid programs for Africa is AGOA, which creates incentives for American imports from Africa, and it should be expanded. The European equivalent, EBA, is a farce and should be combined with AGOA. But to do all this, we need to rethink sweatshops. We need to build a constituency of humanitarians who view low-wage manufacturing as a solution. And that’s the point of my column.

Incidentally, I’m all for “fair-wage” clothing that is based on paying decent wages and providing decent working conditions. More power to those brands. But I think they reflect a modest niche, and the denunciations of sweatshops end up taking jobs away from the poorest countries.

http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/0 ... op-column/

The garbage dump is probably full of e-waste from the global economy that manufacturers have failed to manage due to lax regulations.

Plus there are plenty of fair-trade companies that specialize in selling goods manufactured in third world countries for a fair wage.

Kristoff ignores this because he is an idiot

[Nazis in Space]

Going back to page two because this thread's growing somewhat quickly.

Owners of large amounts of slaves generally breed them. Contrary to what you're saying, they're also far cheaper. A cement room that houses fifty crammed occupants along with shitty food is far less expensive than minimum wage + possible retirement + health plans + limited hours + safe working conditions. Buying a slave isn't that expensive either, when they can be readily farmed.

You're saying that paying for a child to grow up until work-capable age (Six or so, albeit at much-reduced productivity, compared to an adult; About 15 years until it's fully productive), not to mention the mother not being fully caable of work for a decent amount of time during this period, and not being to lay off workers - instead having to continue to house and feed and clothe them - when demand for one's product happens to be below the businesses' potential output is cheaper than hiring and firing people depending on whether there's work for them or not?

Despite this very process being the reason why slavery was given up on in a fair number of countries throughout the 19th century in the first place (Argentina managed to utterly outcompete Brazil for this reason)?

That's... A very interesting approach to reality you have there.

Incidentally, 'Breeding Slaves' is actually pretty unusual. While common in the US, the Muslim world - having a great deal more foresight than Americans - relied solely on the continual import from South Sudan/ the East African coast; Male slaves were simply castrated to avoid complications in the future (Females were another matter, but halfbreeds being halfbred throughout several generations tend to be indistinguishable from the real thing). Though admittedly, it depends on where the slaves came from - negros were castrated right quick, Europeans/ Slavs were considered more valuable for some reason, and apparently avoided this fate in the majority of instances. Presumably because they ultimately fell into the same 'Totally white' group the arabs considered themselves to be. Just a little bit whiter.

If corporations own the police, then what would they need a government for? Hell, without a government they could own armies, and I don't see any reason why the larger ones wouldn't in order to protect their interests.

Corporations tend not to be keen on building and maintaining a police force or an army, because these things cost money - letting the government pay for it (Through taxes collected from everyone, workers and business owners alike) is cheaper for them than paying for it themselves (Solely through the company's profit). In the instances where corporations did run their own military, it was 1. an outright plundering operation (Belgian Congo, the Dutch and English East Indian Companies), 2. they consistently received considerable and free support from the government, anyway and 3. they couldn't afford to do it despite these two supporting factors, leading to the eventual acquisition of the eventually-bankrupt companies by the government.

Did I mention these companies ran government-guaranteed monopolies, anyway, not having to conform to a free market at all?

Seriously. Try to actually look up examples of such corporate forces - they simply don't conform to free market conditions. They do the exact opposite.

No, it really isn't. Forced labor is quite easy, especially with chains, guns or isolation.

I'm eagerly waiting for examples to actually prove your point. I note that I've actually provided numerous ones. Your completely-free-market-armed-corp-and-slavery thingus OTOH, does appear to be a wholly hypothetical construct. Unless you can actually support its existence with evidence of such things existing in the real world - I'm not demanding a perfectly free market here, since such a thing has never existed. But evidence that a comparatively free market was or is more likely to have these things than a comparatively controlled one in the same time period -, your hypothesis, on account of completely lacking any sort of evidence supporting it whatsoever, will have to be considered false.

Businesses don't need to compete for unskilled labor.

And here I thought Germany had to import shittons of unskilled labour and its corporations had to actually pay it quite decently because it was utterly out of excess workforce in the 1950s and 1960s. Must never have happened. Clearly, unskilled labour is always available en masse, not in the least dependent on the principles of supply and demand, like everything else is.

[EnragedMaldivians]

I think the following are good reads on this topic, thought I would share.



http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/15/opini ... ml?_r=2&hp





http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/0 ... op-column/

The garbage dump is probably full of e-waste from the global economy that manufacturers have failed to manage due to lax regulations.

Be that as it may...

Note that I favour enviromental regulation.

[UCUMAY]

More like no state income tax for Texas. That's reason enough to work here.

Try dealing with their shitty worker's comp system sometime then tell me how good it is to work there.

I've never gotten it because I've always worked. So I can't help you on that one. But I saw how my brother abused it (got on it twice in two years being well bodied, and healthy). So it's fine working in Texas.

[Gthanp]

The garbage dump is probably full of e-waste from the global economy that manufacturers have failed to manage due to lax regulations.

Be that as it may...

Note that I favour enviromental regulation.

E-waste dumps in the poorest countries, resource wars and slave labor in Africa, sweatshop labor in authoritarian countries, meaningless consumerism in the developed world. Its all part of one big system.

[Gthanp]

Try dealing with their shitty worker's comp system sometime then tell me how good it is to work there.

I've never gotten it because I've always worked. So I can't help you on that one. But I saw how my brother abused it (got on it twice in two years being well bodied, and healthy). So it's fine working in Texas.

Good for him from what I've been told an employer can self-insure so that they can make there own rules to suit themselves.

[EnragedMaldivians]

The garbage dump is probably full of e-waste from the global economy that manufacturers have failed to manage due to lax regulations.

Plus there are plenty of fair-trade companies that specialize in selling goods manufactured in third world countries for a fair wage.

Kristoff ignores this because he is an idiot

And you ignored the part where he specifically addresses that phenomenon.

Incidentally, I’m all for “fair-wage” clothing that is based on paying decent wages and providing decent working conditions. More power to those brands. But I think they reflect a modest niche, and the denunciations of sweatshops end up taking jobs away from the poorest countries.

And given his background and experience I think he is far more qualified to have an opinion on this than your, no doubt, well meaning, self.

E-waste dumps in the poorest countries, resource wars and slave labor in Africa, sweatshop labor in authoritarian countries, meaningless consumerism in the developed world. Its all part of one big system.

Oh. You're one of those. Im an economics major hoping to work for the WTO one day, I doubt we'll be getting along.

(Incidentally, I am from the "third world")