Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Libertarian Discussion Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (6190)	9/12/2007 1:18:29 AM
From: Wildstar	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13056

If corporations left the 3rd world, what would happen to sweatshop workers?

To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (6190)	9/12/2007 9:59:17 AM
From: Jim S	Respond to of 13056

I suggest that the poor people of the world oppress themselves much more than they are oppressed by the rich.

To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (6190)	9/12/2007 10:28:37 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 13056

Who said anything about starving people being Americans "The Street" In response to "Who in America is starving?" he replied "Quite a few idiot..." Message 23864017 Than I replied " I'm not saying no one starves, but if they do, they are either very mentally incapable to the point that they are not able to take advantage of the charity and government food programs that are available, or there abducted or lost in the wilderness or something like that." And you replied "Your splitting hairs..." which started this branch of the conversation between you and me. You apparently consider 3rd world populations to be sub human not deserving of protection from exploitation? You never did define what you mean by exploitation. Your "protection from exploitation" would for some of them amount to "protection" from eating, and for many others amount to "protection" from opportunity. Like Martha Stewart and others who act appalled to learn about 3rd world sweat shops? If the choice is between a third world sweat shop and a cushy office job paying $90k a year, sure the sweat shop is horrible. But the real choice that many sweat shop employees faced was between the sweat shop and subsistence farming on bad land with an unreliable water supply. Others have the choice between a sweat shop and labor in a mine, or a sweat shop and prostitution, or perhaps a sweat shop and joining some violent militia group. They were not rounded up with guns and forced in to the sweatshop. They chose the sweatshop because it was the best alternative. You want to close the sweat shops? From the perspective of the third world people you claim to care about so much that's saying you want them to lose their job. Rather than closing sweatshops you could argue "well we don't have to have anything to do with it", and say that American companies should refuse to accept the product of sweatshop labor and American consumers shouldn't buy such products. But sweatshops with relationships with western countries tend to be better places to work than those only serving the local economy. Also the reduction in exports would cause many of the workers to lose their jobs. Which isn't to say that Americans and people from other wealthy countries can't do anything to try and improve conditions. Slow steady pressure to improve conditions might help, and its what has happened a lot (which is one of the main reasons why sweatshops serving wealthy markets tend to have better conditions than the factories serving the local markets, the main other reason being that their profits are higher on the average and they can afford to treat the employees a little better). You'd have American companies (and presumably companies from other developed countries) pull out? Well than your causing a lot of suffering in the third world countries. I suppose you would argue that your not saying they should pull out, only insist on decent conditions from their local suppliers. That sounds nice but if you mean decent conditions by American standards than in most cases its the same as asking the American companies to pull out. The third world countries have a competitive advantage because of their low labor costs. Insist on higher pay or other factors that increase cost and they can't compete any more. Over time their capital base will increase as will the skill and education level of their workers. Than they can be more productive and can be competitive with higher pay and better conditions. But if you cut their economic development out from under them those better conditions may be a long time coming. When Jesus gets here things will be different and I'm sure you will not be so smug then. Where does Jesus say that its wrong for people to have bad jobs? More specifically where does he say its better to make sure they have no job rather than a bad one? The conditions for the farmers and workers that he would have walked among where quite bad. Since than technological development and other factors working in the free market has moved the majority of people on the earth to a more secure living standard, and many people to a living standard that in many ways is much better than the aristocrats of that time.