I’m sorry, but are you worried about how little they make, or outsourcing? When you start getting anti-outsourcing, I have to wonder if you really care about the $1 wage of a foreigner. Less jobs would mean a $0 wage.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
orion wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
orion wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Exactly! Big businesses are not concerned with the rights of their workers, nor whether or not their practices are moral, because the bottom line is…well the “bottom line”.
In a legal sense, and if they’re practicing free-market principles, they are worried about not infringing upon the rights of workers. If they promise to pay a wage for 2 weeks worth of labor and don’t, though the worker fullfilled his end, that’s fraud.
If a worker decides he’s had it and decides to walk out, but is prevented by hired muscle to leave. And, is in fact forced to continue work, that’s not free. As long as it’s a voluntary exchange-- labor for wage–amongst free individuals, why would you decide their agreement isn’t moral? Why is the employer taking advantage?
Because they are taking advantage of the fact that these people are desperate and/or starving and will pretty much put up with atrocious working conditions for practically no pay.
Their hand isn’t being forced outright in many cases, but the fact that these businesses know that these people are desperate and take advantage of that by paying them shit for wages in factories where you don’t have to pay for temperature control, or paid breaks,
or paid time off, workman’s comp, or any of the other benefits that we as U.S. citizens (or I’m sure Canadians as well) take for granted, makes these practices immoral (or at least lack a concern for human rights).
So, according to your own description those companies give jobs to people who are desperate and starving and thereby help them feed their families?
May I ask how many thousand people you saved from starving since you seem to care a lot about those people?
Yeah, I thought you might try playing that card. “Oh, these companies are helping these people out”. Yeah, tell me another one.
Of course you fail to mention that the whole reason why these countries are starving and desperate is because institutions like the World Bank and IMF (in conjunction with these large companies) have basically manipulated them into these situations through the use of globalization, social privatization, currency devaluation, cutting social programs like education and health care, etc…
I am not going to defend any of the World banks or the IMF´s actions they have nothing to do with free trade- they are monetary socialism.
Don’t they though? Again, in theory they don’t. But in practice they do.
Such entities go into foreign countries and either corrupt their leaders, or coerce them into taking out loans (in order to gain a method to manipulate them later down the road). Then they use methods like currency devaluation to allow them to obtain control of these countries resources for considerably less than they are worth.
Then, when the country eventually can’t pay back their loan and the economy is in shambles, the big corporations roll in set up shop to take advantage of the impoverished workers. This scenario happens all the time.
But, even if you are right, which is by no means certain, because most of these countries have never had am economy worth ruining, the corporation that ride in, like gallant knights in shining armor never were part of those machinations.
They found people in despair and gave them jobs.
If I help a person that was mugged by someone else, does that make my actions less laudable?
See my comment above about how these entities manipulate economies. The Corporations probably do appear like gallant knights to the starving workers. Sadly though, it’s not the good of the people that the corporations have in mind, but taking advantage of their lack of labor laws and struggling economies to make a bigger profit for themselves.
And no, if you help a person who was mugged (that you had no prior knowledge was going to be mugged, or had no part in the planning of their mugging) then you are doing nothing wrong.
If you were to say charge them for your help though (especially if you charged them more than you could normally ask them, knowing that they had little choice but to accept your help), then your actions aren’t quite so laudable.
But, you’re not talking about these companies performing some selfless act here. Again, they don’t really care about these peoples’ well being, they only care that they can get them to do the same/more work for less money and not be tied down by all those pesky labor laws.[/quote]
a) you think some firm forced China´s hands?
And here I though they embraced capitalism because socialized farming lead to the death of 70 million people and when they allowed private farming the output exploded.
Then, I had stuff produced in China. I guarantee you, that I did not bring about a communist revolution decades ago to profit from it now.
The very idea that Chinas leaders are forced to do anything by Nike is ludicrous.
b) You seem to think that it is relevant what intentions those corporations have.
I don´t.
If the help them living a better life because of purely selfish reasons, what is wrong with that? The Chinese work for them for purely selfish reasons.
c) what you describe happens sometimes, and I would agree that state capitalism i.e. mercantilism is an inherent danger of capitalism , however, it has nothing to do with free trade or free markets.
I am all for abolishing the world bank and the IMF, plus teh abolition of the Fed that creates all teh fake dollars that flood the world and ruin whole economies.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
orion wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
orion wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
That’s the point I’ve been trying to make. Free markets by their very nature are in direct opposition to human rights.
That is obvious nonsense because all human rights can be reduced to one right, and one right only, the right to own private property.
Really? And by what method of deductive reasoning did you come to this conclusion?
Therefore it follows logically that capitalism is a highly moral system and every interference in the market beyond enforcing property rights is a human rights violation.
Utter nonsense. Logically? So I suppose that you think because something is “logical” that it makes it true huh?
As to your next post, repeat after me:
Wages follow productivity.
Nope.
Wages follow productivity.
Nope.
Wages follow productivity.
Nope.
Have you ever actually worked in a factory or manufacturing facility? I have. I worked in one for 6 years. I busted my ass 40-60 hours a week, week in and week out. Sometimes not missing a single day for years at a time.
My pay only went up when someone else got fired and they needed someone to take their place. Usually I wound up doing the work of two people and the best raise I ever got was 1$.
But I wasn’t the most taken advantage of by far. There were guys who had been there for 40+ years making less than $10 an hour. Guys who had been loyal to the company and were good, hard, consistent workers, always made it to work early, and almost always were willing to work over time (most likely because they hadn’t received a cost of living raise in years), and yet they were getting paid shit for their hard work.
Oh, and the company WAS making quite a bit of money. My boss and I figured out one day that we had done something like 4 million dollars (it was a fairly small business) worth of work in the past year, the company had also severely downsized the workforce and had begun buying materials overseas (because supposedly they could get them for cheaper),
Yet we had done more work that year than the previous year. None of us saw any wage increase as a result.
You might think that this is an isolated case, but it’s far from it. Just take a quick glance at the number of manufacturing jobs in the states over the past 20 years and you’ll notice a sharp decline. Reason?
Because these companies can either get people overseas to do the jobs for cheaper pay, or they can get a machine to do the work for cheaper (and even then the remaining workers don’t wind up getting paid the money of their laid off co-workers).
Maybe for the owners of the company increase productivity always leads to increased wages, but certainly not for the people on the ground floor.
Whatever your ideas are concerning evil corporations, exploited workers, comrades marching in goosestepping unison to right those wrongs,
wages follow productivity,
and it forever shall remain that way.
Again, NO they don’t. I’m sure you’d like to think they do, but they don’t.
You can bet your ass that all of those kids working in sweatshops making Nike shoes are busting their asses and their productivity easily matches that of workers in U.S shoe making factories (if there even are still any). But they’re still getting paid way, way less money.
You know not of what you speak.
Meaning government cannot “protect” peoples wages, period.
To an extent it can. The lifting of all of these trade regulations is one way that the government has allowed these corporations the ability to exploit these foreign workers. The trade regulations were designed to “protect” people’s wages and prevent such practices from being engaged in.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Labor/wm498.cfm
It is tempting to assume that the interests of management and employees are constantly in conflict and that what benefits one, harms the other. One implication of this point of view is the presumption that improved productivity harms, or at least does nothing to help, the interests of workers.
But trends in the manufacturing sector show otherwise. Even in the midst of job losses, manufacturing wages improved and did so at roughly the same time that productivity began to show a marked increase.
Increased productivity means that labor itself is more valuable?the same number of workers can produce more goods or produce the same goods at lower cost. Either way, those same employees are in a position to call for increased wages, and their employers are in a better position to give raises.
That other manufacturers might be struggling does not necessarily change this happy state of affairs for the firms that are doing well.
Consequently, while less productive firms struggled and closed down facilities over the last three years, more productive firms were still in a position to thrive and spread the spoils to their own workers?hence the sharp gains in compensation in 2002 and 2003.
So if you have understood what was written above, you also know now that productivity in f.e. India is NOT the same, because they lack the machinery to be as productive as American workers, therefore they get paid less.
Then, yes I truly believe that logic is superior to wishful thinking.
Further, you brought up human rights.
Human rights are a natural rights idea, meaning everyone is born with unalienable rights like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
There are some others like freedom from injury, unlawful incarceration and freedom of expression and all of those have in common that you own yourself and can therefore do with yourself whatever you want as long as you do not harm others,
In other words these are property rights.
Since you cannot be free or even alive without owning property it follows that the right to own private property beyond your body is also a natural right.
Therefore, to produce whatever you want and trade with whomever you want is highly consistent with the human rights idea, in fact it is a mere expression of those rights.
If you interfere with those action, than you start denying those rights to people.
Here is a list of Human Rights that the UN wrote up (this treatise was approved by 48 of the 56 member nations in 1948 when it was written)
http://www.un.org/rights/50/decla.htm
Look at “Article 23”. Sweat shops are in direct violation of this article.
There is nothing wrong with your logic, but that still does not mean that the only true human right is the right to own property.[/quote]
I give you a reasonable argument and you give me codified wishful thinking?
This document is an ill thought out, self-contradicting, pie in the sky piece of crap.
Why don´t the UN give those people those jobs? Oh, I forgot, they can´t. They can however point there fingers at companies that actually do create jobs.
What would you rather do as a Burmese child? Sew footballs and shoes or blow strangers for money? You could also starve of course, by trying to live off of the UN´s promises.
[quote]orion wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
orion wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
orion wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
That’s the point I’ve been trying to make. Free markets by their very nature are in direct opposition to human rights.
That is obvious nonsense because all human rights can be reduced to one right, and one right only, the right to own private property.
Really? And by what method of deductive reasoning did you come to this conclusion?
Therefore it follows logically that capitalism is a highly moral system and every interference in the market beyond enforcing property rights is a human rights violation.
Utter nonsense. Logically? So I suppose that you think because something is “logical” that it makes it true huh?
As to your next post, repeat after me:
Wages follow productivity.
Nope.
Wages follow productivity.
Nope.
Wages follow productivity.
Nope.
Have you ever actually worked in a factory or manufacturing facility? I have. I worked in one for 6 years. I busted my ass 40-60 hours a week, week in and week out. Sometimes not missing a single day for years at a time.
My pay only went up when someone else got fired and they needed someone to take their place. Usually I wound up doing the work of two people and the best raise I ever got was 1$.
But I wasn’t the most taken advantage of by far. There were guys who had been there for 40+ years making less than $10 an hour. Guys who had been loyal to the company and were good, hard, consistent workers, always made it to work early, and almost always were willing to work over time (most likely because they hadn’t received a cost of living raise in years), and yet they were getting paid shit for their hard work.
Oh, and the company WAS making quite a bit of money. My boss and I figured out one day that we had done something like 4 million dollars (it was a fairly small business) worth of work in the past year, the company had also severely downsized the workforce and had begun buying materials overseas (because supposedly they could get them for cheaper),
Yet we had done more work that year than the previous year. None of us saw any wage increase as a result.
You might think that this is an isolated case, but it’s far from it. Just take a quick glance at the number of manufacturing jobs in the states over the past 20 years and you’ll notice a sharp decline. Reason?
Because these companies can either get people overseas to do the jobs for cheaper pay, or they can get a machine to do the work for cheaper (and even then the remaining workers don’t wind up getting paid the money of their laid off co-workers).
Maybe for the owners of the company increase productivity always leads to increased wages, but certainly not for the people on the ground floor.
Whatever your ideas are concerning evil corporations, exploited workers, comrades marching in goosestepping unison to right those wrongs,
wages follow productivity,
and it forever shall remain that way.
Again, NO they don’t. I’m sure you’d like to think they do, but they don’t.
You can bet your ass that all of those kids working in sweatshops making Nike shoes are busting their asses and their productivity easily matches that of workers in U.S shoe making factories (if there even are still any). But they’re still getting paid way, way less money.
You know not of what you speak.
Meaning government cannot “protect” peoples wages, period.
To an extent it can. The lifting of all of these trade regulations is one way that the government has allowed these corporations the ability to exploit these foreign workers. The trade regulations were designed to “protect” people’s wages and prevent such practices from being engaged in.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Labor/wm498.cfm
It is tempting to assume that the interests of management and employees are constantly in conflict and that what benefits one, harms the other. One implication of this point of view is the presumption that improved productivity harms, or at least does nothing to help, the interests of workers.
But trends in the manufacturing sector show otherwise. Even in the midst of job losses, manufacturing wages improved and did so at roughly the same time that productivity began to show a marked increase.
Increased productivity means that labor itself is more valuable?the same number of workers can produce more goods or produce the same goods at lower cost. Either way, those same employees are in a position to call for increased wages, and their employers are in a better position to give raises.
That other manufacturers might be struggling does not necessarily change this happy state of affairs for the firms that are doing well.
Consequently, while less productive firms struggled and closed down facilities over the last three years, more productive firms were still in a position to thrive and spread the spoils to their own workers?hence the sharp gains in compensation in 2002 and 2003.
So if you have understood what was written above, you also know now that productivity in f.e. India is NOT the same, because they lack the machinery to be as productive as American workers, therefore they get paid less.
Then, yes I truly believe that logic is superior to wishful thinking.
Further, you brought up human rights.
Human rights are a natural rights idea, meaning everyone is born with unalienable rights like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
There are some others like freedom from injury, unlawful incarceration and freedom of expression and all of those have in common that you own yourself and can therefore do with yourself whatever you want as long as you do not harm others,
In other words these are property rights.
Since you cannot be free or even alive without owning property it follows that the right to own private property beyond your body is also a natural right.
Therefore, to produce whatever you want and trade with whomever you want is highly consistent with the human rights idea, in fact it is a mere expression of those rights.
If you interfere with those action, than you start denying those rights to people.
Here is a list of Human Rights that the UN wrote up (this treatise was approved by 48 of the 56 member nations in 1948 when it was written)
http://www.un.org/rights/50/decla.htm
Look at “Article 23”. Sweat shops are in direct violation of this article.
There is nothing wrong with your logic, but that still does not mean that the only true human right is the right to own property.
I give you a reasonable argument and you give me codified wishful thinking?
This document is an ill thought out, self-contradicting, pie in the sky piece of crap.
Why don´t the UN give those people those jobs? Oh, I forgot, they can´t. They can however point there fingers at companies that actually do create jobs.
What would you rather do as a Burmese child? Sew footballs and shoes or blow strangers for money? You could also starve of course, by trying to live off of the UN´s promises.
[/quote]
Again, the treatise was voted in favor of by 48 of the 56 members of the UN. I’d say that means that a fair amount of people agree with the contents of that document. It might be idealistic thinking, but that doesn’t make it’s contents any less relevant.
You are right that the UN cannot provide all of the world’s people with jobs. That doesn’t mean however that they still shouldn’t try to make sure that the world’s people aren’t being treated fairly or in accordance with the articles of that document.
And if I were a Burmese child, I would probably just be happy that I wasn’t being tortured or having to watch my parents/siblings be killed right in front of my eyes. Burma is a shit hole, and it’s pretty disgusting what has been going on there for years.
I do agree with you though that the UN talks a big talk, but often times doesn’t actually walk the walk.
[quote]orion wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
orion wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
orion wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Exactly! Big businesses are not concerned with the rights of their workers, nor whether or not their practices are moral, because the bottom line is…well the “bottom line”.
In a legal sense, and if they’re practicing free-market principles, they are worried about not infringing upon the rights of workers. If they promise to pay a wage for 2 weeks worth of labor and don’t, though the worker fullfilled his end, that’s fraud.
If a worker decides he’s had it and decides to walk out, but is prevented by hired muscle to leave. And, is in fact forced to continue work, that’s not free. As long as it’s a voluntary exchange-- labor for wage–amongst free individuals, why would you decide their agreement isn’t moral? Why is the employer taking advantage?
Because they are taking advantage of the fact that these people are desperate and/or starving and will pretty much put up with atrocious working conditions for practically no pay.
Their hand isn’t being forced outright in many cases, but the fact that these businesses know that these people are desperate and take advantage of that by paying them shit for wages in factories where you don’t have to pay for temperature control, or paid breaks,
or paid time off, workman’s comp, or any of the other benefits that we as U.S. citizens (or I’m sure Canadians as well) take for granted, makes these practices immoral (or at least lack a concern for human rights).
So, according to your own description those companies give jobs to people who are desperate and starving and thereby help them feed their families?
May I ask how many thousand people you saved from starving since you seem to care a lot about those people?
Yeah, I thought you might try playing that card. “Oh, these companies are helping these people out”. Yeah, tell me another one.
Of course you fail to mention that the whole reason why these countries are starving and desperate is because institutions like the World Bank and IMF (in conjunction with these large companies) have basically manipulated them into these situations through the use of globalization, social privatization, currency devaluation, cutting social programs like education and health care, etc…
I am not going to defend any of the World banks or the IMF´s actions they have nothing to do with free trade- they are monetary socialism.
Don’t they though? Again, in theory they don’t. But in practice they do.
Such entities go into foreign countries and either corrupt their leaders, or coerce them into taking out loans (in order to gain a method to manipulate them later down the road). Then they use methods like currency devaluation to allow them to obtain control of these countries resources for considerably less than they are worth.
Then, when the country eventually can’t pay back their loan and the economy is in shambles, the big corporations roll in set up shop to take advantage of the impoverished workers. This scenario happens all the time.
But, even if you are right, which is by no means certain, because most of these countries have never had am economy worth ruining, the corporation that ride in, like gallant knights in shining armor never were part of those machinations.
They found people in despair and gave them jobs.
If I help a person that was mugged by someone else, does that make my actions less laudable?
See my comment above about how these entities manipulate economies. The Corporations probably do appear like gallant knights to the starving workers. Sadly though, it’s not the good of the people that the corporations have in mind, but taking advantage of their lack of labor laws and struggling economies to make a bigger profit for themselves.
And no, if you help a person who was mugged (that you had no prior knowledge was going to be mugged, or had no part in the planning of their mugging) then you are doing nothing wrong.
If you were to say charge them for your help though (especially if you charged them more than you could normally ask them, knowing that they had little choice but to accept your help), then your actions aren’t quite so laudable.
But, you’re not talking about these companies performing some selfless act here. Again, they don’t really care about these peoples’ well being, they only care that they can get them to do the same/more work for less money and not be tied down by all those pesky labor laws.
a) you think some firm forced China´s hands?
And here I though they embraced capitalism because socialized farming lead to the death of 70 million people and when they allowed private farming the output exploded.
Then, I had stuff produced in China. I guarantee you, that I did not bring about a communist revolution decades ago to profit from it now.
The very idea that Chinas leaders are forced to do anything by Nike is ludicrous.
[/quote]
No, China has become capitalistic by their own hand.
But I doubt that the Chinese government is allowing Nike to pay their workers shit, or if they are, the government is getting something out of it.
I believe it’s relevant because many times these countries are put into shitty positions in order to allow these corporations to purchase their goods and services at a fraction of their worth. These corporations often times have a hand in what happens to these countries.
Perhaps not in China’s case, but in many others.
Finally something we completely agree on.
Again, it has nothing to do with the theory of free trade or free markets, but unfortunately it does have something to do with the applications in many cases.
If all countries of the world had similar labor laws and there truly was a fair playing field across the board, then there would be no problems with the free market model.
But since this isn’t the case and 1% of the world accounts for 40% of the world’s wealth, what you get with a free market system is the poor are kept poor, and the rich are kept rich. And the World Bank and IMF (and Fed) do their best to keep things this way.
Of course the big corporations that they’re in cahoots with wind up making a fortune as well.
Can we start cutting out some of the crap we’re block quoting here? It’s getting a little long.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Again, the treatise was voted in favor of by 48 of the 56 members of the UN. I’d say that means that a fair amount of people agree with the contents of that document. It might be idealistic thinking, but that doesn’t make it’s contents any less relevant.
You are right that the UN cannot provide all of the world’s people with jobs. That doesn’t mean however that they still shouldn’t try to make sure that the world’s people aren’t being treated fairly or in accordance with the articles of that document.
And if I were a Burmese child, I would probably just be happy that I wasn’t being tortured or having to watch my parents/siblings be killed right in front of my eyes. Burma is a shit hole, and it’s pretty disgusting what has been going on there for years.
I do agree with you though that the UN talks a big talk, but often times doesn’t actually walk the walk.[/quote]
First, the UN can agree on whatever the sky it wants to be, but that won´t change the actual color.
Then, I have give you the reasons why capitalism not only does not violate human rights, but why it is the direct expression of human rights and why it is a necessary precondition for a free society.
So, how could I care about the incoherent babble of government bureaucrats? They are todays caste of priests that survive by feeding BS to the masses, but if they are as wise as you seem to think, let us hear their arguments as to who to do it better.
If not, let them get out of the way and let those children better their lives through hard work.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Finally something we completely agree on.
Again, it has nothing to do with the theory of free trade or free markets, but unfortunately it does have something to do with the applications in many cases.
If all countries of the world had similar labor laws and there truly was a fair playing field across the board, then there would be no problems with the free market model.
But since this isn’t the case and 1% of the world accounts for 40% of the world’s wealth, what you get with a free market system is the poor are kept poor, and the rich are kept rich. And the World Bank and IMF (and Fed) do their best to keep things this way.
Of course the big corporations that they’re in cahoots with wind up making a fortune as well.[/quote]
Two things:
First, “selling something at a fraction of their actual worth” means that you would actually know what the real value of a thing is. Since value is strictly subjective, you cannot know that.
Then, exactly that countries have different strengths and weaknesses allows for a free market.
Plus, if those countries had the same labor and environmental laws a the US, half of their population would starve. And even of that were not the case, you can hardly force them to adopt the same semi-socialist ideas America has accepted just so that you can comfortably go on with your lifes.
No, the Chinese want microwave ovens and jacuzzis too, its competition time baby, and they want what you think is rightfully yours because you happen to be born in the US.
[quote]orion wrote:
No, the Chinese want microwave ovens and jacuzzis too, its competition time baby, and they want what you think is rightfully yours because you happen to be born in the US.
[/quote]
I love it when you run out of frogs to lick. It is in these rare moments that I actually find myself nodding my head in agreement with what you say.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
No, the Chinese want microwave ovens and jacuzzis too, its competition time baby, and they want what you think is rightfully yours because you happen to be born in the US.
I love it when you run out of frogs to lick. It is in these rare moments that I actually find myself nodding my head in agreement with what you say. [/quote]
I think we share the same experience, we both have been unable to sleep, worrying how to pay our debts and get our companies to make profits.
One year of that, or three to four, changes you.
It kind of follows that we both would not deny some Indian or Chinese guy a better life if he has the guts to take risks and work hard.
I could not care less whether some fat, lazy Austrian loses his job because of it, a cushy, comfortable, well paid job is by no means a God given right.
[quote]orion wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Finally something we completely agree on.
Again, it has nothing to do with the theory of free trade or free markets, but unfortunately it does have something to do with the applications in many cases.
If all countries of the world had similar labor laws and there truly was a fair playing field across the board, then there would be no problems with the free market model.
But since this isn’t the case and 1% of the world accounts for 40% of the world’s wealth, what you get with a free market system is the poor are kept poor, and the rich are kept rich. And the World Bank and IMF (and Fed) do their best to keep things this way.
Of course the big corporations that they’re in cahoots with wind up making a fortune as well.
Two things:
First, “selling something at a fraction of their actual worth” means that you would actually know what the real value of a thing is. Since value is strictly subjective, you cannot know that.
[/quote]
Ok, then perhaps a better wording would have been “obtaining goods or services at a fraction of the price they would fetch on the open market”.
If you can sell a pair of nikes for $100, but you only pay the individual making them 1$ a day, and don’t pay for temperature control, or insurance, or breaks, then how can you say that you are fairly compensating these individuals?
Ok, not gonna argue this.
No, you can’t force them to, or at least shouldn’t. But, you don’t think it’s the least bit slimy that these corporations take advantage of these lack of labor laws to pay them shit and have them work in horrible conditions?
Or at least, you don’t think that these companies are solely in business to make a profit, and therefore don’t really give two shits about their employees well being?
Oh hell yes they do. China has become every bit as capitalistic as the U.S.
[quote]orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
No, the Chinese want microwave ovens and jacuzzis too, its competition time baby, and they want what you think is rightfully yours because you happen to be born in the US.
I love it when you run out of frogs to lick. It is in these rare moments that I actually find myself nodding my head in agreement with what you say.
I think we share the same experience, we both have been unable to sleep, worrying how to pay our debts and get our companies to make profits.
One year of that, or three to four, changes you.
It kind of follows that we both would not deny some Indian or Chinese guy a better life if he has the guts to take risks and work hard.
I could not care less whether some fat, lazy Austrian loses his job because of it, a cushy, comfortable, well paid job is by no means a God given right.
[/quote]
Wait, so you think that people in countries like the U.S (or Austria in your example) are losing their jobs because they aren’t hard workers? And not because these companies only care about how much profit they make and know they can pay people in less developed countries less money?
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
No, the Chinese want microwave ovens and jacuzzis too, its competition time baby, and they want what you think is rightfully yours because you happen to be born in the US.
I love it when you run out of frogs to lick. It is in these rare moments that I actually find myself nodding my head in agreement with what you say.
I think we share the same experience, we both have been unable to sleep, worrying how to pay our debts and get our companies to make profits.
One year of that, or three to four, changes you.
It kind of follows that we both would not deny some Indian or Chinese guy a better life if he has the guts to take risks and work hard.
I could not care less whether some fat, lazy Austrian loses his job because of it, a cushy, comfortable, well paid job is by no means a God given right.
Wait, so you think that people in countries like the U.S (or Austria in your example) are losing their jobs because they aren’t hard workers? And not because these companies only care about how much profit they make and know they can pay people in less developed countries less money?[/quote]
What they do (or did) is not worth what they were being paid. Someone somewhere else was more than willing to do the same job for less.
Or -
The government of that country was so eager to have someone employ their citizens, that the cost of doing business (taxes, cost of compliance with regulations, etc.) was so cheap that the company took there business out of the punitive country, and went to the country that actually wanted business.
On a more local scale, think the job flight out of California.
Or -
There are no thug unions to siphon money from the business under the guise of “helping the worker”.
DO you think a business should lose value for the share holder just to save jobs in the US when it can create more wealth for those who own the company?
[quote]orion wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Again, the treatise was voted in favor of by 48 of the 56 members of the UN. I’d say that means that a fair amount of people agree with the contents of that document. It might be idealistic thinking, but that doesn’t make it’s contents any less relevant.
You are right that the UN cannot provide all of the world’s people with jobs. That doesn’t mean however that they still shouldn’t try to make sure that the world’s people aren’t being treated fairly or in accordance with the articles of that document.
And if I were a Burmese child, I would probably just be happy that I wasn’t being tortured or having to watch my parents/siblings be killed right in front of my eyes. Burma is a shit hole, and it’s pretty disgusting what has been going on there for years.
I do agree with you though that the UN talks a big talk, but often times doesn’t actually walk the walk.
First, the UN can agree on whatever the sky it wants to be, but that won´t change the actual color.
Then, I have give you the reasons why capitalism not only does not violate human rights, but why it is the direct expression of human rights and why it is a necessary precondition for a free society.
[/quote]
Capitalism strips people of their compassion for their fellow man. Profit becomes the only driving force and greed and corruption become the name of the game.
Look at how many wars have been fought in the name of profit/power (Iraq anyone). It absolutely totally winds up violating human rights. And I don’t really care if your reasons don’t violate any logical rules, it’s not a definition that I plan on accepting, nor would any critical thinker that I know accept it either.
First, that treatise was signed in 1948, the world was a very different place at that time. World War 2 had just ended and the world’s nations wanted to avoid further atrocities.
Second, if you don’t think that the big corporations are the ones actually pulling the strings in most cases, then take a quick look at the biggest lobbyists and contributors of presidential campaigns and the congress.
The idea that capitalism and the “free market” is so great, is BS that we have been fed by these corporations to continue making them richer, while the rest of us struggle to improve the quality of our lives through hard work.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
No, the Chinese want microwave ovens and jacuzzis too, its competition time baby, and they want what you think is rightfully yours because you happen to be born in the US.
I love it when you run out of frogs to lick. It is in these rare moments that I actually find myself nodding my head in agreement with what you say.
I think we share the same experience, we both have been unable to sleep, worrying how to pay our debts and get our companies to make profits.
One year of that, or three to four, changes you.
It kind of follows that we both would not deny some Indian or Chinese guy a better life if he has the guts to take risks and work hard.
I could not care less whether some fat, lazy Austrian loses his job because of it, a cushy, comfortable, well paid job is by no means a God given right.
Wait, so you think that people in countries like the U.S (or Austria in your example) are losing their jobs because they aren’t hard workers? And not because these companies only care about how much profit they make and know they can pay people in less developed countries less money?
What they do (or did) is not worth what they were being paid. Someone somewhere else was more than willing to do the same job for less.
Or -
The government of that country was so eager to have someone employ their citizens, that the cost of doing business (taxes, cost of compliance with regulations, etc.) was so cheap that the company took there business out of the punitive country, and went to the country that actually wanted business.
On a more local scale, think the job flight out of California.
Or -
There are no thug unions to siphon money from the business under the guise of “helping the worker”.
DO you think a business should lose value for the share holder just to save jobs in the US when it can create more wealth for those who own the company?
[/quote]
Yes. I am for the good of the many, not the good of the few.
I am not against people in other countries improving their quality of life through hard work though. I’m for every person on this planet having enough food to eat and an adequate shelter and drinking water supply.
What I am against is the idea that wealth is the most important consideration to most of these businesses.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
What I am against is the idea that wealth is the most important consideration to most of these businesses.[/quote]
Wealth? How about savings?
I’m not trying to sound like an ass, but do you have a job?
If so, do you contribute to a 401-K?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
What I am against is the idea that wealth is the most important consideration to most of these businesses.
Wealth? How about savings?
I’m not trying to sound like an ass, but do you have a job?
If so, do you contribute to a 401-K?[/quote]
Yes, I have a job. But no, I don’t contribute to a 401-K as I’m self employed. I do have some money in a Roth IRA though, as well as own some stocks and have some money saved up for emergencies.
And yes, I know how mutual funds work.
My point was that I would not be willing to knowingly take advantage of another human being for the sake of profit. I give people deals who can’t afford to pay top dollar for services because I’d rather help them out for a little less than to refuse to help them because I might not make as much money as possible.
Maybe that doesn’t make me a good business man, and maybe that means I’ll never live in a mansion or drive a Ferrari. But I guess I really don’t care either. If given the choice, I’d rather live a conscientious life with less money than a luxurious one where I had to take advantage of others to get there.
I am against greed and profit regardless of the cost (in terms of human suffering or lives) and IMO these large companies embody these qualities.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
<<< Capitalism strips people of their compassion for their fellow man. Profit becomes the only driving force and greed and corruption become the name of the game. >>>[/quote]
If this is the case then how is it that the most capitalistic society, which is ours, is also more voluntarily charitable than like the next several less capitalistic societies combined?
That goes for non military federal foreign aid, as well as private and corporate contributions to charitable causes in other parts of the world. It ain’t even close. Not only has capitalism produced the most capital, but we give more of it away than anybody in the history of the world.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
I am against greed and profit regardless of the cost (in terms of human suffering or lives) and IMO these large companies embody these qualities.[/quote]
You are against greed and profit, yet you admit to owning stocks. What expectations did you have when you purchased your stocks? That they would stay at the exact price you paid for them? Or - did you buy them in anticipation of the price going up in the future?
Life is hard. But business is business. If you had some investors in your business, instead of being self-employed, would you be willing to take money (their fair share of the profits) from them the same way you take money from yourself?
Would you buy stock in a company that sacrifices its profits that are rightfully due to you as a share holder?
You want to blame the businesses exclusively, but they are not the only ones at fault. Perhaps if the US were to lower its corporate tax rate from one of the most punitive on the planet, to a level more in line with Ireland’s, we would not be having this discussion.
I am not saying there are not bad businesses out there, but to paint them all with such a broad brush isn’t really fair, or logical.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
orion wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Finally something we completely agree on.
Again, it has nothing to do with the theory of free trade or free markets, but unfortunately it does have something to do with the applications in many cases.
If all countries of the world had similar labor laws and there truly was a fair playing field across the board, then there would be no problems with the free market model.
But since this isn’t the case and 1% of the world accounts for 40% of the world’s wealth, what you get with a free market system is the poor are kept poor, and the rich are kept rich. And the World Bank and IMF (and Fed) do their best to keep things this way.
Of course the big corporations that they’re in cahoots with wind up making a fortune as well.
Two things:
First, “selling something at a fraction of their actual worth” means that you would actually know what the real value of a thing is. Since value is strictly subjective, you cannot know that.
Ok, then perhaps a better wording would have been “obtaining goods or services at a fraction of the price they would fetch on the open market”.
If you can sell a pair of nikes for $100, but you only pay the individual making them 1$ a day, and don’t pay for temperature control, or insurance, or breaks, then how can you say that you are fairly compensating these individuals?
Then, exactly that countries have different strengths and weaknesses allows for a free market.
Ok, not gonna argue this.
Plus, if those countries had the same labor and environmental laws a the US, half of their population would starve. And even of that were not the case, you can hardly force them to adopt the same semi-socialist ideas America has accepted just so that you can comfortably go on with your lifes.
No, you can’t force them to, or at least shouldn’t. But, you don’t think it’s the least bit slimy that these corporations take advantage of these lack of labor laws to pay them shit and have them work in horrible conditions?
Or at least, you don’t think that these companies are solely in business to make a profit, and therefore don’t really give two shits about their employees well being?
No, the Chinese want microwave ovens and jacuzzis too, its competition time baby, and they want what you think is rightfully yours because you happen to be born in the US.
Oh hell yes they do. China has become every bit as capitalistic as the U.S.[/quote]
I get your point that those companies do not care about these workers.
However, do the Chinese care about their employers?
No they don´t, they simply need each other, but I would argue that that is a good thing. Would you rather work for someone that gives you a job as a form of charity or for someone that gives you a job because he needs you?
Also, the Chinese are already outsourcing to Vietnam because the Chinese get paid so much these days that it no longer makes sense to produce some things in China.
That means though that the Chinese workers conditions have seriously improved and that the sweatshops that now start in Vietnam will also soon be replaced by something better when Vietnamese workers become a scarce resource.
It might not always be a pretty sight, but it works.
Think of it this way, those shitty jobs is all those people have, do you really want to take that away from them?