It always seems that even many “conservatives” feel the need to apologize for the working conditions of the “poor” during the Industrial Revolution, etc. Many times they even acknowledge a “need” for after-the-fact laws/regulations passed to deal with the “problems.”
I will bet Death is the quickest way out of Poverty or maybe we should try slavery , fucking poor people have to go fucking up a perfect world
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I will bet Death is the quickest way out of Poverty or maybe we should try slavery , fucking poor people have to go fucking up a perfect world [/quote]
Did you read the article? If you did, then surely you have a more specific criticism of what it says. It certainly does not blame poor people for any problems.
The big hole in the article is that it says the sweatshop owners are not in the wrong for their greed. Sure, sweatshop workers are going to make more money than their peers in 3rd world countries, it does not justify the maltreatment of the people outside of the pay. Not having simple things like drinkable water, or being punished for not meeting quota’s by denying people access to the restroom is both un-necessary and treating people as subhuman.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
The big hole in the article is that it says the sweatshop owners are not in the wrong for their greed. Sure, sweatshop workers are going to make more money than their peers in 3rd world countries, it does not justify the maltreatment of the people outside of the pay. Not having simple things like drinkable water, or being punished for not meeting quota’s by denying people access to the restroom is both un-necessary and treating people as subhuman. [/quote]
Unless I missed it, the article/interview does not mention the morality of the owners. It basically says that no matter how “unnecessary” you think it is to treat “people as subhuman,” those people are better off with the jobs than without(as long as they haven’t been forced-really forced, not “forced” by a need to eat or something).
I agree a little of this would be good in America ,
LULZ at thinking only Conservatives benefit from cheap labor.
Pitbull, the reality of the situation in these countries where sweatshops exist is that, for the workers, it is sweatshop labor or no labor.
Your latest post is deliberately inflammatory and as you well know, has absolutely no bearing or relevance to the rest of the topic. The USA is obviously not the 3rd world.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I agree a little of this would be good in America , [/quote]
Do you believe that Americans would have children making bricks by hand if it was legal? Do you believe that child is the most efficient means of producing bricks?
Not unless they had some one to BITCH too
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I agree a little of this would be good in America , [/quote]
Do you believe that Americans would have children making bricks by hand if it was legal? Do you believe that child is the most efficient means of producing bricks?[/quote]
Absolutely. Why would they not employ children for virtually nothing if the kids will do it for that wage and no one says that an owner can’t?
In fact, why even pay them at all when you can just give them some shiny tokens and tell them that they are worth what ever arbitrary value you assign them? Then set up a store where they can buy substandard food or living supplies (which you determine). Or take it a step further and don’t even waste money on tokens. Give them a receipt which represents those same arbitrary numbers on a ledger which they can use for exchange at the store.
That way the owner can keep cost to an absolute minimum.
After all, a bad choice is better than no choice at all, isn’t it?
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I agree a little of this would be good in America , [/quote]
Do you believe that Americans would have children making bricks by hand if it was legal? Do you believe that child is the most efficient means of producing bricks?[/quote]
Absolutely. Why would they not employ children for virtually nothing if the kids will do it for that wage and no one says that an owner can’t?
[/quote]
I don’t think this is true. I think the public backlash and opposition to companies that did this would be such that few companies would try it, and the ones that did would abandon it quickly.
Secondly, the proportion of the US’s domestic economy based on the production of goods where child labor would be useful is far smaller than in the third world, and growing smaller by the year (due to globalization and technology–robots).
[quote]soccerplayer wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I agree a little of this would be good in America , [/quote]
Do you believe that Americans would have children making bricks by hand if it was legal? Do you believe that child is the most efficient means of producing bricks?[/quote]
Absolutely. Why would they not employ children for virtually nothing if the kids will do it for that wage and no one says that an owner can’t?
[/quote]
I don’t think this is true. I think the public backlash and opposition to companies that did this would be such that few companies would try it, and the ones that did would abandon it quickly.
Secondly, the proportion of the US’s domestic economy based on the production of goods where child labor would be useful is far smaller than in the third world, and growing smaller by the year (due to globalization and technology–robots).[/quote]
We have the luxury of laws to enable us to “think” about whether or not this is true of false.
Why do you suppose those laws were enacted? Did some legislator write a big doozy of a strawman into our constitution?
All that globalization does is have someone else’s kids do it.
You also trimmed out a model that built this country during the industrial revolution when you cropped that post- Company Scrip.
These laws were enacted because the public mindset was such (anti-child labor) that legislators voted the law through–as should happen in a republic. If there were an overwhelming demand these days that children be allowed to work, these laws should be repealed. Obviously that is not going to happen.
Edit: ^referring to the US here
Your comment on globalization is correct. However, assuming you’re anti child labor, what would you have done instead? The reality of the situation is that without child labor, many children would die, especially girls–most obviously through selective abortions. There is less incentive for families to focus on their children’s well-being when they are not as good of an investment, so-to-speak.
The real solution is for these countries to make it out of their current economic and social status, to where they’re rich enough to afford the luxury of not having sweatshop labor.
[quote]soccerplayer wrote:
These laws were enacted because the public mindset was such (anti-child labor) that legislators voted the law through–as should happen in a republic. If there were an overwhelming demand these days that children be allowed to work, these laws should be repealed. Obviously that is not going to happen.
Edit: ^referring to the US here
Your comment on globalization is correct. However, assuming you’re anti child labor, what would you have done instead? The reality of the situation is that without child labor, many children would die, especially girls–most obviously through selective abortions. There is less incentive for families to focus on their children’s well-being when they are not as good of an investment, so-to-speak.
The real solution is for these countries to make it out of their current economic and social status, to where they’re rich enough to afford the luxury of not having sweatshop labor.[/quote]
No the reality of the situation is that companies choose countries that have lax or no child labor to set up shop in- So that they can keep more money than they would if it were in the US or EU.
Another real solution would be to take a absolute ethics approach instead of a culturally relativistic approach to running a shop. If a US or EU based company starts up a shop in Liberia, pay them the same as you would a Belgian or US employee.
If the concept being put forth in the article works the way it was explained, they would go from 3rd world to 1st a hell of a lot quicker wouldn’t they?
Then that good business would beget more better businesses and the world would be a better place- Right?
Addressing your paragraphs:
-
What statement of mine are you contracting here? I agree with the rest of your statement, companies want cheap labor…no dispute here
-
Who would enforce this? What incentive do the companies have to do this? If consumers refused to buy goods from sweat-shop-using companies, the companies would change their behavior. However, consumer’s don’t.
-
No the issue is the governments and political structures, and perhaps as an underlying reason, the cultures, of these countries. The elites of these countries have very little incentive to improve the lot of the country as a whole.
-
In a world where the rights of every individual are protected thoroughly, and where it is possible to protect and keep one’s wealth safe, yes.
I realize now what you were replying to in your first paragraph:
My response: That still does not change the fact that if children in these places weren’t allowed to work, they would die.
[quote]soccerplayer wrote:
I realize now what you were replying to in your first paragraph:
My response: That still does not change the fact that if children in these places weren’t allowed to work, they would die.[/quote]
So no children died or were de-limbed in the US when they were “allowed” to work?
It’s not a matter of whether or not they were allowed to work. The regulation applies to the employer.
Protest with your wallet if you don’t like how a company operates.
It is kind of fucked up that people get paid pennies on the dollar for shoes and clothing that people think are worth 100’s of dollars.
[quote]
"Take child labor for example. Anti-sweatshop groups universally condemn child labor and call for laws banning products made with it. But the process of development is the best cure for child labor. In countries with average incomes above $12,000, there is virtually no child labor. But for countries whose incomes are below $2,000, more than 30 percent of children work.
As families escape poverty, they remove their children from the labor force. Child labor laws go unenforced or force children to work in informal sectors when they are passed prior to achieving a level of development that would have removed children from the labor force anyway.
It?s no accident that the United States didn?t pass meaningful national child labor legislation prohibitions until 1938. At that time, average per capita income was more than $10,000 (in 2010 dollars). It was simply codifying what the market process had already achieved. The same is true of other workplace health, safety, and maximum hour legislation in countries with sweatshops today."[/quote]
Emphasis added, and relevant.
American families weren’t escaping poverty in the 1930s. A middle school student can tell you that. Per capita income hadn’t even reached pre-1929 levels in '38.
Child labor laws were passed during the depression to ensure that what few jobs there were went to adults and nobody else. It was about scarcity of jobs and income, not abundance of them.
(I am deriding Mises.org, not anybody here. It is not uncommon for me to open Mises and find an egregious lie or error within 30 seconds.)