I just went into walmart for the first time in months... I feel physically ill

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Kucinich

Because "starvation" is pretty much the default for a primitive civilization. We'd probably say a lot of the ancient egyptians were "starving" too. It's all relative.

It's quite rare actually that a civilization didn't have enough to feed everyone. The vast majority of starvations are the result of unfair wealth redistribution. This was made possible by the development of agriculture, because sedentary nations had a much easier time policing its people and imposing terrible work conditions on the peasants (through ownership of the land, the first ever 'mean of production' in human history).

Plus there've been some droughts and stuff. Again, nothing that wouldn't have happened without the sweatshops.

Every day, enough food is produced to feed more than adequately at least 10 billion humans. Why is it that 800 millions suffer outright starvation, and that billions suffer from malnutrition? Whose fault is it, really?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Why do you say "obviously?" Where do these extras coming from? I can't see any extras for sweatshop workers in counties such as Thailand, the Philippines, and the PRC.

Of course there are. The sweatshops are offering more money than the employees had before. That's why there gets to be so much demand for these jobs.

The "demand" is high because the only other choice is starvation. You are talking displaced people who have no other choice.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Secondly, a lot of these people actually prefer farming if their livelihood wasn't displaced by cheap foreign agri imports

Foreign agri imports don't have an effect on sustenance farming.

What gives you the idea that most of these were sustenance farmers?

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Anti-globalisation groups have some good reasons.

Not that I can see. If sweatshops is their only reason, then it is a failing argument. Because the US, England, as well as South Korea all had sweatshops and were a natural progression of all these country's economies.

Imran again fails to grasp the whole picture.

First of all, these are not local sweatshops, like those in 19th century England. The exploitation of these workers do not accumulate wealth in their own countries. Only TNC are fattened. Secondly, a lot of these workers are displaced farmers.

Which means globalisation has been turning entire counties into huge sweatshops for TNCs with no real way of climbing out the hole, considering these countries are forced to use loans from IMF or World Bank to buy food to feed the people, loans that are originally intended to build infrastructure.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kucinich
Do most African countries even have property tax?

1. We are not just talking about Africa, and surely African countries ahve property taxes too, except in places where there's no government.

2. Do you think a person can just walk on a piece of land and claim it his own? You know, there are other people around.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by General Ludd
This is a really strange debate. The people I am arguing with seem to agree with all of my points. (and actually back them up more then I do. )

Both Kucinich and Imran seem to agree that without the sweatshops, people would be starving. So what, exactly, is the argument here?

I don't think people even know what we're arguing anymore, so let's go back...



The thing that spawned this whole sub-argument was my comparison of sweat-shop workers to slaves. My point was, that they met all the credentials of a slave, only that they are forced to work through economic force rather then brute force. Now, if you agree that they would be starving without the sweatshops, how can you say that they have a freedom of choice (ie. a freedom to starve)?


I also said that saying sweatshop workers should be thankful for their jobs is like saying slaves should be thankful to their masters - how is that not a valid comparison? If primitive societies are starving by default, as Kucinich says, the africans should of been thankful for the chance to go to america and pick cotton and be fed. Just as these people should be thankful to work in sweatshops, and be fed.

Their "starvation" is the SAME as the "starvation" of ANY ancient civilization. If you took ancient Egypt and transplanted it to today, wouldn't you have a bunch of people moaning about the starving Egyptians? But for their time, they weren't. IT'S ALL RELATIVE. The only reason we call it "starving" is because we are used to a higher standard.

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

2. Do you think a person can just walk on a piece of land and claim it his own? You know, there are other people around.

Didn't stop the Europeans when they "discovered" the Americas.

[Barinthus]

Originally posted by loinburger
As for Walmart treating employees like crap, I believe it. I had two retail jobs while I was in high school, one for a mom-and-pop shop and one for a store in a medium-sized hardware store chain (the chain was local to Illinois and Wisconsin, with maybe a few stores in Indiana). They were both crap jobs. My sister-in-law is currently working retail for a mom-and-pop shop out in California, and from everything she's said it's a crap job. Retail jobs are crap jobs, period. That being said, I preferred working at the chain than at the mom-and-pop store. My manager (also the owner of the store) at the mom-and-pop store made it clear to me that I could be fired on a whim. However, if they arbitrarily fired me at the chain then there were still several rungs of the ladder where I could file complaints, and in fact that was the only thing that kept me in that job for so long (the department manager hated my guts, but he was already on thin ice with the store manager, so he couldn't afford my causing trouble if he fired me for no reason).

That's about the only difference, actually -- retail jobs are still crap jobs, either way you slice it.

Actually there are plenty of retail jobs that are not crappy due to better attitude by the company toward their employees, perks and so on. Costco has a reputation for being a great place to work. Virgin company too.

Retail job itself can be crappy but employers can do a lot to make the workplace itself a positive and perhaps even fun place to work. That's the point - Wal-Mart didn't have to be like that.

Organizational culture goes a long way to make a workplace a great or lousy one. I used to be a dishwasher and a prep cook. It's hard work, low pay, and so on but due to my terrific co-workers and cool bosses, I actually enjoyed working there.

[Barinthus]

Originally posted by Tiamat
Give me a freeking break! I worked at walmart until two weeks ago and you have no where to turn for anything in that company. You compain it's your job!!!!!!

I had a guy I went through orentation with named Sam. Sam was from Oregon and had gotten into a spot of trouble and had some tickets which in turn got his drivers license suspended. He informed them that his license was suspended on his application, informed them again in orentation, informed them everyday he was at work in the Tire and Lube Express that he had no drivers license. One day his supervisor ordered him to drive a car into the parking lot. Sam again informed him that he had no DL and that he didn't want to be held responsible if something did happen while pulling into the lot. He was trying to save walmart a lawsuit as well as himself. When he told his supervisor that he didn't feel comfortable driving the cars. We were told from day one that there was an open door policy there and that we could always utilize it.

When Sam utilized it he utilized himself right out of a job. He went to the store director and told him what he was trying to do.......be honest and the store director fired him. He told him he was of course eligible for re-hire but booted him right out of his job because he was being honest and trying to keep a lawsuit from happening.

On my note.....I worked in the deli. Walmart starts everyone off at $7.20 per hour. I was doing hard physical labor lifiting 30 pound slicers, moping the floor, doing dishes for over an hour and a half every night and I mean the slicers, scrubbing burned on grease in the pans and we were not allowed to use brillo pads or anything that would assist us in cleaning them. We weren't allowed to use rubber gloves and expected to keep our hands in steaming hot water along with sanitizer that made our hands crack and bleed. So who ever says they don't care is correct.

The managers don't give a flying crap about their employees or what they are going through. I also saw the store manager in the office with two other assistant managers talking to an employee....really talking down to her in front of the other managers and made her cry. When she left I rounded the corner to see him put his hand in the air and pull it back into his chest and say 'yeah baby! that's how you make them feel like crap and keep them in line" then he looked up and saw me. I just walked away.

I quit within two days after that.

That's a disgusting story. This only firms my conviction that Wal-Mart is the true evil corruptive blight on the American economy.

[Barinthus]

Originally posted by Kucinich


*sigh*

Those countries are basically ancient civilizations that have been exposed to advanced civilazations. Name one ancient civilization that was truly a democracy.

India... unless you meant back in their ancient days?

There's no true democracy even today. The States are techinically a republic, not a democracy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So what, exactly, is the argument here?

We are arguing that sweatshops are good and a natural progression of the economy.

The "demand" is high because the only other choice is starvation. You are talking displaced people who have no other choice.

Why was the demand so high when the sweatshop first arrived? Are you saying the entire society was starving until the sweatshop got there? If the sweatshop was worse than the previous work, how did they get workers?

First of all, these are not local sweatshops, like those in 19th century England. The exploitation of these workers do not accumulate wealth in their own countries. Only TNC are fattened. Secondly, a lot of these workers are displaced farmers.

Even if TNCs get most of the money, it definetly helps the country. Look at South Korea for evidence of that. It leads to a gradual process of richer and more educated kids (higher income tax revenues).

The only reason we call it "starving" is because we are used to a higher standard.

I still haven't recieved an answer if these countries were starving before the sweatshops got there.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by DataAeolus
India... unless you meant back in their ancient days?

Yes, I meant the ancient days.

There's no true democracy even today. The States are techinically a republic, not a democracy.

You understand what I mean - the US and Europe are democracies. Japan is a democracy.

Rome, in contrast, was an oligarchy. Athens was mostly an oligarchy (it was pretty democratic, but you also have to remember that it was ONE CITY).