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

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I thought this was your argument for why people should be happy to work in sweat-shops - 'cause they can't afford jack if they don't.

Of course they can afford stuff if they don't work in the sweatshops, but the sweatshop worker can afford MORE.

What kind of stuff can they afford if they don't work in a sweat shop, and what kind of stuff can they afford if they do?


And what good is 'stuff' when you're working 16 hours a day, anyways?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm sure Wal-mart has much more market share.

Of course, but it makes up for that in bad PR . Have to see how the future shakes out. I think they are losing market share.

What kind of stuff can they afford if they don't work in a sweat shop, and what kind of stuff can they afford if they do?

What kind of stuff can you afford when you are laywer compared to working at Burger King?

It kind of common sense that having more money means you can purchase more goods.

And what good is 'stuff' when you're working 16 hours a day, anyways?

Ask lawyers who work 90 hour weeks .

Hell, if they think that 16 hour weeks are excessive, THEY DON'T HAVE TO WORK THERE!

[General Ludd]

A lawyer playing for sympathy. Saddest thing I've ever seen.


Seriously, don't compare yourself to a sweatshop worker. That's beyond low - even for a lawyer.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by General Ludd
Well, let's take the example of the luddites ( ) - some of the first people to fall victim to this. They where weavers and farmers, and lived decent lives untill factories where opened up which they couldn't compete with. So now they where out of the job, and the only options where to be locked in a factory 16 hours a day for a meager wage they could barely live off, or... well, nothing. The luddites took your advice of "If the workers want to complain, they can - by striking or passing laws requiring a minimum wage." they demanded that the machines where outlawed, and when they wheren't they 'striked' out and destroyed the machines that where taking away their livelyhood and turning self-sustained people into wage-slaves. The result? The army was sent out to kill them.

So now you are complaining that the companies sold goods of the same quality (or better).... for a lower price. That's a crime, now? If the "luddites" actually destroyed property, then they deserve to be punished - it's not like the corporation destroyed their homes or anything.

[GePap]

Thankfully I live in a megalopolis that is chock full or stores from the tiny immigrant owned neighborhood grocery or street vendors to very large department stores and such- but NO Wal-Marts anywhere, and even if one did appear, it could never come to dominate all aspects of retailing like it does in some suburbs. Viva New York!

And I get to find more stuff than those who's main choice is Wal-Mart.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Seriously, don't compare yourself to a sweatshop worker. That's beyond low - even for a lawyer.

Strawman? What, you've lost the argument and so decide not to argue anymore?

The question stands. What good is stuff when you work that many hours? Are you saying then you wouldn't want to be a person who works that long and makes $100,000? Cause after all, what good is stuff when you work that long?

[Theben]

That is the reason these sweatshop jobs are in high demand (and with low supply of them, the price of labor, naturally will be low).

Quite often the sweatshop is the only labor market in town- or on the island.
So the company holds a monpoly on the labor market in a given area, artificially depressing wages. Sounds very anti-capitalist to me, what do you capitalists out there think?

To the subject matter: I've never been in a Walmart in my life, and don't feel I've missed out on anything.

[Kuciwalker]

If the country wants to pass anti-trust legislation, it can.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Quite often the sweatshop is the only labor market in town- or on the island.
So the company holds a monpoly on the labor market in a given area, artificially depressing wages.

Quite obviously there was an economy before the sweatshop arrived. The sweatshop offered more, didn't it?

Sounds very anti-capitalist to me, what do you capitalists out there think?

As long as the sweatshops don't engage in extra-legal means to prevent other companies from arising in that area, there is nothing to do to them, except not prevent any other company from entering the market.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Kucinich


So now you are complaining that the companies sold goods of the same quality (or better).... for a lower price. That's a crime, now?

What?

I didn't say anything about price or quality, and I don't really see what it could have to do with anythign I said, either.

What i was talking about where factories that took away jobs, and destroyed the self-sustained way of life which was previously there, and made thus made themselves the only possible choice for people who didn't want to starve.

And, for your information, nothing mass-produced in a factory will ever be of the same quality as something hand-made by a profesional craftsman. You think the clothes coming out of the first factories made where of the same quality or better than what generations of weavers can produce?

If the "luddites" actually destroyed property, then they deserve to be punished

It was a rebellion, that's what happens. Britain didn't want what happened in America happening back home, too.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Are you saying then you wouldn't want to be a person who works that long and makes $100,000?

Yes, I am.



But these people aren't making $100,000


They're making $1

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, I am.



But these people aren't making $100,000


They're making $1

So what? The same objection apples even to a Billionaire. What good is stuff if you are working 16 hour days? It has the same application to any income level.

You think the clothes coming out of the first factories made where of the same quality or better than what generations of weavers can produce?

They are much better now.

[Theben]

Originally posted by Kucinich
If the country wants to pass anti-trust legislation, it can.

I believe the country in question has AT legislation. However, the islands are territories of the U.S., in the example I had in mind.

There's also something about dictatorships in other lands where they seem to listen to corporate dollars more than popular demands.

Quite obviously there was an economy before the sweatshop arrived. The sweatshop offered more, didn't it?

Not always. Oftentimes they enter an agricultural area with an pre- or proto-capitalist exchange system.

As long as the sweatshops don't engage in extra-legal means to prevent other companies from arising in that area, there is nothing to do to them, except not prevent any other company from entering the market.

That is the case they majority of the time; note the presence of sweatshops in the U.S. Or the means are legal, but in a country where the laws or democratic institutions are weak.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

So what? The same objection apples even to a Billionaire.

You're going in the wrong direction.


One could make the argument that someone working 16 hours a day and making a ****load of money is saving up for retirement, or something. But someone who's making just enough money to feed his family is obviously doing it because that's what he HAS to do.

They are much better now.

But still no match.

[Imran Siddiqui]

One could make the argument that someone working 16 hours a day and making a ****load of money is saving up for retirement, or something. But someone who's making just enough money to feed his family is obviously doing it because that's what he HAS to do.

But if he is making MORE money than others in the society by working in sweatshops, obviously has enough money to feed his family and the extra can be saved up for retirement. So that argument is invalid.

But still no match.

What I meant was that factory clothing is MUCH better now than those made by weavers.