Obama wins, saves economy single-handedly while defeating economy-hating Republicans

[Al B. Sure!]

HC, I think the issue is, and I think I've mentioned this to either you or your brother before, that there are people out there who support losing causes wholeheartedly... they would not care whether or not their ideas result in people being worse off in net... it's just simply the 'right' thing to do. They see having workers in sweatshop conditions as a wrong, no matter how worse the alternative might be. So your argument from economics would fall on deaf ears.

Also, it's not just about companies. There are concerns with the general situation in the 3rd world and the Western world's relative unconcern with it.

[Hauldren Collider]

HC, I think the issue is, and I think I've mentioned this to either you or your brother before, that there are people out there who support losing causes wholeheartedly... they would not care whether or not their ideas result in people being worse off in net... it's just simply the 'right' thing to do. They see having workers in sweatshop conditions as a wrong, no matter how worse the alternative might be. So your argument from economics would fall on deaf ears.

I figured that out at about the same time that I realized the Democratic Party is still around.

[giblets]

HC, I think the issue is, and I think I've mentioned this to either you or your brother before, that there are people out there who support losing causes wholeheartedly... they would not care whether or not their ideas result in people being worse off in net... it's just simply the 'right' thing to do. They see having workers in sweatshop conditions as a wrong, no matter how worse the alternative might be. So your argument from economics would fall on deaf ears.

Also, it's not just about companies. There are concerns with the general situation in the 3rd world and the Western world's relative unconcern with it.

It's not wrong for a company to hire sweatshop labor, it's wrong that sweatshop labor is the best option imaginable for millions of people.

[Hauldren Collider]

Death sucks too. Let me know when you solve that problem.

[giblets]

Death sucks too. Let me know when you solve that problem.

So the fact that people who make the horrendous mistake of being born to the wrong parents can potentially be condemned to sweatshop labor while the people who had the foresight to be born to upper middle class parents in Virginia get an easy life is inevitable in the same way that death is?

[Hauldren Collider]

So the fact that people who make the horrendous mistake of being born to the wrong parents can potentially be condemned to sweatshop labor while the people who had the foresight to be born to upper middle class parents in Virginia get an easy life is inevitable in the same way that death is?

No, that's not what I meant, so my statement was badly worded. It's not a great analogy. However, the only way for us to improve their quality of life is to invest in their countries' economies, which is mutually beneficial.

However, the fact that some people are poorer than others is as inevitable as death.

[Al B. Sure!]

Isn't Sachs all about governments giving developing countries a crapload of foreign aid and that's how they rise out of poverty?

[Hauldren Collider]

I don't think so. I think he was more about getting rid of protectionism. But that's besides the point.

[giblets]

Well there's kind of two options, the first being to employ sweatshop labor, which is better than doing nothing, and the second is for people who are well off to do things that will help people in undeveloped countries for no direct personal benefit. I think it's helpful if people recognize that they are the beneficiaries of a grossly unequal distribution of opportunities and that they owe a debt to the rest of the human race and are morally obligated to pay it back.

[Aeson]

HC, this is not the zero sum game you are pretending it is. If I pay my worker an extra $ a day, I neither create or destroy value unless I presuppose that I am better able to use that $ than my worker or vice versa.

[Hauldren Collider]

Well there's kind of two options, the first being to employ sweatshop labor, which is better than doing nothing, and the second is for people who are well off to do things that will help people in undeveloped countries for no direct personal benefit. I think it's helpful if people recognize that they are the beneficiaries of a grossly unequal distribution of opportunities and that they owe a debt to the rest of the human race and are morally obligated to pay it back.

I dispute the premise. These people are more valuable*. How do I know this? They are able to get higher pay, therefore they are more valuable, QED. If you want to make things better, why don't you start a company overseas? Then not only are you richer for it but the people across the ocean can get jobs, then pay taxes, then have better schools, then their kids can do more valuable work and get better jobs.....

No, instead we'll raise tariffs to protect workers in the united states in protest of the poverty overseas. That'll learn them.

If you're suggesting redistribution, then you set up an incentive system that clearly destroys wealth.

*I am not saying this is fair. It's not fair. But it's true. I'm not pro-unfairness.

[Elok]

I figured that out at about the same time that I realized the Democratic Party is still around.

The GOP can look down its nose at the Democrats for "supporting losing causes" just as soon as they stop pushing abstinence-only sex ed.

[Aeson]

If the job is unskilled labor, as most of these jobs we're talking about are, the only real difference in paying more is the laborer is likely to work a bit harder out of desire to keep the job, and that you will get first pick of the unskilled laborers (strongest, most dexterous, or whatever natural ability best fits the job). Skilled laborers and those with higher education are unlikely to want to do, or to be capable of doing better at, unskilled labor.

[Hauldren Collider]

The GOP can look down its nose at the Democrats for "supporting losing causes" just as soon as they stop pushing abstinence-only sex ed.

The GOP can go **** itself to death, and the Democrats can do the same thing.

As it stands however I think more harm is done by economic retardation than inability to understand teenagers.

That said this is not a national issue but a state and even local issue, and I don't care what voters in Texas get their school board to do since it doesn't affect me.

[Aeson]

These people are more valuable*. How do I know this? They are able to get higher pay, therefore they are more valuable, QED.

I pay worker X more so they are worth more and thus my paying worker X more is perfectly justified.