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

[KrazyHorse]

Actually, I'm thinking more of Filipinos, Indonesians, Indians, Guatemalans and the like. I think the situation in China is different, what with the powerful central government. But which worker are you talking about? Third world countries tend to have a lot of people and no welfare. The level of need varies from person to person, but at any given time there are going to be mothers with too many kids to feed, seventeen-year-olds with sick parents who need expensive medicine, farmers up to their eyeballs in debt after bad harvests. And then, of course, there are indeed going to be a number of people who aren't in an immediately bad way, they're just sick of eating beans every damn day, living in a one-room tin shack and having only one shirt. But I didn't mean the Titanic example to be an exact parallel, merely a counterexample which fits the basic requirement HC listed for a sleazy-seeming endeavor to be A-OK: "they're better off with it than without it."

Despite his silly little-boy flaws, HC is demonstrating considerably higher quality of thought than you are.

Elok, please pay attention: THE FACT THAT THIRD WORLDERS ARE POOR IS THE PROBLEM. NOT THAT SOME COMPANIES ARE GIVING THEM OPPORTUNITIES WHICH ARE FAR BETTER THAN THOSE THEY PREVIOUSLY HAD.

Now, if you have a shred of intellectual honesty left, please explain why Nike owes its workers any more, over and above the market-clearing wage they pay them, than Caterpillar or Ben & Jerry's owes Nike's workers.

Or, for that matter, what you do.

[KrazyHorse]

KH just thinks he has the value of everything, and has already determined that third world workers aren't worth ****. If I as an employer don't pay my workers what KH thinks they are worth, but rather what I think they are worth, then it's a terrible welfare destroying thing.

If you think that pay decisions should be based around what an employee is "worth" without reference to the market then you are out of your mediocre mind.

[Caligastia]

Actually, I'm thinking more of Filipinos, Indonesians, Indians, Guatemalans and the like. I think the situation in China is different, what with the powerful central government. But which worker are you talking about? Third world countries tend to have a lot of people and no welfare. The level of need varies from person to person, but at any given time there are going to be mothers with too many kids to feed, seventeen-year-olds with sick parents who need expensive medicine, farmers up to their eyeballs in debt after bad harvests. And then, of course, there are indeed going to be a number of people who aren't in an immediately bad way, they're just sick of eating beans every damn day, living in a one-room tin shack and having only one shirt. But I didn't mean the Titanic example to be an exact parallel, merely a counterexample which fits the basic requirement HC listed for a sleazy-seeming endeavor to be A-OK: "they're better off with it than without it."

So then where is the downside to having an opportunity to improve all these things? And what would you like to see done differently? If the western companies that use third-world labor are forced to pay more for that labor there will be less of an incentive for them to do it in the first place. Inevitably, it would lead to a reduction in the number of jobs available to third-worlders, and higher prices for first-world consumers.

[Elok]

Despite his silly little-boy flaws, HC is demonstrating considerably higher quality of thought than you are.

Elok, please pay attention: THE FACT THAT THIRD WORLDERS ARE POOR IS THE PROBLEM. NOT THAT SOME COMPANIES ARE GIVING THEM OPPORTUNITIES WHICH ARE FAR BETTER THAN THOSE THEY PREVIOUSLY HAD.

YELLING DOES NOT MAKE YOUR ASSERTIONS MORE PERSUASIVE.

Now, if you have a shred of intellectual honesty left, please explain why Nike owes its workers any more, over and above the market-clearing wage they pay them, than Caterpillar or Ben & Jerry's owes Nike's workers.

Or, for that matter, what you do.

Does Caterpillar or Ben & Jerry's hire anyone in the third world? If so, it would be nice if they treated them decently. If I hire third-world workers, I hope I'll be nice to them too.

[Elok]

So then where is the downside to having an opportunity to improve all these things? And what would you like to see done differently? If the western companies that use third-world labor are forced to pay more for that labor there will be less of an incentive for them to do it in the first place. Inevitably, it would lead to a reduction in the number of jobs available to third-worlders, and higher prices for first-world consumers.

Yes, I am aware of the market forces that keep sweatshops going. I don't know what goes on in sweatshops these days, but last I heard the employees worked incredibly long hours, doing extremely repetitive tasks, often in a very hot, noisy, crowded environment (hence "sweatshop"), and sometimes endured degrading treatment such as female workers being forced to take contraceptives. Now, I realize that the nature of the tasks generally requires repetitive motions, and a more pleasant environment would drive up overhead, and it's probably not economical to let them stop after about twelve hours of doing the same damned thing. As I have said at least three times already, I'm not pushing for change, because change is simply not going to happen, and wouldn't happen even if some corporate bigwig for some reason decided to come on down to Poly and see what the internet thinks about his business practices. But I sure as hell wouldn't want to be treated that way, and I don't suck the free-market-cannot-be-criticized penis.

[C0ckney]

aeson, it's good to hear about your efforts in the philippines, it sounds like you have a decent plan and i hope it works out for you. of course, treating people decently and giving them opportunities to improve their lot is always going to be better than the alternative.

and i wouldn't worry about the fact that your real life examples are 'irrelevant' for people trying to argue some narrow economic point.

[Barnabas]

In Argentina we have a few sweatshops that employ Bolivian immigrants, often those sweatshops are owned by Koreans.
When the gov dicovered that those bolivians were working as basically modern slaves, they sent inspectors to close the sweatshops down, with the only result being demonstrations from those same Bolivian "slaves" claiming that they did not want to lose their jobs and that they were making more money than in Bolivia.

[Arrian]

Re: rent-seeking... well, if Aeson is paying his workers too much, wouldn't a competitor who pays his workers less and therefore can sell produce for less be able to undercut Aeson's sales and force him to cut costs, thus correcting the "problem?"

-Arrian

[Caligastia]

Yes, I am aware of the market forces that keep sweatshops going. I don't know what goes on in sweatshops these days, but last I heard the employees worked incredibly long hours, doing extremely repetitive tasks, often in a very hot, noisy, crowded environment (hence "sweatshop"), and sometimes endured degrading treatment such as female workers being forced to take contraceptives. Now, I realize that the nature of the tasks generally requires repetitive motions, and a more pleasant environment would drive up overhead, and it's probably not economical to let them stop after about twelve hours of doing the same damned thing. As I have said at least three times already, I'm not pushing for change, because change is simply not going to happen, and wouldn't happen even if some corporate bigwig for some reason decided to come on down to Poly and see what the internet thinks about his business practices. But I sure as hell wouldn't want to be treated that way, and I don't suck the free-market-cannot-be-criticized penis.

I think any reasonable person will agree that improved conditions are a good thing, but as bad as they may seem to us, the conditions you describe are still an improvement on what existed previously. And over time they will improve even more - even stimulating improvement in other workplaces. I agree that I wouldn't want to work under such conditions, but that's because I've become accustomed to much better. I'm not saying conditions shouldn't be improved, I just think it would be wise to allow them to improve naturally, rather than force radical change.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But I don't think its wrong to state that conditions should be better and it isn't an ideal situation.

[Caligastia]

Agreed.

[Elok]

I don't think you actually could force radical change. If you tried passing decent labor laws in one country, they'd simply pull out and build a new factory someplace else, because all sweatshops require is a sizable pool of unskilled workers. The economy of the country would tank, and the whole thing would be seen as an object lesson on the follies of intrusive government regulation.

But I still think it's pretty icky.

[KrazyHorse]

YELLING DOES NOT MAKE YOUR ASSERTIONS MORE PERSUASIVE.

It means they might get through your thick skull

Does Caterpillar or Ben & Jerry's hire anyone in the third world? If so, it would be nice if they treated them decently. If I hire third-world workers, I hope I'll be nice to them too.

How ****ing obtuse can you be?

I asked you why NIKE owes more to NIKE's workers (above the market-clearing wages and conditions they currently pay) than, say, CATERPILLAR owes to NIKE's workers.

[KrazyHorse]

In Argentina we have a few sweatshops that employ Bolivian immigrants, often those sweatshops are owned by Koreans.
When the gov dicovered that those bolivians were working as basically modern slaves, they sent inspectors to close the sweatshops down, with the only result being demonstrations from those same Bolivian "slaves" claiming that they did not want to lose their jobs and that they were making more money than in Bolivia.

An object lesson in the relativity of "exploitation" and "fairness".

[KrazyHorse]

Re: rent-seeking... well, if Aeson is paying his workers too much, wouldn't a competitor who pays his workers less and therefore can sell produce for less be able to undercut Aeson's sales and force him to cut costs, thus correcting the "problem?"

-Arrian

No, although the world would be a better place if it were so. Only if Aeson was a marginal producer would this be true, and even then, only if he was properly accounting for the imputed rent/depreciation etc. of his capital. In fact, what Aeson is doing (assuming he is paying higher than he needs to in order to get the maximum profit) is foregoing part of his producer surplus in order to pay a rent. If the producer surplus is large enough, this can continue indefinitely.