Sweatshops in a realistic light.

[AyeYo]

Yeah, and I am Zorax, Emperor of Delaxia and ruler of half of the known universe.

The reality of the matter is that the sweatshops are necessary - 100% necessary.  The only reason we don't have them here anymore is because we outsourced them due to things like evironmental and safety regulations and unions driving up the price of labor (not some magical capitalism fairy).  The third-world doesn't have anywhere else to outsource them to, so they're stuck with it forever.

How did environmental/safety regulations and unions have the power to do anything, though? What reason would ANY factory have to open with a population of people unwilling to work at correct market prices? Also, why did those countries gain their middle class before such things existed?

Why do I even bother?
APPEAL TO TIME PERIOD

APPEAL TO ABSURDITY

CITATION NEEDED

You fancy sexy time at the Time Cube Cabaret.

Correct market prices REQUIRE TWO TO TANGO. If one or both parties refuse a price, then IT'S NOT THE CORRECT MARKET PRICE.

Assuming price is the only bargaining chip is corporatist fail.

Too bad that a sweatshop worker working at a sweatshop, by default, accepts the price of his own labour. If sweatshops are evil because one/both parties refuse a price, then they cannot work because the workers would refuse to work there or the sweatshops wouldn't employ them, meaning that the problem of sweatshops would solve itself, but if the workers accept it then they are accepting the given price/wage therefore it is a correct market price making it is clearly disadvantageous for the workers to have their workplace removed. QED

Ignoring all other forces at work.  Fail

Not taking into account that the sweatshop worker is not within a lightyear of a level playing field with the sweatshop owner.  Fail x2

[LastBattle]

Yeah, and I am Zorax, Emperor of Delaxia and ruler of half of the known universe.

The reality of the matter is that the sweatshops are necessary - 100% necessary.  The only reason we don't have them here anymore is because we outsourced them due to things like evironmental and safety regulations and unions driving up the price of labor (not some magical capitalism fairy).  The third-world doesn't have anywhere else to outsource them to, so they're stuck with it forever.

How did environmental/safety regulations and unions have the power to do anything, though? What reason would ANY factory have to open with a population of people unwilling to work at correct market prices? Also, why did those countries gain their middle class before such things existed?

Why do I even bother?
APPEAL TO TIME PERIOD

APPEAL TO ABSURDITY

CITATION NEEDED

You fancy sexy time at the Time Cube Cabaret.

Correct market prices REQUIRE TWO TO TANGO. If one or both parties refuse a price, then IT'S NOT THE CORRECT MARKET PRICE.

Assuming price is the only bargaining chip is corporatist fail.

Too bad that a sweatshop worker working at a sweatshop, by default, accepts the price of his own labour. If sweatshops are evil because one/both parties refuse a price, then they cannot work because the workers would refuse to work there or the sweatshops wouldn't employ them, meaning that the problem of sweatshops would solve itself, but if the workers accept it then they are accepting the given price/wage therefore it is a correct market price making it is clearly disadvantageous for the workers to have their workplace removed. QED

Ignoring all other forces at work.  Fail

Not taking into account that the sweatshop worker is not within a lightyear of a level playing field with the sweatshop owner.  Fail x2

Your right. A sweatshop worker is not within a light year of a level playing field with a sweatshop owner. Thanks for acknowledging one of the points I was trying to make

Now: That being the case, explain how a sweatshop worker, being a light year away from having the power of a sweatshop owner, is going to FORCE that owner to improve working standards. Explain how, if the sweatshop owner decides to leave because of this, this worker is going to get a better deal. If the worker could get a better deal, then why does he not already start with it?!

I guess I am not entitled to any attempt at a response, seeing as how you don't have one. The only thing you seem to be capable of is taking a couple of out-of-context shots and then running away until you get to try again.

[AntiVigilante]

You fancy sexy time at the Time Cube Cabaret.

Correct market prices REQUIRE TWO TO TANGO. If one or both parties refuse a price, then IT'S NOT THE CORRECT MARKET PRICE.

Assuming price is the only bargaining chip is corporatist fail.

Too bad that a sweatshop worker working at a sweatshop, by default, accepts the price of his own labour. If sweatshops are evil because one/both parties refuse a price, then they cannot work because the workers would refuse to work there or the sweatshops wouldn't employ them, meaning that the problem of sweatshops would solve itself, but if the workers accept it then they are accepting the given price/wage therefore it is a correct market price making it is clearly disadvantageous for the workers to have their workplace removed. QED
[/quote]

You always leave out the military baracks, housing spaces, and war lords. QED.

[AyeYo]

Your right. A sweatshop worker is not within a light year of a level playing field with a sweatshop owner. Thanks for acknowledging one of the points I was trying to make

Now: That being the case, explain how a sweatshop worker, being a light year away from having the power of a sweatshop owner, is going to FORCE that owner to improve working standards. Explain how, if the sweatshop owner decides to leave because of this, this worker is going to get a better deal. If the worker could get a better deal, then why does he not already start with it?!

He can't get a better deal, that's exactly the problem.  He's stuck choosing between hell and death because he got the short end of the stick.  He is not a free man, nor is his choice to work in the sweatshop voluntary.  It is an ultimatum with death as the other option.

[Anonymous]

That's not to say he will remain in Hell forever.

[Babylon]

Yeah, and I am Zorax, Emperor of Delaxia and ruler of half of the known universe.

The reality of the matter is that the sweatshops are necessary - 100% necessary.  The only reason we don't have them here anymore is because we outsourced them due to things like evironmental and safety regulations and unions driving up the price of labor (not some magical capitalism fairy).  The third-world doesn't have anywhere else to outsource them to, so they're stuck with it forever.

How did environmental/safety regulations and unions have the power to do anything, though? What reason would ANY factory have to open with a population of people unwilling to work at correct market prices? Also, why did those countries gain their middle class before such things existed?

Why do I even bother?
APPEAL TO TIME PERIOD

APPEAL TO ABSURDITY

CITATION NEEDED

You fancy sexy time at the Time Cube Cabaret.

Correct market prices REQUIRE TWO TO TANGO. If one or both parties refuse a price, then IT'S NOT THE CORRECT MARKET PRICE.

Assuming price is the only bargaining chip is corporatist fail.

Too bad that a sweatshop worker working at a sweatshop, by default, accepts the price of his own labour. If sweatshops are evil because one/both parties refuse a price, then they cannot work because the workers would refuse to work there or the sweatshops wouldn't employ them, meaning that the problem of sweatshops would solve itself, but if the workers accept it then they are accepting the given price/wage therefore it is a correct market price making it is clearly disadvantageous for the workers to have their workplace removed. QED

The workers are being kept from bargaining collectively by the local governments.  If they could bargain collectively (as the company does) then a fair market price could be reached.

[em3rgentOrdr]

The workers are being kept from bargaining collectively by the local governments.  If they could bargain collectively (as the company does) then a fair market price could be reached.

Babylon makes a good point here.  Indeed, sweatshops would be very rare if not nonexistent in a true free market.

[LastBattle]

The workers are being kept from bargaining collectively by the local governments.  If they could bargain collectively (as the company does) then a fair market price could be reached.

...Which is a problem with governments, not sweatshops themselves.

Going by the same vein of logic, farming in the mid-early 19th century in the US is evil because the slaves worked on farms, ignoring the fact that government supported slavery is the problem, not farming.

He can't get a better deal, that's exactly the problem.  He's stuck choosing between hell and death because he got the short end of the stick.  He is not a free man, nor is his choice to work in the sweatshop voluntary.  It is an ultimatum with death as the other option.

Certainly he has choices. In most of the places with sweatshops, farming is an option too. The difference is that farmers earn FAR less than sweatshop workers, who are often paid far more than most people in a given country.

Also, your argument, even if entirely true, still has a flaw; by removing sweatshops, it makes that "ultimatum with death as the other option" disappear, making death the ONLY option. Bit of a strange argument there, claiming that it is better for the hypothetical worker to be given only the option of a slow death by starvation.

You always leave out the military baracks, housing spaces, and war lords. QED.

See above. Farming is evil because slaves farm. What you are describing is a problem outside of sweatshops, and more about coercion and slave labour, which are distinctly different.

Have you ever heard of essential and incidental traits? Essential means without the trait, the thing is not what the trait would make it whereas incidental traits may or may not occur but don't change what the thing is. For example, terrorists have to commit acts of terror to be terrorists, but having turbans and beards is incidental. Likewise, a sweatshop engaging in slavery is incidental to it being a sweatshop (a sweatshop does not REQUIRE such traits to be a sweatshop).

You might want to think your arguments through a bit harder.

[AyeYo]

Yeah, and I am Zorax, Emperor of Delaxia and ruler of half of the known universe.

The reality of the matter is that the sweatshops are necessary - 100% necessary.  The only reason we don't have them here anymore is because we outsourced them due to things like evironmental and safety regulations and unions driving up the price of labor (not some magical capitalism fairy).  The third-world doesn't have anywhere else to outsource them to, so they're stuck with it forever.

How did environmental/safety regulations and unions have the power to do anything, though? What reason would ANY factory have to open with a population of people unwilling to work at correct market prices? Also, why did those countries gain their middle class before such things existed?

Why do I even bother?
APPEAL TO TIME PERIOD

APPEAL TO ABSURDITY

CITATION NEEDED

You fancy sexy time at the Time Cube Cabaret.

Correct market prices REQUIRE TWO TO TANGO. If one or both parties refuse a price, then IT'S NOT THE CORRECT MARKET PRICE.

Assuming price is the only bargaining chip is corporatist fail.

Too bad that a sweatshop worker working at a sweatshop, by default, accepts the price of his own labour. If sweatshops are evil because one/both parties refuse a price, then they cannot work because the workers would refuse to work there or the sweatshops wouldn't employ them, meaning that the problem of sweatshops would solve itself, but if the workers accept it then they are accepting the given price/wage therefore it is a correct market price making it is clearly disadvantageous for the workers to have their workplace removed. QED

The workers are being kept from bargaining collectively by the local governments.  If they could bargain collectively (as the company does) then a fair market price could be reached.

Exactly, it's part of the power difference, but no one wants to take that into consideration.

The issue is not government.  The issue is the BUSINESSES that influence the government do things like remove unionization, regulation, safety standards, minimum wage, working standards, etc.  It's this completely deregulated environment that allows things like sweatshops to exist, and big business NEEDS sweatshops.  Ironically, this environment is GREAT for business, as it possesses all the things capitalists desire.

[blogospheroid]

Open a library with quality documentation and make it available to the workers.
Allow workers to acquire tutor status and charge the people outside for access to the library.
Promote those who invent to higher positions.

4 people can individually do the work of 4 people since they are able to adapt since there is in every person the observer, the planner, the doer, and the enabler.
However, 4 people together can do the work of 6 people because they can form 6 connections. They can also focus on several projects depending on what role they play.

Since you're providing the workers with wages that are higher than their marginal product, price (wage) is out the window. Also, this reduces your ability to expand capacity in the future compared to the scenario where you are an exploiter. Even if you have started the industry for utilitarian reasons, you are hobbling yourself.

By investing in a library, I'm getting expansion of knowledge for free and my employees make an extra buck. There's your gap filler. After the documentation is used up, I pay my workers a transition bonus and sell the documentation to the public. Later I take the documentation that is somewhat outdated and give it away.

I thank you for actually thinking of a different model. Not too many people actually think nowadays.

Now please answer my original question - On what basis are you going to choose your labourers, since basic economics indicates that there will be a lot more people at your doorstep than the number of jobs your model is going to be able to provide in its incubation stage, maybe even in later stages.

Simplicity is asking for a divide by zero moment.

That's only going to become a smokescreen for low wages. A few companies might do it fairly but others will just hide behind the rhetoric.

I didn't understand what you mean by divide by zero moment.

The point is that, irrespective of the motivations of the firms, most firms want to invest in capacity where they get high profits. if they get a high profit in "sweatshop nation", they will keep investing in it, until the wages rise. After that, they start looking at other nations with lower labour costs. That is precisely what you want them to do - search out lower wage nations until all nations in the world have high wages.

Because Papa Smurf was wrong. From each and to each is based on a deliberate flaw: no point of reference, pivot, mediation, and principles.

I have no idea what that meant. If you mean that bargaining itself is based on a flaw, then you undermine the means of a market itself.

I'm a georgist and I empathise with the feeling of having a world where the bargaining power of even the weakest person is at a certain level. But I'm a bit uncertain about how that can be attained without the malthusian nightmare raising its head.

[LastBattle]

Yeah, and I am Zorax, Emperor of Delaxia and ruler of half of the known universe.

The reality of the matter is that the sweatshops are necessary - 100% necessary.  The only reason we don't have them here anymore is because we outsourced them due to things like evironmental and safety regulations and unions driving up the price of labor (not some magical capitalism fairy).  The third-world doesn't have anywhere else to outsource them to, so they're stuck with it forever.

How did environmental/safety regulations and unions have the power to do anything, though? What reason would ANY factory have to open with a population of people unwilling to work at correct market prices? Also, why did those countries gain their middle class before such things existed?

Why do I even bother?
APPEAL TO TIME PERIOD

APPEAL TO ABSURDITY

CITATION NEEDED

You fancy sexy time at the Time Cube Cabaret.

Correct market prices REQUIRE TWO TO TANGO. If one or both parties refuse a price, then IT'S NOT THE CORRECT MARKET PRICE.

Assuming price is the only bargaining chip is corporatist fail.

Too bad that a sweatshop worker working at a sweatshop, by default, accepts the price of his own labour. If sweatshops are evil because one/both parties refuse a price, then they cannot work because the workers would refuse to work there or the sweatshops wouldn't employ them, meaning that the problem of sweatshops would solve itself, but if the workers accept it then they are accepting the given price/wage therefore it is a correct market price making it is clearly disadvantageous for the workers to have their workplace removed. QED

The workers are being kept from bargaining collectively by the local governments.  If they could bargain collectively (as the company does) then a fair market price could be reached.

Exactly, it's part of the power difference, but no one wants to take that into consideration.

The issue is not government.  The issue is the BUSINESSES that influence the government do things like remove unionization, regulation, safety standards, minimum wage, working standards, etc.  It's this completely deregulated environment that allows things like sweatshops to exist, and big business NEEDS sweatshops.  Ironically, this environment is GREAT for business, as it possesses all the things capitalists desire.

Are you breaking out into that "government is an inanimate TOOL" argument again?

Also, something you might want to remember: Libertarianism is in favour of individual liberty, not "business". If a corporation sent a gang of thugs to take my money in the name of providing services I didn't ask for, I would oppose it just as strongly as I oppose the state. Actually, a sufficiently large corporation that used certain methods would be a state to all practical purposes.

[Babylon]

The workers are being kept from bargaining collectively by the local governments.  If they could bargain collectively (as the company does) then a fair market price could be reached.

...Which is a problem with governments, not sweatshops themselves.

Going by the same vein of logic, farming in the mid-early 19th century in the US is evil because the slaves worked on farms, ignoring the fact that government supported slavery is the problem, not farming.

Sweatshops are a symptom, and not the root of the problem, that doesn't mean they are ok.

Just because diorhea is a symptom of Cholera, and not the root problem doesn't change the fact that it is the Diorhea that will kill you.

[LastBattle]

The workers are being kept from bargaining collectively by the local governments.  If they could bargain collectively (as the company does) then a fair market price could be reached.

...Which is a problem with governments, not sweatshops themselves.

Going by the same vein of logic, farming in the mid-early 19th century in the US is evil because the slaves worked on farms, ignoring the fact that government supported slavery is the problem, not farming.

Sweatshops are a symptom, and not the root of the problem, that doesn't mean they are ok.

Just because diorhea is a symptom of Cholera, and not the root problem doesn't change the fact that it is the Diorhea that will kill you.

Sweatshops are infinitely preferable to many of the other things a government could do instead.

Removing sweatshops before removing the government's ability to oppress the workers is like aggressively working to deal with the stuffy nose over the cancer.

[speeder]

The workers are being kept from bargaining collectively by the local governments.  If they could bargain collectively (as the company does) then a fair market price could be reached.

...Which is a problem with governments, not sweatshops themselves.

Going by the same vein of logic, farming in the mid-early 19th century in the US is evil because the slaves worked on farms, ignoring the fact that government supported slavery is the problem, not farming.

Sweatshops are a symptom, and not the root of the problem, that doesn't mean they are ok.

Just because diorhea is a symptom of Cholera, and not the root problem doesn't change the fact that it is the Diorhea that will kill you.

Sweatshops are infinitely preferable to many of the other things a government could do instead.

Removing sweatshops before removing the government's ability to oppress the workers is like aggressively working to deal with the stuffy nose over the cancer.

That.


Or being more clear: It is like forcing a person to stop using a crap vehicle that cause health damage, before taking that person out of the desert.

[Babylon]

The workers are being kept from bargaining collectively by the local governments.  If they could bargain collectively (as the company does) then a fair market price could be reached.

...Which is a problem with governments, not sweatshops themselves.

Going by the same vein of logic, farming in the mid-early 19th century in the US is evil because the slaves worked on farms, ignoring the fact that government supported slavery is the problem, not farming.

Sweatshops are a symptom, and not the root of the problem, that doesn't mean they are ok.

Just because diorhea is a symptom of Cholera, and not the root problem doesn't change the fact that it is the Diorhea that will kill you.

Sweatshops are infinitely preferable to many of the other things a government could do instead.

Removing sweatshops before removing the government's ability to oppress the workers is like aggressively working to deal with the stuffy nose over the cancer.

That.


Or being more clear: It is like forcing a person to stop using a crap vehicle that cause health damage, before taking that person out of the desert.

This looks like an apt metaphor to me.

However we cannot presume guiltlessness from the companies that operate the sweatshops either.  Yes, they are doing what they can to maximize profits, they could also treat the workers fairly and sell to the fair trade market.

[AyeYo]

The workers are being kept from bargaining collectively by the local governments.  If they could bargain collectively (as the company does) then a fair market price could be reached.

...Which is a problem with governments, not sweatshops themselves.

Going by the same vein of logic, farming in the mid-early 19th century in the US is evil because the slaves worked on farms, ignoring the fact that government supported slavery is the problem, not farming.

Sweatshops are a symptom, and not the root of the problem, that doesn't mean they are ok.

Just because diorhea is a symptom of Cholera, and not the root problem doesn't change the fact that it is the Diorhea that will kill you.

Sweatshops are infinitely preferable to many of the other things a government could do instead.

Removing sweatshops before removing the government's ability to oppress the workers is like aggressively working to deal with the stuffy nose over the cancer.

That's right, it's ALWAYS the government's fault.


Libertarian rule #1: Everything is the government's fault

Libertarian rule #2: If something is actually a corporation's fault, blame it on the government (see rule #1)

[Litt]

The workers are being kept from bargaining collectively by the local governments.  If they could bargain collectively (as the company does) then a fair market price could be reached.

...Which is a problem with governments, not sweatshops themselves.

Going by the same vein of logic, farming in the mid-early 19th century in the US is evil because the slaves worked on farms, ignoring the fact that government supported slavery is the problem, not farming.

Sweatshops are a symptom, and not the root of the problem, that doesn't mean they are ok.

Just because diorhea is a symptom of Cholera, and not the root problem doesn't change the fact that it is the Diorhea that will kill you.

Sweatshops are infinitely preferable to many of the other things a government could do instead.

Removing sweatshops before removing the government's ability to oppress the workers is like aggressively working to deal with the stuffy nose over the cancer.

That's right, it's ALWAYS the government's fault.


Libertarian rule #1: Everything is the government's fault

Libertarian rule #2: If something is actually a corporation's fault, blame it on the government (see rule #1)

If you really think that today's gov interest deviates even just a little bit from coorporate interest, you need to reassess things because reality couldn't be farther from that. Your argument might have more traction if businesses are all acting on their own interest as well as the gov action on the interest of the people. In a perfect world where we all live in a bubble that may be possible, but not in the real world. The schism lies where we have differences in opinion on the trustworthiness of the business/gov you speak so highly of to act on behalf of the people's interest. You think that they can be trusted whereas others think that they would rather have that choice to themselves.

[LastBattle]

The workers are being kept from bargaining collectively by the local governments.  If they could bargain collectively (as the company does) then a fair market price could be reached.

...Which is a problem with governments, not sweatshops themselves.

Going by the same vein of logic, farming in the mid-early 19th century in the US is evil because the slaves worked on farms, ignoring the fact that government supported slavery is the problem, not farming.

Sweatshops are a symptom, and not the root of the problem, that doesn't mean they are ok.

Just because diorhea is a symptom of Cholera, and not the root problem doesn't change the fact that it is the Diorhea that will kill you.

Sweatshops are infinitely preferable to many of the other things a government could do instead.

Removing sweatshops before removing the government's ability to oppress the workers is like aggressively working to deal with the stuffy nose over the cancer.

That's right, it's ALWAYS the government's fault.


Libertarian rule #1: Everything is the government's fault

Libertarian rule #2: If something is actually a corporation's fault, blame it on the government (see rule #1)

I was unaware that corporations were capable of collecting taxes and passing laws, the two things that make the oppression of workers in Asia feasible.

[AyeYo]

The workers are being kept from bargaining collectively by the local governments.  If they could bargain collectively (as the company does) then a fair market price could be reached.

...Which is a problem with governments, not sweatshops themselves.

Going by the same vein of logic, farming in the mid-early 19th century in the US is evil because the slaves worked on farms, ignoring the fact that government supported slavery is the problem, not farming.

Sweatshops are a symptom, and not the root of the problem, that doesn't mean they are ok.

Just because diorhea is a symptom of Cholera, and not the root problem doesn't change the fact that it is the Diorhea that will kill you.

Sweatshops are infinitely preferable to many of the other things a government could do instead.

Removing sweatshops before removing the government's ability to oppress the workers is like aggressively working to deal with the stuffy nose over the cancer.

That's right, it's ALWAYS the government's fault.


Libertarian rule #1: Everything is the government's fault

Libertarian rule #2: If something is actually a corporation's fault, blame it on the government (see rule #1)

I was unaware that corporations were capable of collecting taxes and passing laws, the two things that make the oppression of workers in Asia feasible.

Not relevant.

Oxygen content in air kept Hilter alive, thus making it feasible to execute his plan for the holocaust.  Oxygen did not cause the holocaust.

Jet fuel powered the planes that flew into the WTC on 9/11, thus jet fuel made the attacks of 9/11 feasible.  Jet fuel did not cause 9/11.

[bittersweet]

Taxes and laws are oppression, not job offers on a free market.
Of course there is no free market because of government regulations, that's a different story.