Minimum wage increased to 11.50

Frank Lee Midere

Memnoch wrote: »

Typically dishonest false dichotomy of the Social Darwinianists.

The idea that the choice is only between the unrestrained and unregulated free market (a paradox, for there is no such thing) and Marxism. Of course, the alternatives being advocated (like a liveable minimum wage) are no where near Marxism.

Thank you for reminding me why I put you on my ignore list a couple of years ago.

The real issue with globalisation is the permanent imbalances it brings to the world economy. None predicted by Ricardians.

Frank Lee Midere

Turtwig wrote: »

This wasn't what was meant by practically possible. Nothing to do with forcing companies this was about individual company's choice.

The claim was that company's can't pay worker's more because it's not financially viable for them.

So far in this thread that claim has been unaddressed.

Surely it's been addressed numerous times.

Turtwig

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Surely it's been addressed numerous times.

Nope.

jank

Memnoch wrote: »

Typically dishonest false dichotomy of the Social Darwinianists.

I hear that term alot, but what does it actually mean or is it just popped in there to add fire to the argument?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Tigersliding

Turtwig wrote: »

Nope.

It has been addressed, I 'll repeat it. Companies have an objective to maximise profit. They pay as little as they can generally speaking for factors of production, otherwise you aren't trying to maximise profit. Shareholders won't
invest their money into companies that gives it's money away. That's the reality. Judging it is fairly pointless really. Thinking of solutions to poverty that deal with reality is what you should be doing.

steddyeddy

jank wrote: »

Sweatshops in Africa and Asia exist because people will work in them, whether you or we like it or not.

I'm not saying sweatshops don't exist? I'm not saying people don't work in them?

Tigersliding

steddyeddy wrote: »

I'm not saying sweatshops don't exist? I'm not saying people don't work in them?

The reason they exist was the point.

jank

Tigersliding wrote: »

The reason they exist was the point.

Precisely, and the indirect benefits they bring over the long run is well documented.

steddyeddy

I'll explain social Darwinism when I get a chance because it is a bug bear of mine.

karma_

Tigersliding wrote: »

It has been addressed, I 'll repeat it. Companies have an objective to maximise profit. They pay as little as they can generally speaking for factors of production, otherwise you aren't trying to maximise profit. Shareholders won't
invest their money into companies that gives it's money away. That's the reality. Judging it is fairly pointless really. Thinking of solutions to poverty that deal with reality is what you should be doing.

And this has already been addressed also. This is Business ethics, which you seem to advocate whereas what I and others have been saying is that Human ethical considerations are a higher priority.

To put it simply western business have the means but not the will to pay higher wages, to make a bigger difference. The reality is they can fix poverty faster, but do they want to?

Memnoch

jank wrote: »

I hear that term alot, but what does it actually mean or is it just popped in there to add fire to the argument?

In very succinct terms - Darwinism - survival of the biologically fittest.

Social Darwinism - survival of the economically fittest. I.E. Libertarian economic philosophy. Which could also be described as corporate anarchism.

Valmont

From Paul Krugman himself:

"In 1993, child workers in Bangladesh were found to be producing clothing for Wal-Mart, and Senator Tom Harkin proposed legislation banning imports from countries employing underage workers. The direct result was that Bangladeshi textile factories stopped employing children. But did the children go back to school? Did they return to happy homes? Not according to Oxfam, which found that the displaced child workers ended up in even worse jobs, or on the streets -- and that a significant number were forced into prostitution."

Memnoch

Valmont wrote: »

From Paul Krugman himself:

"In 1993, child workers in Bangladesh were found to be producing clothing for Wal-Mart, and Senator Tom Harkin proposed legislation banning imports from countries employing underage workers. The direct result was that Bangladeshi textile factories stopped employing children. But did the children go back to school? Did they return to happy homes? Not according to Oxfam, which found that the displaced child workers ended up in even worse jobs, or on the streets -- and that a significant number were forced into prostitution."

Further false dichotomy.

I love the libertarian translation - We need child labour to protect children from child prostitution.


I wonder why libertarians never propose this as a solution for combatting child exploitation in wealthy western countries?

Because those are the only two options.

How about requiring any company that sells products in western countries to pay a decent living wage to its workers wherever they are based so that they can look after their family, live a decent, dignified life and send their children to school?

They will still have cheaper labour... but then a company might only make say 200 million euro in profit instead of 250 million.

Child labour is a much better solution of course!

KomradeBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Companies would do that, because customers and nations importing goods from those companies, would pressure them into doing that - so that working conditions better match the ethical standards of these importing countries.

Otherwise those customers/countries are displaying hypocrisy/double-standards - exactly like you pointed out: People complaining about this while being happy to buy the latest iPhone and such...

Posters defending developing-world conditions, have already ceded that doing this is perfectly practical - which only leaves moral arguments left as to why it shouldn't be done (and none of those moral arguments really make a good case).

jank

Memnoch wrote: »

In very succinct terms - Darwinism - survival of the biologically fittest.

Social Darwinism - survival of the economically fittest. I.E. Libertarian economic philosophy. Which could also be described as corporate anarchism.

That is your definition and opinion of it. Oh, of course you had to throw in the ol anarchism schism there too.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

steddyeddy

There are schools in places like Africa. They just need funding.

karma_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You are still not addressing the main point that is being driven at here. Why not?

steddyeddy

Tigersliding wrote: »

The reason they exist was the point.

The reason they exist is that companies (and governments of said countries) exploit the fact that these children and families have very little hope in life. A lot of schools in Africa require donations from parents to exist and often the parents will go hungry to send that child to school. These sweatshops take advantage of orphans and other less fortunate (in Africa there's a lot of them) and they're shipped from orphanages or off the streets to a life of intimidation, sometimes sexual or physical violence and no hope of progression. You can't know these facts and be supportive of this. Live in Africa for a while and learn of a world independent of figures and statistics.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

karma_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So you are using the fact that there are no schools, or there are very poor schools to bolster an argument for not paying them more?

That's a pretty poor argument.

Would you not agree if there was less poverty in the first place then schools would develop and improve by the same standard?

steddyeddy

Forgetting the pay for a minute the least these companies can do is make sure that young girls and boys are not exposed to sexual or physical violence.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KomradeBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Except one does not logically follow from the other - that's an assumption about peoples views, which doesn't have evidence backing it; buying a product, does not equate to holding those views.

Boycott's are also notoriously ineffective - there are far better alternatives, like making companies legally responsible/accountable for the welfare of the workers that make their products (paying for bringing their working standards up to scratch) - one example being:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accord_on_Fire_and_Building_Safety_in_Bangladesh

There are also other measures such as 'Jobbers Agreements', where the company selling in the importing country, agrees to only hire developing world workers (including subcontractors and their workers) that are unionized, so that they can protect themselves from exploitation, by using collective bargaining.

The latter in particular, helped end sweatshops in the now-developed world, in the early 1900's.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KomradeBishop

The countries they import to.

karma_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You have said nothing new here.

Let's accept that life is better with sweatshops, it's marginally better, life is still absolutely shít and filled with misery and abject poverty but OK it's just a smidgen better than what it was... still though kids have to work long hours in dangerous conditions, is that not too high a price?

What cost profit? Why is paying these people more so ideologically objectionable? We have the means to make the world better for many people but not the will, and I find it incredibly sad that anyone could argue that this human cost in pursuit of profit is acceptable.

And no one from you side of the debate has ever answered why business ethics are favoured over human ethics.

PopePalpatine

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I don't see anything "socialist" about these companies acting with impunity in these countries, it's more like "corporatist". I'd imagine that if the police were privatised these same companies would be clambering over each other to buy these police forces.

Memnoch

jank wrote: »

That is your definition and opinion of it. Oh, of course you had to throw in the ol anarchism schism there too.

You don't like it, but that is what it is. It is a despicable and ugly ideology whose sole purpose is the advancement of profit and concentration of wealth.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

karma_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Seriously... You are guilty of all those offences that you have accused others of in this thread.

Also, you are making up phantom arguments to suit your own agenda. No one has argued FOR socialism in this thread and no one has suggested a magic wand fix-it-all, the views expressed don't even call for the major change of capitalism in any way other than to implore it to act in more ethical ways.

Unrestrained greed and exploitation is not the solution, for that is what you are defending, and it insults my intelligence for someone who is arguing for that to call anyone elses point of view Pollyannaish.


Now I understand why you have tied yourself to this mast, for if you budge one inch your whole ideology comes crashing down around you, in fact you are trapped by it.

KomradeBishop

KomradeBishop wrote:

There are also other measures such as 'Jobbers Agreements', where the company selling in the importing country, agrees to only hire developing world workers (including subcontractors and their workers) that are unionized, so that they can protect themselves from exploitation, by using collective bargaining.

The latter in particular, helped end sweatshops in the now-developed world, in the early 1900's.

Bit disappointed there's been no rebuttal to this really - was looking forward to someone trying the "but the workers/unions will start exploiting the businesses that are exploiting them" argument.

In any case, along with other proposals, this is a perfectly good/pragmatic/practical means of getting companies to improve conditions/pay.

Iwasfrozen

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I think he means making them legally responsible in Ireland for their actions abroad. Not sure how that would work when the work abroad is contracted though.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KomradeBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Haha - so nothing other than moral "it doesn't fit my ideologies moral framework" objections left I see.

jank

Memnoch wrote: »

You don't like it, but that is what it is. It is a despicable and ugly ideology whose sole purpose is the advancement of profit and concentration of wealth.

Oh yes we are all despicable people for wanting to improve the lives of billions through the advancement capitalism and free markets across the developing world. The word social Darwinist is just used as an ad hominem nothing more, nothing less.

jank

karma_ wrote: »

Unrestrained greed and exploitation is not the solution, for that is what you are defending, and it insults my intelligence for someone who is arguing for that to call anyone elses point of view Pollyannaish.

So what is the solution. It has been demonstrated in this thread countless times how capitalism and by that extension sweatshop aids a countries economic development long term. Nobody has even argued the basic primary point regarding this. Instead people focus on purely ethical and moral arguments.
People object to the reality of this even though no practical workable solution is given. The only argument given is sweatshops with bells and whistles that pay more. An ever lasting open argument.

jank

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Bit disappointed there's been no rebuttal to this really - was looking forward to someone trying the "but the workers/unions will start exploiting the businesses that are exploiting them" argument.

In any case, along with other proposals, this is a perfectly good/pragmatic/practical means of getting companies to improve conditions/pay.

If/when workers unionise in these countries then the likelihood of companies looking elsewhere will increase. The law of unintended consequences.

Memnoch

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I think he means making them legally responsible in Ireland for their actions abroad. Not sure how that would work when the work abroad is contracted though.

Not difficult at all if you require transparency and accountability. Make companies financially and legally responsible for using contractors if they break the law. They must perform due dilligence.

Memnoch

jank wrote: »

So what is the solution. It has been demonstrated in this thread countless times how capitalism and by that extension sweatshop aids a countries economic development long term. Nobody has even argued the basic primary point regarding this. Instead people focus on purely ethical and moral arguments.
People object to the reality of this even though no practical workable solution is given. The only argument given is sweatshops with bells and whistles that pay more. An ever lasting open argument.

Capitalism does not equal sweatshops. Certainly not in here or anywhere else in the western world.

I'm not convinced that sweatshops per say aid economic development. Cheaper labour yes. But that doesn't have to be implemented as economic slavery as it currently is.

India for example is stinking rich, but how much of that wealth has raised living standards for what percentage of the population? How many hundreds of millions still live in abject poverty with no hope of betterment? I'd say the real statistics are not nearly as cut and dry as people might think them to be.

Sweatshops with bells and whistles that pay more? What is that a euphamism for exactly?

The practical solutions are much greater corporate transparency, accountability and marginally reduced profit for greater workers rights, pay and standards of living. That'll do for a start and let's see where that gets us. Whereas currently the emphasis is on profit and nothing else. ( forcing them to pay more tax worldwide is also a good idea).

Also the libertarian economic philosophy is not capitalism. In fact it is a totally anti capitalist ideology since it supports and allows for the ultimate subversion of core capitalistic ideals.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Memnoch

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And where is the evidence that this is thanks to child labour and sweat shops rather than jobs in higher paying tech sectors?

Where is the evidence that marginally less profits and greater accountability and transparency would not produce similar results?

I'm willing to listen with an open mind if you can show me how this system can work in a way that is not a human pyramid scheme? Because ultimately such schemes only work with more on the bottom being exploited.

candy-gal1

Well this would be brilliant imho, now if I could get a job everything would be great! :rolleyes::)

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Memnoch

You're not really answering what I asked.

I have no problem with capitalism or the idea of a free market and economic reform. My problem is with the libertarian brand of capitalism and its extremist approach.

I'm not interested in retreading two year old debates with you. So far you aren't providing evidence that I've asked for. Your operandi seems to be variations of - capitalism good - socialism bad - ad nauseum. I was looking for something with a bit more balance / nuance.

Memnoch

candy-gal1 wrote: »

Well this would be brilliant imho, now if I could get a job everything would be great! :rolleyes::)

So you would be happy to work in a sweat shop and survive on a couple of euro per day of less?

Or are you talking about a job that allows you to afford a few nice things and the luxuries of life you are dreaming of with a possibility of advancement and greater safety and security down the line?