Minimum wage increased to 11.50

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KomradeBishop

Posters know it is not a choice between closing sweatshops, or keeping them open with shít wages/conditions - that is a false dichotomy, which posters are scrabbling to hold onto, because they don't have any arguments against the alternatives proposed, so are just trying to spin/distract from those alternatives instead, with lenghty amounts of generic 'lefty-bashing' and ranting.

I'll point out again, some solutions that involve changes only at the importing-country level, which companies can't get away from by switching manufacturing to elsewhere:

KomradeBishop wrote:

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_..._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.

Perfectly good solutions, which posters only have "it doesn't agree with my ideology" or "unions *spit*" type moral objections to.

Just to make it extra clear as well, before posters try pigeonholing me with that false dichotomy again: My views don't involve closing sweatshops.

KomradeBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Nobody has argued otherwise, but you know this and are trying to portray posters as denying this, just for rhetorical effect.

Your argument is one for maintaining the status-quo in these countries, you are arguing against perfectly good policies which improve working conditions/pay in these countries even more, because you have moral objections to those policies (based on them disagreeing with your preferred ideology), not any actual practical objections.

karma_

jank wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I was reading this and when I came to this part I nearly spat out my tea.

Memnoch wrote: »

You're not really answering what I asked.

I'm sure you are blindingly aware of this already, but they never do, always answering their own counter arguments, I'll not lie it can be a frustrating experience.

Permabear wrote: »

The fact that people such as Paul Krugman, Jeffrey Sachs, and Pulitzer prize-winning New York Times journalist Nicholas Kristof, often hailed as a defender of the downtrodden, have broken rank and publicly praised so-called sweatshops for lifting people out of poverty drives the left further to distraction.

Would you stop talking about Krugman already, a man you spend 90% of your time disagreeing with and the one time you and he dovetail, you plaster his name all over the shop.

Tigersliding

karma_ wrote: »

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.

I 'd love to be able to wave a magic wand so that no person ever has to live in poverty, but I can't. I want the best for everyone. Simply banning sweatshops makes people worse off generally. It would increase poverty. So for human ethics reasons I do not support across the board bans for these sweatshops.

karma_

Tigersliding wrote: »

I 'd love to be able to wave a magic wand so that no person ever has to live in poverty, but I can't. I want the best for everyone. Simply banning sweatshops makes people worse off generally. It would increase poverty. So for human ethics reasons I do not support across the board bans for these sweatshops.

Anything useful to add?........ seriously though anything, anything at all?

Tigersliding

karma_ wrote: »

Anything useful to add?........ seriously though anything, anything at all?

I countered a point about ethics. What are you looking for?

karma_

Tigersliding wrote: »

I countered a point about ethics. What are you looking for?

Anything that hasn't been repeated at least thrice would be a start.

Tigersliding

karma_ wrote: »

Anything that hasn't been repeated at least thrice would be a start.

I've made my point, counter it or ignore it.

PopePalpatine

I wonder, how much of their revenue do sweatshops actually pay their employees? Gods forbid Ahmed the triple-chinned owner has to wait another week to buy a Range Rover.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KomradeBishop

It's the status quo in economic policies (rigid adherence to free-market-based policies) that you are supporting, yes. An even better set of policies are available (as mentioned in my previous couple of posts), that can improve conditions even more than the current set of policies; and you're against them, and are trying to champion the success of current policies as a reason for not undertaking even better policies (which is fallacious).

So ya, you can stop bothering to champion current policies - I agree, even though I don't think they're optimal, they have helped these countries in economic development - now on to even better policies, like the ones I mentioned...

What you are trying to hide in the way you phrase your argument, trying to highlight the progressive nature of current policies, is that you are really arguing against better policies (specifically ones that don't fit your preferred ideology) - which is actually a regressive status-quo-defending argument, not the progressive one you're trying to make it out as.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KomradeBishop

Whatever about defining the 'status quo' - it is widely acknowledged among free-market posters that under current and other free-market-based policies, there is no quick way to improve worker conditions/wages, as that can raise costs relative to other locations, and cause companies to relocate.

This means free-market-based policies are inherently limited by that, but other policies not limited by that (like the ones in my previous posts, for making companies responsible in the importing countries, for developing country workers work conditions - and for requiring that they pick unionized developing country workers), can improve their conditions much better and faster than any other free-market-only alternative, and apply no matter where a company locates manufacturing.

There is simply no argument left against that, other than "that disagrees with my ideology" based ones.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KomradeBishop

You're obviously dodging the point again (all of your policies are inherently limited in how fast they can improve conditions, due to companies being able to relocate - mine aren't limited by that and can improve conditions much faster), and are just asserting the policies I've presented are "airy-fairy untested claptrap", when that is untrue as both of them are tried, tested and proven (one of them presently in-practice by over a hundred companies, including ones like Adidas, Sainsbury's, Tesco - among many others):

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.

Describe, exactly, how those policies are "airy-fairy untested claptrap"? Posters can easily notice you avoid addressing the actual policies themselves at all, because you have zero arguments against them, that don't just boil down to "they're bad because they don't fit my ideology".

I've even explicitly said the free-market changes in these countries up to the present, have helped them (even if I don't think they are optimal), yet you still come out with crap like "you can't stand to see the market succeed where generations' worth of socialism have failed" - even though I've already acknowledged how it has helped; you're starting to become a bit like jank at this stage, just railing against an opposing view that you completely made up for rhetorical effect, and where you're effectively just talking to yourself, in an effort of masturbatory free-market rhetoric.

foxtrot101

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I wonder, how much of their revenue do sweatshops actually pay their employees? Gods forbid Ahmed the triple-chinned owner has to wait another week to buy a Range Rover.

Don't worry about Ahmed, he'd be fine. Any increase in cost would be passed on to the consumer.

There was a study which examined the impact that a 100 percent increase in the pay for apparel workers in Mexico and in the United States would have on costs relative to the retail price those garments sell for in the United States. The findings showed that doubling the pay of the workers would add just 50 cents to the production costs of a men's casual shirt sold for $32 in the United States, or just 1.6 percent of the retail price.

Using a sample of forty‑five countries over the period 1992‑97, the same study found no statistically significant relationship between real wages and employment growth in the apparel industry. In other words, there is no evidence that boosting wages in the garment trade will reduce the number of jobs.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KomradeBishop

The agreement you're panning:
"The undersigned parties are committed to the goal of a safe and sustainable Bangladeshi Ready-Made Garment ("RMG") industry in which no worker needs to fear fires, building collapses, or other accidents that could be prevented with reasonable health and safety measures"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accord_on_Fire_and_Building_Safety_in_Bangladesh

Ya, expecting workers to be safe from "fires, building collapses, or other accidents" is Pollyannaish indeed - no worries, it's just a matter of decades until the 'free market' sorts it out...

*yawn* That's really scraping the bottom of barrel in free-market defense.

Frank Lee Midere

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The policies which work are a mixture of state and free market. The free market left to its own devices tends to increasingly indebt the system.

http://www.voxeu.org/article/great-mortgaging