I just went into walmart for the first time in months... I feel physically ill

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

I thought this was your argument for why people should be happy to work in sweat-shops - 'cause they can't afford jack if they don't.

Of course they can afford stuff if they don't work in the sweatshops, but the sweatshop worker can afford MORE.

What kind of stuff can they afford if they don't work in a sweat shop, and what kind of stuff can they afford if they do?


And what good is 'stuff' when you're working 16 hours a day, anyways?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm sure Wal-mart has much more market share.

Of course, but it makes up for that in bad PR . Have to see how the future shakes out. I think they are losing market share.

What kind of stuff can they afford if they don't work in a sweat shop, and what kind of stuff can they afford if they do?

What kind of stuff can you afford when you are laywer compared to working at Burger King?

It kind of common sense that having more money means you can purchase more goods.

And what good is 'stuff' when you're working 16 hours a day, anyways?

Ask lawyers who work 90 hour weeks .

Hell, if they think that 16 hour weeks are excessive, THEY DON'T HAVE TO WORK THERE!

[General Ludd]

A lawyer playing for sympathy. Saddest thing I've ever seen.


Seriously, don't compare yourself to a sweatshop worker. That's beyond low - even for a lawyer.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by General Ludd
Well, let's take the example of the luddites ( ) - some of the first people to fall victim to this. They where weavers and farmers, and lived decent lives untill factories where opened up which they couldn't compete with. So now they where out of the job, and the only options where to be locked in a factory 16 hours a day for a meager wage they could barely live off, or... well, nothing. The luddites took your advice of "If the workers want to complain, they can - by striking or passing laws requiring a minimum wage." they demanded that the machines where outlawed, and when they wheren't they 'striked' out and destroyed the machines that where taking away their livelyhood and turning self-sustained people into wage-slaves. The result? The army was sent out to kill them.

So now you are complaining that the companies sold goods of the same quality (or better).... for a lower price. That's a crime, now? If the "luddites" actually destroyed property, then they deserve to be punished - it's not like the corporation destroyed their homes or anything.

[GePap]

Thankfully I live in a megalopolis that is chock full or stores from the tiny immigrant owned neighborhood grocery or street vendors to very large department stores and such- but NO Wal-Marts anywhere, and even if one did appear, it could never come to dominate all aspects of retailing like it does in some suburbs. Viva New York!

And I get to find more stuff than those who's main choice is Wal-Mart.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Seriously, don't compare yourself to a sweatshop worker. That's beyond low - even for a lawyer.

Strawman? What, you've lost the argument and so decide not to argue anymore?

The question stands. What good is stuff when you work that many hours? Are you saying then you wouldn't want to be a person who works that long and makes $100,000? Cause after all, what good is stuff when you work that long?

[Theben]

That is the reason these sweatshop jobs are in high demand (and with low supply of them, the price of labor, naturally will be low).

Quite often the sweatshop is the only labor market in town- or on the island.
So the company holds a monpoly on the labor market in a given area, artificially depressing wages. Sounds very anti-capitalist to me, what do you capitalists out there think?

To the subject matter: I've never been in a Walmart in my life, and don't feel I've missed out on anything.

[Kuciwalker]

If the country wants to pass anti-trust legislation, it can.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Quite often the sweatshop is the only labor market in town- or on the island.
So the company holds a monpoly on the labor market in a given area, artificially depressing wages.

Quite obviously there was an economy before the sweatshop arrived. The sweatshop offered more, didn't it?

Sounds very anti-capitalist to me, what do you capitalists out there think?

As long as the sweatshops don't engage in extra-legal means to prevent other companies from arising in that area, there is nothing to do to them, except not prevent any other company from entering the market.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Kucinich


So now you are complaining that the companies sold goods of the same quality (or better).... for a lower price. That's a crime, now?

What?

I didn't say anything about price or quality, and I don't really see what it could have to do with anythign I said, either.

What i was talking about where factories that took away jobs, and destroyed the self-sustained way of life which was previously there, and made thus made themselves the only possible choice for people who didn't want to starve.

And, for your information, nothing mass-produced in a factory will ever be of the same quality as something hand-made by a profesional craftsman. You think the clothes coming out of the first factories made where of the same quality or better than what generations of weavers can produce?

If the "luddites" actually destroyed property, then they deserve to be punished

It was a rebellion, that's what happens. Britain didn't want what happened in America happening back home, too.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Are you saying then you wouldn't want to be a person who works that long and makes $100,000?

Yes, I am.



But these people aren't making $100,000


They're making $1

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, I am.



But these people aren't making $100,000


They're making $1

So what? The same objection apples even to a Billionaire. What good is stuff if you are working 16 hour days? It has the same application to any income level.

You think the clothes coming out of the first factories made where of the same quality or better than what generations of weavers can produce?

They are much better now.

[Theben]

Originally posted by Kucinich
If the country wants to pass anti-trust legislation, it can.

I believe the country in question has AT legislation. However, the islands are territories of the U.S., in the example I had in mind.

There's also something about dictatorships in other lands where they seem to listen to corporate dollars more than popular demands.

Quite obviously there was an economy before the sweatshop arrived. The sweatshop offered more, didn't it?

Not always. Oftentimes they enter an agricultural area with an pre- or proto-capitalist exchange system.

As long as the sweatshops don't engage in extra-legal means to prevent other companies from arising in that area, there is nothing to do to them, except not prevent any other company from entering the market.

That is the case they majority of the time; note the presence of sweatshops in the U.S. Or the means are legal, but in a country where the laws or democratic institutions are weak.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

So what? The same objection apples even to a Billionaire.

You're going in the wrong direction.


One could make the argument that someone working 16 hours a day and making a shitload of money is saving up for retirement, or something. But someone who's making just enough money to feed his family is obviously doing it because that's what he HAS to do.

They are much better now.

But still no match.

[Imran Siddiqui]

One could make the argument that someone working 16 hours a day and making a shitload of money is saving up for retirement, or something. But someone who's making just enough money to feed his family is obviously doing it because that's what he HAS to do.

But if he is making MORE money than others in the society by working in sweatshops, obviously has enough money to feed his family and the extra can be saved up for retirement. So that argument is invalid.

But still no match.

What I meant was that factory clothing is MUCH better now than those made by weavers.

[Wraith]

Dang. This thread reminded me why I don't participate in the economic/political discussion on this forum any more.

Look. If you don't like Wal-Mart, don't shop there. It's pretty simple.

Wraith
"Electric lighting is no great boon to anyone who has money enough to buy a sufficient number of candles and to pay servants to attend them.... The capitalist achievement does not typically consist of providing more silk stockings for queens but in bringing them within the reach of factory girls in return for steadily decreasing amounts of effort."
-- (Capitalism, Socialism, & Democracy, P. 67)

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui But if he is making MORE money than others in the society by working in sweatshops, obviously has enough money to feed his family and the extra can be saved up for retirement. So that argument is invalid.

I asked you what someone could buy working at a sweat-shop as compaired to someone who isn't working at one, and you didn't answer me.

Can you answer me now? What are the alternative jobs, anyways?

I said before that I don't know much about sweatshops and the circumstances around them. But i was under the impression that the choices where basically 1. work in a factory and make enough to feed your family or 2. do something else and not make enough to feed your family. Making more then nothing isn't much of an acomplishment. How many sweatshop workers enjoy retirement, anyways? I figured the life expectency wasn't long enough for that to be a realistic expectation of anyone working in a sweatshop.

But since you are apperently knowledgeble about sweat-shops and their societal impact and whatnot, why don't you enlighten me. Just remember, lawyers aren't sweatshop workers.

What I meant was that factory clothing is MUCH better now than those made by weavers.

And what I meant was that that's completely wrong. I bet you haven't even seen clothing made by a trained weaver, anyways. What are you making this comparison on?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I asked you what someone could buy working at a sweat-shop as compaired to someone who isn't working at one, and you didn't answer me.

I did. Take someone making $100,000 and one $20,000. What can the $100k person buy that the $20k can't?

i was under the impression that the choices where basically 1. work in a factory and make enough to feed your family or 2. do something else and not make enough to feed your family.

No, you can always work in agriculture and feed your family that way (sustinance). The sweatshop allows you to have enough money to feed your family, plus some extra. Which is why agg workers flocked to the sweatshops... in every economy in history.

I bet you haven't even seen clothing made by a trained weaver, anyways. What are you making this comparison on?

I've seen homemade clothing. Besides being insanely expensive, they aren't as good as stuff I can buy at Macy's.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I did. Take someone making $100,000 and one $20,000. What can the $100k person buy that the $20k can't?

I told you, lawyers aren't sweatshop workers.

No, you can always work in agriculture and feed your family that way (sustinance).

Then why are so many third-world farmers starving?

The sweatshop allows you to have enough money to feed your family, plus some extra. Which is why agg workers flocked to the sweatshops... in every economy in history.

I know you're just making this up as you go along, but I really would like to see some sort of report about how much working in a sweatshop actually provides for the people there.

I've seen homemade clothing. Besides being insanely expensive, they aren't as good as stuff I can buy at Macy's.

'Homemade' clothing by a trained, proffesional weaver/tailor? The reason it's expensive is because it can't be mass produced, and it's not a very common art anymore.

But you'll find that in societies where they don't have mass produced clothing, and weaving is a common proffesion, it's quite affordable.

[Dr Strangelove]

Unfortunately Walmart has driven so many other stores out of business that it's often the only place in town that offers a particular item, so what are you going to do.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I told you, lawyers aren't sweatshop workers.

And I told you, I don't care. The point still stands.

Then why are so many third-world farmers starving?

And why are so many living ok? Just because some are incompetant at farming doesn't disprove anything.

I really would like to see some sort of report about how much working in a sweatshop actually provides for the people there.

Are you REALLY stating that sweatshop workers and worse off than other workers? And are you saying that before the sweatshop arrived the people were starving?

http://papers.nber.org/papers/w9669

This paper assesses the evidence regarding the effects of multinational production on wages and working conditions in developing countries. It is motivated by recent controversies concerning whether multinational firms in developing countries exploit workers by paying low wages and subjecting them to substandard conditions. We first address efforts of activist groups, universities, and colleges in the Anti-Sweatshop' Campaign in the United States, the social accountability of multinational firms, and the role of such international institutions as the International Labor Organization and World Trade Organization in dealing with labor standards and trade. We then consider conceptually how foreign direct investment might affect host-country wages. Available theories yield ambiguous predictions, leaving the effects to be examined empirically. We therefore, finally, review empirical evidence on multinational firm wages in developing countries, and the relationship between foreign direct investment and labor rights. This evidence indicates that multinational firms routinely provide higher wages and better working conditions than their local counterparts, and they are typically not attracted preferentially to countries with weak labor standards.

http://www.aworldconnected.org/article.php/580.html

"I'd like to work in a factory, but I don't have any ID card, and you need one to show that you're old enough," she said wistfully. (Since the candidates are unlikely to find the time to travel to the third world anytime soon, I put an audio slide show of the Cambodian realities on the Web for them at www.nytimes.com/kristof.)

All the complaints about third world sweatshops are true and then some: factories sometimes dump effluent into rivers or otherwise ravage the environment. But they have raised the standard of living in Singapore, South Korea and southern China, and they offer a leg up for people in countries like Cambodia.


Here in Cambodia factory jobs are in such demand that workers usually have to bribe a factory insider with a month's salary just to get hired.

http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/pubaf...rson_0200.html

Many workers in third-world sweatshops have left even harder, lower-paying jobs in agriculture to move to garment factories. Moreover, sweatshops are a normal step in economic development. Singapore, Malaysia, South Korea, and Hong Kong all had sweatshop jobs thirty years ago. They don't now because workers in those countries have acquired skills and employers have accumulated capital. That's what will happen in Honduras, Nicaragua, and other poor countries—if we only let it.

reason it's expensive is because it can't be mass produced, and it's not a very common art anymore.

Yep... thus not worth it.

But you'll find that in societies where they don't have mass produced clothing, and weaving is a common proffesion, it's quite affordable.

And not as good as the stuff I can buy in the US from my local department store. I'm sure Pakistani weavers are very good, but I'll pass.

[OzzyKP]

Meijer is much better than Walmart. Anyone know Meijer? Its a midwest thing.

I've never seen a Walmart with a real grocery component. Just like 4 isles of basic food stuff. Meijer has all the clothes, automotive, pet supply, hardware, electronics, etc that Target or Walmart has PLUS a high quality grocer. Almost half the monstorous store is food.

Meijer ownz!

[Barinthus]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

American companies should be required to treat their overseas peons... err workers as they would an American employee in the States. Benefits, wages that are approirate for their living cost standards and so on.

Yeah, and then these countries suffer massive inflation and everyone who doesn't work for a American company can't afford jack. That's smart .

Read again what I said. Don't give them American wages. Give them wages that fits their living cost standards in their own specific country.

[OzzyKP]

Plus Meijer is open 24 hours a day 364 days a year. Now that I've moved to Maryland I'm lost without Meijer.

You wouldn't believe how many times I've needed a roll of ducttape, shoe laces, and fresh pineapple at 3 in the morning.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Give them wages that fits their living cost standards in their own specific country.

In that case... that already happens. I think you forget how much the living cost is these countries. $2/day is above average in some countries.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui And I told you, I don't care. The point still stands.

What point, that you can buy more with $100,000 then youc an with $20,000? Not very rellevant to the discussion, but thanks for the fact of the day.

Are you REALLY stating that sweatshop workers and worse off than other workers? And are you saying that before the sweatshop arrived the people were starving?

What I'm saying is that sweatshops are all there is, and that the arrival of them disrupted the previous way of life.

I don't have the time to read through all of your links, so I just scimmed through the last two, but the first one is just comparing multinational sweatshops to sweatshops owned by the host country. I can buy that, I'm sure that the western owned factories pay a bit better, and have somewhat better conditions - although not as much as they should. Still, it only comparing sweatshops to sweatshops doesn't say much about the alternatives. If anything, it's only reinforcing my thoughts that there are no viable alternatives.

The second link you post seems to be about a little girl who sifts through a garbage dump for food and dreams of working in a sweatshop. Yeah, i can buy that too. This is only backing up what I've been saying.

And the third article, well, it's defending child labour.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Not very rellevant to the discussion

It is 100% relevant!

Still, it only comparing sweatshops to sweatshops doesn't say much about the alternatives. If anything, it's only reinforcing my thoughts that there are no viable alternatives.

If there are no viable alternatives it is because people don't want to work on farms for sustinance. Like I said, do you think the people were starving before the sweatshops came in?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Like I said, do you think the people were starving before the sweatshops came in?

No, but I think they will starve without them now that they are there.



EDIT:

If there are no viable alternatives it is because people don't want to work on farms for sustinance.

And yeah, because they'd rather sift through garbage dumps then sustain themselves, right? Obviously their society has changed so that farming for sustinance, or whatebver their previous way of life was, is no longer viable. Specifically why, I don't know - as I have already said - and I still await enlightenment.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, but I think they will starve without them now that they are there.

Where has the farmland gone?

because they'd rather sift through garbage dumps then sustain themselves, right? Obviously their society has changed so that farming for sustinance, or whatebver their previous way of life was, is no longer viable. Specifically why, I don't know

I don't know why sustanance farming is not viable for these people either. So saying there are no viable alternatives doesn't seem to wash with me. Is it because they are ashamed to go back to their families after leaving for the factories? Who knows?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Where has the farmland gone?

Maybe it's been paved over, or turned toxic from the waste of the factories. Or maybe it's taxed too much, or not even owned by the people who live there anymore.