Minimum wage increased to 11.50

Tigersliding

Tony EH wrote: »

Yadda, yadda, yadda...

It's just another way of reducing people to a comodity. A number on a scale. An item to be moved around or simply discarded when their "value" is no longer what you want it to be.

And I'm not "attacking" anyone's "character". There's a difference to commenting on one's abhorent, and nasty political views and attacking one's character.

What percentage of your wages do you give to third world children?

Tony EH

What the fuck does that have to do with anything.

Tigersliding

Tony EH wrote: »

What the fuck does that have to do with anything.

You seem to think companies should give charity as they could afford to do so, by that logic you should be giving charity since you can more than likely afford to do so.

Tony EH

I think that people shouldn't be exploited.

coffee_cake

So you support them having the opportunity to work for a multinational then

That's good

Tony EH

Not when their labour is exploited by indifferent profiteers.

Nice try though. :rolleyes:

coffee_cake

Is my labour exploited by indifferent profiteers because I have a job too

Tony EH

That depends, do you want to elaborate?

Or are you just being a dolt.

VinLieger

Tony EH wrote: »

Not when their labour is exploited by indifferent profiteers.

Nice try though. :rolleyes:

Its been shown to you that in many cases they are earning more than the average worker in their country, closing the sweat shops is not going to fix the economic problems of the countries they are located in, in most cases it will make them worse as hundreds of thousands of people will be out of a job that to them actually pays quite well.

Tony EH

sweatshops = pay quite well.

^

The neo-Liberal/libertarian utopia.

:pac:

coffee_cake

Meaningless soundbites about labour and profit and exploitation ... don't really mean much. What's exploitation, getting paid more than local rates? Having a job at all? Having a CEO who isn't your best friend? Is these people being on the street away from those mean companies really the ideal alternative?

karma_

bluewolf wrote: »

Meaningless soundbites about labour and profit and exploitation ... don't really mean much. What's exploitation, getting paid more than local rates? Having a job at all? Having a CEO who isn't your best friend? Is these people being on the street away from those mean companies really the ideal alternative?

Doesn't mean much?

Look at your own arguments for fúck sake.

- You defend paying a child 0.125p a fúcking DAY and you spin that to try and tell us all that you are helping them? Would you let your child work for ONE single PENNY an hour in dangerous conditions?

- You REFUSE to even talk about increasing their wages EVEN by only a FEW pennies an hour and instead waffle on about how these children would be exploited even WORSE if it wasn't for your generous investment.

So when we logical boil that argument down you would ALLOW a CHILD to be sold into slavery or prostitution and you would take your investment AWAY before you would give them another PENNY an hour.

Grow a fúcking conscience.

jank

bluewolf wrote: »

Is my labour exploited by indifferent profiteers because I have a job too

Its being exploited if I say so...

VinLieger

Tony EH wrote: »

sweatshops = pay quite well.

^

The neo-Liberal/libertarian utopia.

:pac:

You can ignore the facts all you want, but for their countries yes they pay quite well.

Just cus it goes against your extremely narrow point of view about how the world "should" work doesn't remove the fact that its the truth

karma_

VinLieger wrote: »

You can ignore the facts all you want, but for their countries yes they pay quite well.

Just cus it goes against your extremely narrow point of view about how the world "should" work doesn't remove the fact that its the truth

Next time you go for a take away pizza and spend 20 euro on it, pause and think to yourself 'This is the same value I put on a months labour of a child in a developing country.'

And you think everyone else is narrowminded?

Don't choke on it.

VinLieger

karma_ wrote: »

Next time you go for a take away pizza and spend 20 euro on it, pause and think to yourself 'This is the same value I put on a months labour of a child in a developing country.'

And you think everyone else is narrowminded?

Don't choke on it.

I give up, comparing the prices and wages of things here to the prices and wages in a developing country is absolutely pointless but you continue to try to do so.

There really is no getting through to you if you refuse to understand there is no point in comparing the two

coffee_cake

My pizza for 20 euro would get me what, half a glass of water in switzerland or norway
I feel so exploited

karma_

VinLieger wrote: »

I give up, comparing the prices and wages of things here to the prices and wages in a developing country is absolutely pointless but you continue to try to do so.

There really is no getting through to you if you refuse to understand there is no point in comparing the two

bluewolf wrote: »

My pizza for 20 euro would get me what, half a glass of water in switzerland or norway
I feel so exploited

You don't mind talking about 'value' when it suits your arguments do you and always harping on about the value 'labour' has to capital.

And bluewolf, no one is arguing that you are exploited, it's the fact that you feel zero empathy toward a child forced to work long days in dangerous conditions for what to us, is an absurdly low amount of remuneration. You wouldn't put up with the 'slightest' decrease in profit to allow them another crumb and would threaten to move to another developing country where you could get even lower labour costs.

Like the other poster says, keep up the good fight and thank you for giving everyone an insight into the cold-hearted ideology you have chosen to follow.

coffee_cake

karma_ wrote: »

it's the fact that you feel zero empathy

Wrong

toward a child forced to work long days

Forced by whom? Circumstances? Their parents? We'd all prefer if they had the means and support to stay in school, but if it's street vs company, I'm glad they have the chance to work for the company

in dangerous conditions

Is the exploitation thing about dangerous working conditions then? I think we'd all support working conditions that aren't unsafe. I thought you were just talking about the money.
They seem to be improving on the whole conditions thing though
http://www.cnet.com/news/apple-touts-better-working-conditions-as-factory-audits-jump/

for what to us, is an absurdly low amount of remuneration.

If your comparison is "it's absurdly low because they couldn't buy pizza and drinks in dublin", then it's pretty absurd, yes. If it gives them plenty to live on in local terms and particularly vs the alternative, it's not low for them

You wouldn't put up with the 'slightest' decrease in profit

Are you making things up now?

to allow them another crumb

:rolleyes:

and would threaten to move to another developing country where you could get even lower labour costs.

If the company goes under because it's been forced to pay out everything in wages, who's that going to help? Would you sit back and feel better that another company is wiped out and the locals will starve but sure at least they're not "exploited"?

karma_

bluewolf wrote: »

Wrong


Forced by whom? Circumstances? Their parents? We'd all prefer if they had the means and support to stay in school, but if it's street vs company, I'm glad they have the chance to work for the company

Is the exploitation thing about dangerous working conditions then? I think we'd all support working conditions that aren't unsafe. I thought you were just talking about the money.
They seem to be improving on the whole conditions thing though
http://www.cnet.com/news/apple-touts-better-working-conditions-as-factory-audits-jump/


If your comparison is "it's absurdly low because they couldn't buy pizza and drinks in dublin", then it's pretty absurd, yes. If it gives them plenty to live on in local terms and particularly vs the alternative, it's not low for them


Are you making things up now?


:rolleyes:


If the company goes under because it's been forced to pay out everything in wages, who's that going to help? Would you sit back and feel better that another company is wiped out and the locals will starve but sure at least they're not "exploited"?

It's called context. I'm aware you are not an idiot and probably already understand this but it's your refusal to acknowledge the validity of the argument.

Like it or not, that pizza you ate in Dublin, or the half glass of water in Norway IS the value of one months labour of a child in a developing country.

And go on then, explain to us all how how rising the cost of one month labour of a child to lets say 40 euro a month would put a business like Nike out of business? I'd fúcking love to hear that one!

So roll your fúcking eyes all you want, my opinion of your ideology will remain.

KomradeBishop

bluewolf wrote: »

If the company goes under because it's been forced to pay out everything in wages, who's that going to help? Would you sit back and feel better that another company is wiped out and the locals will starve but sure at least they're not "exploited"?

This is the myth at the center of it all: Prove that the companies will go under - by and large, they have perfectly good profit margins.

Nobody buys your false dichotomy of "work for shít wages vs close the company" - there's the obvious third choice of "pay better wages" (which in many cases, doesn't even have to transfer to higher product costs, due to corporate profits being so large...).

Tigersliding

KomradeBishop wrote: »

This is the myth at the center of it all: Prove that the companies will go under - by and large, they have perfectly good profit margins.

Nobody buys your false dichotomy of "work for shít wages vs close the company" - there's the obvious third choice of "pay better wages" (which in many cases, doesn't even have to transfer to higher product costs, due to corporate profits being so large...).

They exist to maximise profits, that's how it works, they don'the pay more wages than they have to, it's the same in my job. Who would invest in a company that gives it's profits away?

karma_

Tigersliding wrote: »

They exist to maximise profits, that's how it works, they don'the pay more wages than they have to, it's the same in my job. Who would invest in a company that gives it's profits away?

Precisely. In the neoliberal world It's perfectly ethical for a company to do so and all other ethical (more important) considerations be damned. So in this twisted world it's absolutely fine to have a child work for next to nothing in a dangerous environment in order for profits to be maximised.

And you scratch your heads and wonder why those who propagate such ideology are reviled?

VinLieger

karma_ wrote: »

Precisely. In the neoliberal world It's perfectly ethical for a company to do so and all other ethical (more important) considerations be damned. So in this twisted world it's absolutely fine to have a child work for next to nothing in a dangerous environment in order for profits to be maximised.

And you scratch your heads and wonder why those who propagate such ideology are reviled?

Again they work for next to nothing by Irish standards but are reasonably well paid by local standards, how are you not getting this?

coffee_cake

"you're a heartless monster if you disagree with me and i hate you"
"wat? i just disagree on the best way of helping people"
"no you're a heartless monster and i am not interested in discussing this"

ya ok

steddyeddy

I've lived in Africa and sweatshops are not the nest way to help people. Maybe they are economically (in theory) but the large corporations do nothing to ensure the workers are treated with basic human rights. I.e. many experience physical and sexual violence, psychological coercion and work related accidents to to unsafe practice.

coffee_cake

steddyeddy wrote: »

I've lived in Africa and sweatshops are not the nest way to help people. Maybe they are economically (in theory) but the large corporations do nothing to ensure the workers are treated with basic human rights. I.e. many experience physical and sexual violence, psychological coercion and work related accidents to to unsafe practice.

I linked earlier where apple are making improvements based on external reports and I would hope any other company is doing likewise. Whatever about the pay debates I think that one is probably a basic requirement all right

Turtwig

I wonder if those saying sweatshops are helping people would actually work in one for a year. Or maybe even a month? Many 'employees' are children working 12 hour+ shifts. Factories actually have 'nets' preventing workers from committing suicide. FFS. Safety procedures are rigorously non existent even when harmful chemicals are in play. Whatever about the ****ty wages the conditions are atrocious. Yet, no one can explain how a company would go under if they improved these conditions. Heck, if the company went under would it really be such a bad thing? Some have reportedly being involved in hiring local mercenaries to keep workers intimidated. But, yeah, sweatshops are apparently a good thing for the indigenous population.

FFS!:rolleyes:

karma_

VinLieger wrote: »

Again they work for next to nothing by Irish standards but are reasonably well paid by local standards, how are you not getting this?

Are they reasonably well paid by local standards? What is their quality of life?

Again, not one single poster on your side of the debate has yet given a reasonable reason why a corporation like Nike could not double wages in these places. The benefits would be enormous, you will help families get good employment and they could let their kids get an education instead of having to send them to work.

And look at the math, one persons labour for a year (assuming 40 hr/week)would rise from £260 to £520. One year!!!

So don't bleat on and say you are helping them, you are exploiting them and their circumstances, pay them a good wage, pay them better than local standards and watch something good happen.

But wait, capital NEEDS poor people to feed off, so yes I understand why you don't particularly like this notion. How would your pockets get lined?

coffee_cake

Turtwig wrote: »

I wonder if those saying sweatshops are helping people would actually work in one for a year. Or maybe even a month? Many 'employees' are children working 12 hour+ shifts. Factories actually have 'nets' preventing workers from committing suicide. FFS. Safety procedures are rigorously non existent even when harmful chemicals are in play. Whatever about the ****ty wages the conditions are atrocious. Yet, no one can explain how a company would go under if they improved these conditions. Heck, if the company went under would it really be such a bad thing? Some have reportedly being involved in hiring local mercenaries to keep workers intimidated. But, yeah, sweatshops are apparently a good thing for the indigenous population.

FFS!:rolleyes:

Where is anyone on about not wanting to improve conditions?
Am I talking to a wall here?