Minimum wage increased to 11.50

karma_

bluewolf wrote: »

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

Why has it taken a corporation that makes profit in the billions, like Apple until NOW to look at improving safety conditions?

Where was your voice?

VinLieger

karma_ wrote: »

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?

Okay lets say we pay all the factory workers more than double what they are currently earning.

This will without any shadow of a doubt cause inflation in the local area on a fairly drastic scale.

What happens then to all the other people that don't work for the multinationals and who arent earning twice their current wage. They are suddenly asked to pay a hell of a lot more for basic foodstuffs and other day to day requirements due to the inflation the pay rise the factory workers got has just caused. What do we do about that?

Simply paying a certain portion of the population more money is not going to magically bring an end to poverty in these countries.

It may lift some portion of the population but it could very possibly just push another portion of the population further down.

Also why do people keep harping on saying I and others arguing the same line are supporting poor work standards and keeping these people in poverty. I personally don't I just am arguing against the quick and easy solutions being put forward of "just double their salaries" because it is a far more complicated problem than people are making it out to be.

Turtwig

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Translation: Oh Hey! Look! These people may end up being treated like sht. We can afford to treat to them better but as long we treat them that tiny bit less sht, which is still ultimately sht and exploitative we're doing them a good deed.

I can't even believe you think that's a valid sort of fact to point out. Child labour or prostitution both are hells really. They're not grateful for either. Obviously you can't force a law on anything, attitudes have to change. Obviously we need to stamp out BOTH versions of hell. Not just accept one over the other.

Turtwig

bluewolf wrote: »

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

I'm sure people defending sweatshops wish for improved conditions but that doesn't change how naive they actually are. Why were these conditions allowed to exist in the first place?

karma_

VinLieger wrote: »

Okay lets say we pay all the factory workers more than double what they are currently earning.

This will without any shadow of a doubt cause inflation in the local area on a fairly drastic scale.

What happens then to all the other people that don't work for the multinationals and who arent earning twice their current wage. They are suddenly asked to pay a hell of a lot more for basic foodstuffs and other day to day requirements due to the inflation the pay rise the factory workers got has just caused. What do we do about that?

Simply paying a certain portion of the population more money is not going to magically bring an end to poverty in these countries.

It may lift some portion of the population but it could very possibly just push another portion of the population further down.

Also why do people keep harping on saying I and others arguing the same line are supporting poor work standards and keeping these people in poverty. I personally don't I just am arguing against the quick and easy solutions being put forward of "just double their salaries" because it is a far more complicated problem than people are making it out to be.

And your great solution - keep it so kids have to work for pittance so that western companies make great bucket loads of profit.

Also, you might want to look at what happened when John Ford increased his workers wages.

VinLieger

karma_ wrote: »

And your great solution - keep it so kids have to work for pittance so that western companies make great bucket loads of profit.

Also, you might want to look at what happened when John Ford increased his workers wages.

Again and I can;t believe I have to keep repeating this, pittance by our standards.

And no I don't want it to stay like its is I just think the solution is far more complex than your making it out to be and honestly i'm nowhere near smart enough or knowledgeable about economics to begin coming up with one.

karma_

VinLieger wrote: »

Again and I can;t believe I have to keep repeating this, pittance by our standards.

And no I don't want it to stay like its is I just think the solution is far more complex than your making it out to be and honestly i'm nowhere near smart enough or knowledgeable about economics to begin coming up with one.

A Parrot can be taught economics.

KomradeBishop

VinLieger wrote: »

Okay lets say we pay all the factory workers more than double what they are currently earning.

This will without any shadow of a doubt cause inflation in the local area on a fairly drastic scale.

What happens then to all the other people that don't work for the multinationals and who arent earning twice their current wage. They are suddenly asked to pay a hell of a lot more for basic foodstuffs and other day to day requirements due to the inflation the pay rise the factory workers got has just caused. What do we do about that?

Simply paying a certain portion of the population more money is not going to magically bring an end to poverty in these countries.

It may lift some portion of the population but it could very possibly just push another portion of the population further down.

Also why do people keep harping on saying I and others arguing the same line are supporting poor work standards and keeping these people in poverty. I personally don't I just am arguing against the quick and easy solutions being put forward of "just double their salaries" because it is a far more complicated problem than people are making it out to be.

Well gee, maybe they'd have to divert some of their resources used on exports, for domestic consumption then - instead of selling their resources to the west for a pittance? Terrible.

VinLieger

Wow so you just solved world poverty, what do we do now?

KomradeBishop

VinLieger wrote: »

Again and I can;t believe I have to keep repeating this, pittance by our standards.

And no I don't want it to stay like its is I just think the solution is far more complex than your making it out to be and honestly i'm nowhere near smart enough or knowledgeable about economics to begin coming up with one.

If you don't have enough economic knowledge to properly comprehend the issue, then how can you have enough knowledge to say the solutions presented, are not enough, and that your position is any better?

That's fallacious reasoning: "I find this topic too complicated, therefore it must be beyond others understanding too, thus their solutions are simplistic and wrong."

It is pretty simple really: Divert corporate profits to worker wages - for many corporations, the profits are so great, that it doesn't even have to affect product prices.

VinLieger

KomradeBishop wrote: »

If you don't have enough economic knowledge to properly comprehend the issue, then how can you have enough knowledge to say the solutions presented, are not enough, and that your position is any better?

That's fallacious reasoning: "I find this topic too complicated, therefore it must be beyond others understanding too, thus their solutions are simplistic and wrong."

It is pretty simple really: Divert corporate profits to worker wages - for many corporations, the profits are so great, that it doesn't even have to affect product prices.

Why would I need that knowledge anymore now you have solved such a "simple" problem like world poverty?

I assume the "simple" solution to world peace is the next step? So we just get everyone to stop fighting right?

KomradeBishop

VinLieger wrote: »

Why would I need that knowledge anymore now you have solved such a "simple" problem like world poverty?

I assume the "simple" solution to world peace is the next step? So we just get everyone to stop fighting right?

We're talking about workers being paid shít wages, and being left to endure poor working conditions, not 'world poverty' - quite a silly attempt to shift the goalposts.

karma_

VinLieger wrote: »

Why would I need that knowledge anymore now you have solved such a "simple" problem like world poverty?

I assume the "simple" solution to world peace is the next step? So we just get everyone to stop fighting right?

First they ignore you. check
Then they Laugh at you. check

Keep going.

VinLieger

Im done here both sides are incredibly entrenched and its gotten to the stage where neither is going to admit the other side is right regarding anything.

Also I really need to get some work done

Turtwig

VinLieger wrote: »

Wow so you just solved world poverty, what do we do now?

Produce more epic straw men?

coffee_cake

VinLieger wrote: »

Im done here both sides are incredibly entrenched and its gotten to the stage where neither is going to admit the other side is right regarding anything.

Also I really need to get some work done

Yeah now I'm a naive monster dolt for wanting better working conditions but not doubling everyone's wages and it's my fault they werent set up safely in the first place
-well they work in bad conditions
-if they do i agree that's wrong, and it seems to be improving at least
-WELL THATS NOT GOOD ENOUGH THAT YOU AGREE YOU BAD PERSON
I think that's enough of that

jank

Turtwig wrote: »

Produce more epic straw men?

Says the person who introduced sexual assault and misogyny into the debate...

Anyway..

This debate has gone to ****. I have posted countless links supporting my opinion regards minimum wage. and its impact. Not one, yes not one was commented on any of them.

Instead we are now talking about sweatshops in the far east, where capitalists and corporations are the scourge of the devil.

Basically the argument is down to "you are a bad person cause you don't care about people, therefore your economic argument is null and void"..
Great debating there lads.

Turtwig

Again you are making needlessly personal.

nobody thinks you're a naive uncaring dolt. (I like that word)

Why is it that it takes journalist investigations for many companies like apple, Nike, coca cola etc. to do anything about these conditions? Are we really to assume that they were ignorant of the existing labor conditions? Sounds like a terribly run business if you don't know how your money is being spent. Oops we accidentally funded pmc suppression!

steddyeddy

jank wrote: »

Says the person who introduced sexual assault and misogyny into the debate...

Anyway..

This debate has gone to ****. I have posted countless links supporting my opinion regards minimum wage. and its impact. Not one, yes not one was commented on any of them.

Instead we are now talking about sweatshops in the far east, where capitalists and corporations are the scourge of the devil.

Basically the argument is down to "you are a bad person cause you don't care about people, therefore your economic argument is null and void"..
Great debating there lads.

Sweatshops were introduced into the debate as being an acceptable alternative. Both misogyny and sexual assault are common place in sweatshops. It needed to be pointed out.

Turtwig

jank wrote: »

Says the person who introduced sexual assault and misogyny into the .

Never did that. Clearly you don't understand how analogies work. Comparing modes of argument doesn't means you're saying one thing is the other.


This comic strip explains it really well.

http://i.imgur.com/zaZjobq.png http://i.imgur.com/XyRibZI.png
http://i.imgur.com/pwNwpGy.png
http://i.imgur.com/9RAa0hM.png
http://i.imgur.com/kWumpzF.png
http://i.imgur.com/KJYtuSB.png
http://i.imgur.com/Vopkoji.png
http://i.imgur.com/jYW7y3j.png
http://i.imgur.com/B7X7gml.png

Tigersliding

Turtwig wrote: »

Again you are making needlessly personal.

nobody thinks you're a naive uncaring dolt. (I like that word)

Why is it that it takes journalist investigations for many companies like apple, Nike, coca cola etc. to do anything about these conditions? Are we really to assume that they were ignorant of the existing labor conditions? Sounds like a terribly run business if you don't know how your money is being spent. Oops we accidentally funded pmc suppression!

People in the world generally speaking act out of self interest, that's why these companies have employees in bad working conditions, it increases profit. That doesn'the change the fact that many people are better off with the option to work for these companies.

jank

Turtwig wrote: »

Why is it that it takes journalist investigations for many companies like apple, Nike, coca cola etc. to do anything about these conditions? Are we really to assume that they were ignorant of the existing labor conditions? Sounds like a terribly run business if you don't know how your money is being spent. Oops we accidentally funded pmc suppression!

You are falling into the fallacy that negative press causes action when there are companies out there that do treat their workers well. However, that doesn't make the news as some 4 year old working for .50c a day makes a much better story.

Come, one you know all this!! You are better than this line of argument.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

coffee_cake

Turtwig wrote: »

Again you are making needlessly personal.

nobody thinks you're a naive uncaring dolt. (I like that word)

A poster earlier called me a dolt, someone else said I have no empathy, and now you're calling me naive. I'm not the one making it personal. have fun o/

jank

steddyeddy wrote: »

Sweatshops were introduced into the debate as being an acceptable alternative. Both misogyny and sexual assault are common place in sweatshops. It needed to be pointed out.

Sexual assault and misogyny was brought up purely in reference to the min wage. Maybe read the thread.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KomradeBishop

There aren't even any credible practicality-based arguments left, as to why workers in these developing countries can not receive higher wages taken from ample corporate profits (which can leave plenty of profit leftover), just weak attempts at moral justifications for not doing it.

DarkyHughes

11.50? Ffs it was only like 8 some when I was working. I suppose it would be a good initiative to get people of the dole

karma_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Here, didn't you accuse someone of using 'shoddy' arguments a few pages back? Now look at you.

And why do you insist on highlighting Krugman now? If you disagree with him on so much else what makes him right in this instance?

So when you disagree with him theres no problem, but when I do all of a sudden he's spot on the money?

Turtwig

jank wrote: »

You are falling into the fallacy that negative press causes action when there are companies out there that do treat their workers well. However, that doesn't make the news as some 4 year old working for .50c a day makes a much better story.

Come, one you know all this!! You are better than this line of argument.

Not my best wording but for it to be fallacious you have to show that events were taking place outside of the media spotlight i.e that Apple et al. were proactively addressing the poor conditions of workers prior to the reporting in mainstream media. I think all investigations show that the majority of these MNCs weren't doing anything than paying lip service to workers's rights. Once the media started damaging their image domestically they started looking for a perception that would make it appear they were doing something.
Have you evidence to claim otherwise?

I never said there weren't companies that were ethical. I applaud them my issue is purely with those who are unethical in their treatment of labourers.