Minimum wage increased to 11.50

Turtwig · 02-10-2014 5:29pm

.0000000000000000000000001 * 10 billion is still 1e-15. 10 orders of magnitude greater and still a tiny number. My point?

That if something is incredibly sh1t, it's not that hard to improve it by orders of magnitude, doesn't escape the fact it's still sht.

Now, can we please see some evidence to suggest it's impossible for these workers to be paid a fairer wage? Given the vast profits that are derived from them. It reeks of taking advantage of their shtty situations.

steddyeddy · 02-10-2014 5:32pm

Guys I suggest you visit a sweatshop and until then stop calling it the acceptable alternative.

Turtwig · 02-10-2014 5:33pm

Yep. Just. Ignore. Them.

Permabear · 02-10-2014 5:39pm

This post has been deleted.

PopePalpatine · 02-10-2014 5:43pm

They're not "mercenaries", they're private police!

Turtwig · 02-10-2014 5:44pm

Intel located to Ireland because of IDA incentive and low corporation tax. This may shock you but in Ireland the quality of living is generally very good. Most western world workers don't care about their relative wages once the fear of money and subsistence is off the table. In the countries we're talking about that's not the case.

"Competitive with the average". In other words, exploiting other's circumstances to gain utility from them. They can afford to pay them more, why don't they?

Also can you please stop using percentages when talking about such low amounts? It's like those daily mail reports on cancer. People who cycle 5 times more likely to get cancer.
(Actual odds: 5 in 100,000 but hey that's five times the background greater risk.)

Also, I applaud the process when it's done ethically. Which I'd argue Intel did, well mostly. (Conflict of interest there.) Not, by worker exploitation.

KomradeBishop · 02-10-2014 5:54pm

None of this provides a practical argument, as to why companies with ample corporate profits, can not distribute more of those profits among developing world workers - it's just more of the same attempts at moral justification, for not doing so.

Permabear · 02-10-2014 5:54pm

This post has been deleted.

Turtwig · 02-10-2014 5:54pm

Aws, I said folks who were defending sweatshops had good intentions but were being naive.

Apologies if that offended you. Didn't mean you're like a 100% naive bint. Just that you were being naive about this only little facet. Like I'd say that something is idiotic, but it doesn't mean that a supporter of that idea is necessarily an idiot.

Anyways, I apologise and will try rephrase the remark.

Turtwig · 02-10-2014 5:58pm

I only agree with a pragmatic solution if it's justified as the only option. Thus far you have not yet justified why these companies can't treat their workers more ethically, share their dividends more? All you seem to be doing is appealing to the less of two really awful evils.

Again, I'm not comparing Ireland and Bangladesh. That's EXACTLY the point. You made the comparison I didn't.

I pointed out why using an example of an MNC in Ireland was inaccurate. The conditions and standards are wholly different here.

MRnotlob606 · 02-10-2014 6:00pm

It's a great incentive to work .

Permabear · 02-10-2014 6:04pm

This post has been deleted.

Donkey Oaty · 02-10-2014 6:05pm

Interesting. If that statistic is correct, it was actually more than twice as affordable it sounds now because there were 240 pennies in a pound back then.

Permabear · 02-10-2014 6:12pm

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 02-10-2014 6:21pm

This post has been deleted.

karma_ · 02-10-2014 6:43pm

There's been no such expectation of any kind of magic wand, there is expectation that western corporations act ethically and not exploit those in vulnerable situations for cheap labour, which is what is actually happening.

karma_ · 02-10-2014 6:47pm

You are being facetious now, you know very well the context that was being painted and why it was for you are intelligent man.

Permabear · 02-10-2014 6:48pm

This post has been deleted.

karma_ · 02-10-2014 6:50pm

As if any western company would walk away from such cheap labour, even if it increased a hundredfold, and you know that very well.

Permabear · 02-10-2014 6:51pm

This post has been deleted.

karma_ · 02-10-2014 6:55pm

Now hold on there.

$20 a month doubled becoming $40 a month is by western standards incredibly cheap labour, it would make zero business sense to close that factory, what would your shareholders think?

Permabear · 02-10-2014 7:08pm

This post has been deleted.

karma_ · 02-10-2014 7:14pm

You would throw away an experienced workforce, infrastructure and let kids fall into those kind of traps you yourself described earlier, just so your company could squeeze every single bit of profit they can? We really are not talking about a whole lot of money here.

That's the very definition of exploitation.

Tigersliding · 02-10-2014 7:19pm

Who said it was "acceptable"?

People are pointing out that it is better than the alternative in many cases.

Permabear · 02-10-2014 7:24pm

This post has been deleted.

Tigersliding · 02-10-2014 7:25pm

They could give away their profits, but their goal is profit maximisation. The shareholders would demand the directors be sacked if they give away their profits.

karma_ · 02-10-2014 7:53pm

Again with the percentages. Why can't we talk actual numbers? Asking a company to pay £500 instead of £250 for a years wages is hardly asking them to be oxfam now is it? Your argument is spurious. Cognitive dissonance indeed, rich that one.

karma_ · 02-10-2014 7:54pm

Why does Business ethics trump human ethics with you lot? You are all crazy into one but a wee bit 'ummm' on the other.

Permabear · 02-10-2014 7:58pm

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 02-10-2014 7:59pm

This post has been deleted.

Minimum wage increased to 11.50

Comments