Minimum wage increased to 11.50

karma_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So NOW you have no issue with context, I see.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Ohh look at how you cherry-picked that snippet from what I said and spun it for your own ends, that's Daily Mail type disingenuousness if ever I saw it.

Tigersliding

karma_ wrote: »

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

I'm commenting on the reality of the world, the causes and effects. Companies try to maximise their profit. They will try to minimise costs where possible. That's the reality.

KomradeBishop

Tigersliding wrote: »

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.

So it's practically possible then, thanks.

Your remaining argument is a moral one, that the demands of shareholders override the demands of ethical standards - except that is a moral choice, and companies can be held to high ethical standards instead, and be expected to meet those standards by customers and/or importing countries.

Given that it's perfectly practical to do this, there's no reason not to.

KomradeBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Uhm, throwing around percentages or other relative changes in quantity, without providing the actual base number being modified, is precisely something that is meaningless without context, and is a common statistical method used to mislead - something any statistician will tell you.

Tigersliding

KomradeBishop wrote: »

So it's practically possible then, thanks.

Your remaining argument is a moral one, that the demands of shareholders override the demands of ethical standards - except that is a moral choice, and companies can be held to high ethical standards instead, and be expected to meet those standards by customers and/or importing countries.

Given that it's perfectly practical to do this, there's no reason not to.

I don't believe I've discussed morals yet. I'm discussing the realities, cause and effect. Companies generally speaking won't pay more for factors of production than they have to.

So long as people can choose to work for a company and do choose to work for a particular company then it is obviously better than the alternatives for many people. So if you somehow do ban companies from paying such low wages then you'lol find they leave these countries. This harms the people of those countries who now have worse alternativeso and we're on a good wage in comparison to the local economy.

What do you believe should be done to make people in the likes of Bangladesh more wealthy?

Iwasfrozen

KomradeBishop wrote: »

So it's practically possible then, thanks.

Your remaining argument is a moral one, that the demands of shareholders override the demands of ethical standards - except that is a moral choice, and companies can be held to high ethical standards instead, and be expected to meet those standards by customers and/or importing countries.

Given that it's perfectly practical to do this, there's no reason not to.

Well actually it's not practically possible to force companies to pay more unless the entire developing world agrees a minimum wage.

Iwasfrozen

Tigersliding wrote: »

What do you believe should be done to make people in the likes of Bangladesh more wealthy?

Culling the population by at least a third would help.

... Well it worked for Europe. :pac:

Turtwig

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Well actually it's not practically possible to force companies to pay more unless the entire developing world agrees a minimum wage.

This wasn't what was meant by practically possible. Nothing to do with forcing companies this was about individual company's choice.

The claim was that company's can't pay worker's more because it's not financially viable for them.

So far in this thread that claim has been unaddressed.

Turtwig

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Little Jimmy got a 500% weekly pay increase from his parents. His allowance is now €5.

Which is worse? The guy who steals your wallet and realises what they're doing is ethically wrong? Or the guy who steals your wallet and doesn't see anything wrong?

Your argument paraphrased is that posters here are hypocrits ergo it's better to not hold their position. I'd argue that hypocrisy should have no bearing on the actual ethical value of something.

What was it you said about playing the ball and not the players?

Btw, it's not cognitive dissonance. That would arguing the sky is a purple carpet because a book says so even though the visible sky appears blue. In this thread, the people acknowledge one thing to be unethical. They're not claiming their consumption of sweat shop related produce is ethical.

Turtwig

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

As is chucking about percentages.

£500 in Bangladesh and £500 in London are two completely different things.

Indeed, so why use actions in a relatively prosperous London or leixlip to justify wage structure in Bangladesh?

KomradeBishop

Tigersliding wrote: »

I don't believe I've discussed morals yet. I'm discussing the realities, cause and effect. Companies generally speaking won't pay more for factors of production than they have to.

So long as people can choose to work for a company and do choose to work for a particular company then it is obviously better than the alternatives for many people. So if you somehow do ban companies from paying such low wages then you'lol find they leave these countries. This harms the people of those countries who now have worse alternativeso and we're on a good wage in comparison to the local economy.

What do you believe should be done to make people in the likes of Bangladesh more wealthy?

If customers or importing countries pressure companies to increase wages for developing countries, then the company doesn't get around this by leaving those countries, it's pressure that applies regardless of production country.

KomradeBishop

Turtwig wrote: »

This wasn't what was meant by practically possible. Nothing to do with forcing companies this was about individual company's choice.

The claim was that company's can't pay worker's more because it's not financially viable for them.

So far in this thread that claim has been unaddressed.

Yes good point: Points made about pressuring companies into doing this, are a spinoff in the debate, separate from the original claim.

steddyeddy

bluewolf wrote: »

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

Please don't compare that to kids working in a sweatshop. I'll put it down to ignorance on your part and not lack of empathy but kids who work in sweatshops are exploited.

steddyeddy

Tigersliding wrote: »

Who said it was "acceptable"?

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

So it isn't acceptable?

Turtwig

steddyeddy wrote: »

Please don't compare that to kids working in a sweatshop. I'll put it down to ignorance on your part and not lack of empathy but kids who work in sweatshops are exploited.

She's not. Her point was that the cost of everything varies with geography. So a wage of €.01 per hour could be the equivalent of a €100 per hour elsewhere.

steddyeddy

Turtwig wrote: »

She's not. Her point was that the cost of everything varies with geography. So a wage of €.01 per hour could be the equivalent of a €100 per hour elsewhere.

Yes that's true but the pay in sweatshops are not the biggest worry for those working in them.

jank

Turtwig wrote: »

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.

Ireland's quality of living is very good now, it was not always the case (1920's to 1980's). When the Irish free state emerged from the ashes of the war of independence there was a policy towards isolationism, self sufficiency and protectionism. This was perfectly illustrated by FF in the 1930's. When we joined the EEC we opened up our markets, our capital and our labour force for outside investment where those evil corporations were able to make use of the well educated English speaking Irish to make their products and sell them into the wider EU market.
Ireland initially started off as a manufacturing base for many US multinationals, now the focus in on high end manufacturing, pharma, IT and services such as support and finance. The same has happened in many parts of the world. Japan in the 1950's used to be famous for their low end manufacturing but they quietly and quickly developed a high tech industry. Tawain would be similar today. Most famous of all would be Hong Kong that was famous for its 'Made in Hong Kong' plastic crap. Now Hong Kong is a hugely wealthy city state more famous for its position of its Finance sector and for the fact that the quality of life it offers outstrips its neighbors (even China!).

Now China is getting too expensive for companies as they look for cheaper labour elsewhere. In textiles Bangladesh and Pakistan are famous examples of this, as well as Vietnam to a lesser extent. However, all going well giving another 5-10 years these countries will be making iphones and TV's and later on can develop their own high tech industries and create a middle class similar to the west.

It may be crude, it may seem unethical, but it works in getting people off poverty. The wealth the new middle class of China today was built on the backs of those that worked in sweat shops in the 90's. China has reduced its poverty levels by 71% in 30 years since they reformed economically. That is more than the population of Europe!

China's poverty level has come down to 13 per cent last year from 84 per cent in 1980, with the per capita income increasing nearly 30 folds to $6,064 from a mere $205 three decade ago, a top minister said today.

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-09-13/news/42041969_1_china-human-rights-poverty-line

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/images/attachement/jpg/site1/20071016/000802ab8045087e436b1e.jpg

http://english.cntv.cn/20131017/104761.shtml

Even the hard left give grumbling kudos to this fact..

http://links.org.au/node/1941


Now, if anyone can come up with a working alternative, we are all ears.

jank

steddyeddy wrote: »

Yes that's true but the pay in sweatshops are not the biggest worry for those working in them.

Sweatshops in Africa and Asia exist because people will work in them, whether you or we like it or not.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Memnoch

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Typically dishonest false dichotomy of the Social Darwinianists.

The idea that the choice is only between the unrestrained and unregulated free market (a paradox, for there is no such thing) and Marxism. Of course, the alternatives being advocated (like a liveable minimum wage) are no where near Marxism.

Thank you for reminding me why I put you on my ignore list a couple of years ago.

Frank Lee Midere

Memnoch wrote: »

Typically dishonest false dichotomy of the Social Darwinianists.

The idea that the choice is only between the unrestrained and unregulated free market (a paradox, for there is no such thing) and Marxism. Of course, the alternatives being advocated (like a liveable minimum wage) are no where near Marxism.

Thank you for reminding me why I put you on my ignore list a couple of years ago.

The real issue with globalisation is the permanent imbalances it brings to the world economy. None predicted by Ricardians.

Frank Lee Midere

Turtwig wrote: »

This wasn't what was meant by practically possible. Nothing to do with forcing companies this was about individual company's choice.

The claim was that company's can't pay worker's more because it's not financially viable for them.

So far in this thread that claim has been unaddressed.

Surely it's been addressed numerous times.

Turtwig

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Surely it's been addressed numerous times.

Nope.

jank

Memnoch wrote: »

Typically dishonest false dichotomy of the Social Darwinianists.

I hear that term alot, but what does it actually mean or is it just popped in there to add fire to the argument?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Tigersliding

Turtwig wrote: »

Nope.

It has been addressed, I 'll repeat it. Companies have an objective to maximise profit. They pay as little as they can generally speaking for factors of production, otherwise you aren't trying to maximise profit. Shareholders won't
invest their money into companies that gives it's money away. That's the reality. Judging it is fairly pointless really. Thinking of solutions to poverty that deal with reality is what you should be doing.

steddyeddy

jank wrote: »

Sweatshops in Africa and Asia exist because people will work in them, whether you or we like it or not.

I'm not saying sweatshops don't exist? I'm not saying people don't work in them?

Tigersliding

steddyeddy wrote: »

I'm not saying sweatshops don't exist? I'm not saying people don't work in them?

The reason they exist was the point.

jank

Tigersliding wrote: »

The reason they exist was the point.

Precisely, and the indirect benefits they bring over the long run is well documented.

steddyeddy

I'll explain social Darwinism when I get a chance because it is a bug bear of mine.