Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Women Paid 10 Cents to Sew $80 NFL Peyton Manning Jersey

profile picture
ThaLorax
Posts: 21083 - Karma: 8,455
http://www.nlcnet.org/article.php?id=695
Feb 5 2010 2:50PM
0 0
profile picture
Delphi
Posts: 3748 - Karma: 36
everyone on this site, or almost everyone. agrees with republicanism as a MODEL FOR GOVERNMENT. A REPUBLIC! not an oligarchy, not a threocracy, a REPUBLIC. Small r republicanism is defined by a dedication to a REPUBLIC. Democrats a (R)epublicans have different ideas on how to preserve a REPUBLIC, but generally, both support a REPUBLIC as the template for governance in the USA. small r republicans don't necessarily adhere to any one party or the other, and that is another reason why it isn't capitalized like the party names are. you can be a small c conservative but not identify with the Conservative movement in the US. you don't accuse someone of embodying republican values because most likely, the kid who accused me of that supports the American REPUBLIC.

I can't be a staunch republican without being a republican. I CAN be a staunch republican without identifying with the Republican party because I support the American Republic. I don't support a lot of Republican values-religious etc...I'm an independent.
Feb 7 2010 3:33PM
0 0
profile picture
Delphi
Posts: 3748 - Karma: 36
small-r republican Definition from Wiktionary, a free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search
start content [edit] English [edit] Noun

Singular
small-r republican


Plural
small-r republicans

small-r republican (plural small-r republicans)

  1. A republican, that is, a person who favors a republic, who is not a member of their country's "Republican Party".
Feb 7 2010 3:38PM
0 0
profile picture
GayWolf420
Posts: 37386 - Karma: 120,076
well if we dident outsource our factories to countries in asia, this wouldent of happend.
Feb 7 2010 3:43PM
0 0
profile picture
Chris.S
Posts: 881 - Karma: 30
You must be joking. If you agree that "it's all relative" then 10 American cents are not the same as 10 cents in another country. The dude who did all the math can explain it to you, but the first part of your post literally makes no sense at all. I'm not going to get into this debate, I just want you to realize what a horrible error you've made in part of your side of the argument.
Feb 7 2010 3:49PM
0 0
profile picture
IceCreamer
Posts: 1587 - Karma: 27
bam
Feb 7 2010 4:52PM
0 0
profile picture
dbstar
Posts: 2038 - Karma: 20
ok your right, 10 cents here is worth less than 10 cents in the third world.... but if you actually believe that getting paid 10 cents means you enjoy the same lifestyle that you would have getting paid 12$ here or wtv it was, then you are insanely ignorant... its only relative to an extent, 10 cents is not alot... anywhere
Feb 7 2010 6:04PM
0 0
profile picture
ninjea
Posts: 2083 - Karma: 28
Its OK as long as they are getting something, even if it is way less then they deserve......Does anyone else see something wrong with this?
Feb 7 2010 7:38PM
0 0
profile picture
123ski
Posts: 7374 - Karma: 1,415
Yes, that far is correct, but you are an idiot for not actually reading what I wrote.  The person you originally quoted said that you have republican ideals, not that you were a republican, yet you were refuting the latter claim..which is why I asked if you speak English, because you didn't understand what you were arguing against.
Feb 7 2010 8:04PM
0 0
profile picture
skiminnesota
Posts: 9093 - Karma: 429
what do they deserve?

what is a fair wage?
Feb 7 2010 8:08PM
0 0
profile picture
aquinn
Posts: 824 - Karma: 217
manning swallows anyway
Feb 7 2010 8:10PM
0 0
profile picture
Delphi
Posts: 3748 - Karma: 36
he said republican ideals when he meant Republican ideals. You don't attack someone for supporting a republic. What he meant was the ideals of the Republican party...what other ideals would he have been talking about? Saying that you represent typical republican values as an attack makes absolutely no sense. "oohh, you support a republic? you're such an asshole!" I continue to believe that he was railing against the ideals of the party and not of the form of government, he just didn't realize the difference between capitlized and uncapitalized. He was most likely speaking of the anti-gay, anti-immigration, Bush-esque values that most Republicans are somewhat unfairly connected to.
Feb 7 2010 8:19PM
0 0
profile picture
dbstar
Posts: 2038 - Karma: 20
I'm pretty sure every democracy is a "republic"... a mundane word at best, at least since monarchies were all but abolished from the world, and your right democrats and republicans both don't really give a shit, so I kind of retract my statement, although i see much more defensive, marginalizing behavior coming from republicans. And how are you looking at the situation rationally? Rationally you would think it would make sense to attempt to at least somewhat appease the extremely fast growing third world, instead of completely marginalizing them so that we can maintain our lifestyle. What irritates me about you, is that you try and justify the extremely low wages people get around the world, and simply put it is wrong. I understand your attempt at a "realist" perspective, where things like morality and fairness don;t come into play, but the fact remains that it wouldn't take much as first world consumers to radically change the lives of those we depend on, in a good way.
Feb 7 2010 8:54PM
0 0
profile picture
skiminnesota
Posts: 9093 - Karma: 429
i would contest that PURE capitalism is the most moral, fair, just, economic model ever.

work in = results out.

everyone is free to choose, free to choose who they do business with, free to choose who they purchase products from, free to accept or negate a wage, free to choose.

man is not a means to an end. man is man. man is not a slave to a king. man is not a slave to society. man is free.
Feb 7 2010 9:02PM
0 0
profile picture
LIL_WAT
Posts: 1900 - Karma: 475

First off democracies like Australia, New Zealand, Canada and many other Commonwealth countries are NOT republics. Secondly, those workers sewing jerseys are being paid a higher than average wage. They are BETTER OFF than most other people in their country. This bullshit anti-capitalist sentiment which is so common among the ignorant fails to acknowledge that if the big companies weren't making so much money by selling these jerseys, all these workers would be far worse off. How arrogant of you to say that "things like morality and fairness don't come into play". The workers are being paid a more than fair wage by their national standard, so what more do you want? Firms aren't obliged to 'take care' of their workers for the sake of goodwill.

Feb 7 2010 9:07PM
0 0
profile picture
Delphi
Posts: 3748 - Karma: 36
they should not be obliged to either. The workers are providing a service, the company pays for that service. Business isn't charity. Businesses do not run on pity, they run on production. There's no way around that.


Feb 7 2010 9:21PM
0 0
profile picture
skiminnesota
Posts: 9093 - Karma: 429
dont you know. employees are practically slaves. they have no ability to negotiate contracts, no ability to leave. they are bound to their employer. (well actually the first negative applies to Union members, but thats a whole new ball o wax:)
Feb 7 2010 9:24PM
0 0
profile picture
Delphi
Posts: 3748 - Karma: 36
haha Union reps are more tyrannical than corporate CEO's when it comes to employees. Also, you forgot to add that workers are never entitled to a raise in wages. It's not like they can distinguish themselves and ask for better compensation for their ability. If that compensation isn't granted, they can take their skills and approach another employer who recognizes their talents, at the loss of the business they just left, of course. Who knew slavery was so optional?
Feb 7 2010 9:28PM
0 0
profile picture
skiminnesota
Posts: 9093 - Karma: 429
so fucking true.

take for example when i went in to work at 830pm friday night. my boss literally came to my house, put chains on my wrists, and forced me to go shovel snow into the wee hours of the morning. all the while standing over his employees cracking a whip.
Feb 7 2010 9:32PM
0 0
profile picture
Delphi
Posts: 3748 - Karma: 36
hahahha. I work at my Mom's health club. She's a real slave driver. I get shackled up and dragged down to preschool camp every day in the summer where I am forced to hang out with cool little kids for hours on end.
Feb 7 2010 9:35PM
0 0
profile picture
dbstar
Posts: 2038 - Karma: 20
Your right Canada, Australia, New Zealand still fall under the Queen's jurisdiction in theory, but in reality operate like a republic. And I do think fairness and morality come into play, and are largely ignored. You may not be aware of this but life for most of these people was much different before the capitalist powers that be decided to intervene. I think when you force a group of people are forced into a corner where the only option is to work for incredibly low wages, or work in sweatshops there should be a degree of corporate responsibility there. You realize that most places where this occurs, the people weren't living off wage labor until very recently, right? Mostly subsistence based societies were what previously existed, which were destroyed vis-a-vis western powers who essentially force local governments to push out anything that stands in the way of establishing business's that are compatible with capitalism... ie. exist to create profit. This began with British imperialism, and of course continues today through organizations such as the World Bank and the IMF. The notion of "fair wage" is the result of capitalism, and until recently would not even have come into play in most of these societies, but  these people having being robbed of their previous means of survival are forced to work for wages. This of course plays very well for corporations seeking to minimize costs in order to maximize profits, as it allows them to operate in countries which do not have all of the labor laws of the first world, and these countries are in endless supply, because when one country develops enough to initiate labor reform and such, due to zero social accountability, corporations pack their shit and leave effectively destroying their communities, in fact it is very possible that some on this webpage have felt the effects of this.

Anyways a 20 page paper could be wrote on way capitalism is not "fair" for the third world, but in this sloppy rant i tried to capture the essence of it.
Feb 7 2010 9:46PM
0 0
profile picture
Delphi
Posts: 3748 - Karma: 36
An entire book could be written on why Capitalism is good for the developing world...there have been multiple.
Feb 7 2010 9:51PM
0 0
profile picture
skiminnesota
Posts: 9093 - Karma: 429
Dbstar i dont feel like cluttering up the thread by alot of quoting. but this is more or less in response to your post, and just an open question/thought for everyone to mull over.

in the countries you speak of, did capitalism create poverty? or did it inherit it?

this may come off as cruel sounding. but countries do not go from living conditions of a third world country to a first world country overnight. things of this nature take time. the history of the US could be used as a good example. for example, child labor, environmentalism, (i could argue charity, to some extent) are all byproducts of having your basic needs/wants, met.

obviously poor people are charitable too, but hopefully you get the gist of what im saying. 
Feb 7 2010 9:56PM
0 0
profile picture
dbstar
Posts: 2038 - Karma: 20
firstly, I should say that I am not necessarily against capitalism, I do however strongly believe that the capitalist culture has led to much, much more exploitation than necessary. I am aware that it is impossible for the whole world to lead lives like we do, and that it just won't/can't happen, but I think if people were to put a little more effort into certain things (ie. supporting fair trade companies, advocating more corporate responsibility ect.) it would go a long way in improving the basic rights of people around the world.

And to answer your question, I would say that the capitalist system was presented with countries that had a low standard of living, especially in relation to the consumer culture which shapes our notions of what a high standard of living is, and has created, at least to some extent, poverty.   
Feb 7 2010 10:06PM
0 0
profile picture
Chris.S
Posts: 881 - Karma: 30
I would like to you keep in mind that I'm asking the following questions in complete sincerity. How many third world countries have you been to, and/or how much time have you spent studying third world countries? Also, do you have any information that proves the math guy wrong? I would honestly love to see it because I have no proof either way, I don't know what a fair wage is in the country, and I don't know what it buys.
Feb 7 2010 10:39PM
0 0
profile picture
SteezyOhio
Posts: 6044 - Karma: 60
and now they're making 5 cents to also make drew brees jerseys
Feb 7 2010 11:53PM
0 0
profile picture
Delphi
Posts: 3748 - Karma: 36
the woman was obviously paid too much...10 cents to construct a Peyton Manning jersey? That's too much considering the drop in value that jersey will probably suffer as a result tonight. I've always disliked that guy.
Feb 7 2010 11:58PM
0 0
profile picture
SteezyOhio
Posts: 6044 - Karma: 60
ya, if peyton manning wanted to fix this problem he just had to win, they'd be in higher demand and the women would work more hours then before, but at the same wage. obvious answer.
Feb 8 2010 12:00AM
0 0
profile picture
duhamelski
Posts: 3842 - Karma: 192
this is a bs argument though because ten cents goes alot further onthe other side of the world.  inherantly there is going to be difference in the quality og life in different parts of the world, but thats not really due the how companies opperate, just how advanced different civilizations are
Feb 8 2010 12:48AM
0 0
profile picture
ThaLorax
Posts: 21083 - Karma: 8,455
the responses in this thread are so fucking full of shit. cool guys, you know what the republican values are and how to account for differences in currency/lifestyles.

What you fail to realize is that a lot of these people who are payed 10 cents an hour actually do have that 10 cents go further than here in developed countries. However, that doesn't mean that 10 cents and hour can help them to afford to have running water or electricity.

Go try and survive off 10 cents a day in these sweatshops and come back to this thread and say that it's fair to pay them those salaries. How the fuck can undeveloped countries rise up and get on equal footing with developed ones if they aren't payed on an equal level as us?
Feb 11 2010 3:49AM
0 0
profile picture
wh@t
Posts: 6204 - Karma: 51
im joining this Delphi dominated argument.

i have been to more third world countries than many people. hell, my entire family lives in what could arguably be a third world country. South Africa if you must know. I will tell you though that what Delphi and srslyfrsh pointed out about viewing the situation with knowledge of economies of scale is completely true. the people that have factory jobs enjoy a considerably higher standard of living compared to their subsistence farming counterparts.

compared to you fat fucks living in first world 2 story houses of course a 2 room Thai house with no beds and only traditional sleep mats will seem "horrific" and yet the Thai's living in said house will tell you no, we're rich. they work harder than you to get to where you are. they can only get where you are by being paid by the major corporations moving into their countries and DISTRIBUTING THE WEALTH. the abject poverty that you see on TV sure as hell exists. ive driven through Alexandria and Soweto and seen the riverhouses of Cambodia enough times to know that. but not in the scale that some major charities will have you believe.

Delphi also pointed out that there have been books written on how the benefits of capitalism in developing countries outweigh the negative side effects. go read some of those books. thats where you come in Mucho_Mango. those people are paid on an equal level because typical utilities like water and electricity cost sooooooooooo+o much cheaper in their countries than it does in the first world due to inflation rates making things more expensive for you and me. in reality, it costs about the same. sooner or later inflation will get to them and they will be paying 120 bucks a month for premium cable. oh joy.

so actually, having 10 cents an hour can definitely help you gain equal footing with developing countries. and it can definitely help pay for electricity and water. if those people were still subsistence farming they would be making nothing. and they would NEVER be able to afford utilities in the first place.

and im not calling you out at all. i just think you are wrong in this particular thread man.
Feb 11 2010 4:53AM
0 0
profile picture
LIL_WAT
Posts: 1900 - Karma: 475

As long as they aren't paid the same, they technically wont be 'equal'. And why should they be on an equal footing? Anyway, the more jobs of this kind that are given to what would otherwise be subsistense farmers, the better. These unskilled, poorly educated workers cant just be thrown into highly skilled jobs. They have to work their way up the ladder just like the rest of the Western world has over time.

Feb 11 2010 4:55AM
0 0
profile picture
duhamelski
Posts: 3842 - Karma: 192
naw wealth is relative.  your quality of life compared ot others depends on how much money you have compared to other people within your same region.  lack of electricity and clean water are due to a lack of engineers which is due to how advanced the regions have made themselves.  that we live in a very advanced region is nothing to be ashamed of, but to feel lucky for.

not to mention, presumably those people chose to make clothes that they will never wear in factories that pay $.10 an hour because it is better than their alternatives.  it may be hard to grasp, but companies like nike probably contribute more to the economies in those places than if they weren't there.

you should read atlas shrugged.  it examines capitalism, in which people try priumairly to ensure their own well being, a system in which people are rewarded based on their ability, and punished according to how much they need, compaired to its opposite, socialism, in which people are rewarded according to their need and punished according to their ability.  when i began the book, i was very ideological, and would have agreed with you, but by the time i had finished the book, i could see that the a socialist world was unsustainable.  the book even points out that people who work salaries under a few very good companies actually were better off than people who operated their own businesses.

nike hiring people in these regions actually contributes greatly to their well being.  it creates a huge influx in the local economies of these poor villages in which people are raised learning to work.  also, i would imagine that quality clothes that are produced in these economies are readily availible to everybody.  this covers one of the basic needs.  in other words, we are actually helping these people, who now have clothes readily available in regions where people struggle to satisfy every basic need.  in my mind this is a much better view with which to consider this issue than a pessimistic one, but this will always be a debate
Feb 11 2010 11:21PM
0 0
profile picture
lorida
Posts: 2833 - Karma: 46
The markups are still too high though.

Your argument is valid, yes, but imagine how much these countries would prosper if the corporations paid 25% of retail price to the manufacturer (so $20/each)...shareholders would be pissed, but the distribution of wealth would prevent mishaps like Haiti, which was largely caused by half assed engineering.

Anyways, nobody would do that voluntarily, so who cares, right?...

Feb 11 2010 11:30PM
0 0
profile picture
bstuck1
Posts: 426 - Karma: 46
Watch "High Coast of Low Prices" I feel you would appreciate this.
Feb 11 2010 11:33PM
0 0
profile picture
gstaff
Posts: 1017 - Karma: 12
wow thats some bad shit
Feb 11 2010 11:37PM
0 0
profile picture
skiminnesota
Posts: 9093 - Karma: 429
holy shit, a convert at the hands of Galt, Da'naconain, Reardon and Taggart?

  • So you think that money is the root of all evil? Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?
  • Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men's stupidity, but your talent to their reason.
two of my favorite excerpts.

Feb 11 2010 11:39PM
0 0
profile picture
MitchPee
Posts: 8871 - Karma: 1,509
I am so sick of seeing you and Delphi post about economics because you are both so damn biased and so polarized on the issue.

Pure capitalism? you think pure capitalism is MORAL? What the hell??

Delphi, you really think capitalism helps third world countries? Are you that ignorant/naive/incompetent? For every book you show me on this topic I will show you 3 of the contrary. Look at colonialism, largely fueled by entrepreneurs aimed after resources. You think that helped Africa? HAH. Sierra Leone, Sudan, Rwanda, Liberia, Congo. Just to name a few. Europeans helped dehumanize these people and arbitrarily divide countries based on maps to their liking in no way representing the cultural attestment of hundreds of years. I know you don't have much of a soul and have no reason to as you have never known anything than your secure little bubble, but hopefully there is such a thing as reincarnation and you get to experience what other people do.

Pure capitalism in essence won't have anything relevant to morals. Had unregulated capitalism occured you would not see any sort of success we have today. In pure capitalism, man is slave to the system and there is NO INHERENT FREEDOM. Pure capitalism leads to a division of two classes: those who own the means of production, and those who don't. Therefore, those who don't are limited in their options and thus limits their freedom. So yes you may have a couple choices (although any choice you have allocates you to poverty), but nowhere near the capitalists have and if you have a system in which SOME people have endless monetary freedom and MOST don't I wouldn't call that "man being free" or an inherently moral system.

Work in = SHITTY results and not as good results as people who have taken prior work and accumulated it (capital) only to later horde it and reinvest it to accrue more capital from the working class.

I really wish you would read a god damn book instead of spewing this 10th grade microeconomic enlightenment you have had with us. At least try to understand what expanded economics is about rather than this trivial attempt at philosophical freedom. It saddens me that I see this many posts and they are all the same utter bullshit.
Feb 12 2010 12:04AM
0 0
profile picture
neutralzombie
Posts: 8629 - Karma: 606
and how much did you think it cost to make your nikes, exactly?
Feb 12 2010 12:14AM
0 0
profile picture
skiminnesota
Posts: 9093 - Karma: 429
give me an economic model that surpasses capitalism in morality?

"mind and force are opposites, morality ends at the point of a gun".

you will also notice i didnt say it was perfect, only that under ideal circumstances it is IMO the MOST moral.


why the add demeaning element  to your post? you sound o so much smarter when you dont put people down.
Feb 12 2010 12:16AM
0 0
profile picture
Brock.
Posts: 5698 - Karma: 1,332
it would be very interesting to know just exactly were most of your clothes/shoes come from...

i know i wouldn't be very surprised after reading this article
Feb 12 2010 12:28AM
0 0
profile picture
ThaLorax
Posts: 21083 - Karma: 8,455
If more people were paid the proper portion of what the product was sold for in developed countries, then more people could afford to start their own businesses and improve their economies/livelihoods locally. This would be a benefit because the money they earn is earned and spent locally rather than earned and spent globally.

Is it fair to sell a product in the US for $90 when you paid the person who made it 10 cents in thailand? That would NEVER fly in a developed country and corporations take advantage of this.

these countries make do with what they have and can afford. they adapt to their situations or die of starvation/disease.

The relevant part of a great documentary called "The Corporation"
Feb 12 2010 12:33AM
0 0
profile picture
skiminnesota
Posts: 9093 - Karma: 429
Two Cheers for Sweatshops By Nicholas D. Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn Published: September 24, 2000
this was an interesting article i recently dissected for a college class.

its from the NYTimes so dont give me any Fox esq bullshit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/24/magazine/two-cheers-for-sweatshops.html?pagewanted=1

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/24/magazine/two-cheers-for-sweatshops.html?pagewanted=1

clicky fail? lol






Feb 12 2010 12:39AM
0 0
profile picture
ThaLorax
Posts: 21083 - Karma: 8,455
scratch that part of my post. it's jumbled and doesn't make much sense. just watch the exerpt from the documentary.
Feb 12 2010 12:48AM
0 0
profile picture
Delphi
Posts: 3748 - Karma: 36
how is man a slave to the system in pure capitalism? If anything, man controls the system. Individuals control their own destinies based on their ability to provide others with the goods and services they require without interference from a regulatory entity that is disconnected from needs and desires of the people. It's regulation for regulation's sake. It doesn't help anyone, it just makes things that much harder, and more expensive, to produce and to attain. In a system like this, people are enthralled to their government for their everyday needs. There is no progress or invention or genius in societies like this. Any type of betterment is stifled and stamped out by over regulation. Why would someone want to spend years working on a new technology or some new product or good if they weren't rewarded for that hard work? Human nature is driven by profit, it has been forever, and as far as I'm concerned, this is the most moral way of going about things. People deserve to be paid for providing services, it is the natural contract between two consenting entities who recognize the worth and value of eachother. That is the way things work. I don't agree with a single thing you have said. Like justin pointed out, capitalism is the most moral and inherently equal system. Given your marxist analysis though, I never expect you to agree. I really don't care.
Feb 12 2010 1:02AM
0 0
profile picture
MitchPee
Posts: 8871 - Karma: 1,509
Man will never control the capitalist system. Also, in a real unfettered capitalist market like you proclaim as the deity of all ways of going about things.

Regulation doesn't help anyone out? Uh what? Regulation helps balance the gap that is left behind with pure capitalism. You really think we should have people making 10 million dollars a year and people making 1,000 dollars a year? That is what an unfettered capitalistic approach to life ultimately determines. Monopolies also happen. There are so many issues and crises that occur when people are allowed to run wild in a capitalist system. IE, panic and depressions. Depressions would be catastrophic without some sort of buffer zone that regulation provides. I could go on and on unfortunately I don't have the time.

Betterment stamped out? What happened to all the technological progress made before capitalism? Think about it. You live in a capitalist society and always have. You know nothing else but that. Human nature is not driven by profit. Human nature is driven by creativity and exploration. This is where the greatest inventions have come from. Ben Franklin invented all of the things he did to pertain to his self expression through science, not to make a buck. He made all of his money via printing press business. These types of things are embraced in other forms of economies and sociological structures that aren't driven by monetary status.

Did you ever think that the "worth" and "value" placed and recognized on someone could perhaps be flawed like so many other things in this world? I can tell you there are a lot more intelligent people that should go to Harvard yet because of social allocation they are stuck working some dead end job and never get a chance. This is what happens in a system where preconceived notions determine your place in a system which you pretend has a golden opportunity for everyone but holistically anyone can see that is complete BS.

So I don't agree with a single thing you have said. Moral is not something you can attach to pure capitalism. Pure capitalism has no morals and just like pure communism provides NO inherent freedom. As I have stated in purely binds people to classes in a hierarchical structure just like everything else.

Oh and also see colonialism and Africa post I made. Just like the spread of communism, the spread of capitalism is just as dangerous and when resources are no longer a viable solution to consumption we turn to things like the financial market (another joyous thing a more capitalistic economy helps destroy in the US).

I don't have a Marxist analyst, sure I have tried to read Capital as I have the Wealth of Nations. Many of the things I have said can be found in any decently balanced economic thinker. The problem is that you have this notion that somehow your thinking is "the way the world works" and maybe it is for the time being. Like I said, if you ever had to leave your bubble of security I would love to see what life threw your way and maybe how your thoughts may be susceptible to change.
Feb 12 2010 3:23AM
0 0
profile picture
neutralzombie
Posts: 8629 - Karma: 606
you just said "man is driven by profit" and "how are we slaves to capitalism?" in the same argument.




regulating where stuff comes from is easy, move the industries back home and simply have it regulated. it creates jobs, shorter wait times, less consequences like being ripped off in a lot of ways china does to us;(obviously not all the time) wrong color, wrong print, formaldehyde in the fabrics - and other things beyond my knowledge which only extends into where clothing comes from and how its made and how much it costs.)

capitalism is wrong morally delphi, there's no discussion about it. they create, openly and admittedly, desires and needs you don't need(they being the psychologists hired by major corporations). humans need three things: food, shelter, water.

but it does create jobs as well.

water costs money. why do i need 15 different sweaters? why do i need 15 different shoes? why do i need a pimped out apartment/penthouse/loft or mansion?

simple; capitalism strives on man's desire to be on top. we're animals in fact in the end, and it plays on our 7 vices, mostly pride, vanity, and greed.

i dont think there's anything wrong with sending a factory to foreign countries though, if you want to help them, as oppose to exploit them, that is.


my conclusion however is simply just to say; i don't think we can erase capitalism, so i think we should accept it, none the less, it doesn't mean major industries should exploit our own people by making them work overtime without pay, or without benefits, and that they should exploit other countries. there is such a thing as ethical business, but you know, you might have just a little difficulty fighting greed.
Feb 12 2010 9:47AM
0 0
profile picture
neutralzombie
Posts: 8629 - Karma: 606
LOL
I MEANT TO SAY THEY SHOULDN'T EXPLOIT OTHER COUNTRIES!
Feb 12 2010 9:52AM
0 0
profile picture
skiminnesota
Posts: 9093 - Karma: 429
jenifa-

i dont want to live a life where i only have my needs met. i want to live a life where my wildest dreams are created and accomplished.

i want a society where i can fly as high as my wings will take me, all the while recognizing that i may crash and burn. and that would be my problem.

living a life where only my most basic needs are met would be pretty shitty if you ask me.
Feb 12 2010 9:59AM
0 0
profile picture
neutralzombie
Posts: 8629 - Karma: 606
yeah, please refer to the comments of me working in the clothing industry, and where i said we can't escape capitalism, so we should improve it.
Feb 12 2010 10:08AM
0 0
profile picture
wh@t
Posts: 6204 - Karma: 51
yeah i still understand what youre getting at. the problem s undoubtedly greed though. major corporations only branch out to those other nations BECAUSE they are cheaper to pay for. there is no other reason. so in reality, unless the people in those countries demand more (and even if they do they will be merely thwarted by another country who will gladly accept the work for less pay) they will never ever be able to grow as fast as you want them to. i was and am just trying to say that they appreciate the work and pay they are currently receiving.
Feb 12 2010 10:31AM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)