@Spjungen well I'd like to ask those guys "Would YOU like to work in a sweat shop?" Unless you're for robots doing it, yet then they'll complain about "What? Robots doing jobs? People should do 'em or unemployment would ruin us!".
@desiguy55 Minimum wages keep poor and unskilled people out of the work force if it costs the employer more to employ them than he gets return in profit for their labor.
If minimum wage is $10, but the employee's skills are worth only $9, this person is guaranteed to be never employed and never given a chance to get on-the-job skills for future higher paying jobs.
Removing minimum wage laws, would actually create more jobs for the people that are apparently most hurt by low wages.
Exactly how would it hurt these people if the multi-national companies invested a little more of their profits in the workers and their conditions? You talk about greed. I assume then, you're against labour unions and workers rights in general. I mean, as long as people "voluntarily" go to work why should we care about how companies treat their employees. Oh, but I forgot. Companies are only allowed to exploit people in poor countries. Of course we don't want our children to work in sweatshops!
@buugiman78 Workers don't have rights, only people have rights. The rights of the workers don't trump the rights of the employers and vice versa. It's economics 101 that the employers will move to whatever the labor is cheapest, I think we all agree on that - and the workers who can provide this cheap labor will win out over workers who cannot, there will ALWAYS be one group of people that's at the bottom of the income ladder, it's only fair that the jobs go to them. Just my $0.02.
What he's saying is that it's ok to exploit desperate people. The same argument is used within USA to attack for example labour unions. What makes this whole argument so absurd is that the corporations are making huge profits while complaining they can't afford to provide workers with decent salaries or working conditions. When corporations talk about "shared sacrifice" they really mean that the poor have to make all the sacrifices so they can profit even more. John Stossel is a despicable man!
@buugiman78 Sweatshops are most likely small businesses and even if they weren't no business can afford to pay more than what a worker brings in, doing so would only end in the business shutting down, thereby making everyone worse off.
Exploitation is a subjective valuation, to a dirt poor person a sweatshop is most likely a godsend. For a person that has lived in a wealthy society, which I'm guessing you have, it looks a lot different.
@crazypants88 The corporations could very well afford to give these people decent salaries and working condition. A few do that, but most just want their products as cheap as possible and don't give a shit about the workers. I'm not talking about making them rich. But, you think it's ok for these companies to seek out the most desperate people in the world and have them working like slaves so they can make huge profits. And even brag about how they are helping these poor people.
@buugiman Not if they only bring in enough to warrant a certain wage. If you own a company and your employers brought in, say, 5 dollars for every hour of their labor, how on earth would you raise their wages above 5 dollars/hour? You can't, without going bankrupt and/or raising prices.
Yes I think ok for desperate people to be in a job that allows them better standard of living than they would have without that job. They are helping them and vice versa, it's mutually beneficial.
@crazypants88 The multinational corps decide how much they pay for their work. There's no dialouge. Compare the turnover of these sweatshops with the turnover of the multinational corps and then say with a straight face that they could not raise the salaries or improve working conditions without going bankrupt. Yes, the sweatshops would go bankrupt. But, that's the problem. They are taking all the risks, they are doing all the hard work. Still, they get a ridiculously small piece of the pie.
@crazypants88 Really? That's like offering a starving woman ten bucks for a blowjob. She's free to leave isn't she. Again you totally miss my point. If the only option to starving to death was to have people working in horrible sweat shops, then of course that's better than dying. But, this is a false dichotomy. These large corporations could do so much more for these workers and countries and still be able to make a decent profit. But no, they are too greedy! They want it all!
@buugiman78 Why are agreements that are consensually agreed upon by all parties so detestable in your eyes.
There is not just one employer or one way to make a living, there are plenty of ways to do that, mandating that desperate people's choices be limited is helping no one, it actively hurts them as the video demonstrated.
Everybody's greedy, you're arguing for more for absolutely nothing, at least employers ask for something in return for something.
@crazypants88 What these companies are basically saying is: "If you start making demands, then we'll move our factories". Of course the desperate locals will comply with their demands. But, that's not an agreement. That's blackmail! Of course you can't blame companies for moving if the conditions in a particular country makes their business unsustainable. But, this is all about utter greed! Sheer exploitation. The multinational companies have all the power, the workers are expendable goods.
@crazypants88 I'm not saying I necessarily agree with all activists. Obviously many just make things worse and we should listen more to what the locals have to say. But, that goes for development aid as well. Many charities really are counter-productive. But, to take your position and just say that we're all greedy, and hence we should just accept whatever these multinational companies are doing is so cynical and foremost hypocritical. You pretend to care, when in fact you don't give a shit.
What "developing nations" need is an influx of capital investment. The problem is that who is willing to invest capital in places where concepts such as markets and property rights do not exist? If the governments of African nations were to magically start enforcing property rights and allow for a marketplace, instead of nationalizing their industries, a massive influx of capital would be generated, and many of their problems would be solved in months or years.
This is so sad. The african women should have studied history instead of trade policy and maybe she wouldn't be so happy when a corporation lands on her resource rich soil to "lend" her people a helping hand.
Still, we all live in the same reality so I guess it is good that sweat shops have the mercy to allow these undeveloped people to work, right?
@fububalla Not every place develops at the same rate. That's reality. These companies are lending anyone a hand. They're trying to make money. They're saying, "Here is a job and we'll pay this for you doing this. Will you do it?" Money flows out of richer countries into poorer countries in exchange for their labor and thus the poorer country gets richer over time. Like was said in the clip, they often pay 2 to 3 times as much as local factories. Also, realize their cost of living is much lower.
@eurohim I don't dispute that at all, I'm not ditzy. I think most people get this, even the wild-eyed liberal. The harm is that there's no regard for humanity and this same disregard for humanity is partially the reason many of these less-developed are in their current condition despite the mass amount of wealth the people of the land are sitting on.
This is quickly readjusting though which illuminates your point about them getting richer over time as they are becomin more competitive with us.
@fububalla this is a classic example of guilty while liberal kids, mostly, thinking that that what they hear on the Clinton News Network and from democratic politicians and activists are "facts" - the FACT is, these companies employee people and pay them market, repeat MARKET wages for their work. The market wage in Kenya is much, much different than in NYC (or anywhere in America), and to try to compare the two is silly. If your rent is 5 bucks a month, you're doing well to make $2/day.
The problem with conservatives is that they think being better off is good enough, but it isn't. After the 13th amendment we could have said blacks were better off and left it at that, but they still had to deal with the kkk, lynchings, poll taxes, separate is equal, Jim Crow, etc. There is a huge difference between leaving someone better off, and doing the actual right thing.
outsourcing hurts americans.americans are put out of work.corporations do not pay u.s. taxes.china winds up owning the usa.because of sweat shops.awsome huh?
@stealthgerm thats correct , our protest should be about outsourcing that takes away the low wage job for americans who are starting out in life(teens, mothers,immigrants). sweatshops are non issue unless it involves child labor.
@s0beit Communism will never die you idiot. Ever since Russia got "liberated", the majority of the weak in society who used to solidly middle-class are now struggling in poverty. Capitalism creates inequalities, Communism promotes equality. Which do you think is better?
@shotsky94 Your Equality vs Inequality argument is insufficient. For example, we can not fix paralysis in people who already are paralyzed. To support equality, should we paralyse everyone else? Would that be better?
I think things are more complicated than that. The best situation is the one that maximizes the # of people who are well off. That system is capitalism. Countries that embraced capitalism 100 years ago, are the wealthiest in the world, countries that didn't have everyone starving
That's why we need communism. Under a communist system, everyone gets taken care of. Capitalism is bad. It's exploitative and now most of the world's wealth is in 2%
@shotsky94 Economically illiterate people like you and in the video are precisely the reason why we don't need communism. Idealist idiots with no concept of how an economy works, distribution of resources work, what the purpose of wages are, prices. Communism is dead, let it go, aren't people your age supposed to be supporting the more intellectually palatable "Socialism", anyway?
@TheSandboxking I love companies that employ people. Corporations are quite good for this since they are usually owned by mutual funds which is owned by a large # of people who benefit from corporate profits. Do you have a 401K or an RRSP(Canada version). If so, you are probably a beneficiary of corporate profit.
I do not like corporate monopolies that are supported by governments and gov regulations. That is why, I want free market capitalism.
@kristopheraugust A tariff is a government tax on exported/imported goods. I personally only know of two tariffs on goods imported into the U.S. One is a 100% tariff on motorcycles (Harley Davidson went begging to Congress for this one when they were about to go under) and grease (not sure what the % is on grease).
Look at the protesters and the 4 kids that Stossel interviews (at 4:31). They're practically all spoiled, white, upper class (or upper middle class at least) brats. They probably attend these rallies without doing any research of their own. They likely just follow what the others are yelling and demonstrating. When do they have the time to do this shit? They should be in school or working!
Um. No one forced these people to work at sweatshops. So, I don't see the problem? I mean, if these business owners decided to leave, well, there goes all the jobs. Now you have people who have 0 jobs. People these days have no idea of basic economics.
@amyx28 But it's not enough that people like you have essentially lost jobs for the poor in this country, no. Now you wish to lose jobs for people in third world countrie's too by offering your "help". Here's a concept: Why don't YOU help the people you want to help financially and see if they'd rather you mind your own business?
@amyx28 I love how you tell the story of wage decreases by starting in the middle of the story... You pick up where the employer leaves the country in search of people who can work for an affordable wage. You disregard the beginning of the story - when the company was here in the U.S. and unions etc. imposed unauthorized wage increases on a company to the point where a company must leave the U.S.
BTW, is it a bad thing that companies have moved abroad? People only look at the jobs lost over here and assume its all negative? What people fail to understand is, while some ppl lose jobs, the vast majority benefit from the cheaper goods. Not only that, but sending those jobs over to china makes them more prosperous and in turn, means they buy more of our goods. Its better to have rich trade partners than poor ones. The fact is, all we hear is about the job losses, not the greater benefits
@TheSlothook Yes, everyone benefits. Jobs lost here are gained somewhere else, but it isn't a net loss. In return we get cheaper goods. If we don't put tariffs up, then the people that would have worked in that industry will actually go to something more productive and again, cheaper goods and better jobs are had. If there are tariffs, both sides, especially ours, stagnate and lose wealth because other industries have to subsidize the protected one. *sigh*
@eurohim you know, i use to believe that, but i don't think theres conclusive proof that the net benefits are evenly distributed. Take for example, the idea that we should liberalize the selling of food. Ideally, we might all benefit because food is now cheaper and the nigerians benefit while the americans do as well. Ie-the total benefits outweigh the costs. However, us faces a cost from a loss of agriculture in the us and its not clear if the benefits FOR US citizens outweighs teh cost.
Anyone who doesn't think enforcing restrictions on corporations in third world countries is an idiot. See liberals, we used to be a manufacturing nation. There was a time in America when a large percentage of US citizens worked in factories. But what happened? Unions got powerful and decided to make it tougher on corporations so they could make more money and what happend to our factory jobs? They went places where corporations don't have to worry about unions! Maybe one day you guys will get it
@xtremejohnny69 u are extremely ignorant and idon't mean to sound disrespectful. i would like u to go to those countries like china,india,etc and see what happens when there is no unions to protect worker rights. granted unions are not perfect but they're the reason we have 8hr work days,pensions,medical, vacation,etc. corporations didn't leave cuz of unions they left becuz of "regulations and high corporate taxes"
@barlover636 Unions used to serve a purpose. In the early 20th century they made things much better for workers. But later the union leaders got greedy, and with some help from the democratic party, built a strong base. Yes corporate taxes are a big part of them leaving but so are high union wages and benefits.
@xtremejohnny69 i agree unions have contributed to the problem but i don't think they should be demonized the way the republicans say, the majority of the problems should fall on the lack of gov't leadership as well as big banksters and corpatism, i'm tired of the working man and woman being scapegoated 4 the economic mess we are in.
@xtremejohnny69 I don't think unions ever made any purpose in any country. Marxist ideas at work. Apart from economic reasons, I don't think they have any moral right to tell anyone what to do with their money or place of work. They have the right to exist as voluntary organisations. But how can anyone think it is fair for someone to go on strike and block my factory for example? I built it from my own money, employed someone, if that person doesn't like my conditions: leave the job
@xtremejohnny69 Unions were needed because people of low character were getting away with taking advantage of a group of people. We still have people of low character who are itching for the day when there is a return to feudalism. Unions haven't always gotten it right, but we've always needed them and always will.
@bddc201 I'm ok with employees uniting and discussing grievances with their employer but I don't think government should legislate anything. But if there was true free markets then there would be no need for unions because companies are gonna wanna hire the best and brightest, and they won't do that by offering them shit wages and shit benefits. And if a company didn't offer that, then they could go to a better job, or go to college.
@xtremejohnny69 No such thing as a free market, and there never will be. Companies will treat you like dirt if they can get away with it, and they often do because there are way more people needing jobs than there is work for them. Who is going to loan them the money for college? You? Nothing is free.
@bddc201 Free market does not mean you get things for free. It means you compete with everyone else for jobs. Companies would, and should, try to pay you as little as possible. As more companies are built, they are forced to pay more for the workers. This is supply and demand.
Where I live we have a minimum wage, but it is essentially a joke, because our provinces wealth has brought companies in and now they have to compete for workers. People will not work at walmart for min wage.
@daobagua What did I say? Nothing is free. Just wait and see how abusive those corporations become once there are more jobs than people to do them. This is why we have laws and unions. WalMart blows and they would charge you rent to park there if they could get by with it.
@bddc201 Ahh, but walmart can not charge you rent to park there can they? If they did, the customers would not come.
I have no problem with corporations paying a fair wage (and by fair, I mean what the market dictates, not what your union hall things you should make).
I shop at walmart because they offer products at a lower price then other stores. By doing so, I support walmart workers and walmart shareholders and the third world. Makes me feel good to be so supportive.
@daobagua I do not shop at WalMart because of the way they rip off the U.S. taxpayers and the way they treat their employees. There is a very high cost to their "low" prices. Not everything that looks good, or even seems good really is.
@daobagua WalMart tries to make as many hourly employees as possible; "part time". This way they screw the employee out of health insurance. The U.S. taxpayer winds up shouldering that burden to the tune of billions of dollars. When the story broke, WalMart supposedly had to stop. They also lost a big class action suit because they were forcing employees to work off the clock for free; made them clock out and finish cleaning up so they wouldn't be forced to pay overtime. WalMart blows.
@bddc201 Why did the employees at walmart not quite and get a better job? Was there no other jobs for them? If so, why? Could it be that government policies have pushed out jobs for people with those qualifications?
@xtremejohnny69 The idea that unions caused corporations to move out of the U.S. is a persistent fallacy. U.S. politicians, Ronald Reagan and his ilk, encouraged corporations to move overseas to avoid taxes and crush the working class of America. Politicians in America have done virtually nothing to protect it's markets and it's citizens from having to compete with slave labor. Much of the prosperity we used to enjoy was because of the hard work of Unions and it shouldn't be forgotten.
@bddc201 Actually it was government regulation, Reagan did everything in his power to keep jobs in America. Unions did some good back in their day but they got in Washington and changed policy to try and make things more fair, but only made it worse. We had more prosperity when there wasn't as much government regulation in the markets but we've forgotten that.
@xtremejohnny69 I respect your right to your opinion, but I have to disagree with you on Reagan. Reagan hated the working class and virtually every move he made was motivated by a bilious, irrational hatred of the poor. As the ultimate "fuck you", Reagan made six million criminals (illegal aliens) equal with law abiding, working, taxpaying citizens by giving illegal aliens citizenship for committing felonies and undermining wages for the lowest paid workers. Reagan is why we need unions back.
@xtremejohnny69 ARGHARKGH is this truly a common sentiment? That UNIONS are the reason corporations packed up and went home? Unions are the inevitable result of countries moving out of the third world- realizing that they deserve rights and fair wages. The US isn't a manufacturing country anymore because corporations refused to pay Americans fair wages and instead decided to go exploit third world nations. Taxes and embargos on third world labor would bring jobs back to the US.
@Vashasm Not just unions, but also corporate taxes and cap and trade. If we got rid of those taxes we'd see some jobs come back. Embargos discourage free trade, free trade is what creates jobs and even peace. Yes, higher wages are the reason factories left. If you own a corporation, would you wanna build a factory in the US or China?
@xtremejohnny69 They wont get it, they will rather die than to admit THEY were wrong, the unfortunate truth about social change is that the old amd/or current generation of people that held the current politcal and economic theories and views is that they cannot accept a world that dosent conform to thiere wishes, so until they pass away, we will have this kind of moronic ideas floating around, (Im not advocating the violent murder of any individual or group of people by the way)
@xtremejohnny69 wrong. unions kept the factories here as long as they could by contract. because China opened its country for Capitalistic business. Unions didn't kill factory jobs in America. countries like China with lax worker's rights killed American jobs. If you work in a foundry in America and someone drops molten steel on you the company has to pay you. In china you best hope you can get a job somewhere else. the same thing happening now where unions give in to keep the jobs happened then
@xtremejohnny69 The unions were more powerful than ever 50 years ago when manufacturing was booming in this country. It wasn't unions that drove the corporations away, it was outsourcing the jobs to southeast asia where they could pay people to do the same job for $1 an hour. The strength of the unions had nothing to do with this, it was inevitable regardless. It would have happened with no unions in place, just because minimum wage and labor laws exist here. It's just globalization.
@xtremejohnny69 I think perhaps it's you that "don't get it". Exactly the same arguments about sweatshops can be made about technology. Technology steals workers jobs. Technology doesn't ask for healthcare and often can be paid less per hour than the poorest worker. If you want to be consistent you should ban all new technology... because it is undermining unions. tinyurl(.)com/yh7m5vd
@sming01 Stossle won't even tell the whole story behind the Kathy Lee story on sweatshops that is why she got in trouble and removing from content is the only way Stossel can make his case.
Its simple supply and demand people. This is basically not debatable. Its very much econ 101. Force the wages up and the factories move. Factories move? the countrys citizens go back to the poverty disease stricken farm lands where they learn no trade skills and are stuck in the ever repeating cycle of agrarian serfdom. Its nice that we have bleeding hearts, but that doesn't change the way things work. No one person, nor group of students, nor a throng of activists can change the laws of econ.
@TheSlothook ur absolutely right why force wages up? according to u we should ship all labor abroad because after all that's where u get the best bang for the buck,while letting these corporations profit in the US, sure lets keep forcing wages down because these poor corporations aren't making enough money ur right millions of dollars in bonuses for these ceo's are just not enough.
@barlover636 firstly, i never said ship all jobs to other countries...obviously that is impossible, especially since service industry jobs by in large are domestically done. And again, the problem with your logic is, you don't see the savings accrued by the vast majority of people. Also, the fact that some ceos reap huge bonuses actually has little to do with globalization...that is a different topic altogether(the agency problem).
@TheSlothook This is a hilarious statement given that even seasoned economists acknowledge that they have very little understanding of 'The laws of econ'. Given that industry has only even been AROUND ~100 years or so and it's even more retarded. Yup, it's the way it is, it'll never change [[even though we only recently changed things to make it this way]]. tldr: die.
@TheSlothook If The Factories are not allowed to exploit workers no matter where they go This false argument of "if you demand a fair wage they will just move" will go away. If America for example added a 60% tariff to every item shipped into the U.S. where the price of the item is 1000 times more then what the worker makes in a day.They would have nowhere to run. they will do what is cheapest for them. Make it overly expensive for them to exploit people. And people will not buy their products.
This a perfect example of why we call third world countries third world countries... "Nobody in my country thinks about company exploiting them". No one thinks they are being exploited until its too late. If I am a kindergarten teacher And I tell the kids in my class to make drawing and whoever makes the best one gets a sticker. While I turn around and sell these drawings on the street for $20 The kids are happy with the sticker because they don't know any better. Hence the term exploitation
The moral of this story is. exploitation is good because the greed Westerners get to rich and the poor third world countries get to eat. A fair trade.
they arent being exploited. These people want to work in sweatshops. They will walk for miles and risk their life to get the chance at working in a sweatshop cause its way better than the alternatives.
@KripDrip They don't want to "Work in sweatshops" They want to work. It just so happens that the ONLY work for miles around are sweatshops. Either starve and die or work for less then a percentage of what your work is worth. I don't know anyone who would choose death. Which is why in America you see high skilled workers accepting low skill jobs at a fraction of what these jobs used to pay. People want to be paid what they are worth but they will take what they can get.
For all of the right wing so-called "libertarians" who like this kind of nonsense...
All this system does is drive down wages for everyone. Don't like super shitty jobs in your country? Want to work less than 12 hours a day, for more than 30 cents an hour? Well too bad, we'll just build sweatshops somewhere else then!
Gee, what if there were basic international rules, that prohibited them from being slave drivers somewhere else. And instead improved conditions everywhere? What a f-ing concept
so funny how most young peoples protesting is based on having no real world experience. its about ideals and expectations of how they THINK the world should be. just out there being part of the crowd...
No, he is 100% correct on this issue. You and the other economically illiterate statists are condemning people to poverty with your "good intentions."
I've never had a job where, if I do it faster I get more money. Hourly wages are good for the lazy, this is evidenced by how slowly you are dealt with by some companies employees. I used to work in a club with waitresses, when we changed from paying per drink served to an hourly rate, the service went in the toilet. They'd spend their time chatting with people who tipped them, while others could wait a long time before seeing any service.
i like john stossel but he is presenting one side without showing you the corruption taking place thru gov't and imf policies that essentially keep these countries 3rd world for example when the us subsidizes its rice production then cuts deals with these corrupt countries to sell the rice which then comprises the farmers in those countries which then leads to their soil not being agrable.
@barlover636 - Do a little legwork, he puts far more time into it in other programs. But he doesn't share your views, in a free society that's acceptable.
Yes, there is corruption in foreign governments, there is corruption in all governments. But that is a much better argument against foreign aid than it is against foreign investment.
And I'm against all agriculture subsidies, but they aren't what's keeping these countries in the 3rd world. It's their own governments doing that.
@mpc91 leg work? u r presumptuous but thats ok ignorance is bliss. dambisia moyo is a respected person on this matter listen and here what she thinks of foreign aid, as 4 foreign investment sometimes its good other times it could be the worst thing that happens to a country it all depends on what foreign investment. let's see stossel put someone like charles kerneghan on any of his shows 4 detailed discussion.
@barlover636 - Moyo is not in disagreement with Stossel, nor do I disagree with her. Foreign aid usually does more harm than good.
But really, go watch Stossel, Season 1, Episode 19.
As far as Mr. Kernaghan, I wouldn't be surprised at all if Stossel called, and was turned down for an interview by Kernaghan. But Kernaghan seems to enjoy much more going to places where he isn't questioned, and his word is taken as gospel.
@mpc91 it's obvious u know little of what kernaghan does he simply goes to those same type of factories in places like bangeldesh,china,and india and of course he has to be covert because he could be endandgering the lives of those workers, and he brings u the side of the story he thinks is important much like stossel only tells the side of the story he wants to tell.
@barlover636 - I was talking media outlets, but that's as may be.
Stossel does talk to people who disagree with him. Rather consistently. In this piece we're discussing he gives more than equal time to the protesters.
Just because he doesn't get the exact guy you want, or tell the story the way you want it told, doesn't mean he's being one sided.
I'll give Kernaghan credit, he's got you convinced. But I suspect he's playing up the danger and covertness in order to keep the donations flowing.
ok one last message: people are free to help "the starving children" how ever way they see fit.
I won't do it through government because I see enough hobos in my homecountry that the gov. "helps" to stay drunk and destroy their lives.
Bottom line is: you don't make people help someone against their will. Not unless you wield the power that governments wield, which is the power of the police, courts, laws.
If you want to help, do so. And choose a method you trust. Don't make others do it.
When 6 year old children are being whipped for not working fast enough, I'll remember the so-called wisdom of fat-cat John Stossel, and his support of such practices.
Socialism cures poverty. Capitalism causes it. The facts don't support you, and idiots like John Stossel, who (look it up) literally held interns as unpaid slaves when he was first starting out in the business.
1. If socialism cures poverty, why are the most socialist nations the poorest, and the most capitalist nations the richest?
2. "Unpaid slaves"? Those interns worked there because they chose to. If they wanted to go get a job as a waiter, they could have. The were happy for the opportunity to get some experience.
Your justification for Stossel's exploitation of unpaid slaves reminds one of how white people (scientifically proved to be the most racist people on earth) use to justify slavery..."ah...it's for the black man's own good".
@EspnNBAGeneral Please cite the source of your "proof" that white people are more racist.
And slaves didn't choose to be slaves. Interns choose to be interns. Stossel didn't go to a market and buy his interns. They went to him and ASKED to work for him. Do you not realize what the definition of slavery is?
@EspnNBAGeneral Slavery: bondage: the state of being under the control of another person
Sounds like the person who's forced to produce a good or service to people. Something you advocate.
Keep being benevolent with other people's money. I see you're highly for income re-distribution with how you own a computer (that you would never afford if you earned the World average of $10,000). Not to mention your ideas sound a lot like Hugo Chavez and Robert Mugabe's. How are those econ masters doing?
If you'd "divide all the money", why would anyone study 5 years for an engineering degree? Why would anyone risk it in a dangerous job? Why would anyone work in a physically demanding job such as a lumberjack? Just be a clerk and earn as much as everone else. What a joke.
It doesn't work.
You really think we'd have an ipad if Steve Jobs had a minimum wage as a ceo? Would we have cars? Railways? You know things that directly make us more efficient?
If the poverty line is 10,000 dollars a year and 1 person makes 100,000 dollars a year, he can prevent 9 people (plus himself) from going into poverty if he actually shows compassion for his fellow man and divides the money evenly.
It's just logic. Sorry your corporate backers won't let you speak the truth about COMPASSION and JUSTICE.
I'm sorry I won't discuss with people who show extreme gullibility, senseless arguments and religious like zeal so it'll be my last message.
Good luck in either trying to a) earn that 100,000 dollars a year and share it (which I highly doupt you can), b) trying to make people who do earn it to give 90% away willingly, or c) make the government do it.
Don't go living a bitter life if any of those don't happen because I'm pretty sure they won't.
@EspnNBAGeneral Unlike you "progressives", conservatives understand the difference between society and government. Just because we don't want something to be done by the government doesn't mean we don't want it done at all.
Since you're so interested in science, it's been scientifically proven that conservatives in general are more charitable than liberals in general.
By the way, how much of your own wealth have you given away to the poor?
If only the world did not have fiat currency, poor people who work hard would not be in such dire circumstances. Imagine working hard and saving money for 10 years and having its purchasing wiped out because of your government.
I would just like to point out that the people John is talking to "from countries that have sweatshops" don't actually work in sweatshops. The people who actually work in sweatshops do not necessarily share their opinion. What he's doing is akin to doing a story on tax cuts for the rich, and consulting only wealthy people in America who favor tax cuts for the rich. It's not necessarily inaccurate, but it's incredibly one-sided. I wonder why he didn't talk to just one sweatshop laborer...
@watermelonygoodness Not really, it is obvious these people know people who work in "sweatshops", and they see the effect of the laws that close them down. They are also people facing the reality of the world economy in that they see that what we consider "exploitation" in some cases is actually the beginnings of opportunities in areas where companies move in, where there were none before! And that as he points out most of the time these companies are paying up to two to three times avg.wage.
@watermelonygoodness Then go look up milton friedman's free to choose, it was a series made in the 70's and re-visited in the 80s for pbs, wherein one episode Milton talks to actual workers from "sweat shops", (with a translator) and is told that those in other countries who wish to have "Sweat shops" closed down are foolish, and evil. They went that one step farther than these economists who you have tried to minimalize the views of.
@daPlumber702 I haven't seen the series to which you are referring, but I have seen other sweatshop labourers talking about the horrendous conditions in which they work. Santa's Workshop for one example. Not all conditions in overseas factories are the same. And I'm not calling for them to be closed down, I'm calling for the overseas factories wherein workers are abused and mistreated to be reformed.
@daPlumber702 I don't understand what you mean when you say, "They went that one step farther than these economists who you have tried to minimalize the views of." Who went one step farther? Milton Friedman? He went farther than which economists I minimalize? Milton Friedman? This sentence makes no sense to me. Maybe you have misunderstood my position.
What these kids in first world countries don't understand is that in many countries u have to work at ten , twelve, fourteen or whatever because you starve if u do not. Some have no parents, lack of a welfare or social security system in their nation etc. And they need to understand the wages in poorer countries are lower because the economy cannot sustain high wages across most industries like in first world countries! i mean do they not understand the basic maths of it?
@Christopholaes It's not that I don't get the math. I just think it's unfair for corporations to deny workers their right to unionize. I just think it's unfair for corporations to deny workers their breaks. I just think it's unfair for corporations to take advantage of looser laws in developing countries and subject workers to hazardous conditions. I'm not saying this happens in every international manufacturing plant, but it is the reality of many.
@watermelonygoodness I would agree with u in principle, but the reality is life isn't fair, and we have to do the best with what we got. What is obvious is that "sweatshops" seem to be a necessary evil as a stepping stone to stronger more robust industry types being created in developing nations. Shutting them down only prolongs the poverty in many cases as well! Also i think u will find that many of the conditions in these work places are not as the media would like to portray them.
in AMERICA walmart employees have to go on welfare because walmart would rather save money on wages to buy a couple knockoff "predator" dvd's. and that is never going to change because they control the market it's been going on since 1860.
what fucking leverage could you possibly be talking about?!
i don't know what sort of utopian delusion inducing drug you've been taking but i want some.
you can't imagine how a company with as much resources as they have can control a market? your problem.
you believe that the market is a living breathing organism that can't be controlled or 'tamed'. failures of imagination. that's the problem with libertarians, a whole lot of textbook simplistic concepts and NO imagination.
you believe that eventually this sort of behavior will bring the third world into our fold.
I have only one problem with this report, I dont like how they dont talk with any of the actual workers.
scrambledpenis 1 month ago in playlist More videos from electricknight4
"I wish these people would think with their brains and not with their hearts."
Yes. Yes. My man! Yes! All these wimps and their self-righteous, cloying idiocy, suck on that.
grungefreak10 1 month ago in playlist Liked videos
hey hey, ho ho, liberal dogma's got ta go
UltraProle21 1 month ago
people are dumb as hell
cfall234 1 month ago
god I fucking HATE college kids in America...this is what they do, while earning degrees in uselessness and sucking a dick.
They go out to protest things they're absolutely clueless about.
Spjungen 1 month ago
@Spjungen Worst of all, they give people my age a bad name.
Spjungen 1 month ago
@Spjungen well I'd like to ask those guys "Would YOU like to work in a sweat shop?" Unless you're for robots doing it, yet then they'll complain about "What? Robots doing jobs? People should do 'em or unemployment would ruin us!".
kmelfina 1 month ago
@Spjungen and what do you do mr.superior.
deadmeh 2 weeks ago
@Spjungen Shut the fuck up you wear a bandanna and talk on the internet, at least these kids are getting in education in something.
Pampl3Moos3 2 weeks ago
better solution for everyone. keep the factories in the USA. ok give them minimum wages, fair enuf?
desiguy55 2 months ago
@desiguy55 Minimum wages keep poor and unskilled people out of the work force if it costs the employer more to employ them than he gets return in profit for their labor.
If minimum wage is $10, but the employee's skills are worth only $9, this person is guaranteed to be never employed and never given a chance to get on-the-job skills for future higher paying jobs.
Removing minimum wage laws, would actually create more jobs for the people that are apparently most hurt by low wages.
zdrux 2 months ago
"Most of them work in the company for a while then go off and start their own businesses"
These people are either being disingenuous or they're mentally retarded. Fact.
MaxwellGreene1 2 months ago
Exactly how would it hurt these people if the multi-national companies invested a little more of their profits in the workers and their conditions? You talk about greed. I assume then, you're against labour unions and workers rights in general. I mean, as long as people "voluntarily" go to work why should we care about how companies treat their employees. Oh, but I forgot. Companies are only allowed to exploit people in poor countries. Of course we don't want our children to work in sweatshops!
buugiman78 3 months ago
@buugiman78 Workers don't have rights, only people have rights. The rights of the workers don't trump the rights of the employers and vice versa. It's economics 101 that the employers will move to whatever the labor is cheapest, I think we all agree on that - and the workers who can provide this cheap labor will win out over workers who cannot, there will ALWAYS be one group of people that's at the bottom of the income ladder, it's only fair that the jobs go to them. Just my $0.02.
zdrux 2 months ago
@buugiman78 Idk if your stupid or not which apparently you are but companies have sweatshops here in america too! a rich country! idiot...
sgtwaffles2424 1 month ago
Typical statists, the effects of my intentions are irrelevant as long as my intentions are good...
crazypants88 3 months ago
What he's saying is that it's ok to exploit desperate people. The same argument is used within USA to attack for example labour unions. What makes this whole argument so absurd is that the corporations are making huge profits while complaining they can't afford to provide workers with decent salaries or working conditions. When corporations talk about "shared sacrifice" they really mean that the poor have to make all the sacrifices so they can profit even more. John Stossel is a despicable man!
buugiman78 3 months ago
@buugiman78 Sweatshops are most likely small businesses and even if they weren't no business can afford to pay more than what a worker brings in, doing so would only end in the business shutting down, thereby making everyone worse off.
Exploitation is a subjective valuation, to a dirt poor person a sweatshop is most likely a godsend. For a person that has lived in a wealthy society, which I'm guessing you have, it looks a lot different.
contd.
crazypants88 3 months ago
@crazypants88 The corporations could very well afford to give these people decent salaries and working condition. A few do that, but most just want their products as cheap as possible and don't give a shit about the workers. I'm not talking about making them rich. But, you think it's ok for these companies to seek out the most desperate people in the world and have them working like slaves so they can make huge profits. And even brag about how they are helping these poor people.
buugiman78 3 months ago
@buugiman Not if they only bring in enough to warrant a certain wage. If you own a company and your employers brought in, say, 5 dollars for every hour of their labor, how on earth would you raise their wages above 5 dollars/hour? You can't, without going bankrupt and/or raising prices.
Yes I think ok for desperate people to be in a job that allows them better standard of living than they would have without that job. They are helping them and vice versa, it's mutually beneficial.
crazypants88 3 months ago
@crazypants88 The multinational corps decide how much they pay for their work. There's no dialouge. Compare the turnover of these sweatshops with the turnover of the multinational corps and then say with a straight face that they could not raise the salaries or improve working conditions without going bankrupt. Yes, the sweatshops would go bankrupt. But, that's the problem. They are taking all the risks, they are doing all the hard work. Still, they get a ridiculously small piece of the pie.
buugiman78 3 months ago
@buugiman78 contd.
Bottom line if the employees feel exploited they are always free to leave and try to work somewhere else.
crazypants88 3 months ago
@crazypants88 Really? That's like offering a starving woman ten bucks for a blowjob. She's free to leave isn't she. Again you totally miss my point. If the only option to starving to death was to have people working in horrible sweat shops, then of course that's better than dying. But, this is a false dichotomy. These large corporations could do so much more for these workers and countries and still be able to make a decent profit. But no, they are too greedy! They want it all!
buugiman78 3 months ago
@buugiman78 Why are agreements that are consensually agreed upon by all parties so detestable in your eyes.
There is not just one employer or one way to make a living, there are plenty of ways to do that, mandating that desperate people's choices be limited is helping no one, it actively hurts them as the video demonstrated.
Everybody's greedy, you're arguing for more for absolutely nothing, at least employers ask for something in return for something.
crazypants88 3 months ago
@crazypants88 What these companies are basically saying is: "If you start making demands, then we'll move our factories". Of course the desperate locals will comply with their demands. But, that's not an agreement. That's blackmail! Of course you can't blame companies for moving if the conditions in a particular country makes their business unsustainable. But, this is all about utter greed! Sheer exploitation. The multinational companies have all the power, the workers are expendable goods.
buugiman78 3 months ago
@crazypants88 I'm not saying I necessarily agree with all activists. Obviously many just make things worse and we should listen more to what the locals have to say. But, that goes for development aid as well. Many charities really are counter-productive. But, to take your position and just say that we're all greedy, and hence we should just accept whatever these multinational companies are doing is so cynical and foremost hypocritical. You pretend to care, when in fact you don't give a shit.
buugiman78 3 months ago
What "developing nations" need is an influx of capital investment. The problem is that who is willing to invest capital in places where concepts such as markets and property rights do not exist? If the governments of African nations were to magically start enforcing property rights and allow for a marketplace, instead of nationalizing their industries, a massive influx of capital would be generated, and many of their problems would be solved in months or years.
Alexshrugged92 3 months ago 2
This is so sad. The african women should have studied history instead of trade policy and maybe she wouldn't be so happy when a corporation lands on her resource rich soil to "lend" her people a helping hand.
Still, we all live in the same reality so I guess it is good that sweat shops have the mercy to allow these undeveloped people to work, right?
fububalla 4 months ago
@fububalla Not every place develops at the same rate. That's reality. These companies are lending anyone a hand. They're trying to make money. They're saying, "Here is a job and we'll pay this for you doing this. Will you do it?" Money flows out of richer countries into poorer countries in exchange for their labor and thus the poorer country gets richer over time. Like was said in the clip, they often pay 2 to 3 times as much as local factories. Also, realize their cost of living is much lower.
eurohim 4 months ago
@eurohim I don't dispute that at all, I'm not ditzy. I think most people get this, even the wild-eyed liberal. The harm is that there's no regard for humanity and this same disregard for humanity is partially the reason many of these less-developed are in their current condition despite the mass amount of wealth the people of the land are sitting on.
This is quickly readjusting though which illuminates your point about them getting richer over time as they are becomin more competitive with us.
fububalla 4 months ago
@fububalla this is a classic example of guilty while liberal kids, mostly, thinking that that what they hear on the Clinton News Network and from democratic politicians and activists are "facts" - the FACT is, these companies employee people and pay them market, repeat MARKET wages for their work. The market wage in Kenya is much, much different than in NYC (or anywhere in America), and to try to compare the two is silly. If your rent is 5 bucks a month, you're doing well to make $2/day.
debunker300 4 months ago
The problem with conservatives is that they think being better off is good enough, but it isn't. After the 13th amendment we could have said blacks were better off and left it at that, but they still had to deal with the kkk, lynchings, poll taxes, separate is equal, Jim Crow, etc. There is a huge difference between leaving someone better off, and doing the actual right thing.
thirteendays13 4 months ago
It's no wonder the Unions support the students in their protests. Unions hate "sweatshops," because Unions hate competition.
HiciacetKolas 5 months ago
hong kong used to have sweatshops to, oh wait............
packerfan748 5 months ago
Why do Liberals want us to globalize in every way except economically?
worldofdraculas 5 months ago
John Stossel was the best thing on ABC
TMOvids 6 months ago
lol shows how smart those College Harvard students are.
fighting1 7 months ago
@5:01
stossel: people choose to work there
girl: you would prefer eating to not eating
Duh, that's the point. They choose to work at the factory because they prefer eating to not eating.
Remove the factory (or prevent it from being built) and they go back to not eating.
Not exactly a brilliant plan to improve the world.
jeffiek 8 months ago
outsourcing hurts americans.americans are put out of work.corporations do not pay u.s. taxes.china winds up owning the usa.because of sweat shops.awsome huh?
stealthgerm 8 months ago
@stealthgerm thats correct , our protest should be about outsourcing that takes away the low wage job for americans who are starting out in life(teens, mothers,immigrants). sweatshops are non issue unless it involves child labor.
desiguy55 8 months ago
@s0beit Communism will never die you idiot. Ever since Russia got "liberated", the majority of the weak in society who used to solidly middle-class are now struggling in poverty. Capitalism creates inequalities, Communism promotes equality. Which do you think is better?
shotsky94 9 months ago
@shotsky94 Your Equality vs Inequality argument is insufficient. For example, we can not fix paralysis in people who already are paralyzed. To support equality, should we paralyse everyone else? Would that be better?
I think things are more complicated than that. The best situation is the one that maximizes the # of people who are well off. That system is capitalism. Countries that embraced capitalism 100 years ago, are the wealthiest in the world, countries that didn't have everyone starving
daobagua 8 months ago
That's why we need communism. Under a communist system, everyone gets taken care of. Capitalism is bad. It's exploitative and now most of the world's wealth is in 2%
shotsky94 9 months ago
@shotsky94 Economically illiterate people like you and in the video are precisely the reason why we don't need communism. Idealist idiots with no concept of how an economy works, distribution of resources work, what the purpose of wages are, prices. Communism is dead, let it go, aren't people your age supposed to be supporting the more intellectually palatable "Socialism", anyway?
s0beit 9 months ago
wow you poor people really do love rich corperations
TheSandboxking 9 months ago
@TheSandboxking I love companies that employ people. Corporations are quite good for this since they are usually owned by mutual funds which is owned by a large # of people who benefit from corporate profits. Do you have a 401K or an RRSP(Canada version). If so, you are probably a beneficiary of corporate profit.
I do not like corporate monopolies that are supported by governments and gov regulations. That is why, I want free market capitalism.
daobagua 8 months ago
@kristopheraugust A tariff is a government tax on exported/imported goods. I personally only know of two tariffs on goods imported into the U.S. One is a 100% tariff on motorcycles (Harley Davidson went begging to Congress for this one when they were about to go under) and grease (not sure what the % is on grease).
bddc201 9 months ago
Only the chinese slavery camps are immoral.
Moving from the farm field to a sweatshop in these countries is moving up in the social ranking.
diurdi 9 months ago
Refusing to buy sweatshop goods? IDIOTS. That would lower the demand for the sweatshop labor and therefore lower the wages.
DaveElectric 9 months ago
@DaveElectric
Dam you and your rational understanding of economics! :-P
KyleSkullz 9 months ago
5:00 you can tell that these students are retarded
wobinga7 9 months ago
Look at the protesters and the 4 kids that Stossel interviews (at 4:31). They're practically all spoiled, white, upper class (or upper middle class at least) brats. They probably attend these rallies without doing any research of their own. They likely just follow what the others are yelling and demonstrating. When do they have the time to do this shit? They should be in school or working!
frtw4428 9 months ago
Um. No one forced these people to work at sweatshops. So, I don't see the problem? I mean, if these business owners decided to leave, well, there goes all the jobs. Now you have people who have 0 jobs. People these days have no idea of basic economics.
jpzxcvbnm 9 months ago
@amyx28 But it's not enough that people like you have essentially lost jobs for the poor in this country, no. Now you wish to lose jobs for people in third world countrie's too by offering your "help". Here's a concept: Why don't YOU help the people you want to help financially and see if they'd rather you mind your own business?
SoooooRich 10 months ago
@amyx28 I love how you tell the story of wage decreases by starting in the middle of the story... You pick up where the employer leaves the country in search of people who can work for an affordable wage. You disregard the beginning of the story - when the company was here in the U.S. and unions etc. imposed unauthorized wage increases on a company to the point where a company must leave the U.S.
SoooooRich 10 months ago
BTW, is it a bad thing that companies have moved abroad? People only look at the jobs lost over here and assume its all negative? What people fail to understand is, while some ppl lose jobs, the vast majority benefit from the cheaper goods. Not only that, but sending those jobs over to china makes them more prosperous and in turn, means they buy more of our goods. Its better to have rich trade partners than poor ones. The fact is, all we hear is about the job losses, not the greater benefits
TheSlothook 11 months ago
@TheSlothook Yes, everyone benefits. Jobs lost here are gained somewhere else, but it isn't a net loss. In return we get cheaper goods. If we don't put tariffs up, then the people that would have worked in that industry will actually go to something more productive and again, cheaper goods and better jobs are had. If there are tariffs, both sides, especially ours, stagnate and lose wealth because other industries have to subsidize the protected one. *sigh*
eurohim 4 months ago
@eurohim you know, i use to believe that, but i don't think theres conclusive proof that the net benefits are evenly distributed. Take for example, the idea that we should liberalize the selling of food. Ideally, we might all benefit because food is now cheaper and the nigerians benefit while the americans do as well. Ie-the total benefits outweigh the costs. However, us faces a cost from a loss of agriculture in the us and its not clear if the benefits FOR US citizens outweighs teh cost.
TheInfernal36 4 months ago
If the students have problems with sweatshops, they should take off their clothes
jtizz711 11 months ago
There are a lot of ways that these college students actually could be helping people.
But these protests certainly aren't among them. They make them feel better about themselves, but they aren't improving anyone's situation.
mpc91 11 months ago
Anyone who doesn't think enforcing restrictions on corporations in third world countries is an idiot. See liberals, we used to be a manufacturing nation. There was a time in America when a large percentage of US citizens worked in factories. But what happened? Unions got powerful and decided to make it tougher on corporations so they could make more money and what happend to our factory jobs? They went places where corporations don't have to worry about unions! Maybe one day you guys will get it
xtremejohnny69 11 months ago 10
@xtremejohnny69 u are extremely ignorant and idon't mean to sound disrespectful. i would like u to go to those countries like china,india,etc and see what happens when there is no unions to protect worker rights. granted unions are not perfect but they're the reason we have 8hr work days,pensions,medical, vacation,etc. corporations didn't leave cuz of unions they left becuz of "regulations and high corporate taxes"
barlover636 11 months ago
@barlover636 Unions used to serve a purpose. In the early 20th century they made things much better for workers. But later the union leaders got greedy, and with some help from the democratic party, built a strong base. Yes corporate taxes are a big part of them leaving but so are high union wages and benefits.
xtremejohnny69 11 months ago
@xtremejohnny69 i agree unions have contributed to the problem but i don't think they should be demonized the way the republicans say, the majority of the problems should fall on the lack of gov't leadership as well as big banksters and corpatism, i'm tired of the working man and woman being scapegoated 4 the economic mess we are in.
barlover636 11 months ago
@xtremejohnny69 I don't think unions ever made any purpose in any country. Marxist ideas at work. Apart from economic reasons, I don't think they have any moral right to tell anyone what to do with their money or place of work. They have the right to exist as voluntary organisations. But how can anyone think it is fair for someone to go on strike and block my factory for example? I built it from my own money, employed someone, if that person doesn't like my conditions: leave the job
mindOFAlibertarian 10 months ago
@mindOFAlibertarian I think it's ok to discuss your grievances with your employer but not take it up to the government.
xtremejohnny69 10 months ago
@xtremejohnny69 Unions were needed because people of low character were getting away with taking advantage of a group of people. We still have people of low character who are itching for the day when there is a return to feudalism. Unions haven't always gotten it right, but we've always needed them and always will.
bddc201 9 months ago
@bddc201 I'm ok with employees uniting and discussing grievances with their employer but I don't think government should legislate anything. But if there was true free markets then there would be no need for unions because companies are gonna wanna hire the best and brightest, and they won't do that by offering them shit wages and shit benefits. And if a company didn't offer that, then they could go to a better job, or go to college.
xtremejohnny69 9 months ago
@xtremejohnny69 No such thing as a free market, and there never will be. Companies will treat you like dirt if they can get away with it, and they often do because there are way more people needing jobs than there is work for them. Who is going to loan them the money for college? You? Nothing is free.
bddc201 9 months ago
@bddc201 Free market does not mean you get things for free. It means you compete with everyone else for jobs. Companies would, and should, try to pay you as little as possible. As more companies are built, they are forced to pay more for the workers. This is supply and demand.
Where I live we have a minimum wage, but it is essentially a joke, because our provinces wealth has brought companies in and now they have to compete for workers. People will not work at walmart for min wage.
daobagua 8 months ago
@daobagua What did I say? Nothing is free. Just wait and see how abusive those corporations become once there are more jobs than people to do them. This is why we have laws and unions. WalMart blows and they would charge you rent to park there if they could get by with it.
bddc201 8 months ago
@bddc201 Ahh, but walmart can not charge you rent to park there can they? If they did, the customers would not come.
I have no problem with corporations paying a fair wage (and by fair, I mean what the market dictates, not what your union hall things you should make).
I shop at walmart because they offer products at a lower price then other stores. By doing so, I support walmart workers and walmart shareholders and the third world. Makes me feel good to be so supportive.
daobagua 8 months ago
@daobagua I do not shop at WalMart because of the way they rip off the U.S. taxpayers and the way they treat their employees. There is a very high cost to their "low" prices. Not everything that looks good, or even seems good really is.
bddc201 8 months ago
@bddc201 Please elaborate.
daobagua 8 months ago
@daobagua WalMart tries to make as many hourly employees as possible; "part time". This way they screw the employee out of health insurance. The U.S. taxpayer winds up shouldering that burden to the tune of billions of dollars. When the story broke, WalMart supposedly had to stop. They also lost a big class action suit because they were forcing employees to work off the clock for free; made them clock out and finish cleaning up so they wouldn't be forced to pay overtime. WalMart blows.
bddc201 8 months ago
@bddc201 Why did the employees at walmart not quite and get a better job? Was there no other jobs for them? If so, why? Could it be that government policies have pushed out jobs for people with those qualifications?
daobagua 8 months ago
@daobagua You can't make an employer give you a job, they have most if not all the power. Have you ever had a real job?
bddc201 8 months ago
@bddc201 Uhm. yes I have. Employers also can't force people to work for them. Have you ever hired someone for free?
daobagua 8 months ago
@xtremejohnny69 The idea that unions caused corporations to move out of the U.S. is a persistent fallacy. U.S. politicians, Ronald Reagan and his ilk, encouraged corporations to move overseas to avoid taxes and crush the working class of America. Politicians in America have done virtually nothing to protect it's markets and it's citizens from having to compete with slave labor. Much of the prosperity we used to enjoy was because of the hard work of Unions and it shouldn't be forgotten.
bddc201 9 months ago
@bddc201 Actually it was government regulation, Reagan did everything in his power to keep jobs in America. Unions did some good back in their day but they got in Washington and changed policy to try and make things more fair, but only made it worse. We had more prosperity when there wasn't as much government regulation in the markets but we've forgotten that.
xtremejohnny69 9 months ago
@xtremejohnny69 I respect your right to your opinion, but I have to disagree with you on Reagan. Reagan hated the working class and virtually every move he made was motivated by a bilious, irrational hatred of the poor. As the ultimate "fuck you", Reagan made six million criminals (illegal aliens) equal with law abiding, working, taxpaying citizens by giving illegal aliens citizenship for committing felonies and undermining wages for the lowest paid workers. Reagan is why we need unions back.
bddc201 9 months ago
@xtremejohnny69 ARGHARKGH is this truly a common sentiment? That UNIONS are the reason corporations packed up and went home? Unions are the inevitable result of countries moving out of the third world- realizing that they deserve rights and fair wages. The US isn't a manufacturing country anymore because corporations refused to pay Americans fair wages and instead decided to go exploit third world nations. Taxes and embargos on third world labor would bring jobs back to the US.
Vashasm 8 months ago
@Vashasm Not just unions, but also corporate taxes and cap and trade. If we got rid of those taxes we'd see some jobs come back. Embargos discourage free trade, free trade is what creates jobs and even peace. Yes, higher wages are the reason factories left. If you own a corporation, would you wanna build a factory in the US or China?
xtremejohnny69 8 months ago
@xtremejohnny69 They wont get it, they will rather die than to admit THEY were wrong, the unfortunate truth about social change is that the old amd/or current generation of people that held the current politcal and economic theories and views is that they cannot accept a world that dosent conform to thiere wishes, so until they pass away, we will have this kind of moronic ideas floating around, (Im not advocating the violent murder of any individual or group of people by the way)
megatherium100 8 months ago
@xtremejohnny69 wrong. unions kept the factories here as long as they could by contract. because China opened its country for Capitalistic business. Unions didn't kill factory jobs in America. countries like China with lax worker's rights killed American jobs. If you work in a foundry in America and someone drops molten steel on you the company has to pay you. In china you best hope you can get a job somewhere else. the same thing happening now where unions give in to keep the jobs happened then
JRMCNEA 7 months ago
@xtremejohnny69 The unions were more powerful than ever 50 years ago when manufacturing was booming in this country. It wasn't unions that drove the corporations away, it was outsourcing the jobs to southeast asia where they could pay people to do the same job for $1 an hour. The strength of the unions had nothing to do with this, it was inevitable regardless. It would have happened with no unions in place, just because minimum wage and labor laws exist here. It's just globalization.
grasd2 6 months ago
@xtremejohnny69 I think perhaps it's you that "don't get it". Exactly the same arguments about sweatshops can be made about technology. Technology steals workers jobs. Technology doesn't ask for healthcare and often can be paid less per hour than the poorest worker. If you want to be consistent you should ban all new technology... because it is undermining unions. tinyurl(.)com/yh7m5vd
dmg46664 6 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
With the exception of Beck Stossle is the stupidest cock sucker on TV.
MsZeitgeist85 11 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85 and you are the stupidest cock sucker commenting on youtube
sming01 11 months ago
@sming01 Stossle won't even tell the whole story behind the Kathy Lee story on sweatshops that is why she got in trouble and removing from content is the only way Stossel can make his case.
Most people agree with me dipshit.
MsZeitgeist85 11 months ago
Its simple supply and demand people. This is basically not debatable. Its very much econ 101. Force the wages up and the factories move. Factories move? the countrys citizens go back to the poverty disease stricken farm lands where they learn no trade skills and are stuck in the ever repeating cycle of agrarian serfdom. Its nice that we have bleeding hearts, but that doesn't change the way things work. No one person, nor group of students, nor a throng of activists can change the laws of econ.
TheSlothook 11 months ago 23
exactly.
hint0122 11 months ago
@TheSlothook ur absolutely right why force wages up? according to u we should ship all labor abroad because after all that's where u get the best bang for the buck,while letting these corporations profit in the US, sure lets keep forcing wages down because these poor corporations aren't making enough money ur right millions of dollars in bonuses for these ceo's are just not enough.
barlover636 10 months ago
@barlover636 firstly, i never said ship all jobs to other countries...obviously that is impossible, especially since service industry jobs by in large are domestically done. And again, the problem with your logic is, you don't see the savings accrued by the vast majority of people. Also, the fact that some ceos reap huge bonuses actually has little to do with globalization...that is a different topic altogether(the agency problem).
TheSlothook 10 months ago
@TheSlothook This is a hilarious statement given that even seasoned economists acknowledge that they have very little understanding of 'The laws of econ'. Given that industry has only even been AROUND ~100 years or so and it's even more retarded. Yup, it's the way it is, it'll never change [[even though we only recently changed things to make it this way]]. tldr: die.
Vashasm 8 months ago
@TheSlothook If The Factories are not allowed to exploit workers no matter where they go This false argument of "if you demand a fair wage they will just move" will go away. If America for example added a 60% tariff to every item shipped into the U.S. where the price of the item is 1000 times more then what the worker makes in a day.They would have nowhere to run. they will do what is cheapest for them. Make it overly expensive for them to exploit people. And people will not buy their products.
JRMCNEA 7 months ago
This a perfect example of why we call third world countries third world countries... "Nobody in my country thinks about company exploiting them". No one thinks they are being exploited until its too late. If I am a kindergarten teacher And I tell the kids in my class to make drawing and whoever makes the best one gets a sticker. While I turn around and sell these drawings on the street for $20 The kids are happy with the sticker because they don't know any better. Hence the term exploitation
JRMCNEA 7 months ago
@JRMCNEA With your example comparing 3rd world folks to kindergardeners, it still supports Stossel's argument as both parties benefit.
scotth602 7 months ago
The moral of this story is. exploitation is good because the greed Westerners get to rich and the poor third world countries get to eat. A fair trade.
JRMCNEA 7 months ago 2
@JRMCNEA exactly, all's fair in I'm rich and now make my shirt for .43 cent.
The real problem as usual, lies in educating underdeveloped countries to be more self sufficient and entrepreneurial
fububalla 4 months ago
@fububalla Yeah thats not a fair trade at all....
JRMCNEA 4 months ago
they arent being exploited. These people want to work in sweatshops. They will walk for miles and risk their life to get the chance at working in a sweatshop cause its way better than the alternatives.
KripDrip 3 months ago
@KripDrip They don't want to "Work in sweatshops" They want to work. It just so happens that the ONLY work for miles around are sweatshops. Either starve and die or work for less then a percentage of what your work is worth. I don't know anyone who would choose death. Which is why in America you see high skilled workers accepting low skill jobs at a fraction of what these jobs used to pay. People want to be paid what they are worth but they will take what they can get.
JRMCNEA 3 months ago
For all of the right wing so-called "libertarians" who like this kind of nonsense...
All this system does is drive down wages for everyone. Don't like super shitty jobs in your country? Want to work less than 12 hours a day, for more than 30 cents an hour? Well too bad, we'll just build sweatshops somewhere else then!
Gee, what if there were basic international rules, that prohibited them from being slave drivers somewhere else. And instead improved conditions everywhere? What a f-ing concept
amyx28 1 year ago
@amyx28 - If I spend my money to open a factory, and hire people at twice they were making before, would you call me a slave driver?
How would you feel if I offered to double your salary? Would you call me a slave driver?
Do you have any idea what slavery actually is?
mpc91 11 months ago
so funny how most young peoples protesting is based on having no real world experience. its about ideals and expectations of how they THINK the world should be. just out there being part of the crowd...
prosteelheader 1 year ago
Stossel is a radical libertarian bordering on becoming an anarchist. He is right on alot of issues but this isn't one of them.
attemptingtobehumble 1 year ago
@attemptingtobehumble
No, he is 100% correct on this issue. You and the other economically illiterate statists are condemning people to poverty with your "good intentions."
TimeWarp66 1 year ago
I've never had a job where, if I do it faster I get more money. Hourly wages are good for the lazy, this is evidenced by how slowly you are dealt with by some companies employees. I used to work in a club with waitresses, when we changed from paying per drink served to an hourly rate, the service went in the toilet. They'd spend their time chatting with people who tipped them, while others could wait a long time before seeing any service.
ALucas73 1 year ago
i like john stossel but he is presenting one side without showing you the corruption taking place thru gov't and imf policies that essentially keep these countries 3rd world for example when the us subsidizes its rice production then cuts deals with these corrupt countries to sell the rice which then comprises the farmers in those countries which then leads to their soil not being agrable.
barlover636 1 year ago
@barlover636 "john stossel but he is presenting one side"
Give me a break. The segment is only 6 minutes long.
jeffiek 11 months ago
@jeffiek yeh it's only 6 minutes long i agree but if it were 30 minutes long it would be the same paradigm
barlover636 11 months ago
@barlover636 - But the rest of the media has beaten that side of the story to death for years, and they have had no balance.
mpc91 11 months ago
@barlover636 - And really, did you watch the video, he gives more than equal time to people with opposing views.
mpc91 11 months ago
@mpc91 how could anyone give a balanced view of a such a complex matter in a few minutes get real my friend
barlover636 11 months ago
@barlover636 - Do a little legwork, he puts far more time into it in other programs. But he doesn't share your views, in a free society that's acceptable.
Yes, there is corruption in foreign governments, there is corruption in all governments. But that is a much better argument against foreign aid than it is against foreign investment.
And I'm against all agriculture subsidies, but they aren't what's keeping these countries in the 3rd world. It's their own governments doing that.
mpc91 11 months ago
@mpc91 leg work? u r presumptuous but thats ok ignorance is bliss. dambisia moyo is a respected person on this matter listen and here what she thinks of foreign aid, as 4 foreign investment sometimes its good other times it could be the worst thing that happens to a country it all depends on what foreign investment. let's see stossel put someone like charles kerneghan on any of his shows 4 detailed discussion.
barlover636 11 months ago
@barlover636 - Moyo is not in disagreement with Stossel, nor do I disagree with her. Foreign aid usually does more harm than good.
But really, go watch Stossel, Season 1, Episode 19.
As far as Mr. Kernaghan, I wouldn't be surprised at all if Stossel called, and was turned down for an interview by Kernaghan. But Kernaghan seems to enjoy much more going to places where he isn't questioned, and his word is taken as gospel.
mpc91 11 months ago
@mpc91 it's obvious u know little of what kernaghan does he simply goes to those same type of factories in places like bangeldesh,china,and india and of course he has to be covert because he could be endandgering the lives of those workers, and he brings u the side of the story he thinks is important much like stossel only tells the side of the story he wants to tell.
barlover636 11 months ago
@barlover636 - I was talking media outlets, but that's as may be.
Stossel does talk to people who disagree with him. Rather consistently. In this piece we're discussing he gives more than equal time to the protesters.
Just because he doesn't get the exact guy you want, or tell the story the way you want it told, doesn't mean he's being one sided.
I'll give Kernaghan credit, he's got you convinced. But I suspect he's playing up the danger and covertness in order to keep the donations flowing.
mpc91 11 months ago
ok one last message: people are free to help "the starving children" how ever way they see fit.
I won't do it through government because I see enough hobos in my homecountry that the gov. "helps" to stay drunk and destroy their lives.
Bottom line is: you don't make people help someone against their will. Not unless you wield the power that governments wield, which is the power of the police, courts, laws.
If you want to help, do so. And choose a method you trust. Don't make others do it.
Loomr 1 year ago
Union make things cost too much and give too much
MaddDogg81 1 year ago
When 6 year old children are being whipped for not working fast enough, I'll remember the so-called wisdom of fat-cat John Stossel, and his support of such practices.
There is a warm place in hell for capitalists.
EspnNBAGeneral 1 year ago
@EspnNBAGeneral I agree. She's much better off starving to death!
tuberpi 1 year ago
@tuberpi No, they are much better off with actual money THAT THEY EARNED from the fat cats.
What we should do is take all the money in the world and divide it equally amongst all the people.
Boom....no more poverty. No more hunger. No more wage slavery.
But the greed of man prevents this ethical practice.
EspnNBAGeneral 1 year ago
@EspnNBAGeneral how'd that work out for the ussr,,, show one long term success of socialism
shortywarn 1 year ago
@shortywarn
Socialism cures poverty. Capitalism causes it. The facts don't support you, and idiots like John Stossel, who (look it up) literally held interns as unpaid slaves when he was first starting out in the business.
EspnNBAGeneral 1 year ago
@EspnNBAGeneral
1. If socialism cures poverty, why are the most socialist nations the poorest, and the most capitalist nations the richest?
2. "Unpaid slaves"? Those interns worked there because they chose to. If they wanted to go get a job as a waiter, they could have. The were happy for the opportunity to get some experience.
shamgar001 1 year ago
@shamgar001
Your justification for Stossel's exploitation of unpaid slaves reminds one of how white people (scientifically proved to be the most racist people on earth) use to justify slavery..."ah...it's for the black man's own good".
Pathetic.
EspnNBAGeneral 1 year ago
@EspnNBAGeneral Please cite the source of your "proof" that white people are more racist.
And slaves didn't choose to be slaves. Interns choose to be interns. Stossel didn't go to a market and buy his interns. They went to him and ASKED to work for him. Do you not realize what the definition of slavery is?
shamgar001 1 year ago
@shamgar001
Do you? All white people go out of their way to break the spirit and free will of other races. That is the legal definition of slavery.
EspnNBAGeneral 1 year ago
@EspnNBAGeneral Slavery: bondage: the state of being under the control of another person
Sounds like the person who's forced to produce a good or service to people. Something you advocate.
Keep being benevolent with other people's money. I see you're highly for income re-distribution with how you own a computer (that you would never afford if you earned the World average of $10,000). Not to mention your ideas sound a lot like Hugo Chavez and Robert Mugabe's. How are those econ masters doing?
jrsub3 1 year ago
@jrsub3
I got my computer because of Obama, who understands how important it is to eliminate exploitation of capitalists on the common man.
EspnNBAGeneral 1 year ago
@EspnNBAGeneral
If you'd "divide all the money", why would anyone study 5 years for an engineering degree? Why would anyone risk it in a dangerous job? Why would anyone work in a physically demanding job such as a lumberjack? Just be a clerk and earn as much as everone else. What a joke.
It doesn't work.
You really think we'd have an ipad if Steve Jobs had a minimum wage as a ceo? Would we have cars? Railways? You know things that directly make us more efficient?
Loomr 1 year ago
@Loomr
Learn something about economics and math.
If the poverty line is 10,000 dollars a year and 1 person makes 100,000 dollars a year, he can prevent 9 people (plus himself) from going into poverty if he actually shows compassion for his fellow man and divides the money evenly.
It's just logic. Sorry your corporate backers won't let you speak the truth about COMPASSION and JUSTICE.
EspnNBAGeneral 1 year ago
@EspnNBAGeneral
I'm sorry I won't discuss with people who show extreme gullibility, senseless arguments and religious like zeal so it'll be my last message.
Good luck in either trying to a) earn that 100,000 dollars a year and share it (which I highly doupt you can), b) trying to make people who do earn it to give 90% away willingly, or c) make the government do it.
Don't go living a bitter life if any of those don't happen because I'm pretty sure they won't.
Loomr 1 year ago
@Loomr
So in other words, you would prefer to have children starving in the streets, just so you can upgrade to a *slightly* nicer automobile?
Yes or no answer please.
EspnNBAGeneral 1 year ago
@EspnNBAGeneral Unlike you "progressives", conservatives understand the difference between society and government. Just because we don't want something to be done by the government doesn't mean we don't want it done at all.
Since you're so interested in science, it's been scientifically proven that conservatives in general are more charitable than liberals in general.
By the way, how much of your own wealth have you given away to the poor?
shamgar001 1 year ago
@shamgar001
Stealing 10 million dollars from people, and then donating 1 million to charity doesn't indicate any sort of good spirit.
I can't believe how easily sheep like you are fooled.
EspnNBAGeneral 1 year ago
Interesting, I didn't think of it this way.
bustapunk101 1 year ago
Bro this whole thing happened because of a mishap. Its not sweat shops, its sweatershops!
Chrisnoscrub047 1 year ago
@coturnix19 not when the average graduation rate is 22% lol.
MrFoodforthought92 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
american college students are full of shit. fuck them.
daPlumber702 1 year ago
I wonder if Clinton fucked her while she visited.
jwka2001 1 year ago
If only the world did not have fiat currency, poor people who work hard would not be in such dire circumstances. Imagine working hard and saving money for 10 years and having its purchasing wiped out because of your government.
Tasadaru 1 year ago
I would just like to point out that the people John is talking to "from countries that have sweatshops" don't actually work in sweatshops. The people who actually work in sweatshops do not necessarily share their opinion. What he's doing is akin to doing a story on tax cuts for the rich, and consulting only wealthy people in America who favor tax cuts for the rich. It's not necessarily inaccurate, but it's incredibly one-sided. I wonder why he didn't talk to just one sweatshop laborer...
watermelonygoodness 1 year ago
@watermelonygoodness Not really, it is obvious these people know people who work in "sweatshops", and they see the effect of the laws that close them down. They are also people facing the reality of the world economy in that they see that what we consider "exploitation" in some cases is actually the beginnings of opportunities in areas where companies move in, where there were none before! And that as he points out most of the time these companies are paying up to two to three times avg.wage.
Christopholaes 1 year ago
@watermelonygoodness Then go look up milton friedman's free to choose, it was a series made in the 70's and re-visited in the 80s for pbs, wherein one episode Milton talks to actual workers from "sweat shops", (with a translator) and is told that those in other countries who wish to have "Sweat shops" closed down are foolish, and evil. They went that one step farther than these economists who you have tried to minimalize the views of.
daPlumber702 1 year ago
@daPlumber702 I haven't seen the series to which you are referring, but I have seen other sweatshop labourers talking about the horrendous conditions in which they work. Santa's Workshop for one example. Not all conditions in overseas factories are the same. And I'm not calling for them to be closed down, I'm calling for the overseas factories wherein workers are abused and mistreated to be reformed.
watermelonygoodness 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@daPlumber702 I don't understand what you mean when you say, "They went that one step farther than these economists who you have tried to minimalize the views of." Who went one step farther? Milton Friedman? He went farther than which economists I minimalize? Milton Friedman? This sentence makes no sense to me. Maybe you have misunderstood my position.
watermelonygoodness 1 year ago
What these kids in first world countries don't understand is that in many countries u have to work at ten , twelve, fourteen or whatever because you starve if u do not. Some have no parents, lack of a welfare or social security system in their nation etc. And they need to understand the wages in poorer countries are lower because the economy cannot sustain high wages across most industries like in first world countries! i mean do they not understand the basic maths of it?
Christopholaes 1 year ago
@Christopholaes It's not that I don't get the math. I just think it's unfair for corporations to deny workers their right to unionize. I just think it's unfair for corporations to deny workers their breaks. I just think it's unfair for corporations to take advantage of looser laws in developing countries and subject workers to hazardous conditions. I'm not saying this happens in every international manufacturing plant, but it is the reality of many.
watermelonygoodness 1 year ago
@watermelonygoodness I would agree with u in principle, but the reality is life isn't fair, and we have to do the best with what we got. What is obvious is that "sweatshops" seem to be a necessary evil as a stepping stone to stronger more robust industry types being created in developing nations. Shutting them down only prolongs the poverty in many cases as well! Also i think u will find that many of the conditions in these work places are not as the media would like to portray them.
Christopholaes 1 year ago
"I have a solution for sweatshops, air conditioning! Problem solved."
Smashtime2000 1 year ago
hippie liberal douches...
However, I feel kind of sorry for the kids because they think they're doing the right thing but they're just naive.
IndividualParties 1 year ago
"College nerd assembles a group of 3 ok looking women to help the poor" - Why The Onion news still haven't thought of this?
mowgly3000 1 year ago
in AMERICA walmart employees have to go on welfare because walmart would rather save money on wages to buy a couple knockoff "predator" dvd's. and that is never going to change because they control the market it's been going on since 1860.
what fucking leverage could you possibly be talking about?!
i don't know what sort of utopian delusion inducing drug you've been taking but i want some.
rustyoneone 1 year ago
you can't imagine how a company with as much resources as they have can control a market? your problem.
you believe that the market is a living breathing organism that can't be controlled or 'tamed'. failures of imagination. that's the problem with libertarians, a whole lot of textbook simplistic concepts and NO imagination.
you believe that eventually this sort of behavior will bring the third world into our fold.
rustyoneone 1 year ago
i loved the little girl he had come on and say that things are better in her town,
she's probably a sweatshop manager, having no understanding between measurably better, and meaningfully better...
but my favorite was the hindu guy who had no idea why they are called sweatshops. "sweat is bad?"
LMAO
rustyoneone 1 year ago
4:53 is priceless. LOL.
MoonPeeps0304 1 year ago
Comment removed
MoonPeeps0304 1 year ago
99% of the population doesn´t know how wages rise (if not by mandatory and harmful govt. laws) and 99,9% hasn´t even thought about it
Burdell22000 1 year ago