Sweatshop Wages and Third-World Workers: Are the Wages Worth the Sweat?

[Longlivepalestine]

While I agree with the vast majority of what he says, he still fudges a fundamental point (see 12:35). "The companies may make a profit...they are profit-maximizers"

Let's look at Apple. Extremely profitable. Most liquid company, tons of cash. So much that they don't know what to do with it.

And yet they still use sweat shop labor for their iPhones. If they give up a fraction of their profits they could fix working conditions and still remain #1 on the market even without raising prices.

[HumbleWillis]

People petition and try to hard to stop child labor in poor foreign nations thinking that they are helping the kids, but what they don't know is that if the child wasn't sewing buttons onto shirts for 12 hours a day, she would be a child prostitute. The sweat shop saves her from that horror.  It's not the best childhood to work in a sweat shop, but it's better than the alternative. Long story short, a lot of people would be better off if we would just mind our own business.

[52000rightwing]

Very insightful video. I liked his idea at 29:30, protesters should induce higher pay in sweatshop workers by convincing employers to rebrand their products.

[KayamaTakeru]

Lemme clarify, and be done with this psycho-trolling. Free-trade is the most moral system, but it isn't going to lead to equality. To create a system that aims for equality first, someone is going have to have the power to take from some and give to others.

Here are my questions: How is that different from stealing? How would you keep immoral people from obtaining and exploiting that power? What happens to innovation without the profit motive?

[m3anmik3y]

@KayamaTakeru Stealing implies you are entitled to own in the first place, you don't and should not own anything but personal property. Read up on socialist democracy. Why should someone have more economic power than others? How do we keep THEM from obtaining and exploiting their economic power (we can't and it's even encouraged). Innovation without profit motive: /watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc Capitalism is the most moral system? Unless you believe in master slave morality, you're very misinformed.

[juicyappleish]

@m3anmik3y I suggest that you use up ALL your savings to buy a factory with all the hitech machines. Then start a business and charge zero profit.

Or, if youre not that rich, you use up ALL your savings to buy shares of stocks in a business and donate ALL the profits you receive to charity.

Lead an example

[StateExempt]

@m3anmik3y - Who dictates what you may own and how would you keep them in check?

[Illyrien]

@m3anmik3y

Its fun how you mention master slave morality. Afterall the free market is the absence of the use of force, thus since you advocate another economic organization, you would have to use force to achieve it. How can it ever be morale to use violence to force others to adopt your pet system?

[jmitterii2]

@Illyrien your pet system is an illusion of freedom with power to the business owner instead of a government. Which is worse. They both can be. Are sweat shops necessary over all? My strong opinion is HELL NO.

[leeknivek]

@jmitterii2 What's the alternative to sweat shops, then? Why would that be better?

[jmitterii2]

@leeknivek Farming and making a better wage with internally built businesses. Requiring foreign investment minimum standards to achieve better quality of life. Many of these bastards sell their land and think they'll get rich in the city. Only to venture to the city and get stuck in shit holes and in dorms that have piss everywhere that are less sanitary than where they came from.

[leeknivek]

@jmitterii2 How is that done? If they aren't worth being employed for anything more they just aren't going to be employed. The minimum wage doesn't work here in the states. I can't imagine it working anywhere else, either.

That's their own fault if they sell their land and go bust. I have no sympathy for them.

[jmitterii2]

@leeknivek Obviously you are an animal not a human. I hope we don't evolve to an ant robot you seem to be. And the min wage has worked otherwise, we'd already be in the midst of a civil war. I discovered these vids are all libertarian blowhards.Problem with libs, you all are the same has far left communists. You live in a fantasy world that all of one way will work. As for your logic, could be used for anything, you assuming the parties have nothing better to do but sweatshop.

[leeknivek]

@jmitterii2 Liberals and libertarians are not the same thing. Nor are libertarians left-wing or right-wing.

How has the minimum wage worked? It's outsourced our jobs and caused rampant unemployment. If the minimum wage works so well then why don't we raise it to $100 an hour? If a worker is not worth $4 an hour, why would anyone pay them $7 an hour? or $20?

If you can apply my logic to other things then please do so and prove me wrong. I'd genuinely be happy to be enlightened.

[jmitterii2]

@leeknivek Look at Egypt, they're workers haven't had an increase in min wages since 80's. The pay remains stagnant. Boom civil war, they spend majority of their money just for food. Its the very exploitation that causes unemployment and underemployment both are not a sustainable approach to any productive society. They're I've enlightened you.

[leeknivek]

@jmitterii2 Egypt also had a pretty severe dictatorship since the 80's. I'm not positive but I'm pretty sure they didn't have any sort of free market there - hence their distaste for Mubarek.

[jmitterii2]

@Illyrien Force is there, in the free market, its there generally by the wealthy and loan holders. Hidden hand my ass.

[qkcxv]

Firstly, I'm really anjoying all of the videos in the economics playlist. With regard to this video I think I understand all of your points. But what I dont get is that about $1 from a $100 pair of shoes goes to the worker. Surely Nike (or indeed all users of cheap labour) would not lose very much by doubling that labour cost. They could even passthat cost directly to the consumer and I doubt people would mind, especially if marketed in that 'fair trade' way. What do you think?

[m3anmik3y]

@qkcxv Shhh they might hear you! The people here are all subservient morons, to question the accumulation of wealth is wrong to them. You're absolutely right, and I would go way further than 2x, I would rather have at least the huge majority of profit go to the worker, not to a market manipulator.

[benallen12]

@qkcxv He actually suggests that in this video. Having a group or organization certify that some garment or pair of shoes are made with sweatshop labor, and instead of boycotting the item, charging an extra premium that would go straight to the workers. For this to work though, the consumer would have to be willing to pay that extra premium.

[leeknivek]

@qkcxv It may cost $1 to initially produce them but I'm sure it costs quite a bit more to ship them overseas and to a store near you. If that doesn't sit well with you then just don't associate with their products. Nobody's forcing you to buy them!

[qkcxv]

@leeknivek Shipping and tax is about $8. My point is what's an extra dollar to you to double someone's wages? Nobody's forcing them to pay their workers so little. If I don't buy their products then the worker wont even be getting that $1 so that's no solution either. Not so easy is it...

[leeknivek]

@qkcxv Does it? Where'd you get that number from? $8 per what amount? Per shipping container? Per shoe? Be specific.

An extra dollar to double someone's wages effectively means half the production. Though, really, that's besides the point anyways. The employer can pay them however much they desire. If an employee doesn't like that - he doesn't have to work there.

Of course it's easy. That's just not the solution you'd like to commit to.

[leeknivek]

@qkcxv What's stopping you from making your own sweat shop that pays twice as much? What's stopping anyone else from doing it? Surely if you pay DOUBLE the wages then nearly everyone in the area would want to work for you. Plus, you'd get the support of all of these morally righteous types who'd prefer your products!

[therealtruth123]

To the supporters of sweatshops: presumably you have a limit as to what working conditions should be allowed. For example should prostitution be legal? In Thailand there are performers who stuff canaries into their vaginas for money. They apparently 'choose' to have this job, but do you think there is a limit to the degredation people should be able to put themselved in for money?

[ElJefer]

@therealtruth123

What is the alternative to a woman stuffing a canary in her vagina? If it's worse, then I support the canary stuffing.

[supahsekzy]

@therealtruth123 To answer the question: No, there should not be a limit, and certainly not a governmental limit. As long as a consenting adult chooses it for themselves, no matter how depraved, even if that means prostitution, and as long as that person doesn't harm another in the process, who are you to ever impose such a limit?

[m3anmik3y]

Wow guys look at these people. If we didn't pay them 1 cent an hour they would DIE. We're the good guys here, can't you see?! Fucking disgusting propaganda. Capitalism is a dying system, we NEED socialism.

[ElJefer]

@m3anmik3y

It's not propaganda if a good argument is presented with evidence. Dispute the argument, not a Straw Man

[m3anmik3y]

@ElJefer The argument is flawed from the beginning, they are arguing from a capitalist perspective from the very origin. It's like asking whether or not a man who steals another mans food is helping the man who was stolen from by giving him a fraction of his original food. Ludicrous.

[ElJefer]

@m3anmik3y So you oppose capitalism. On what basis?

[m3anmik3y]

@ElJefer On the basis of stagnation and disparity. The idea that humanity can only be motivated by profit also sickens me.

[ElJefer]

@m3anmik3y You say Capitalism has caused stagnation and disparity, but you show no evidence for this. On the other hand, there is a clear trend among more Capitalistic countries to improve the lives of people at all income levels relative to non-Capitalistic countries. You also show no argument for the idea that motivation by profit is immoral. It might sicken you, but that has no bearing on the value of motivation by profit.

[m3anmik3y]

@ElJefer WOW IMAGINE THAT! A system designed to exploit the poor is doing better than the poor??!??! Motivation by profit is not immoral, it's just plain wrong, and so are you. Look at this video, /watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc .

[ElJefer]

@m3anmik3y

Please use reason to support your claims. If you just say that it's "designed to exploit the poor", show that it is with graphs or evidence. Also make an argument that motivation by profit is immoral or I can't take you seriously. I can make many claims against yours, like "Capitalism is a wonderful system," but you wouldn't agree unless I showed you evidence. So show me evidence that Capitalism leads to a lower standard of living relative to other systems.

[m3anmik3y]

@ElJefer I didn't say it was immoral I said it was inherently NOT a motivator. Did you watch the video you fucking moron? Evidence for exploitation? Are you fucking kidding me? Take a gander past your imperialist-capitalist paradise, just a little peek. Can you honestly say that isn't the result of disparity caused by capitalism? HAA. And you say I am not being reasonable?

Here's a link for you, though I doubt you can understand it. arxiv org /PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1107/1107.­5728v2.pdf

[ElJefer]

@m3anmik3y We might be arguing about different systems of Capitalism. I advocate a free-market system which is Capitalistic, but a system can be Capitalistic and admit of a large amount of government intervention, thus not being very free market.

To prevent confusion, what conditions do you currently believe create the most prosperity and which conditions create the most stagnation and disparity, as you said earlier? So, how much of the means of production should be privately owned, etc?

[m3anmik3y]

@ElJefer None

[ElJefer]

@m3anmik3y None of the means of production should be privately owned? Who should own them instead?

[m3anmik3y]

@ElJefer Nobody should "own" anything but personal property. Nobody should have an inherent edge over anyone else designated by society. I would entertain the idea of no state, however it is unfeasible and so we must rely on democratic process to eliminate the last remaining corruption after the economic corruption is eliminated. The state should own production, but the people comprise the state, and the people are equal thus less conflict of interest of most states today. Until post scarcity.

[KayamaTakeru]

@m3anmik3y Disparity is not inherently caused by capitalism. Men are not born equal. Some are taller, faster, stronger, smarter or more beautiful. Free Market Capitalism is the freedom to own and trade and choose what I make with what others make, instead of just strong arm stealing it.

[m3anmik3y]

@KayamaTakeru So the poor must starve? I can name countless poor people who were infinitely and objectively superior. This is starting to sound like eugenics, are you really going to try and argue that logically? Are you saying that if you inherit money but have not worked for it you are entitled to it? Is that what you really believe? Capitalism is the freedom to trade freely after conquering. Strong arm stealing? What is this? Are you parroting a line from some right wing talkshow? Elaborate.

[StateExempt]

@m3anmik3y - Instead of sheltering yourself with RSAanimate, do you really believe every job in existence today can be done in the absence of getting anything in return?

[m3anmik3y]

@StateExempt But you are getting something in return, it just isn't economic power. Just like how you can imagine a world without a government, I can imagine a world without economic inequality (the real problem, not the state)

Economic inequality leads to a state regardless, so give up on being an ancap, it's the worst ideology by far.

[StateExempt]

@m3anmik3y - Being motivated to provide a good or service for other people and get something in return is the antithesis of anything immoral.

[m3anmik3y]

@StateExempt So a doctor who is providing his service for a 6 figure pay cheque is more moral than a doctor who does it because he believes his work is meaningful?

[MemoryTechnologies]

@ElJefer m3anmik3y is another excellent example of a 25 year old that has all the answers. Evidently educated in our wonderful liberal public schools, like so many of the losers that think the reason someone is not successful is because someone else is exploiting them. It is our fault that so many kids in America have fallen for this crap.

[m3anmik3y]

@MemoryTechnologies Oh but I haven't learned any of this in a public school, in fact this is all a result of critical thinking and the knowledge of the world at my fingertips, and the will to grasp it.

[StateExempt]

@m3anmik3y - Unless evidence surfaces that such a system works better than allowing people to make the exchanges they wish, I will have to say no to socialism.

[m3anmik3y]

@StateExempt Capitalism does not allow people to make the exchanges to wish though. Free market =/= freedom. And judging by your name, you're a moron. Go fuck yourself.

[StateExempt]

@m3anmik3y - By definition, yes it does. You are allowed to use your resources as you please unlike Socialism in which a select few make decisions for everyone else. No one puts a gun to your head and makes you buy a certain good or service, unlike government which forces you to pay for something whether or not you feel you could have better used that money elsewhere.

As for that last sentence I do envy my knowledge and intellectual prowess, but not that much. ;-D

[m3anmik3y]

@StateExempt You are allowed to use your resources however you wish in a communist state, and that's even more "radical" than a socialist state. I have no idea where you get these outlandish claims from, you are not describing anything tangible. And your last sentence is flawed so fatally it's humourous, you envy your own characteristics?

[StateExempt]

@m3anmik3y - The last sentence was a spin on the last sentence in your first reply to me, can't you tell?

If I were allowed to use my resources as I desire without a central authority enforcing "stipulations" on that, then it would cease to be communism.

[m3anmik3y]

@StateExempt Hmmm? You have no idea what you are referencing, please read up on the difference between private property and personal property. Arguing semantics is quite silly, since I can say nothing and everything is capitalism depending on slight discrimination , but you can still get the vague idea of what capitalism entails.

[StateExempt]

@m3anmik3y - Private and personal property are the same thing, but you claim there is a difference then by all means enlighten me.

[m3anmik3y]

@StateExempt How about you use this nifty thing called google? You are so fucking stupid it hurts my brain, you are arguing about politics, and you don't even know the difference between private and personal property?!?! Just kill yourself man, people like you deserve death for being so useless and ignorant.

[StateExempt]

@m3anmik3y - After using this product of the largely free market called Google, I have found (as I suspected I would) that it is a metaphysical distinction that only Marxists claim to have knowledge of. It is ill-defined and does not have any use in allocating resources - unless you specify it ad-hoc to sound more plausible.

As the first source notes:

"They are separated by a sometimes blurry boundary; which items of property constitute which is open to debate."

Maybe you can site a source?

[m3anmik3y]

@StateExempt Personal property- belongings you purchase and are entitled to

Private property - owned by leftist government

[StateExempt]

@m3anmik3y - Talk about specificity!

So can you give me some examples of what would go into each category and why? Or does the manuscript end there?

[m3anmik3y]

@StateExempt You're not even arguing a valid point any more, refute my central argument, I am not going to describe every single working of a government over youtube.Why do I even bother with someone who believes anarchy would ever work.

[StateExempt]

@m3anmik3y - You have yet to even give a workable distinction towards private and "personal" property so until then there is nothing concrete that you have presented that anyone can criticize.

Nor am I asking you to describe the full workings of Socialism, I am asking you to define your terms and give examples and negations so everyone can understand what you are trying to promote.

[m3anmik3y]

@StateExempt I don't want to promote anything, I just want to tear down capitalism, I have no idea what the perfect replacement might be, but it starts with the abolition of capitalism. Or at least the admittance of its failures when combined with democracy.

[StateExempt]

@m3anmik3y - So you want to tear down private ownership or what exactly is it that you are against?

[m3anmik3y]

@StateExempt I am against the inevitable tragedies and exploitation that result from private ownership and thus economic disparity.

[StateExempt]

@m3anmik3y - Examples? And would you care to explain how your ideal form of government or lack thereof would not lead to anything worse?

[supahsekzy]

@m3anmik3y Free market absolutely = freedom. What other system could possibly be considered freer?

[m3anmik3y]

@supahsekzy Economic freedom is not personal freedom, do not mix them up, it is not a trivial distinction.

As a side note, would you say the workers of sweat shops are free?

[supahsekzy]

@m3anmik3y I don't deny that the conditions of the worker in those areas have extremely poor living conditions, compared to what the Western world enjoys. But for the most part (not counting FORCED sweatshop labor) they are free to leave. They choose to work there because that's their best opportunity. In the example of Hong Kong, the poor of China were risking their lives fleeing from Communist China and into Hong Kong where free markets allowed them to make upward progress.

[m3anmik3y]

@supahsekzy Exactly, it is their best situation due to the disparity caused by the inherent flaw of capitalism itself, and it will ONLY grow. So at what point will you accept that it needs to be completely abolished, not reset, but annihilated?

[m3anmik3y]

@supahsekzy And to say they are "free" to leave is wrong in a fashion. Sure they are free to "leave", but where can they leave to? They cannot afford a ship or plane ride to america, they are enslaved and they require that job to live. They are free to die,definitely. But everyone is free to die.

[me25422]

if the governments crappy policies why would the nikes go to these places? because they can pay the workers so poorly

[me25422]

and i disagree with you. wages are low because they can get away with paying them such a low wage.,

[tewj57]

@me25422 These companies pay much higher wages than domestic companies are paying. Why are you not criticizing the domestic companies? Could it be because you're an economic ignoramus who's been told he must hate "multinational corporations"?

[me25422]

the sweatshops could still pay the workers a higher wage right? so what if 2 centa is the highest wage available in town. 7 bucks an hour is not too much.

[tewj57]

@me25422 Do you know anything about productivity and wage determination at all? Do you actually think the reason people have earned higher real wages over time is that governments have intervened to bring it about? Please tell me that even you don't believe something so absurd.

[me25422]

@tewj57 okay now that you have attempted to verbal degrade me by questioning my knowledge and or intelligence. if you are the expert please tell me why a company could not pay its workers in a 3rd world country more then mere pennies. if you could do it without the attitude that would be nice. seeing as i did subscribe to your page and all

[FletchforFreedom]

@me25422 ALL wages are determined by supply and demand and demand is contingent upon the return that the worker can produce. Employers who deviate from market wages suffer significant consequences - underpaying results in the loss of the best workers and bankruptcy; overpaying results in undermined competitiveness and bankruptcy. In either case, the workers find the jobs gone. How does that make them better off?

[jismith1989]

Also, this man equates higher than average standards of living with higher than average wages. But if you're working 16 hours a day for 7 days a week, when the fuck do you actually get to enjoy the fruits of your labour and enjoy the supposed higher standard of living? Might some free time not improve standard of living in and of itself?

[UnderTheTunk]

@jismith1989 The video should've showed you that there is no black-and-white answer to "sweatshops". You won't get any closer to the truth if you dismiss everyone who disagrees with you as "moronic". Of course it's "incumbent on any of us with humanity to create better alternatives". Nobody disputes this as a GOAL. It's ludicrous to pretend that, while everyone else is a pig "enjoying the fruits of oppression", you are somehow the only one who cares about others. The question is BY WHAT MEANS?

[UnderTheTunk]

@jismith1989 The point of the video was to demonstrate that you ARE NOT HELPING if you examine the admittedly limited range of options of third-world workers, and choose to remove through the use of government force THE ONE OPTION they ACTUALLY chose, e.g. by making working for wages or in conditions below a certain standard illegal. By doing so, even though you might be filled with noble intentions, you are not increasing their standard of living: you are demonstrably decreasing it.

[UnderTheTunk]

Your assumption is that somehow a privileged Westerner on YouTube can run poor people's lives better than they can themselves. But utility is SUBJECTIVE. The option of working indoors for a wage several times the national income is obviously not considered "heinous" by workers themselves, or they wouldn't have opted for it. Maybe they would like more free time. On the other hand, sweatshop wages often liberate parents from reliance on UN aid and are often used to send kids to school.

[UnderTheTunk]

There is a crucial difference between FREEDOM and ABUNDANCE of choice. Stranded on a deserted island, you're clearly FREE TO CHOOSE whatever you want. However, you don't have an ABUNDANCE of choices; you can either forage, look for shelter, collect food, etc. or starve. We can only guarantee the former. If no man is inhibited in his freedom to trade, that is just. A law making it illegal for to work $50/hr would be UNJUST, benefiting some (skilled labour) AT THE EXPENSE of others (unskilled).

[UnderTheTunk]

A greater abundance of choice is something that ONLY economic development can bring about. Only after you finds shelter and food on your island can you focus on satisfying other wants. Only after poor workers are free to save and invest capital will their standard of living rise. (Powell, in fact, makes the point at the end that one reason why their wages haven't been rising as fast as they could is poor protection of property rights. "The Mystery of Capital" elaborates on this argument.)

[jismith1989]

When the choices are, as you rightly say, all heinous, there is no free choice. In such circumstances, one cannot make a legitimate moral distiction between wage slavery (where the worker 'chooses' to do a certain job out of necessity and a desire to contine living) and slavery proper: only someone who was enjoying the fruits of this oppression could make a futile and facile distinction.

[jismith1989]

What are the other alternatives? It is incumbent on any of us with humanity to create better alternatives, not simply just to shrug at the lack of them, carry on buying our Nike trainers in the knowledge that the workers would be fucked either way and term it good libertarian economics. A moronic thesis/video.

[SpookyFan]

Another counter-intuitive idea has changed my mind.

[TheCaptinLove]

I was liking this until "I love sweat shops and so should you". It good that the negative effects of the strategies for fighting sweatshops were pointed out, but use that as an excuse for not fighting them at all is ridiculous.

[superlucci]

@TheCaptinLove If your fighting against something that is benefitting you such that if you fight it it goes away.

Then what your doing is ridiculous

[TheCaptinLove]

@superlucci Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I should have been. I was saying that more effective stratigies need to be thought up.

[Champraves311]

The poor economic conditions of these countries were created by a long history of colonialization, imperialism, civil war, ethnic tensions (a lot of times spawned by anti-marxist or anti-"terror" foreign policy--destroying any chances of democratization and stability; not to mention these laborers and farmers have to compete against western subsidies; this creates social instability for monopolies to buy all property rights of a region, forcing sweatshops to be the best economic choice.

[Keeban3]

You have to take into account that companies have an incentive to lower the lower bound of worker choice. This means that a clever but evil coorporation will do things to harm worker alternatives e.g. destroy resources or other companies.

Furthermore, you have to be on the lookout for the creation of company towns. Often companies will buy the right to have a monopoly over vital resources that the workers must buy and raise the cost of living.

Sweatshops are good but banana republics are not

[slumberingsam]

This definitely made me rethink my opinion about sweatshops. 

[TheArunsingh1]

Amazing video.

[andreirailean]

Wow. Turns out sweatshops are a good thing. Good presentation.

[lambmian]

what's biasing down the statistics in China is the huge inequality of wealth!!!!! Say one person is a millionare, and all the other 99 people have only 1 dollar, on average their income is approximately $10,000 while 99% of the population would be happy with an income of $2 which is far below the inflated "average"--$10,000

[hazeywolf]

@lambmian This is the classic Marxist critique of capitalism - the ownership class is the golden rule; those with the gold make the rules.

[lambmian]

@hazeywolf I'm not critiquing capitalism, I'm merely pointing out the cause of the downward bias in the ratio of sweat shop salary rate to its opportunity cost because the professor in the video seems to be a bit puzzled by this abnormal figure and resorted to forced labor which is not the case since I'm living in china and I know it.

[labcoatmedia]

well, we like things cheap dont we? lower prices... lower morals.

[Steve83B]

@labcoatmedia Hey. Poor people LOVE higher prices....

[hazeywolf]

@labcoatmedia No, its not so straight-forward. Good people buy cheap stuff; it happens @ the expense of poor people who had the misfortune of being born in the the "3rd world." Ultimately, its immoral. Global corps max their profit margin by taking advantage of poverty & corrupt 2nd/3rd world gov''s & exploit labor markets via pure, legal capitalism... But its hard to blame anyone for choosing to buy a cheap good,,. even if its an immoral system that produced it, all things considered...

[TheMoriMaster]

@hazeywolf (Cont) And again, these better jobs come from industrialization. Once these countries go through the process, sped up with globalization, they'll have better jobs and more alternatives due to higher production. A middle class will develop. What they lack is capital, which is why firms from 1st world nations investing in their country and moving production there is good. This happened in every industrialized nation to date.

[hazeywolf]

@TheMoriMaster I'm a libertarian, dues paying member of CATO, believe in free markets.Generally, I agree w/u, but the US trade law is run by plutogarchic corporatists. Check out CSPANs recent vids of Kissinger on China, & Soros/Epstein/Caldwell "Constitution of Liberty" (on Hayek). I've been to Antigua, Guatemala (& other 2nd/3rd world sites) & have experienced the the situations Powell addresses in this vid. US Trade policy is in the thrall of corporatist plutarchy (oligarchic plutocracy).

[hazeywolf]

@labcoatmedia Ultimately, yes - but sadly, I doubt many people on Earth really have much of a grasp about the current the global economic environment or have much compassion for anyone outside of their own cultural in-group. Certainly, the US labor market is failing itself in terms of keeping its skills, education, government, and spending in line with current global economic realities.

[THEGREGDREW]

Such an awesome video, thanks for that! I shall pass this around to all the bleeding-hearts.

[shinimog]

some people just gotta accept that while they preach about these ideal lands, that if they give those laborers more money for some reason, regardless of age, then the price of our products would increase. This would cause people to be pissed off and lead to more tax cuts because people want the prices to remain the same. in the end, our government ends up taking up the debt for our preaching. because honestly, if you can shoulder the national debt, fucken do it, then we'll listen to you.

[hazeywolf]

Our trade policies allow domestic jobs to be outsourced to labor markets that don't share our values (child labor, sweat shops, health & safety regulation, environmental protections, etc.). Its disgraceful that US consumers and our government self-righteously think its ok for people in other countries to be subject to such terrible conditions and view such tragic exploitation as good opportunity for them, but have another, higher expectation and standard for our own US labor and safety values.

[shinimog]

@hazeywolf You might think its despicable, but aside from corporate greed, the fact remains that they need money and other countries aren't as fortunate as us where children are actually better off going to school than working. Many people may complain about their 9-5 jobs and though their experiences vary, and while taking into consideration the cost of living in the U.S. it may very well suck, but most of these people do not know true despair that many of these sweat shop people know well.

[hazeywolf]

@shinimog I think you entirely missed my point. If you allow to be imported or buy an imported product made in a sweat-shop, you are supporting an exploitative system. Instead, we should should impose trade agreements that don't exploit the poor, but rather pressure their government's and businesses to adopt our values and create more equity and fair trade practices. We should pressure our trade partners to agree to the same minimum labor and safety values which we impose on ourselves.

[shinimog]

@hazeywolf I know what you're getting at, but if you pressure these our trade partners and they don't change, then some people might go so far as to boycott those products and if those companies close, then those people will no longer be payed money that they would gladly work for. I'm just saying that other countries don't have the luxuries we have in labor nor can they afford it. Relatively, it would be like increasing the national minimum wage to 10 bucks while providing full health care.

[MOONDOGGIESWTF]

@hazeywolf lol did you even watch the video?

[Wormtail81]

@MOONDOGGIESWTF What is he saying?

[TheMoriMaster]

@hazeywolf When we industrialized child labor declined because more families could afford to send their children off to school because they made enough money to do so. The labor laws did nothing but hurt the poorer families that needed the extra money. You must understand that making comparisons between us and 3rd world nations is unfounded. They are a lot less wealthy and have a lot less technology and infrastructure than we do. Forcing our living conditions on these countries would crush them.

[hazeywolf]

@TheMoriMaster No, I disagree. We don't owe any jobs to anyone. We have values which are reflected by domestic regulations about human rights and safety. If the 1st world pushed for the adoption of such basic labor, safety & environmental via trade policy, 2nd and 3rd world labor would still be cheaper than 1st world labor. Prices would go up, but so would the rest of the world economy & 1st world compensation to meet inflation. Also, there would be more labor parity and just competition.

[TheMoriMaster]

@hazeywolf "We don't owe any jobs to anyone."

Who said we did? These firms choose to move production to 3rd world nations. It's their decision to make.

"We have values which are reflected by domestic regulations about human rights and safety. "

Most regulations are spawned from corruption and are used to favor certain firms whom are in bed with politicians. Really says a lot about our values, huh?

[hazeywolf]

@TheMoriMaster The US economy is in service to its citizens, we aren't in service to a global corporatist economy.

I agree that our regulatory environment is subject to corruption, especially by global corporatists - but labor law, safety regs, and environmental regs aren't examples of that at all. Rather, its in the interests of global corporations and despotic governments to exploit cheap 2nd/3rd world labor that produces cheap goods to be sold at huge profit margins in the 1st world.

[TheMoriMaster]

@hazeywolf (Cont) And you're implying that better conditions comes from our "values." It doesn't. It comes from industrialization.

"If the 1st world pushed for the adoption of such basic labor, safety & environmental via trade policy 2nd and 3rd world labor would still be cheaper than 1st world labor"

Few in the first world would take the job because there are better jobs out there for them. Businesses compete for labor too. You don't need regulations for better payment and working conditions.

[hazeywolf]

@TheMoriMaster No, better "conditions" come from republican democracy, liberalism, governmental & economic/financial transparency, meritocracy & rule of law, or from temporary, benign dictatorialism toward stability and the implementation of the former. Industrialization exists in N. Korea, Nazism, Stalinism, Maoism, and classically fictionalized Charles Dicken's or Orwellian style dystopias... industrialization doesn't inherently connote to freedom, human rights, or raised standards of living.

[lockdown260]

@hazeywolf We can not force people to be as rich and productive as the US. Often time those jobs are many times better than the opportunities they have in their country due to a number of factors. I'll gladly "exploit " the 3rd world worker if it keeps the child laborer away from a life of prostitution or if it keeps another family from destitution or if it means they'll make 3 times their national average wage.

[hazeywolf]

@lockdown260 I appreciate your reasoning and agree with the reality you present, however; our trade policies can help reduce such exploitation and sweat shops. Some international companies are exploiting third world labor markets in a race to the bottom in the name of profits and in a way which does not reflect our so called values. Our trade policy is thus corrupted by int'l corps. immoral exploitation.

[lockdown260]

@hazeywolf Every economy if expected to grow must go through this time of growth. The US went through it & europe went through it. After a while, we gained enough capital to exit that level of work for things that were safer and more profitable. The main way to help the 3rd world is to makes so that their countries are stable enough to make companies feel safe bringing high value jobs to that country.

[hazeywolf]

@lockdown260 OK, I agree in principle. But if I'm a US business owner, why should do business in the US if I can't compete on an even playing field? If we value human rights, labor, safety, and environmental issues so much, why not press for foreign producers to abide by some degree of regulatory equity for moral and business reasons? Answer: global corporatist profiteering that harms US workers and exploits foreign labor in the name of profit.

[lockdown260]

@hazeywolf Well the fact is your anwser is wrong. Companies who export jobs tend to hire more Us workers(in higher wage jobs) that companies who don't(feel free to fact check me). It's a win-win in the sense that the 3rd world has higher paying wages than they had b4 , we get a cheaper product and the company makes money. & again the fact is the 3rd world is still developing. You can't logically expect them to keep up with the 1st world in any of those areas and still make money.

[KarateKidX]

@hazeywolf

You have 2 options for being against sweat shops

1. You can take the protectionism angle and say that sweatshops take jobs away from the USA

2. You can be wrong

[hazeywolf]

@KarateKidX No, the US remains the largest economy in the world. We can, especially with the support of the EU, push for parity in international labor policy in the 2nd & 3rd world. International corporations are profiteering on the backs of the poor. If you think that sweat shops are ok for the so called 2nd and 3rd world, you must assume those are also acceptable conditions for the the 1st world to allow & remain fair/competitive...so, child labor, indentured labor, no safety, pollution.

[KarateKidX]

@hazeywolf

I'd argue with you, But it occurs to me that you ought to watch this video. The guy in the video can makes the argument in a much more compelling way than i can.

[hazeywolf]

@KarateKidX I watched your Semi-Socialism vid... u seem a little intellectually dishonest here, but I respect your thoughts. I'm mostly anarchic-libertarian ideologically; if u support "bailing out" environmental/evolutionary failures like endangered ecosystems or animals (tiger, buffalo, salmon, redwoods, etc.) - ie, stressed ecosystems which are subject to extreme depredation, then how can you not apply the same little "s" socialism/protectionism to human labor markets as a human ecosystem?

[KarateKidX]

@hazeywolf

If you took the "semi-socialism" idea to sweatshops, that would mean that the government would have to come in, and give people in these third world countries better jobs than sweatshop jobs, but they would also have to draw a profit themselves in order to make it work.

In order to get the desired effect, you would also have to do it in such away that sustains the flow of income into that country, or else it just worsens the problem.

[hazeywolf]

@shinimog Why does Powell exclude "slave labor" in this argument? What about prison or indentured labor, child labor, labor for minimum sustainment (food). By Powell's logic, why not allow 3rd world child sex-labor for minimum survival food rations? He's set up a bare minimum of moral equivalence...The claim could be made that the poor kids would starve otherwise - never mind the government corruption and exploitative factors involved... Lets improve our trade policies to reflet our values.

[shinimog]

@hazeywolf Well, once you start to include slave labor, then of course you can't support it in this day and age. However, these people aren't forced to do these jobs, they can quit if they wanted to. Now if you are saying that this is a sort of 'entrapment', you are correct, however this sort of entrapment still exists in countries including our own; they keep us in our WalMart jobs, and 9-5 shifts.

[hazeywolf]

@shinimog Yes, I don't thinks such artificial, virtual "enslavement" is wide spread, but it does exist, & its fair to say that I can't compete as as a US employer or employee with 2nd/3rd world business or workers because they don't have the same regulatory burdens as I do. However, global corps & US consumers gain by that inequity, though US workers and small businesses can't compete...

[shinimog]

@hazeywolf though i do agree with you that once it becomes child-sex labor, then we MUST do something to get involved. However, that is taking it a bit out of context and putting words in Powell's mouth. Though i cannot speak directly for Powell, i hope i can safely say that when anyone has to resort to child sex-labor, then thats when other countries must get involved. But for the current situation in which he speaks of, child sex-labor would be out of context.

[hazeywolf]

@shinimog Yah, I took it to an extreme and apologize, but Powell's argument isn't comprehensive enough (IMO). But you are creating an artificial moral equation by protesting any kind of work by anyone for anything. For example, what if its not child sex workers, but merely child sweat shop labor for food and shelter. Some corrupt governments create/maintain poverty in order to exploit it in order to create/maintain and profit by artificially cheap labor.

[Xasew]

@hazeywolf

Powell excludes slave labor because he opposes slavery.

Powell's point was that those opposing and boycotting sweatshops in developed countries are idiots. How you manage to draw sweeping conclusions on Powell's moral standards is beyond me.

[hazeywolf]

@Xasew I didn't intend to draw sweeping conclusions about Mr. Powell, but he doesn't address the responsibility of 2nd/3rd world governments to address human rights, labor, safety, and environmental laws. Many of those countries r not democratic republics and maintaining cheap labor is in the interests of the corrupt rulers of such countries because they profit by the low standards the perpetuate in behest of cheap goods on the backs of the poor for global corp. profiteering which cost US jobs.

[Xasew]

@hazeywolf

"...address human rights, labor, safety, and environmental laws."

Well he does mention labor and safety when he discusses the total cost to the employer vs. wages. But yeah, he doesn't mention everything, because obviously these presentations are supposed to be concise and specific. E.g. I don't see why he should've talked about human rights violations in this speech, since it's pretty much universal to think that human rights violations are bad(while opinions on sweatshops vary).

[hazeywolf]

@shinimog Even if we may disagree - thank you for your polite and thoughtful insight and sincere, informed conversation. Peace!

[TrueEmergence]

I'll be spreading this around as much as possible. Thank you for the upload

[TGOW11]

Great video as always, It is good to know I am also not the only person to use beer as a relative form of exchange rate.

[TheGrayWolf96]

@TGOW11

What if all currency was backed up by beer? Screw the gold standard! Let's have the beer standard!