I mean "It's bad but compared to what?" that is really bullshit, you can't justify doing something bad by saying "well that's worst".
I Agree that it isn't slavery as @jimasulliv said because there is some degree of choice involved in this but when you look at the social/economical/cultural reality of some of this people you know that choosing between starving or working in miserable conditions it's unfair to say "that's a real choice".
@Arkthos That is the only choice, there is no other real alternative, you create a minimum wage you will make life worse by increasing the unemployment, you try to enforce safety regulations and such and you do the same thing, You cannot compare our work conditions compared to a country that is a centuries behind us in progress. The U.S. went through the same phase, so do they, though they will progress much quicker.
After the US military destroys, exploits and eliminates self sufficiency in these 3rd world nations, the sweatshops open and we are now doing them a favor. Ridiculous.
And yet, American companies set up a "well, it's better than starving" shop and just sit on it for years. No progress, no wage increases, no advances in environmental protections, no improvements to working conditions, just "at least they're not farming", pay them more than average (which is still pennies on the dollar compared to the American workers they replaced), pollute the air and water, discourage unionization of workers (what do they think they are? people?), and keep mediocrity the norm
It's a little more complicated than this "either or" scenario presented.We (the first world countries) create the circumstances that make these shitty jobs the best alternative - one doesn't excuse the other. They also fail to mention what happens after the workers get too "wealthy". Ever wonder why ever couple of years, there's a new third world country name on your clothes? They move to a cheaper place, leaving the other country far worse than it was before they came and "saved" them with jobs
It's rationalization. You pick a principle, free marketeering in this case, and you dogmatically search for only arguments in favor of it. Any counter-argument that you come across, you rationalize again, trying to justify why an obvious flaw is a good thing.
The way you're supposed to reason is, you'd look for arguments in favor of and against all systems and then form your opinion based on the balance of these arguments
What a stupid comment and a stupid analogy. Go live in Africa and see if you'll get better once the sweashop is off and the village just lost half of its most paying jobs
Penn and Tellers own words, though I forgot in which episode. Sweatshops may be more pleasant than the alternative, but it doesn't make them an amiable deal.
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH Well, though you are correct that it is the lesser of two evils and that it may be morally wrong, they are better off than having no jobs in that country. I can't imagine anyone would want to work in a sweat shop that I know, but it's better than prostitution, sex trafficking, drug dealing, scrounging through rubbish, at the mercy of the soil for farming, or worse manual labour or horrific means at survival.
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH I still do kind of like them (they do more good than harm), but sometimes they are biased and present only their side of the issue. It's never bad to watch their stuff with a critical eye.
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH Hindsight explanations and libertarian skeptic biases, too. I still like them, though. They do much better than anyone else trying to do same type of thing.
Most Wal-Mart shoppers are Evangelicals. When I point out that low wagers overseas is like slavery while Wal-Mart makes billions of extra profit at the expense of workers, evangelicals say: Low wage better than nothing.” If I say the suffering Wal-Mart causes to poor people Evangelicals say: Jesus suffered on the cross, what is ANY human suffering, even children in sweat shops compared to the suffering of Jesus.” OK, I understand, Jesus died so children could work in sweat shops.
The obvious solution is complete and total worker control of all workplaces all over the world and the execution of all capitalists,bosses and other parasites.
Disgusting. To say that something bad is no worse than the alternatives is no defence. The only humane approach is to work towards creating better alternatives! These fat, ignorant slobs have no right to talk about the lives of the very poorest.
Also, many people poor in countries such as India and China want to continue working the land, but find it hard, because large agro-companies are buying up what was once common land. See this video, for example: watch?v=oKoxs-f5_4E&
I use to love this show, but THIS is the segment that completly lost me as a fan. How anyone can possibly defend sweatshops absolutely boggles my mind.
@concordiaordinum yea but people that work in sweat shops make more money then almost anyone in there own country, and if you didnt buy there cloths, those people in those sweat shops WOULD go poor, dont blame walmart, if you dont like them ,dont shop there
@concordiaordinum Big companies, the government and the banks are destroying lives all the time! It isn't just people in poorer countries that are struggling, but more and more western people are losing their jobs and having their homes taken away from them! More and more our minds have been corrupted by the rich and powerful who want to turn the majority of the world into mindless, back breaking, poor slaves for them! These fat cat's don't have a conscience so, as long as they are alright JACK!
Yeah, yeah they are getting better work in sweatshops than the alternatives, but that doesn't stop fucking companies like Walmart and Nike from exploting these already poor and vulnerable people! The only reason that they use poor countries is because they know that they will work for peanuts! And all this crap about making the company as rich as possible and staying ahead of the competition is just a disgusting excuse to keep on exploiting humans when they are down! The Cruel, greedy bastards!
@paulod27 If I were a poor person in a foreign country I would be very scared to have you watching my back. Banning my best option is not a favor. They're poor. They won't be rich over night, but the question is - do they do better or worse because of the available work? If they do better because of it, then reread your comment and feel some shame. If they do worse, then why are they agreeing to work there?
@darwinkilledgod Look you, don't tell me to feel shame because I have an opinion! I am not saying take the work away from the poor people. what I am saying is give these vulerable people a decent wage at the end of their hardworking day instead of treating them like useless slaves! They don't have to give them the wage that they would in a western society (even though they should) but they should get enough money and benefits to feel good about themselves and to help support their families.
they aren't forcing anyone to work, its just an exploitation of the economy in those countries that is wrong. a sweatshop is a sweatshop, but it seems difficult to get an accurate picture with so much corporate interest involved. I wonder if that 'above average income' thing is true.
They arent forcing anyone to work. Why would a company that want to make money give higher pay than they need to? Why don't retards who argue agaisnt them give all of their money to poor people if they are so fucking generous.
@lavalizard3 Of course people should fight for a better life, but the point Penn and Teller are trying to make is that people working in sweatshops is better than not working at all.
@lavalizard3 I am with you on this. There's something shallow about celebrating harsh exploitation of a people because their only previous alternative may have been harsher. We can do better, as human beings. Capitalzing on the misfortune of the poor and oppressed doesn't seem like such a terrific accomplishment to me.
Now, if you said Joe Shmo was going to get his balls cut off, but you "cut" him a deal where you kick him in the balls instead of cutting them off, that would be a better representation.
It's not that their grandparents had worse, it's that THEY have worse. IE, they would get their balls cut off, but Wal Mart gives them the opportunity to only get kick in the balls.
@lavalizard3 Your metaphor is fundamentally flawed. In your scenario, YOU are initially lowering the quality of his life (by kicking him in the balls). It's clear he would be better off if you had not intervened at all. With sweatshops, we (referring to the corporations who outsource labor) do not initially lower the quality of life for the workers; their lower stander of living would be guaranteed with or without the sweatshops. The sweatshops offer only an opportunity to make more money.
@Pseudomans But see, if Walmart wasn't buying up all the world's food and selling it to fatass Americans, their living conditions would be much better. They'd still have to work all day, but they'd be working the farms to make food for their people, not working the farms to make food for Walmart and then working the sweatshops to buy whatever scraps were left.
@lavalizard3 What? Is that really the best you can do? There's a reason no one else on your side argues that Walmart "buys up all the world's food": because it's an idiotic, inflammatory, completely baseless assertion. Even a cursory google search reveals that Walmart gets the majority of its meat from American slaughterhouses. The majority of sweatshops are a net gain for the native community; they offer a path to more money, greater success, and a better life.
@lavalizard3 The problem with that analogy is that the guy in the balls scenario has the option of not harming his balls at all. The sweatshop workers don't have the option of working in clean, safe conditions with better pay.
Of course, getting that option would be ideal, but at the moment, it's unavailable.
@lavalizard3 You're argument is flawed.. If you walk straight up to someone and kick them in the balls, you take the whole "own choice" thing out of the equation. It's not the same.
you do understand that buying a shirt that was made from a third world country isnt walmarts fault, infact if all people stopped buying cloths from sweatshops, then millions of people would go out of a job and go even more poor
too bad wal-mart pays their employees such low wages that they all have to go on welfare and then the government shells out money to help with cost of living and food and stuff. thank gosh for the rich and other taxpayers who make more than the peanuts wal-mart pays people to help support the government to support the low income earners. wal-mart wins.
Like nearly every issue these guys cover, this issue incredibly complicated and there is no real objective way to view it. They do a wonderful job of presenting the non-traditional viewpoint though. Looking forwards to seeing the full episode.
Fair trade is about letting people make their choices freely, and permitting everyone the freedom of trade.
Freedom involves the choices we make with our situation, our talents, our skills, and our resources.
Please permit sweatshop workers the freedom to work (and earn a better living for themselves and their families) or to demand better conditions on their own.
The only defense of sweatshops given is that they are better than other employment options available. What a load of crap. If Wal-Mart really cared about the people sewing the clothing they sell, they would be a world leader in promoting fair trade and workers' rights through a third party like the Worker Rights Consortium.
They are presenting a false choice: subsistence farming or sweatshops. But, fair trade is a third choice that all people who actually care about workers make.
@sully9773 Ah, so should fair trade make sure the workers in other countries get paid more, thus forcing businesses to increase prices in USA and then, have less people buying and thus, make more shops close down? Then, the factories won't be in demand anymore. Essentially, it is going back to subsistence farming.
Right, so we should continue to have the third world supply us with cheap labor forever. I mean, it is so obvious to me and you that the corportations moved their factories to other countries because they were so concerned for the people that live there, and did not want them to have to practice subsistence farming. If we prevent rampant capitalism, the people who live in the country might actually build and own their own capital, and then we would actually die from lack of cheap consumer goods.
@jimasulliv I didn't mention that, isn't it? I only said that it was better for the workers to work in the factories, as Penn pointed out, then it would be if fair trade came out. Those companies would lose any incentive they had before to be in those countries and they'd go to some other nation with cheaper wages. And if you barely make enough to support your own family, how the hell do you build capital up? If you want to do that, the current system of factories is still a better way to go.
@AnarchisThinker Oh yeah, of course. Because all factory owners in the world started out working at a textile mill owned by a foreign corporation which moved the factory overseas to make more money. They slowly saved up, little by little, until they could afford to build a multi-million dollar textile mill. It's not like people who control capital inherited their wealth or anything. And yeah, fair trade doesn't work. It's actually physically impossible to search "fair trade clothing" on Google.
@jimasulliv No, my point was directed to what you said about people in those countries building up their own capital without any favtories providing a higher pay (Even though they can barely feed themselves), not about how the owners of the factories were able to build the textile mill. Oh yeah, and I bet you'll know this meaning: All things start small. Aso, you never really got around my point about the companies losing incentive at any rate.
@sully9773 That and the fact that consumers get cheaper goods as a result of sweatshops is the only 2 defenses that are needed. And its not a load of crap. And its not Walmart's job to care about the people working in these sweat shops. As cold hearted as that sounds, it isn't. But the people in these sweatshops are still benefiting from Walmart. “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest”
@kyler187 I am sure someone working in a 90 degree factory in south Vietnam is so comforted by the fact that you can buy a cheaper shirt because of their cheap labor. You should write them a thank you note expressing your appreciation that their labor causes you to be able to buy 100 shirts a year instead of 50. Imagine these factories were using outright slavery (in some cases they actually are). Would it be Walmart's job to care then? Of course not, your logic is so flawless.
@gzandhustler "you suck" You can't think of any intelligent point to make so you resort to arguing like Beavis and Butt-head. And yes there is no denying that those people have very limited options. Option one working at a sweat shop for low wages (still better than their domestic alternative) and option two is starving to death. And you would choose to remove option one.
@kyler187 Yea, and getting raped in the ass twice a day is worse than getting raped in the ass once a day. Therefore ass rape is ok as long as some of your buddies have it worse off. Fuck you
@randmnumber That abject nonsense. People's lives are better because of these sweatshops. They are able to feed themselves and their families as a result. Is it a tough job and a tough life for them? Yes, but if these jobs weren't around then their lives would be a lot worse off. And little man do you know to have a discussion without throwing insults? I seriously doubt it. And normally the first person to result to name calling is the one with the weakest argument.
@randmnumber That's stupid. These jobs are good in that the lives of the worker are better than they would be if the jobs didn't exist. To the contrary getting 'raped in the ass' is not better than not getting raped in the ass.
@kyler187 Yeah! Oh my God! I totally see it now. You have completely changed how I see sweatshops. Corporations are so good and noble for providing these people with a ninety degree factory and a shack to live in. They should really get a Nobel peace prize for the ethical, heroic action of moving factories overseas to make more money. In fact sweatshops are so great I think you and I should go to India and work at a GAP factory. We can write a book about what a positive experience we had.
When you have almost no rights in your workplace, get shitty pay for long hours in bad conditions and if you dare to speak up you'll get fired and won't be able to feed your family then you don't really have many options.
Not to mention that many sweatshops employ literal children.
@WhimsicalQuandary Yes the options in third world countries suck so much that working at a sweatshop is better than their domestic alternative. Ironically these businesses that you demonize have actually improved the quality of lives of the people living in these countries. And yes these shops have employed children as opposed to these children working for drug cartels or having to sell their bodies in prostitution.
@WhimsicalQuandary I would take all of that over getting raped. You act as if children making T-shirts to feed themselves is just as bad as them being sexually assaulted. I think you should look at the flaws in your logic there.
@kyler187 Yep, I used the same logic when I went to Vietnam to fuck children up the arse. I gave the girl a generous tip that would feed her and her family for a two days. (enough for a bear overhere).
Goin' back in December, goin to do the sister aswell.
Yeah I've actually seen film and read reports of people in other countries telling the West not to close down the sweat shops, saying they needed the work. They still want better working conditions, but they'd prefer those jobs to starving.
its so easy for "rich" western people to say this bad, but does it help these poor people by bashing those who provide them with better jobs or better paid jobs.
They would be worse off if they didn't have those jobs, but that's okay as long as we "rich" western people can feel good about ourselves. Poor people don't work in sweatshops because they like it but because they have to, to them every little coin counts.
@ontariobuds Oh, so I suppose we should just let them starve then, instead of doing what's better for both of us: they get a job that might just save their lives, we get shirts. Who, again, is profiting more from that arrangement?
@ontariobuds Huh? I just told you not measure the profit in money, but in what is gained (a life vs. a few dollars). How is that now an argument against me?
They "pay better" but the work is shit. Industries around the world are being destroyed because evil corporations use third world cheap labour. This has been designed. That ginger twat is an asshole.
yeah and sports personalities get around 100 times more per year than you would even earn in a lifetime, aswell as singers who cant sing and use autotune, musicians who may aswell be playing baa baa blacksheep. kid pop stars raping kids parents for more and more money so there kids can see the likes of justin beiber thrash his cock around on stage an be a bit of eye candy. the worlds a fucked up place and people who deserve the money dont get it, like miners of factory workers.
on the slightly less aggressive side, in many cases working for a sweatshop is like putting yourself into indentured servitude; you aren't allowed to leave and aren't paid until a ridiculous term is over. i'd have much less problems with sweatshops if people got paid on a reasonable schedule and could quit at any time -but of course, then management couldn't fuck the people over.
fuck that. not with my money and not in my backyard.
one of the problems i have with sweatshops is the complete lack of respect for human dignity; in some countries, local authority faces warfare until some weasel gets bought up who then makes it illegal to cultivate your own food. if you want to eat, you are forced by law to work in a factory where you are literally chained down and locked in a steel oven. the peoples choice is taken away.
masses of people have died in fires due to being locked inside. a thing like this should not exist.
a guy can have acres of productive land, animals, his own house, his own water source, his own school, and the knowledge to run it all, but as long as he isn't contributing to the economy or making money, technically he would earn more money working in a sweatshop.
a guy can have countless generations of food cultivating knowledge but if he doesn't know how to work a computer, or manipulate crowds of people, technically he's only qualified for unskilled labor.
"it beats tilling soil with grandpas femur" that's just an opinion and not one that is shared by all.
cultivating your own land is incredibly rewarding. it just doesn't earn much money if done on a small scale.
the funny thing here is, the imperial chinese had such respect for personal land cultivation that even the emperor had his own private garden that only he maintained.
The Pathological tendencies of this fat guy, I don't know if he is Penn or Teller, but I am certain he has killed and replaced that small guy several times....
Not only does he make the ridiculous assertion that it would be better to work in a factory than it would be to work outside but he makes the morbid reference of using human bones as farming equipment, showing the true purpose of this clip, to dehumanize those he/we exploit and to trivialize their suffering.
A sweatshop would need to pay more than the average level of income in order to gain a large amount of employees in a short time. By monopolizing the resources of the land and by causing a great deal of damage to the local environment the creation of sweatshops removes the element of choice for people living near the sweatshops.
As the market price of labor increases this sweat shops will move out leaving a wake of environmental destruction.
@lordthawkeye You obviously don't read but you could at least read my entire comment, Sweatshops destroy the environment preventing people from being able to live off the land as the had for thousands of years previous.
Moreover you said sweatshops do not have the capacity to force people to work there? based on what? Their monopolization of local resources or their well armed (and practically diplomatically immune) private security force?
thugs+all the food= capacity to do whatever you want
@Riggro I live in an Urban environment where that would be very difficult. I usually do my best to grow my own vegetables and have lived off the land at other times in my life.
Whenever I have the choice I choose to hunt/fish for my own meat and grow my own vegetables. Working in the land is far more satisfying than working in an urban environment and the food you eat is far more nourishing.
I don't think you would find a single soul who would chose sweatshop labor over farm labor,
@Riggro No I have responded to a message from someone who is incredibly privileged and able to spend a great deal of their time on leisure, who enjoys talking out of his ass on subjects he knows nothing about. I would like to see you last a week working in a sweat shop.
I doubt you have ever even worked more than 40 hours in a week, never the less 70 and under hazardous conditions.
The loudly ignorant are many....I have not met a first....
@Riggro One thing I might add is that is that I wouldn't go as far as to say I condone sweatshops and defend them as Penn and Teller do, but I do appreciate the fact that these two clowns expose us to otherwise overlooked facts about them, and open discussion like this you and I are having.
What is right and what is wrong is very difficult to discerne as all of our points of view are relative.
In our western culture, we do certainly (not you btw) seem to demonize all manual labor for some reasn
@Riggro If you could not handle the work of landscaping what makes you think you would be able to handle sweatshop labor. Yes you have worked manual jobs here in the US where there is a great deal of regulation with regard to labor. To say working for a Dell plant here in America is comperable to working in a sweatshop is to disregard all the progress this country has made with regards to labor standards. It is much like me saying that I can eat raw fish because i just ate some baked fish.
@poleske working AT dell is different that working FOR dell. I was working for a company that hired illegal immigrants (which typically don't complain of labor violations) And that was only one of many jobs I had. To think the U.S.A. is free of sweatshops is naive.
@Riggro Actually it isn't different. Both the use of FOR and AT imply that Dell is the employer.
(who typically don't complain....)
Yes the US does have sweatshops but they don't compare to the sweatshops overseas... hence immigrants will go through so much to work there and not complain.
Aside from poor grammar your statement isn't true. I have organized Labor Unions and class action lawsuits along with undocumented immigrants.
@poleske Dell was not my employer. even though I worked at the Dell plant in Lebanon TN my employer was someone else.
And you may be right, maybe some undocumented immigrants do take action, but not most.
I do know that most (not all) Mexican immigrants (I know this because I know a lot of them being Mexican myself) com from farmlands in Mexico. Most of them even stay in farm jobs here in the U.S. better payed of course.
@poleske you have not been abrasive at all. the thing is that we could try to fix the situation of sweatshops overseas but I personally believe we should first try to STOP business in the U.S. deteriorating to sweatshop conditions here first! Little by little the conditions of work in U.S. are becoming more and more like that of other nations. I believe we should leave it to those nations to make sure their human rights are respected just as us should make sure ours are. Just my two cents.
@Riggro Yes I also know that Immigrants are far less likely to take action. That is why they are used. They not only serve as a means by which companies can avoid labor standards but a scapegoat to distract American workers from what American companies are doing to them.
Those who defend sweatshops are completely disingenuous and are simply trying to promote an exploitive and immoral system that they have found a way to get on the winning side of.
Good, professor Powell, then if you want the sweat shop workers to do even better why don't you promote them organizing into unions and educate them in collective bargaining for better terms and conditions. After a few years their wages may rise to a level on par with the US workers you helped lose their jobs in the first place, you corporate shill.
Unions have collectively bargained their way out of jobs in the states. The unions are the reason there is no industry here anymore. There is a definite problem when it is cheaper for a company to buy foreign land, build the utilities, build the factory, import the machinery, hire/train the employees, import the raw materials, make the product/pay the employees, ship the product, pay the import excises, and sell the product for less than it would cost to have an American make it...
@jakedill1104 Yeah, the business owners are altruistic do-gooders. Let's outsource your job and see how you protect the traitorous capitalists ideals then. The race to the bottom in terms and conditions will destroy each economy in succession as the buying power for durable goods declines incrementally. It is time for labor to fight the rich, not the pretend enemies created by the military industrial complex at the command of the ultra-rich. America must become a socialist nation like Germany.
@jakedill1104 You are wrong! Corporate and shareholder greed are to blame for the job exodus from America. That and the fear of a powerful, well educated middle class which could socialize natural resources, energy and education and dismantle wall street and the Federal Reserve.
I don't necessarily disagree about dismantling the Fed, but just about everything else you said is just a bunch of college-professor, Marxist Bullshit! It doesn't work in the real world. The working class doesn't rise up, unite, and take over and then everyone eats ice cream and shits rainbows. It just becomes an unsustainable culture of entitlement which is why Europe is collapsing.
Penn & Teller and Benjamin Powell are right. When the factories attacked as "sweatshops" are paying more than the average wage in the countries in which they are located, it really just blows the anti-sweatshops case out of the water. If they weren't offering workers a good deal *compared to other work available to them*, people wouldn't choose to work in these factories.
I've heard some people say well, the factories went in and took away the alternatives. But they never provide any evidence.
Notice how the real bad sweetshops never produce anything people need, they just produce items which collect profit, not change lives..... eg. happymeal toy vs car
@mmaaxx1198 I'm not sure I understand your point. People trade in their money for a happymeal toy, thus valuing the toy over the money. Does that not indicate that they think they are somehow enriching their lives over the alternative of NOT having a toy but keeping the money? Of course, a car would enrich their lives far more, and they would likely agree, but a car also costs more money, probably in approximate proportion to how much more it enriches life, no?
@laborwage You are assuming that they value the toy over the money. They value their kid being happy and quiet for an hour more than the toy or the money.
@mmaaxx1198 And in that sense, people do not value the car over the money, they simply value comfortable and expedient transportation at will, with a simultaneousness demonstration of status. The toy has the VALUE of calming their child, which is why they traded the money for it, in this example. Of course if they could calm their child for less input than the cost of the toy, they would probably choose to do that...no?
And when the cost of labor goes up due to the standard of living and they shut down the shops? What happens then... oh wait we did not look too far into this BS.
@beastieboydickie That isn't how capitalism works. As incomes go up in those countries they will be able to afford higher education ad more varied job training programs. This means that as incomes rise they will be able to diversify their economy. Then it might become more cost effective to export those jobs to even poorer countries.
@LexPhilogus That would be Ideal but I have traveled to China and seen the Nike factory and when labor gets to high they shut down the shop and relocate leaving thousands out of jobs. If you don't think its true go check it out yourself.
@beastieboydickie China's unemployment rate is 4.2%. The people that are losing jobs there, due to outsoursing, are evidently finding other means of employment.
@beastieboydickie The same thing happens in America and in Europe, and yet their trajectory amounts to a continuous rise in living standards. When markets are able to perpetually economize on variable costs (that includes labor) living standards also improve. I don't doubt that China has shut down Nike shops, but China's economy has been growing very rapidly for many years now. They can only do this if they are economizing on variable costs.
Here in the US we have it extremely good. You get laid off, or are fired there are social programs to make sure you'll at least get something. If all else fails there is usually a food pantry to supply your needs. In all of these 3rd world nations if you don't eat you die. Oh, and as far as child labor goes, for many of those children the alternative is child prostitution.
there used to be sweatshops in America too, let's abolish the minimum wage, workers' rights and the unemployment benefits (which is easy to do in a totalitarian regime)
pretty soon you're gonna get sweatshops everywhere, and they'll look like good alternatives to starvation I guess ...
If you do abolish those things (which have been done before) Then you need to abolish government interference with economics (which hasn't, hence sweatshops).
If you got rid of both those things, whichever country that happens to would be one of the freest and the richest.
@pinochet222 The government interfering in their market, as is the case in China and oppressive countries, that actually allow businesses to get away with poor treatment of workers. If there wasn't there'd be NOTHING stopping them from leaving their current business for a better one, and climb up from there.
I'm not as childish as you are, so I'm not going to resort to pathetic, personal attacks.
"Fucking ignorant, moronic scumbag." Laughable, reversible, and pathetic!
@pinochet222 Them I'm sure you're aware of the heavy progressive tax the government places on the businesses?
By the way, I notice you are unable to make a logical argument as all you seem to be doing is insulting me. Anyone who reads this won't hold you to high esteem if you continue.
@pinochet222 Ah, now I see how you're mindless, brainless head works. Someone disagrees with you, you attack them. You realise you're losing the argument, you just bombard with insults.
You aren't impressing or convincing anyone. I know I don't have a dumb brain, but you want to believe that simply because you are unable to make a proper argument what with your mental disability and all. I feel sorry for you, you're the reason people like Obama get elected.
I'd rather work in a sweatshop than to prostitute myself, or till the soil.
TheThordir 3 weeks ago
I Love P&T but I'm not with them in this one.
I mean "It's bad but compared to what?" that is really bullshit, you can't justify doing something bad by saying "well that's worst".
I Agree that it isn't slavery as @jimasulliv said because there is some degree of choice involved in this but when you look at the social/economical/cultural reality of some of this people you know that choosing between starving or working in miserable conditions it's unfair to say "that's a real choice".
Arkthos 4 weeks ago
@Arkthos That is the only choice, there is no other real alternative, you create a minimum wage you will make life worse by increasing the unemployment, you try to enforce safety regulations and such and you do the same thing, You cannot compare our work conditions compared to a country that is a centuries behind us in progress. The U.S. went through the same phase, so do they, though they will progress much quicker.
Mezey5 3 weeks ago
After the US military destroys, exploits and eliminates self sufficiency in these 3rd world nations, the sweatshops open and we are now doing them a favor. Ridiculous.
jangleballer 1 month ago
And yet, American companies set up a "well, it's better than starving" shop and just sit on it for years. No progress, no wage increases, no advances in environmental protections, no improvements to working conditions, just "at least they're not farming", pay them more than average (which is still pennies on the dollar compared to the American workers they replaced), pollute the air and water, discourage unionization of workers (what do they think they are? people?), and keep mediocrity the norm
MagnesDrachen13 1 month ago
lol worst argument ever, so because its the lesser evil its fine and we can all feel good about our selves!
Slaves by proxy and ignorance is bliss.
AzaIndustries 1 month ago
It's a little more complicated than this "either or" scenario presented.We (the first world countries) create the circumstances that make these shitty jobs the best alternative - one doesn't excuse the other. They also fail to mention what happens after the workers get too "wealthy". Ever wonder why ever couple of years, there's a new third world country name on your clothes? They move to a cheaper place, leaving the other country far worse than it was before they came and "saved" them with jobs
tml4873 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Eldritchfan
It's rationalization. You pick a principle, free marketeering in this case, and you dogmatically search for only arguments in favor of it. Any counter-argument that you come across, you rationalize again, trying to justify why an obvious flaw is a good thing.
The way you're supposed to reason is, you'd look for arguments in favor of and against all systems and then form your opinion based on the balance of these arguments
.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 2 months ago
Many young girls turn to prostitution when they don't have jobs in some countries.
jpzxcvbnm 2 months ago
What a stupid comment and a stupid analogy. Go live in Africa and see if you'll get better once the sweashop is off and the village just lost half of its most paying jobs
2CSST2 3 months ago
@lavalizard3
If my only two options were to be kicked in the nuts or have them chopped off I would rather take the kicked in the nuts option thank you.
Kildeer11 3 months ago
giiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinger uuuuuuuuuuu...
perbor24 3 months ago
Remember: the lesser of 2 evils is still evil.
Penn and Tellers own words, though I forgot in which episode. Sweatshops may be more pleasant than the alternative, but it doesn't make them an amiable deal.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 4 months ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH Well, though you are correct that it is the lesser of two evils and that it may be morally wrong, they are better off than having no jobs in that country. I can't imagine anyone would want to work in a sweat shop that I know, but it's better than prostitution, sex trafficking, drug dealing, scrounging through rubbish, at the mercy of the soil for farming, or worse manual labour or horrific means at survival.
PassengersMusic777 2 months ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH Here here!
And it was the one about the Dali Lama
Amazing how the same guy can be so sharp and so dense.
Eldritchfan 2 months ago
Comment removed
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 2 months ago
@Eldritchfan
I used to like Penn and Teller but if you think about it, they do a lot of rationalization.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 2 months ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH I still do kind of like them (they do more good than harm), but sometimes they are biased and present only their side of the issue. It's never bad to watch their stuff with a critical eye.
tml4873 1 month ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH Hindsight explanations and libertarian skeptic biases, too. I still like them, though. They do much better than anyone else trying to do same type of thing.
PolitcalIslam 1 month ago
"Bullshit" is the correct title for this. At least they got that right.
LukeScientiae 4 months ago
Most Wal-Mart shoppers are Evangelicals. When I point out that low wagers overseas is like slavery while Wal-Mart makes billions of extra profit at the expense of workers, evangelicals say: Low wage better than nothing.” If I say the suffering Wal-Mart causes to poor people Evangelicals say: Jesus suffered on the cross, what is ANY human suffering, even children in sweat shops compared to the suffering of Jesus.” OK, I understand, Jesus died so children could work in sweat shops.
dalecs47 4 months ago
The obvious solution is complete and total worker control of all workplaces all over the world and the execution of all capitalists,bosses and other parasites.
WhimsicalQuandary 5 months ago
Disgusting. To say that something bad is no worse than the alternatives is no defence. The only humane approach is to work towards creating better alternatives! These fat, ignorant slobs have no right to talk about the lives of the very poorest.
Also, many people poor in countries such as India and China want to continue working the land, but find it hard, because large agro-companies are buying up what was once common land. See this video, for example: watch?v=oKoxs-f5_4E&
jismith1989 5 months ago
I use to love this show, but THIS is the segment that completly lost me as a fan. How anyone can possibly defend sweatshops absolutely boggles my mind.
KSengage86 5 months ago
guys guys guys.....the guy defending the sweatshops is a ginger.... need I say more? :D
thaburger23 5 months ago
Watch the documentary Walmart, the high cost of low prices and get another view.
It's on Netflix if you have that.
usernamessaysomuch 5 months ago
Watch the documentary Walmart, the high cost of low prices and get another view.
It's on Netflix if you have that.
usernamessaysomuch 5 months ago
@concordiaordinum yea but people that work in sweat shops make more money then almost anyone in there own country, and if you didnt buy there cloths, those people in those sweat shops WOULD go poor, dont blame walmart, if you dont like them ,dont shop there
darkkristian22 5 months ago
@concordiaordinum Big companies, the government and the banks are destroying lives all the time! It isn't just people in poorer countries that are struggling, but more and more western people are losing their jobs and having their homes taken away from them! More and more our minds have been corrupted by the rich and powerful who want to turn the majority of the world into mindless, back breaking, poor slaves for them! These fat cat's don't have a conscience so, as long as they are alright JACK!
paulod27 5 months ago
dat face at 1:15
b3rgTroll 5 months ago
Yeah, yeah they are getting better work in sweatshops than the alternatives, but that doesn't stop fucking companies like Walmart and Nike from exploting these already poor and vulnerable people! The only reason that they use poor countries is because they know that they will work for peanuts! And all this crap about making the company as rich as possible and staying ahead of the competition is just a disgusting excuse to keep on exploiting humans when they are down! The Cruel, greedy bastards!
paulod27 6 months ago
@paulod27 If I were a poor person in a foreign country I would be very scared to have you watching my back. Banning my best option is not a favor. They're poor. They won't be rich over night, but the question is - do they do better or worse because of the available work? If they do better because of it, then reread your comment and feel some shame. If they do worse, then why are they agreeing to work there?
darwinkilledgod 6 months ago
@darwinkilledgod Look you, don't tell me to feel shame because I have an opinion! I am not saying take the work away from the poor people. what I am saying is give these vulerable people a decent wage at the end of their hardworking day instead of treating them like useless slaves! They don't have to give them the wage that they would in a western society (even though they should) but they should get enough money and benefits to feel good about themselves and to help support their families.
paulod27 6 months ago
they aren't forcing anyone to work, its just an exploitation of the economy in those countries that is wrong. a sweatshop is a sweatshop, but it seems difficult to get an accurate picture with so much corporate interest involved. I wonder if that 'above average income' thing is true.
ra1zoo 6 months ago
They arent forcing anyone to work. Why would a company that want to make money give higher pay than they need to? Why don't retards who argue agaisnt them give all of their money to poor people if they are so fucking generous.
Diedrich92 6 months ago
I always love when they bring out the "better than what it could be" excuse. I walk up to Joe Shmo and kick him in the balls. Naturally, he's pissed.
Then I go "you owe me a Thank You. I had the decency to only kick your balls instead of cutting them off."
And because I've convinced a few other suckers to buy this bullshit, he feels the peer pressure and says "Thanks for kicking me in the balls, man."
Fuck that shit. A sweat shop sucks even if your grampa had worse. Fight for a better life.
lavalizard3 6 months ago 2
@lavalizard3 Of course people should fight for a better life, but the point Penn and Teller are trying to make is that people working in sweatshops is better than not working at all.
Irish4DaCraic 6 months ago
@lavalizard3 I am with you on this. There's something shallow about celebrating harsh exploitation of a people because their only previous alternative may have been harsher. We can do better, as human beings. Capitalzing on the misfortune of the poor and oppressed doesn't seem like such a terrific accomplishment to me.
Tigerpaws9097826 6 months ago
@lavalizard3 Dude! Right on!!!
sowsearsoup 5 months ago
@lavalizard3 Your argument is a strawman.
Now, if you said Joe Shmo was going to get his balls cut off, but you "cut" him a deal where you kick him in the balls instead of cutting them off, that would be a better representation.
It's not that their grandparents had worse, it's that THEY have worse. IE, they would get their balls cut off, but Wal Mart gives them the opportunity to only get kick in the balls.
Nervousification 5 months ago 2
@lavalizard3 Your metaphor is fundamentally flawed. In your scenario, YOU are initially lowering the quality of his life (by kicking him in the balls). It's clear he would be better off if you had not intervened at all. With sweatshops, we (referring to the corporations who outsource labor) do not initially lower the quality of life for the workers; their lower stander of living would be guaranteed with or without the sweatshops. The sweatshops offer only an opportunity to make more money.
Pseudomans 4 months ago
@Pseudomans But see, if Walmart wasn't buying up all the world's food and selling it to fatass Americans, their living conditions would be much better. They'd still have to work all day, but they'd be working the farms to make food for their people, not working the farms to make food for Walmart and then working the sweatshops to buy whatever scraps were left.
lavalizard3 4 months ago
@lavalizard3 What? Is that really the best you can do? There's a reason no one else on your side argues that Walmart "buys up all the world's food": because it's an idiotic, inflammatory, completely baseless assertion. Even a cursory google search reveals that Walmart gets the majority of its meat from American slaughterhouses. The majority of sweatshops are a net gain for the native community; they offer a path to more money, greater success, and a better life.
Pseudomans 4 months ago
@lavalizard3 That's the most retarded analogy i've ever heard.
H1TMANactual 4 months ago
@lavalizard3 The problem with that analogy is that the guy in the balls scenario has the option of not harming his balls at all. The sweatshop workers don't have the option of working in clean, safe conditions with better pay.
Of course, getting that option would be ideal, but at the moment, it's unavailable.
Boredman567 4 months ago
@lavalizard3 You're argument is flawed.. If you walk straight up to someone and kick them in the balls, you take the whole "own choice" thing out of the equation. It's not the same.
sollidottingen 3 months ago 7
you do understand that buying a shirt that was made from a third world country isnt walmarts fault, infact if all people stopped buying cloths from sweatshops, then millions of people would go out of a job and go even more poor
darkkristian22 6 months ago
too bad wal-mart pays their employees such low wages that they all have to go on welfare and then the government shells out money to help with cost of living and food and stuff. thank gosh for the rich and other taxpayers who make more than the peanuts wal-mart pays people to help support the government to support the low income earners. wal-mart wins.
Faygo069 7 months ago
Like nearly every issue these guys cover, this issue incredibly complicated and there is no real objective way to view it. They do a wonderful job of presenting the non-traditional viewpoint though. Looking forwards to seeing the full episode.
GunsNRoses1337 7 months ago
I thought they was magicians
cymrutroll 7 months ago
penn and teller: owning pretentious pseudo-interllectual inpractical liberal hippie douchebags the world over!
madcapoperator 7 months ago
Fair trade is about letting people make their choices freely, and permitting everyone the freedom of trade.
Freedom involves the choices we make with our situation, our talents, our skills, and our resources.
Please permit sweatshop workers the freedom to work (and earn a better living for themselves and their families) or to demand better conditions on their own.
LanceVader 7 months ago
The only defense of sweatshops given is that they are better than other employment options available. What a load of crap. If Wal-Mart really cared about the people sewing the clothing they sell, they would be a world leader in promoting fair trade and workers' rights through a third party like the Worker Rights Consortium.
They are presenting a false choice: subsistence farming or sweatshops. But, fair trade is a third choice that all people who actually care about workers make.
sully9773 7 months ago
@sully9773 Ah, so should fair trade make sure the workers in other countries get paid more, thus forcing businesses to increase prices in USA and then, have less people buying and thus, make more shops close down? Then, the factories won't be in demand anymore. Essentially, it is going back to subsistence farming.
AnarchisThinker 7 months ago
Right, so we should continue to have the third world supply us with cheap labor forever. I mean, it is so obvious to me and you that the corportations moved their factories to other countries because they were so concerned for the people that live there, and did not want them to have to practice subsistence farming. If we prevent rampant capitalism, the people who live in the country might actually build and own their own capital, and then we would actually die from lack of cheap consumer goods.
jimasulliv 6 months ago
@jimasulliv I didn't mention that, isn't it? I only said that it was better for the workers to work in the factories, as Penn pointed out, then it would be if fair trade came out. Those companies would lose any incentive they had before to be in those countries and they'd go to some other nation with cheaper wages. And if you barely make enough to support your own family, how the hell do you build capital up? If you want to do that, the current system of factories is still a better way to go.
AnarchisThinker 6 months ago
@AnarchisThinker Oh yeah, of course. Because all factory owners in the world started out working at a textile mill owned by a foreign corporation which moved the factory overseas to make more money. They slowly saved up, little by little, until they could afford to build a multi-million dollar textile mill. It's not like people who control capital inherited their wealth or anything. And yeah, fair trade doesn't work. It's actually physically impossible to search "fair trade clothing" on Google.
jimasulliv 5 months ago
@jimasulliv No, my point was directed to what you said about people in those countries building up their own capital without any favtories providing a higher pay (Even though they can barely feed themselves), not about how the owners of the factories were able to build the textile mill. Oh yeah, and I bet you'll know this meaning: All things start small. Aso, you never really got around my point about the companies losing incentive at any rate.
AnarchisThinker 5 months ago
@jimasulliv "physically impossible"? What are you talking about? I just did it and found a significant number of results.
jismith1989 5 months ago
@sully9773 That and the fact that consumers get cheaper goods as a result of sweatshops is the only 2 defenses that are needed. And its not a load of crap. And its not Walmart's job to care about the people working in these sweat shops. As cold hearted as that sounds, it isn't. But the people in these sweatshops are still benefiting from Walmart. “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest”
kyler187 6 months ago
@kyler187 I am sure someone working in a 90 degree factory in south Vietnam is so comforted by the fact that you can buy a cheaper shirt because of their cheap labor. You should write them a thank you note expressing your appreciation that their labor causes you to be able to buy 100 shirts a year instead of 50. Imagine these factories were using outright slavery (in some cases they actually are). Would it be Walmart's job to care then? Of course not, your logic is so flawless.
jimasulliv 6 months ago
@jimasulliv Slavery? Nobody is forcing these people to work there. They work their because their other options are way worse.
kyler187 6 months ago 23
@kyler187 no, first, lastly, and forever you suck, and those people's options are infinitely unlimited.
gzandhustler 6 months ago
@gzandhustler "you suck" You can't think of any intelligent point to make so you resort to arguing like Beavis and Butt-head. And yes there is no denying that those people have very limited options. Option one working at a sweat shop for low wages (still better than their domestic alternative) and option two is starving to death. And you would choose to remove option one.
kyler187 6 months ago
@kyler187 Yea, and getting raped in the ass twice a day is worse than getting raped in the ass once a day. Therefore ass rape is ok as long as some of your buddies have it worse off. Fuck you
randmnumber 5 months ago
@randmnumber That abject nonsense. People's lives are better because of these sweatshops. They are able to feed themselves and their families as a result. Is it a tough job and a tough life for them? Yes, but if these jobs weren't around then their lives would be a lot worse off. And little man do you know to have a discussion without throwing insults? I seriously doubt it. And normally the first person to result to name calling is the one with the weakest argument.
kyler187 5 months ago
@randmnumber That's stupid. These jobs are good in that the lives of the worker are better than they would be if the jobs didn't exist. To the contrary getting 'raped in the ass' is not better than not getting raped in the ass.
666or999 5 months ago
Comment removed
randmnumber 5 months ago
@kyler187 Bad analogy. People chose the punch in the nuts, over the kick they may of otherwise got.
brono25 5 months ago
@brono25 I didn't make an analogy. What are you talking about?
kyler187 5 months ago
@kyler187 lol I probably reply'd to wrong post n/m
brono25 5 months ago
Comment removed
jimasulliv 5 months ago
Comment removed
jimasulliv 5 months ago
Comment removed
jimasulliv 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kyler187 Yeah! Oh my God! I totally see it now. You have completely changed how I see sweatshops. Corporations are so good and noble for providing these people with a ninety degree factory and a shack to live in. They should really get a Nobel peace prize for the ethical, heroic action of moving factories overseas to make more money. In fact sweatshops are so great I think you and I should go to India and work at a GAP factory. We can write a book about what a positive experience we had.
jimasulliv 5 months ago
@kyler187
Wage slavery is still slavery.
WhimsicalQuandary 5 months ago
@WhimsicalQuandary If you choose to work there and have the option to quit then its not slavery.
kyler187 5 months ago
@kyler187
When you have almost no rights in your workplace, get shitty pay for long hours in bad conditions and if you dare to speak up you'll get fired and won't be able to feed your family then you don't really have many options.
Not to mention that many sweatshops employ literal children.
WhimsicalQuandary 5 months ago
@WhimsicalQuandary Yes the options in third world countries suck so much that working at a sweatshop is better than their domestic alternative. Ironically these businesses that you demonize have actually improved the quality of lives of the people living in these countries. And yes these shops have employed children as opposed to these children working for drug cartels or having to sell their bodies in prostitution.
kyler187 5 months ago
@kyler187
"Hey they might be beaten, cheated, forced to work long hours for shitty pay but at least they aren't getting raped.."
WhimsicalQuandary 4 months ago
@WhimsicalQuandary I would take all of that over getting raped. You act as if children making T-shirts to feed themselves is just as bad as them being sexually assaulted. I think you should look at the flaws in your logic there.
kyler187 4 months ago
@kyler187 Yep, I used the same logic when I went to Vietnam to fuck children up the arse. I gave the girl a generous tip that would feed her and her family for a two days. (enough for a bear overhere).
Goin' back in December, goin to do the sister aswell.
amemy1 4 months ago
@kyler187 Wage slavery refers to a situation where a person's livelihood depends on wages, especially when the dependence is total and immediate.
PolitcalIslam 1 month ago
Comment removed
sully9773 7 months ago
Yeah I've actually seen film and read reports of people in other countries telling the West not to close down the sweat shops, saying they needed the work. They still want better working conditions, but they'd prefer those jobs to starving.
HKTeeVee 8 months ago
its so easy for "rich" western people to say this bad, but does it help these poor people by bashing those who provide them with better jobs or better paid jobs.
They would be worse off if they didn't have those jobs, but that's okay as long as we "rich" western people can feel good about ourselves. Poor people don't work in sweatshops because they like it but because they have to, to them every little coin counts.
robertgeorg 8 months ago
"much better jobs" does not equal a good job.
they are still horrible places to work, places you and I would never dream of working in.
I hate how they use that as an excuse, "well it's better than before"
ontariobuds 8 months ago
@ontariobuds Oh, so I suppose we should just let them starve then, instead of doing what's better for both of us: they get a job that might just save their lives, we get shirts. Who, again, is profiting more from that arrangement?
fab006 8 months ago
@fab006 how about we do what is best for everybody, not in terms of money. People shouldn't have to work for money. money is useless.
ontariobuds 8 months ago
@ontariobuds Huh? I just told you not measure the profit in money, but in what is gained (a life vs. a few dollars). How is that now an argument against me?
fab006 8 months ago
@fab006 you are right.
I apologize.
ontariobuds 8 months ago
They "pay better" but the work is shit. Industries around the world are being destroyed because evil corporations use third world cheap labour. This has been designed. That ginger twat is an asshole.
AZUREGLIDE 9 months ago
@AZUREGLIDE
yeah and sports personalities get around 100 times more per year than you would even earn in a lifetime, aswell as singers who cant sing and use autotune, musicians who may aswell be playing baa baa blacksheep. kid pop stars raping kids parents for more and more money so there kids can see the likes of justin beiber thrash his cock around on stage an be a bit of eye candy. the worlds a fucked up place and people who deserve the money dont get it, like miners of factory workers.
airfaith 9 months ago
"it's bad, but compared to what?"
um... compared to ruining our own economy by lowering the total number of jobs in it? just a thought
luccaskunk 9 months ago
on the slightly less aggressive side, in many cases working for a sweatshop is like putting yourself into indentured servitude; you aren't allowed to leave and aren't paid until a ridiculous term is over. i'd have much less problems with sweatshops if people got paid on a reasonable schedule and could quit at any time -but of course, then management couldn't fuck the people over.
fuck that. not with my money and not in my backyard.
zer0nix 9 months ago
one of the problems i have with sweatshops is the complete lack of respect for human dignity; in some countries, local authority faces warfare until some weasel gets bought up who then makes it illegal to cultivate your own food. if you want to eat, you are forced by law to work in a factory where you are literally chained down and locked in a steel oven. the peoples choice is taken away.
masses of people have died in fires due to being locked inside. a thing like this should not exist.
zer0nix 9 months ago
a guy can have acres of productive land, animals, his own house, his own water source, his own school, and the knowledge to run it all, but as long as he isn't contributing to the economy or making money, technically he would earn more money working in a sweatshop.
a guy can have countless generations of food cultivating knowledge but if he doesn't know how to work a computer, or manipulate crowds of people, technically he's only qualified for unskilled labor.
zer0nix 9 months ago
"it beats tilling soil with grandpas femur" that's just an opinion and not one that is shared by all.
cultivating your own land is incredibly rewarding. it just doesn't earn much money if done on a small scale.
the funny thing here is, the imperial chinese had such respect for personal land cultivation that even the emperor had his own private garden that only he maintained.
there's an old chinese saying, 'dirt is gold.'
zer0nix 9 months ago
The Pathological tendencies of this fat guy, I don't know if he is Penn or Teller, but I am certain he has killed and replaced that small guy several times....
Not only does he make the ridiculous assertion that it would be better to work in a factory than it would be to work outside but he makes the morbid reference of using human bones as farming equipment, showing the true purpose of this clip, to dehumanize those he/we exploit and to trivialize their suffering.
poleske 9 months ago
A sweatshop would need to pay more than the average level of income in order to gain a large amount of employees in a short time. By monopolizing the resources of the land and by causing a great deal of damage to the local environment the creation of sweatshops removes the element of choice for people living near the sweatshops.
As the market price of labor increases this sweat shops will move out leaving a wake of environmental destruction.
poleske 10 months ago
@poleske The sweatshop has no capacity to force people to work there so it's only another.
So in other words, according to you: More choice = less choice
Brilliant...
lordthawkeye 9 months ago
@lordthawkeye You obviously don't read but you could at least read my entire comment, Sweatshops destroy the environment preventing people from being able to live off the land as the had for thousands of years previous.
Moreover you said sweatshops do not have the capacity to force people to work there? based on what? Their monopolization of local resources or their well armed (and practically diplomatically immune) private security force?
thugs+all the food= capacity to do whatever you want
poleske 9 months ago
@poleske I did read it. It's propaganistic nonsense with no basis in fact.
In other words: Citation or it didn't happen.
lordthawkeye 9 months ago
@poleske do you live off the land?
Riggro 9 months ago
@Riggro I live in an Urban environment where that would be very difficult. I usually do my best to grow my own vegetables and have lived off the land at other times in my life.
Whenever I have the choice I choose to hunt/fish for my own meat and grow my own vegetables. Working in the land is far more satisfying than working in an urban environment and the food you eat is far more nourishing.
I don't think you would find a single soul who would chose sweatshop labor over farm labor,
poleske 9 months ago
@poleske you have met a first then...
Riggro 9 months ago
@Riggro No I have responded to a message from someone who is incredibly privileged and able to spend a great deal of their time on leisure, who enjoys talking out of his ass on subjects he knows nothing about. I would like to see you last a week working in a sweat shop.
I doubt you have ever even worked more than 40 hours in a week, never the less 70 and under hazardous conditions.
The loudly ignorant are many....I have not met a first....
poleske 9 months ago
@poleske as a previous illegal immigrant I was. I have worked my share of hours and in questionable conditions:
did waste management for dell, worked at a loading dock, construction, cleaning industrial printer rollers, just to name a few.
also did landscaping for one day because I couldn't handle it.
All I'm saying is that a sweatshop job is better than no job and that some rather work long shifts in sweatshops rather than out in the field.
btw I'm a digital artist now working 60-80hrs a week:)
Riggro 9 months ago
@Riggro One thing I might add is that is that I wouldn't go as far as to say I condone sweatshops and defend them as Penn and Teller do, but I do appreciate the fact that these two clowns expose us to otherwise overlooked facts about them, and open discussion like this you and I are having.
What is right and what is wrong is very difficult to discerne as all of our points of view are relative.
In our western culture, we do certainly (not you btw) seem to demonize all manual labor for some reasn
Riggro 9 months ago
@Riggro If you could not handle the work of landscaping what makes you think you would be able to handle sweatshop labor. Yes you have worked manual jobs here in the US where there is a great deal of regulation with regard to labor. To say working for a Dell plant here in America is comperable to working in a sweatshop is to disregard all the progress this country has made with regards to labor standards. It is much like me saying that I can eat raw fish because i just ate some baked fish.
poleske 9 months ago
@poleske working AT dell is different that working FOR dell. I was working for a company that hired illegal immigrants (which typically don't complain of labor violations) And that was only one of many jobs I had. To think the U.S.A. is free of sweatshops is naive.
Riggro 9 months ago
@Riggro Actually it isn't different. Both the use of FOR and AT imply that Dell is the employer.
(who typically don't complain....)
Yes the US does have sweatshops but they don't compare to the sweatshops overseas... hence immigrants will go through so much to work there and not complain.
Aside from poor grammar your statement isn't true. I have organized Labor Unions and class action lawsuits along with undocumented immigrants.
poleske 9 months ago
@poleske Dell was not my employer. even though I worked at the Dell plant in Lebanon TN my employer was someone else.
And you may be right, maybe some undocumented immigrants do take action, but not most.
I do know that most (not all) Mexican immigrants (I know this because I know a lot of them being Mexican myself) com from farmlands in Mexico. Most of them even stay in farm jobs here in the U.S. better payed of course.
Riggro 9 months ago
@Riggro
I am sorry if I have been somewhat abrasive.
I know that a bad job is better than no job.
The point I am trying to make is that these sweatshops are not helping people. They are preventing more legitimate businesses from starting up.
Moreover they use force in order to keep the labor dynamic completely one sided and to dis-empower workers all over the world.
Without force wages and conditions in sweatshops would improve rapidly with the organization of workers.
poleske 9 months ago
@poleske you have not been abrasive at all. the thing is that we could try to fix the situation of sweatshops overseas but I personally believe we should first try to STOP business in the U.S. deteriorating to sweatshop conditions here first! Little by little the conditions of work in U.S. are becoming more and more like that of other nations. I believe we should leave it to those nations to make sure their human rights are respected just as us should make sure ours are. Just my two cents.
Riggro 9 months ago
@Riggro Yes I also know that Immigrants are far less likely to take action. That is why they are used. They not only serve as a means by which companies can avoid labor standards but a scapegoat to distract American workers from what American companies are doing to them.
Those who defend sweatshops are completely disingenuous and are simply trying to promote an exploitive and immoral system that they have found a way to get on the winning side of.
poleske 9 months ago
@Riggro Now Sweatshops do not exist without the use of force.
For example if an immigrants in Brooklyn organize a union they risk loosing their job and potential deportation.
In Colombia or Indonesia a boss will use hired thugs to intimidate and even kill labor organizers.
aside from this use of force sweatshops prevent local manufacturers from being able to open up shop and keep the profits within that nations economy.
poleske 9 months ago
Good, professor Powell, then if you want the sweat shop workers to do even better why don't you promote them organizing into unions and educate them in collective bargaining for better terms and conditions. After a few years their wages may rise to a level on par with the US workers you helped lose their jobs in the first place, you corporate shill.
LvnAction 10 months ago
@LvnAction
Unions have collectively bargained their way out of jobs in the states. The unions are the reason there is no industry here anymore. There is a definite problem when it is cheaper for a company to buy foreign land, build the utilities, build the factory, import the machinery, hire/train the employees, import the raw materials, make the product/pay the employees, ship the product, pay the import excises, and sell the product for less than it would cost to have an American make it...
jakedill1104 10 months ago
@jakedill1104 Yeah, the business owners are altruistic do-gooders. Let's outsource your job and see how you protect the traitorous capitalists ideals then. The race to the bottom in terms and conditions will destroy each economy in succession as the buying power for durable goods declines incrementally. It is time for labor to fight the rich, not the pretend enemies created by the military industrial complex at the command of the ultra-rich. America must become a socialist nation like Germany.
LvnAction 10 months ago
@LvnAction LOL You really need to get a grip on reality. An economics class might not hurt either.
shananagans5 10 months ago
@jakedill1104 You are wrong! Corporate and shareholder greed are to blame for the job exodus from America. That and the fear of a powerful, well educated middle class which could socialize natural resources, energy and education and dismantle wall street and the Federal Reserve.
LvnAction 10 months ago
@LvnAction
I don't necessarily disagree about dismantling the Fed, but just about everything else you said is just a bunch of college-professor, Marxist Bullshit! It doesn't work in the real world. The working class doesn't rise up, unite, and take over and then everyone eats ice cream and shits rainbows. It just becomes an unsustainable culture of entitlement which is why Europe is collapsing.
jakedill1104 10 months ago
@LvnAction How exactly do you know that he's anti-union?
FatherTime89 10 months ago
@LvnAction you want them to make unions while we destroy ours here in the US?
Riggro 9 months ago
sweatshops pay quite highly compared to domestic alternatives. they're bad, but it's worth it if you haven't any other choice.
viperxraptor2001 11 months ago
Thats were are jobs are going, no have gone.
bser3973 1 year ago
How many of you have shopped at Wal-Mart in your lifetime?
Condarad 1 year ago
It surprises me that the comments page is filled with thumbed up comments of people doing naught but call other people names.
Iisdabest889 1 year ago
Comment removed
tinkafoo 1 year ago
@tinkafoo Facts are facts. Nobody cares how you "feel".
rmcdaniel423 1 year ago
Comment removed
tinkafoo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tinkafoo
GOOD FOR YOU LIBTARD!
kingarthurup 1 year ago
Comment removed
tinkafoo 1 year ago
@tinkafoo
YAY! ANOTHER LIBTARDED ODUMBA VOTING KOOLAID DRINKING BUTT CHEESE WHO INSTEAD OF ARGUING TALKS ABOUT HOW TO ARGUE...YAY!
Try to formulate a better fight there chumly!
kingarthurup 1 year ago
Comment removed
tinkafoo 1 year ago
@tinkafoo
The only point I can see is the one on top of your cute little libtard head!
You should consider that an ad-homo attack.
LOL
kingarthurup 1 year ago
Comment removed
tinkafoo 1 year ago
@tinkafoo I'm not even going to bother this time except to say read th last sentence you typed there.
whysers 1 year ago
Penn & Teller and Benjamin Powell are right. When the factories attacked as "sweatshops" are paying more than the average wage in the countries in which they are located, it really just blows the anti-sweatshops case out of the water. If they weren't offering workers a good deal *compared to other work available to them*, people wouldn't choose to work in these factories.
I've heard some people say well, the factories went in and took away the alternatives. But they never provide any evidence.
StarchildSF 1 year ago
Well they are better than dying...
Kelol100 1 year ago
Notice how the real bad sweetshops never produce anything people need, they just produce items which collect profit, not change lives..... eg. happymeal toy vs car
mmaaxx1198 1 year ago
@mmaaxx1198 I'm not sure I understand your point. People trade in their money for a happymeal toy, thus valuing the toy over the money. Does that not indicate that they think they are somehow enriching their lives over the alternative of NOT having a toy but keeping the money? Of course, a car would enrich their lives far more, and they would likely agree, but a car also costs more money, probably in approximate proportion to how much more it enriches life, no?
laborwage 1 year ago
@laborwage You are assuming that they value the toy over the money. They value their kid being happy and quiet for an hour more than the toy or the money.
mmaaxx1198 1 year ago
@mmaaxx1198 And in that sense, people do not value the car over the money, they simply value comfortable and expedient transportation at will, with a simultaneousness demonstration of status. The toy has the VALUE of calming their child, which is why they traded the money for it, in this example. Of course if they could calm their child for less input than the cost of the toy, they would probably choose to do that...no?
laborwage 1 year ago
@laborwage I can agree to that.
mmaaxx1198 1 year ago
FUCK!
Cptheadstomp420 1 year ago
And when the cost of labor goes up due to the standard of living and they shut down the shops? What happens then... oh wait we did not look too far into this BS.
Sorry go back to your farms.
beastieboydickie 1 year ago
@beastieboydickie That isn't how capitalism works. As incomes go up in those countries they will be able to afford higher education ad more varied job training programs. This means that as incomes rise they will be able to diversify their economy. Then it might become more cost effective to export those jobs to even poorer countries.
LexPhilogus 1 year ago
@LexPhilogus That would be Ideal but I have traveled to China and seen the Nike factory and when labor gets to high they shut down the shop and relocate leaving thousands out of jobs. If you don't think its true go check it out yourself.
beastieboydickie 1 year ago
Comment removed
LexPhilogus 1 year ago
@beastieboydickie China's unemployment rate is 4.2%. The people that are losing jobs there, due to outsoursing, are evidently finding other means of employment.
LexPhilogus 1 year ago
@beastieboydickie The same thing happens in America and in Europe, and yet their trajectory amounts to a continuous rise in living standards. When markets are able to perpetually economize on variable costs (that includes labor) living standards also improve. I don't doubt that China has shut down Nike shops, but China's economy has been growing very rapidly for many years now. They can only do this if they are economizing on variable costs.
LexPhilogus 1 year ago
I would like to report this video as inappropriate
bzabrisk 1 year ago
when I grow up, i wanna work in a sweatshop
taledarkside 1 year ago
sweat shops are fucking awesome!
romanpr1nce 1 year ago
`hooray for sweatshops
tomeffess 1 year ago
GUYS, GUYS!......... You're both stupid.
kryptic127 1 year ago
@kryptic127 Thank you :)
Iisdabest889 1 year ago
Here in the US we have it extremely good. You get laid off, or are fired there are social programs to make sure you'll at least get something. If all else fails there is usually a food pantry to supply your needs. In all of these 3rd world nations if you don't eat you die. Oh, and as far as child labor goes, for many of those children the alternative is child prostitution.
langox510x 1 year ago
there used to be sweatshops in America too, let's abolish the minimum wage, workers' rights and the unemployment benefits (which is easy to do in a totalitarian regime)
pretty soon you're gonna get sweatshops everywhere, and they'll look like good alternatives to starvation I guess ...
pinochet222 1 year ago 23
@pinochet222 No, you won't.
If you do abolish those things (which have been done before) Then you need to abolish government interference with economics (which hasn't, hence sweatshops).
If you got rid of both those things, whichever country that happens to would be one of the freest and the richest.
Iisdabest889 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Iisdabest889 it's not "government interference", the government couldn't give less of a fuck.
it were workers who fought and died for those rights, you fucking ignorant, moronic scumbag.
pinochet222 1 year ago 2
@pinochet222 The government interfering in their market, as is the case in China and oppressive countries, that actually allow businesses to get away with poor treatment of workers. If there wasn't there'd be NOTHING stopping them from leaving their current business for a better one, and climb up from there.
I'm not as childish as you are, so I'm not going to resort to pathetic, personal attacks.
"Fucking ignorant, moronic scumbag." Laughable, reversible, and pathetic!
Iisdabest889 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Iisdabest889 LOL you're just too fucking stupid and ignorant.
China is not oppressive towards businesses or workers, they are actually neutral and the workers CAN leave, that's what creates all the abuse.
There's no way around it, you're just a fucking idiot.
pinochet222 1 year ago
@pinochet222 Them I'm sure you're aware of the heavy progressive tax the government places on the businesses?
By the way, I notice you are unable to make a logical argument as all you seem to be doing is insulting me. Anyone who reads this won't hold you to high esteem if you continue.
Iisdabest889 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Iisdabest889 Taxation is a factor?? There's clearly chaos in your dumb little head.
Enjoy your delusions and incoherent nonsense, crazy person.
pinochet222 1 year ago
@pinochet222 Would it kill you to make a decent, logical argument without the use of personal attacks?
Iisdabest889 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Iisdabest889 trust me, your dumb brain is not ready to process it.
pinochet222 1 year ago
@pinochet222 Ah, now I see how you're mindless, brainless head works. Someone disagrees with you, you attack them. You realise you're losing the argument, you just bombard with insults.
You aren't impressing or convincing anyone. I know I don't have a dumb brain, but you want to believe that simply because you are unable to make a proper argument what with your mental disability and all. I feel sorry for you, you're the reason people like Obama get elected.
Iisdabest889 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Iisdabest889 LOL quit whining, you can't compensate for being too stupid with more whining.
pinochet222 1 year ago