America - The Official Thread

[JacktheHat]

I agree with this statement in essense, but the harder question is what kind of responsibility should a corporation have?


M

In simple terms, in relation to wages/benefits, it should be on a parity with what they offer employees in their country of origin. They should also not take advantage of unethical or immoral practices which would be illegal in their country of origin.

 

[///M-Spec]

In simple terms, in relation to wages/benefits, it should be on a parity with what they offer employees in their country of origin.

I disagree. This may sound like a noble goal, but it would be worse for everyone in the long run. If you artificially set the price of labor to achieve parity, there would be negative incentive for a company to expand outside their country of origin. Therefore a factory would simply never be built in (insert developing country name here).

An opponent of industrialisation may think this is a good thing, but what it means in the long run is people in Country A continue to pay rising prices for the same goods. People in Country B take far, far longer to reach industrial capacity and continue to live on subtanence levels for generations.

Short term "good" for long term "bad".

They should also not take advantage of unethical or immoral practices which would be illegal in their country of origin.

No arguments here.


M

 

[JacktheHat]

I disagree. This may sound like a noble goal, but it would be worse for everyone in the long run. If you artificially set the price of labor to achieve parity, there would be negative incentive for a company to expand outside their country of origin. Therefore a factory would simply never be built in (insert developing country name here).

An opponent of industrialisation may think this is a good thing, but what it means in the long run is people in Country A continue to pay rising prices for the same goods. People in Country B take far, far longer to reach industrial capacity and continue to live on subtanence levels for generations.

Short term "good" for long term "bad".


M

Incentives would be things such as: being closer to resources needed for making (x) product therefore cutting costs, cheaper start up costs etc.
Also, paying an equivalent wage would still be much cheaper than employing workers at home as the cost of living is vastly lower.

Initial profits would be much lower but, you would create a loyal, motivated workforce.

 

[Danoff]

They should also not take advantage of unethical or immoral practices which would be illegal in their country of origin.

Unethical and immoral perhaps, but I'm going to argue the illegal aspect. Some laws (like minimum wage laws) should not be on the books. So I do not find it unethical for companies to abide only by the law of the land in which they set up the shop. However, they should be bound by their own sense of morality - as is necessary in a lawless land.

In simple terms, in relation to wages/benefits, it should be on a parity with what they offer employees in their country of origin.

That would prevent people in their country of origin from competing with people in the new country. It would give people in the origin country (as M as pointed out) an advantage - which would be unfair.

No, supply and demand should determine the wages.

Note that I used past tense. When land rights were taken away they could no longer sustain themselves (and, yes, that is a generalisation).

So the corporation shows up and drives people off their land with a mob an then since they have nowhere else to turn they show up to their old land to make a salary?

I don't think so.

The corporation shows up with money, BUYS land in a free exchange and then offers new opportunities to the locals.

 

[JacktheHat]

The corporation shows up with money, BUYS land in a free exchange and then offers new opportunities to the locals.

Your still being very nieve. Free exchange is not how it has happened, look into industrial revolutions and land rights.

 

[///M-Spec]

Incentives would be things such as: being closer to resources needed for making (x) product therefore cutting costs, cheaper start up costs etc.
Also, paying an equivalent wage would still be much cheaper than employing workers at home as the cost of living is vastly lower.

Initial profits would be much lower but, you would create a loyal, motivated workforce.

If you mean parity in wages adjusted for living standards in the country of origin, then it makes more sense. I've never built a factory in a developing nation before, so I couldn't say with certainty how the math works. But finding the right numbers to make everyone "a winner" is probably much harder than you might think.

However, we're still not thinking of something. Why not let the potential workers decide whether or not the lousy job is still better than life on a farm? It's not like they're stupid or something. If they think the lousy job is still better than toiling the fields, they would take it. If they don't, then they stay in the fields. What's the problem? What ever they choose, they are still choosing what they think is best for them, even if it is between two lousy choices. If there were no factory, then they'd have one lousy choice.


M

 

[JacktheHat]

If you mean parity in wages adjusted for living standards in the country of origin, then it makes more sense. I've never built a factory in a developing nation before, so I could say with certainty how the math works. But finding the right numbers to make everyone "a winner" is probably much harder than you might think.

However, we're still not thinking of something. Why not let the potential workers decide whether or not the lousy job is still better than life on a farm? It's not like they're stupid or something. If they think the lousy is still better than toiling the fields, they would take it. If they don't, then they stay in the fields. What's the problem? What ever they choose, they are still choosing what they think is best for them, even if it is between two lousy choices. If there were no factory, then they'd have one lousy choice.


M

You bandy the word 'choice' around but it isn't an option for people in developing nations. Workers don't sell their land to corporations, governments do and without the consent of the workers - which is where land rights issues come into it and the need for corporations to act responsibly.

 

[///M-Spec]

You bandy the word 'choice' around but it isn't an option for people in developing nations. Workers don't sell their land to corporations, governments do and without the consent of the workers - which is where land rights issues come into it and the need for corporations to act responsibly.

Then the problem is with the government, who has stolen the worker's land (assuming they own it in the first place?).

Just because the foreign company benefits immorally from a lawless act, doesn't mean the company is the root cause. What about government responsiblity?

Are you generalizing again that everyone who is working a crummy job in some factory is doing so because their government has taken their land away??

I don't bandy "choice" around any more than you bandy "oppression" around. Generalisation is fine and dandy when you're talking about the weather. It is not fine when you talk about morality or history.

And before you haul off and call me naive, you should think twice. I am a well read, well informed person. I remember reading all about Central America in highschool and have even done lots of recent research on the region. I am well aware of the history of many countries and the corporations that interact with them, not just American ones, but Eurpoean and Asian ones as well.

Be clear on what I condone and defend, and what I denouce and condemn. I do not condone governments that take people's land away from them. I do not condone governments that conspire together to oppress their citizens. I condone the free exchange of goods and services, so long as they are truly freely exchanged.


M

 

[Swift]

You bandy the word 'choice' around but it isn't an option for people in developing nations. Workers don't sell their land to corporations, governments do and without the consent of the workers - which is where land rights issues come into it and the need for corporations to act responsibly.

Ok, how is it possibly the corporations responsibility to set policy for how a government should act? If they do everything legally here and in the foriegn country according to the laws of the land, why should they have to worry about the policy?

I'm not justifying sweat shops. What I'm saying is that if a government isn't setup to protect it's people then why should it be the responsibility of the corporation?

 

[Danoff]

Workers don't sell their land to corporations, governments do and without the consent of the workers - which is where land rights issues come into it and the need for corporations to act responsibly.

First of all, some workers DO sell their land to corporations. Secondly, governments should not steal from their citizens. Thirdly, if the corporation is well aware of the fact that the land has been stolen by the government and sold to them - then they should seriously check their conscience before jumping in.

But let's make sure the blame stays where it should stay in that case - the government.

If I buy a stolen watch that I didn't know was stolen - am I responsible for the theft? If I buy a stolen watch that I did know was stolen, I'm still not responsible for the theft, but I am a pretty crummy person.

 

[Swift]

First of all, some workers DO sell their land to corporations. Secondly, governments should not steal from their citizens. Thirdly, if the corporation is well aware of the fact that the land has been stolen by the government and sold to them - then they should seriously check their conscience before jumping in.

But let's make sure the blame stays where it should stay in that case - the government.

If I buy a stolen watch that I didn't know was stolen - am I responsible for the theft? If I buy a stolen watch that I did know was stolen, I'm still not responsible for the theft, but I am a pretty crummy person.

Yeah, that's what I said....

BTW Jack,

This is really good. You said before that Britain and America both exploit other nations people and resources. You've also stated this is wrong. So, if you use products from these exploited people, what does that make you?

I will happily debate this with you in the correct place, which is not in a thread about America, or in a response to your question about the US flag.

I'd prefer not to fall foul of the mods.

Where would you like to discuss this?

 

[Swift]

Well, it seems we've lost our resident America basher. On to the next American topic....

 

[cardude2004]

Who was our resident basher, JacktheHat?

 

[Swift]

Who was our resident basher, JacktheHat?

You got it.

 

[Solid Fro]

Watch two more crawl out of the hole.

 

[ledhed]

call in an air strike ! Fire in the hole !

 

[Arwin]

I'm not justifying sweat shops. What I'm saying is that if a government isn't setup to protect it's people then why should it be the responsibility of the corporation?

Similarly, if it isn't forbidden by law to kill you, then why shouldn't I? Because it's wrong, perhaps? I agree with danoff in that respect.

I'm not against America in that respect any more than I am against Europe. Both countries have ridiculous protections in place of their own agriculture, for instance, not only severely crippling the possibility for poor nations in, say, Africa to earn a living exporting crop, but we subsidize the crop so much that it can be dumped on the African market below the local selling price. That is truly amazing.

(not to mention forcing American and European citizens to pay bucketloads for a weird agricultural wellfare plan, that we add about 60% pay more to in the form of a guilt-payoff to the African nations ... I mean, please, the insanity ...)

 

[Swift]

How do you all feel political correctness has effected America? I for one think that it's really stupid. I find it to be a nice way to say something that is usally not nice. Or, someone so worried about offending another that they don't speak their mind.

I'm black. So I get classified as an African-Amerian. That's dumb. Why? Because I'm an AMERICAN with African ancestory. Ancestory that I'll probably never know.

There's a host of other situations like that. What do you all think?

 

[cardude2004]

I think that our political correctness is also a "bad" thing. I don't like parts of it. Yes people should be treated equal, but so often political correctness is taken to the extreme's.

 

[a6m5]

My perception of "political correctness" is kind of like Unions. I don't like them, but sometimes we need them. Maybe, it would've been useful decade or two ago, but not really useful today. I hope, that make sense.

 

[sicbeing]

PC is no longer needed, now it's just something to fall back on in court.

 

[Joey D]

My perception of "political correctness" is kind of like Unions. I don't like them, but sometimes we need them. Maybe, it would've been useful decade or two ago, but not really useful today. I hope, that make sense.

It would be fine if it wasn't abused, both the unions and the pc. I would be down for both if it wasn't just another abused system in this country...like welfare.

 

[sicbeing]

...like welfare.

I second that. Welfare is a very bad thing IMO when abused. More Kids = More Money = More Population = Bad.

 

[a6m5]

I'm sure not everybody abuses the welfare system, but I am annoyed by those who receive welfare, but has the money to spend on cable TV, cigarettes, etc. If you are getting handouts from the government, you should do without those "luxuries".

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm sure not everybody abuses the welfare system, but I am annoyed by those who receive welfare, but has the money to spend on cable TV, cigarettes, etc. If you are getting handouts from the government, you should do without those "luxuries".

I agree. I have a cousin who has three kids and is on welfare, but everytime the welfare check comes in she drops teh kids off with a family member and goes and plays bingo, unless it is a special night and then it is the casino boat. I am torn between reporting her and not be outcasted by my family.

 

[Danoff]

I'm sure not everybody abuses the welfare system, but I am annoyed by those who receive welfare, but has the money to spend on cable TV, cigarettes, etc. If you are getting handouts from the government, you should do without those "luxuries".

The government cannot rightly say that it will only hand out money out to people if they live their life a certain way. They're already descriminating by handing out money to people of a certain income level - it would be even more wrong dictate lifestyle on top.

The problem is that your money is being handed out to people that you would not otherwise give your money to. That is a problem inherent with using the government for charity. What you would prefer (and this is true of most people who are donating money) is that you were able to pick a charity that you liked, a cause you support, and give your money directly to that cause or charity. What you seem to prefer is the ability to screen the people that you're helping - and that makes a lot of sense. That means that the government should get out of the charity business and allow you to donate the money it would have been taking from you to whoever you wish for your own reasons.

 

[Silverzone]

But the money would be better spent, if the people on welfare didn't send money on cigarettes and Tv. because, they could easily give up cigarettes to survive

 

[a6m5]

I agree. I have a cousin who has three kids and is on welfare, but everytime the welfare check comes in she drops teh kids off with a family member and goes and plays bingo, unless it is a special night and then it is the casino boat. I am torn between reporting her and not be outcasted by my family.

Talking to her about it, then reporting her, if she doesn't correct her situation would be the right thing to do. However, she's your family and I'd personally understand, if you can't bring yourself to report her.

danoff: Some parents are spending money on cable TV, lottery(or bingo), cigarettes, while the government is paying for their kids' lunches and breakfasts at schools. To me, that is not a right to "life styles". If you are going to have kids, you take care of them. If you fall short, government should help and I'd be the first to support that. But not while they have money left over to spend on bad habits and luxury like cable TV(I don't have cable, they should buy me a frickin' lunch! ).

 

[Danoff]

But the money would be better spent, if the people on welfare didn't send money on cigarettes and Tv. because, they could easily give up cigarettes to survive

The money would have been better spent by the people it was taken from in the first place - by how the money is spent is somewhat beside the point. The point is that it isn't the government's place to tell you how to spend YOUR money. However, this is the inherent problem with welfare and partially why it should be eliminated.

But the money would be better spent, if the people on welfare didn't send money on cigarettes and Tv. because, they could easily give up cigarettes to survive

Those people have a right to spend their money on whatever they choose. They didn't get poor in the first place by spending money well, what makes you think they'll start spending it well after they become poor and the government gives them free money to blow? The problem is that the government is doing a bad job and you feel slighted because it's doing it with your cash. This is why the government should let you decide which charity you wish to donate and butt out of the charity business (where it doesn't belong).

 

[a6m5]

The money would have been better spent by the people it was taken from in the first place - by how the money is spent is somewhat beside the point. The point is that it isn't the government's place to tell you how to spend YOUR money. However, this is the inherent problem with welfare and partially why it should be eliminated.



Those people have a right to spend their money on whatever they choose. They didn't get poor in the first place by spending money well, what makes you think they'll start spending it well after they become poor and the government gives them free money to blow? The problem is that the government is doing a bad job and you feel slighted because it's doing it with your cash. This is why the government should let you decide which charity you wish to donate and butt out of the charity business (where it doesn't belong).

It's my personal take, that it wouldn't work on charitable basis. I could be wrong, but I really don't think it would work.

Also, you say that government doesn't have the right to tell people how to spend their money. I think that's true in most cases, but try looking at it this way:

a6m5 comes to danoff, asking for free meals. a6m5 says he just doesn't have the money to feed himself. danoff starts giving him few bucks a day, so a6m5 won't starve. But one day, danoff finds out that a6m5 is a smoker and he also buys Playboy magazine, every month.

Do you think a6m5 has the right to take advantage of danoff's aid, while spending the little money he does have on crap, he doesn't really need? Government is doing these people a favor, lending a helping hand. If they are taking money from the government, then they shouldn't be able to waste their money on luxuries and pleasures, IMO.

P.S. I don't smoke or buy Playboys in real life.