Presidential Election: 2012

[Omnis]

Fruit of the Loom is the only undies that fit my junk though.

 

[Bye Ya]

Fruit of the Loom is the only undies that fit my junk though.

How about your Nike apparel?

Shipping jobs overseas cannot be immoral unless you believe that US people are entitled to jobs whereas the rest of the world is not. Which would make you a nationalist of the worst kind.

You are right. Clearly it's totally moral and they are just being fair and humanitarian.

 

[Omnis]

Nike don't make undies.

 

[Bye Ya]

http://sz860755.en.nobodybuy.com/pid1104900/underwear-nike-underwear.htm

Most of Fruit’s plums go to Republicans, including $265,000 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee, run by Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell, the principal opponent of campaign finance reform.

Talk about taking the easy way out.

All Those Cheaper Products They Produce

$15 shirt @ 3 cents and hour
Liz Claiborne jackets $178 @ 74 cents paid per jacket
Alpine car stereos @ 31 cents per hour

Three 10ths of 1% of the Retail Cost


Hypocritical.

 

[Famine]

$30,000... from one family. Now multiply that by the number of jobs lost, which was more than 333.333333. If more than 333 people are laid off, then the $10,000,000 made from the $0.01 price drop is surpassed by the losses.

Say for every $30,000/year job shipped overseas Fruit of the Loom prevents a $0.01 rise in the cost of a t-shirt.

So each time a $30k job is outsourced, the people of the US are not required to pay $0.01 more for their shirt. Each $30k job is a $10m cost saving. Two $30k jobs is $20m saved, ten is $100m saved, three hundred is $3bn saved.

 

[Azuremen]

All Those Cheaper Products They Produce

Three 10ths of 1% of the Retail Cost

Hypocritical.

What I see linked from you isn't accounting for a great of other costs involved. And there are a lot, such as marketing, research, materials, transit, licensing fees, costumer service, and others.

So what is your point?

 

[Danoff]

$30,000... from one family. Now multiply that by the number of jobs lost, which was more than 333.333333. If more than 333 people are laid off, then the $10,000,000 made from the $0.01 price drop is surpassed by the losses. Now also consider that those people did not replace their jobs with equally paying ones, and the losses continue on for however long.

That family is not going to make that money back from savings in cost of products. Nothing is going to make that family whole again until they get a job that can't be done by folks in other countries. So that family suffers, but who benefits?

Well, all of the other people employed by the company who didn't lose their jobs because the company stayed profitable and kept their lights on. All of the people employed overseas who live in worse conditions than your friends who were laid off from fruit of the loom do. And all of the consumers who buy those products.

That's a lot of people benefiting that you refuse to acknowledge. And in the end, the if the laid off workers can find work doing something more valuable, the workforce as a whole has improved.

I mean, from the same article you get this...

In the last two years, Russell fired nearly 2,000 employees from two separate factories simply because the employees spoke out against sweatshop conditions including unsanitary drinking water, wages too low to feed a family and verbal abuse.

It's not their right to maintain their job after protesting their company's actions. I hate this notion that you are entitled to be employed regardless of your behavior toward your employer.

Three 10ths of 1% of the Retail Cost
Hypocritical.

What is hypocritical about this? You claim that this bolsters your point, but I really don't see it.

 

[DustDriver]

Nothing is going to make that family whole again until they get a job that can't be done by folks in other countries.

What if those people are ...how do I say it nicely... too stupid to find a job that can't be done by an ape (not racist, actual ape) somewhere in India?

Moving low paying, 'easy' jobs to other countries makes those people more dependant on the smarter folks who are capable of doing those more complicated jobs. And it's only a matter of time before the loans in those other countries rise because of improving living standards. But by that time companies have invested too much oversees and don't bother moving production back.

So should we just move the stupid people to the 'cheap' countries and move the smart people to the wealthy countries? Only leave a couple of smarter people for supervision. Lets throw in some hunger games aswell, to let the stupid people know they are only there for the rich people's benefit.

Moving production to countries with cheap labor isn't done to garantuee profit, it's to maximise profit. Doesn't matter for them who they hurt while doing so.

 

[Danoff]

What if those people are ...how do I say it nicely... too stupid to find a job that can't be done by an ape (not racist, actual ape) somewhere in India?

There are unskilled jobs that require you to be in-person. Food service has a ton of them but there are others as well. Package delivery, moving services, etc.

Your next questions is probably, what if this person is not physically fit and also stupid. Well there are still jobs for them as cashiers, secretaries, receptionists, and Vice President of the United States.

There are also a TON of jobs in the market that require some skills, but not much. Construction comes to mind, so does kindergarten teacher, but also in high tech industries like biomedical. There's also a job out there, for example, called cytotechnologist.

Cytotechnologists are laboratory professionals who study cells and cellular anomalies. Using a microscope, they examine slides of human cells for any indication that a cell is abnormal and/or diseased (i.e., cancerous or precancerous lesions, infectious agents, or inflammatory processes). Cytotechnologists often play a crucial role in helping patients to recover from illness, by identifying a disease while it is still at a treatable stage.

Sounds complicated right? What it amounts to is a room full of 20 or so college dropouts who have 100 blood slides that they have to look through each day to figure out which ones look abnormal. It takes some training to be able to recognize certain diseases, but you can do the job without much education. You just have to have some ability to recognize patterns and the ability to learn those patterns.

Moving low paying, 'easy' jobs to other countries makes those people more dependant on the smarter folks who are capable of doing those more complicated jobs. And it's only a matter of time before the loans in those other countries rise because of improving living standards. But by that time companies have invested too much oversees and don't bother moving production back.

No, they'd move their production to yet another undeveloped company and the people in Malaysia would start complaining about outsourcing to Somalia. We should only hope that the entire world develops to the point where we are and we have to start paying more for our socks. Because if that were true, the world economy and human production as a whole would push the entire human population to amazing wealth. Income disparity would reach never before seen heights, but so would across-the-board standard of living.

So should we just move the stupid people to the 'cheap' countries and move the smart people to the wealthy countries?

That would never work in a million years. Although, I don't think stupid vs. smart is really as good a description as hard working vs lazy. Hard working and lazy people (or stupid vs smart) will always be intermingled. Some of the poorest, least educated people I have ever met cater to the richest, most educated, most hard working people I have ever met.

Think about it for a moment. As a middle-class person you probably rarely valet your car, you probably wash your own car, you wash your own clothes, you raise your own children, you wash your own dishes, you make your own dinner, you drive yourself to work. Super rich people do NONE of those things. They have a very unskilled person doing each of those jobs.

Moving production to countries with cheap labor isn't done to garantuee profit, it's to maximise profit. Doesn't matter for them who they hurt while doing so.

Yes well that is what companies are for. But in the process, they benefit the world - that's capitalism.

Probably I have offended everyone reading this as I may have listed your profession in these lists. Know that I'm not just pulling these out of the air, a lot of these professions are pulled from personal experience or people I know and respect.

 

[Bye Ya]

What I see linked from you isn't accounting for a great of other costs involved. And there are a lot, such as marketing, research, materials, transit, licensing fees, costumer service, and others.

So what is your point?

Right, so because they also have normal business costs... it's valid for the companies to go overseas and behave a step above slave mongers? I'm glad that you are totally in support of these business practices in the name of a $0.01 drop in your tighty whiteys.

That family is not going to make that money back from savings in cost of products. Nothing is going to make that family whole again until they get a job that can't be done by folks in other countries.

So that family suffers, but who benefits?

That family will NEVER get a similar job (which is where they are qualified) that can't be done by folks in another country until they are willing to work for $0.08/hr. Do you know how many jobs that ends up being across the entire board of 'American' businesses?

Well, all of the other people employed by the company who didn't lose their jobs because the company stayed profitable and kept their lights on.

To you it's like every single company that practices this way is going under...

All of the people employed overseas who live in worse conditions than your friends who were laid off from fruit of the loom do.

That's so true, clearly they are benefiting from unsanitary working conditions and still not clearing enough to provide for their families.

And all of the consumers who buy those products... *(and don't have a problem with exploitation in the process)

That's a lot of people benefiting that you refuse to acknowledge. And in the end, the if the laid off workers can find work doing something more valuable, the workforce as a whole has improved.

Big "if". $0.08/hr is pretty valuable.

It's not their right to maintain their job after protesting their company's actions. I hate this notion that you are entitled to be employed regardless of your behavior toward your employer.

Well, when you get dysentery from drinking the company's water...

No, you're totally right though. They should keep their mouths shut.

What is hypocritical about this? You claim that this bolsters your point, but I really don't see it.

Immoral business practices.


I really can't understand how you people will justify the loss of jobs that might lead to $0.01 in cheaper products for the economy, meanwhile those companies aren't just cutting costs a little... they are essentially a step above having FREE labor. We are talking about $5/day labor, and these companies still don't want to pay that.

This contributes to another issue which you're all so happy to let happen, the separation of wealth. Take the jobs from Americans and ship them off to make God knows what amount of profit gain from these sweatshops... the so-called 99.9% just added another .9999999999999 to the end of that number.

The problem is not just where all the money ends up, but what it does, controlling virtually everything from the media to who they like most to put into office. Right, because going from $30K/year to $1000/year in labor costs just wasn't enough. If we get a tax break... that labor cost moves into the negative range. Hey, I got just the group of guys to put into office who will gladly pass a bill like that for us: none of them make less than $20M a year and one has a father who is a war monger and used to be president.

 

[Danoff]

Right, so because they also have normal business costs... it's valid for the companies to go overseas and behave a step above slave mongers?

Slavery is, of course, a human rights violation, and anyone participating in slavery should be jailed. Nobody is supporting slavery. I do, however, support the rights of those people to choose to work for whatever wage they choose to work for. Many of them love these "sweatshops" because it is their best opportunity to lift themselves out of poverty.

That family will NEVER get a similar job (which is where they are qualified) that can't be done by folks in another country until they are willing to work for $0.08/hr.

That's just not correct. You make it sound as though no matter what you do, someone else in the world can do it - and that's not true. People can get qualified for new jobs, they can learn, they can grow, they can develop. Peoples' minds do not stop working once they leave school for the first time. It is possible to train after school.

To you it's like every single company that practices this way is going under...

Well, it's a little hyperbole. But a company could choose to close a branch, or a particular division, or stop selling a product that isn't competitive and lay off the people who worked on that product. It's meant as a broader abstract concept, not a concrete case.

That's so true, clearly they are benefiting from unsanitary working conditions and still not clearing enough to provide for their families.

They should quit then.

Well, when you get dysentery from drinking the company's water...

They should work only where they want to work.

No, you're totally right though. They should keep their mouths shut.

Not at all! They can mouth off all they want about the horrible working conditions at their company. This can influence others not to work there and can cause customers to stop buying that company's products. What they should NOT do is assume they can do all of that and still work for the company.

Immoral business practices.

Which of Mitt Romney's business practices are immoral?

This contributes to another issue which you're all so happy to let happen, the separation of wealth. Take the jobs from Americans and ship them off to make God knows what amount of profit gain from these sweatshops... the so-called 99.9% just added another .9999999999999 to the end of that number.

It's so funny how you have no consideration whatsoever for the people in any country besides the US. There are people in impoverished parts of the world that desperately WANT to work for Nike for cents an hour. They very badly want to do the job that Americans disrespect and want to be drastically overpaid for. They want to do this work and get paid these wages, and you laugh in their face and say "NO, you're not American. Piss off!"

The problem is not just where all the money ends up, but what it does, controlling virtually everything from the media to who they like most to put into office. Right, because going from $30K/year to $1000/year in labor costs just wasn't enough. If we get a tax break... that labor cost moves into the negative range. Hey, I got just the group of guys to put into office who will gladly pass a bill like that for us: none of them make less than $20M a year and one has a father who is a war monger and used to be president.

Cronyism in government is a symptom of too much government, not too little.

 

[Bye Ya]

It's so funny how you have no consideration whatsoever for the people in any country besides the US. There are people in impoverished parts of the world that desperately WANT to work for Nike for cents an hour. They very badly want to do the job that Americans disrespect and want to be drastically overpaid for.

Right, I don't care about these people... which is why I call these business practices immoral.

They want to do this work and get paid these wages, and you laugh in their face and say "NO, you're not American. Piss off!"

Just, no.

Cronyism in government is a symptom of too much government, not too little.

It's the result of paid-off corporate politicians running the show.

 

[Danoff]

Right, I don't care about these people... which is why I call these business practices immoral.

You're calling hiring them immoral.

It's the result of paid-off corporate politicians running the show.

...which is the result of? Big government.

 

[Bye Ya]

You're calling hiring them immoral.

Is this a joke?


If I feed you poison, are you going to call it okay because I fed you?

...which is the result of? Big government.

No, it's the result of corporate entities giving money to politicians so that their individual interests are met. That situation doesn't necessitate an unreasonably large government. As soon as any form of taxation or regulation enters the picture it can happen.

 

[DustDriver]

We should only hope that the entire world develops to the point where we are and we have to start paying more for our socks. Because if that were true, the world economy and human production as a whole would push the entire human population to amazing wealth. Income disparity would reach never before seen heights, but so would across-the-board standard of living.

Let's hope this doesn't happen. Unless everyone in the wealthy countries wants to drastically lower their quality of life.
We're already consuming a lot more than the planet can produce. Now what if those third world countries would also get up to our standard of living?
A couple of decades and World War 3 would be started for the remaining resources. And the all out war will destroy even more resources. Human population will be reduced drastically, consummation will go way down and nature can start repairing itself again.

It's so funny how you have no consideration whatsoever for the people in any country besides the US. There are people in impoverished parts of the world that desperately WANT to work for Nike for cents an hour. They very badly want to do the job that Americans disrespect and want to be drastically overpaid for. They want to do this work and get paid these wages, and you laugh in their face and say "NO, you're not American. Piss off!"

Do you really think these people want to work for such a low wage?
It's either work and try to survive with the little money they get, or die of hunger. (or both in a lot of cases)
If all the companies pay so little, it doesn't matter where they work. And should they speak up, there are plenty of people in line who want to survive as well.

And in a lot of countries, it's the international economy that systematically undermined the local businesses. Instead of giving people the means to run their business, we give them consumable products that put local businessmen (like farmers) out of business, because they can't compete with free stuff. (but that is probably a discussion on it's own)

 

[nobuffalo]

Let's hope this doesn't happen. Unless everyone in the wealthy countries wants to drastically lower their quality of life.
We're already consuming a lot more than the planet can produce. Now what if those third world countries would also get up to our standard of living?
A couple of decades and World War 3 would be started for the remaining resources. And the all out war will destroy even more resources. Human population will be reduced drastically, consummation will go way down and nature can start repairing itself again.

Seriously? Wow.

 

[PeterJB]

We have more than enough resources of food, water, shelter, and money, they're just not distributed very evenly.

 

[sumbrownkid]

What Danoff means is worst case scenario of course.

Not every third world country is going to move up the economic ranks.

 

[Danoff]

Is this a joke?


If I feed you poison, are you going to call it okay because I fed you?

No it's not a joke, and no your example is not parallel. And no giving someone a job who wants a job is not immoral.

No, it's the result of corporate entities giving money to politicians so that their individual interests are met. That situation doesn't necessitate an unreasonably large government. As soon as any form of taxation or regulation enters the picture it can happen.

...not just any form of taxation or regulation, but discriminatory forms of taxation and regulation. As soon as it's possible to get legislation that favors your company or regulations that put your competitors out of business, suddenly giving money to politicians can make you more money in the end.

Hopefully now you see how big government leads to cronyism.

Let's hope this doesn't happen. Unless everyone in the wealthy countries wants to drastically lower their quality of life.
We're already consuming a lot more than the planet can produce. Now what if those third world countries would also get up to our standard of living?

We (the people of the planet) would produce more. The production capability of the human race is barely tapped. Natural resources will not be a problem.

The only thing that makes you say this is the notion that demand will increase without a corresponding increase in supply to meet that demand. You think supply cannot increase because you assume that our current production capability and technology is stagnant - that the way we do things today is the only way they can be done. Those assumptions have never been true in the history of humanity, and they aren't true today.

Do you really think these people want to work for such a low wage?

I know they do.

It's either work and try to survive with the little money they get, or die of hunger.

Better that they don't have the work and just die then.

If all the companies pay so little, it doesn't matter where they work.

It's economics, the more companies hiring the higher wages they have to offer to get employees. It's the reason America exists, it's the way our economy functions. It's not a pie in the sky pipe dream, it's how economics works - and it is currently lifting the standard of living for extremely impoverished people. It's working right before our eyes, and yet because it hasn't finished working we cry foul.

 

[Azuremen]

Right, so because they also have normal business costs... it's valid for the companies to go overseas and behave a step above slave mongers? I'm glad that you are totally in support of these business practices in the name of a $0.01 drop in your tighty whiteys.

You do realize those people work those jobs because they are often the best opportunity in those countries for relatively unskilled work? And you do realize the cost of living is quite different in those parts of the world?

Then you seem to be forgetting that by outsourcing this basic labor, they are making money to pay into other positions and departments. Which are filled by people with degrees or at least learned skill sets.

 

[DustDriver]

We (the people of the planet) would produce more. The production capability of the human race is barely tapped. Natural resources will not be a problem.

The only thing that makes you say this is the notion that demand will increase without a corresponding increase in supply to meet that demand. You think supply cannot increase because you assume that our current production capability and technology is stagnant - that the way we do things today is the only way they can be done. Those assumptions have never been true in the history of humanity, and they aren't true today.

I'm sure more can be produced, but I'm also sure natural resources won't be able to keep up. Like, for instance, oil. We could probably do without it to produce energy, but what about all the plastics and medication and other stuff that is based on oil? You could say we could use vegetable oil.
But we also need those fields for the food supplies. And we need more food, because more people in those poor countries stay alive.
Technology isn't the limiting factor, it's all about the resources.

It's economics, the more companies hiring the higher wages they have to offer to get employees. It's the reason America exists, it's the way our economy functions. It's not a pie in the sky pipe dream, it's how economics works - and it is currently lifting the standard of living for extremely impoverished people. It's working right before our eyes, and yet because it hasn't finished working we cry foul.

The companies will always try to keep the wages low, and they have the power to do that because there are enough people in line for simple work like that and they have enough money to keep the local governments in check. Until a point where all the workers rise up against the low standards of working and living. Just like what happened in the 'developed' countries over a century ago.

 

[Danoff]

I'm sure more can be produced, but I'm also sure natural resources won't be able to keep up. Like, for instance, oil. We could probably do without it to produce energy, but what about all the plastics and medication and other stuff that is based on oil? You could say we could use vegetable oil.
But we also need those fields for the food supplies. And we need more food, because more people in those poor countries stay alive.
Technology isn't the limiting factor, it's all about the resources.

Oil is more of an issue for energy than it is for plastics. We're already beginning to develop the ability to make plastic out of compost (not before it's food, after it's food), and even from bacteria. So... no. Resources are not an issue. Obviously energy can be produced in gobs without oil... and Thorium reactors can solve the problem of running out of Uranium (that's not kicking the can down the road, there's a ton more Thorium than Uranium). Electricity can be used to farm freshwater from the ocean, so Thorium reactors can generate freshwater as well.... we're not going to run out of ocean water anytime soon. Also the vast majority of farmland in the world is underutilized.

Nope, sorry, resources are not a problem. Our development of them is the only problem, but that will naturally happen as the world population prospers.

Your doomsday scenario is not founded in anything but the concern that humanity will stop solving problems - but problem solving is one of the things we do best.

The companies will always try to keep the wages low, and they have the power to do that because there are enough people in line for simple work like that and they have enough money to keep the local governments in check. Until a point where the workers all rise up against the low standards of working and living. Just like what happened in the 'developed' countries over a century ago.

There isn't a need for workers to rise up against low standards of living for standards of living to improve. They improve automatically via a concept known as economics. I don't know how much money you make, but I'd wager that you make more money than anyone in your field has ever demanded by "rising up" against their employer. How did that happen? Also, by the time that happened in the US, standards of living were already raised significantly.

This notion that employees must force their employer to pay them a fair wage is caused by a lack of understanding of economic principles.

Now, human rights standards need to be upheld around the world, which they are not currently. And where they are not, it can be problem since companies can exploit people who are oppressed by governments that do not support their rights. The problem in these cases are not the companies, but the governments in those regions.

 

[DustDriver]

resources are not a problem

I still think using resources efficiently won't keep solving the problems, especially with the short term economics of today. But as we can't be certain how it turns out, it's probably best to agree to disagree on that point.

There isn't a need for workers to rise up against low standards of living for standards of living to improve. They improve automatically via a concept known as economics. I don't know how much money you make, but I'd wager that you make more money than anyone in your field has ever demanded by "rising up" against their employer. How did that happen? Also, by the time that happened in the US, standards of living were already raised significantly.

This notion that employees must force their employer to pay them a fair wage is caused by a lack of understanding of economic principles.

In an ideal world, you'd be correct. But I have to thank the people who 'rose up' for the wage I can earn now. if they didn't, we wouldn't have the rights we have today to get a fair wage and working conditions.
And my field of work didn't exist back then, but it's a field where there are still more jobs than people capable and willing to fill them in. (for now, at least)

Now, human rights standards need to be upheld around the world, which they are not currently. And where they are not, it can be problem since companies can exploit people who are oppressed by governments that do not support their rights. The problem in these cases are not the companies, but the governments in those regions.

And the companies who actively try to pressure those governments.
A lot of laws are made under influence of those wealthy multinationals.

People here had to fight hard for their rights too. Lots of those developing countries had no need for such laws until the big companies undermined their (primitive) economy. And with the money comes the power to get the right people in the right spots to pass the laws that companies propose. Oh, we're back at the topic of the US presidential elections again.

 

[Bye Ya]

You do realize those people work those jobs because they are often the best opportunity in those countries for relatively unskilled work? And you do realize the cost of living is quite different in those parts of the world?

Cost of 'living', gotcha. Aren't we just the knights in shining white armor?


It's exploitation with the dollar sign as the bottom line. Forget business for one second and just look at the human to human interaction here and how these peoples' impoverished lives are being regarded.

It's like being in a war and coming up to a guy with his leg freshly blown off, but instead of giving him medical treatment you just drop him a .45 and a few bullets instead. You'll be back in a few hours with some more bullets if he's still hanging in there, but you might need those medical supplies for yourself down the road.

"Sorry guy, you were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Make a choice... do you want to die or do you want some bullets? Sorry but you are not getting anywhere near the stuff that might really benefit you. We're doing well and we want to keep doing well."


It's the exploitation of peoples' desperation, and it's immoral.

 

[Azuremen]

Cost of 'living', gotcha. Aren't we just the knights in shining white armor?

I prefer the term realist, but you can call me a knight in armor if you want.

It's like being in a war and coming up to a guy with his leg freshly blown off, but instead of giving him medical treatment you just drop him a .45 and a few bullets instead. You'll be back in a few hours with some more bullets if he's still hanging in there, but you might need those medical supplies for yourself down the road.

"Sorry guy, you were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Make a choice... do you want to die or do you want some bullets? Sorry but you are not getting anywhere near the stuff that might really benefit you. We're doing well and we want to keep doing well."

There are so many things wrong with this analogy I'm not sure where to start.

Mostly, though, it has nothing to do with the topic.

It's the exploitation of peoples' desperation, and it's immoral.

I'm curious, but have you ever traveled at all? Or met people that wouldn't have work if it weren't for something like this? Or are you just sitting in a chair, talking about morality? Do you have an actual solution?

Without these jobs, many of those people would have no work at all.

 

[Bye Ya]

I'm curious, have you ever felt compassion?

 

[Danoff]

I still think using resources efficiently won't keep solving the problems, especially with the short term economics of today. But as we can't be certain how it turns out, it's probably best to agree to disagree on that point.

Ok. You're glass half empty, I'm glass half full. But there is no historical evidence to support your view.

In an ideal world, you'd be correct. But I have to thank the people who 'rose up' for the wage I can earn now. if they didn't, we wouldn't have the rights we have today to get a fair wage and working conditions.

Well strictly speaking you don't have the right to a fair wage or working conditions. You have laws that guarantee you a fair wage and working conditions. But those laws only extend to minimum wage, which I'd gather you're making more than... so those laws haven't really helped you at all. I'd guess that your working conditions are beyond what the law requires as well. Your company is voluntarily paying you more than it has to and giving you better working conditions than it has to. Why on earth would they do that? And how can you have anyone but them and yourself to thank for that?

And the companies who actively try to pressure those governments.
A lot of laws are made under influence of those wealthy multinationals.

If they're responsible for governments that violate human rights, or influencing laws that violate human rights, they should be in jail. Plain and simple.

...and we don't have to wait for them to be jailed in that country, we should jail them here in this country for violating rights over there.

People here had to fight hard for their rightslaws too.

FTFY

Lots of those developing countries had no need for such laws until the big companies undermined their (primitive) economy.

...by offering jobs? Which they desperately wanted?

And with the money comes the power to get the right people in the right spots to pass the laws that companies propose.

The morality of that law may cause the people at the company responsible for it to be criminals.

It's the exploitation of peoples' desperation, and it's immoral.

I see, interesting. So if you give a homeless person a job because he needs to eat, that's immoral. Wow, you have a funny definition that equates being a good person with being an evil person.

Now keep in mind that your solution to this is to force the homeless guy to starve. You said outsourcing was immoral remember? So you want those jobs to be in the US - meaning that you want these people to not even have the choices that you say are too limited!

Have YOU ever felt compassion?

 

[Bye Ya]

I see, interesting. So if you give a homeless person a job because he needs to eat, that's immoral. Wow, you have a funny definition that equates being a good person with being an evil person.

That's not the case though. It's literally like being a billionaire and giving a homeless person a job that only allows him to buy one bowl of rice a day, when you are plenty capable to do more. He still starves, just at a slower rate.

So you want those jobs to be in the US - meaning that you want these people to not even have the choices that you say are too limited!

Have YOU ever felt compassion?

No, what I want is that if we are going to give these people our jobs, at least pay them enough that they can get out of impoverishment and sickness...

But then when they get healthy they are less desperate and less able to be manipulated, so where's the incentive to do that?


But yeah, keep twisting my words.

 

[Azuremen]

I'm curious, have you ever felt compassion?

Constantly. I've helped complete strangers many times in my life. I've helped people find their way out from despair. I've cut my hours at work so those that needed more could get them.

Don't attempt to assume you know anything about me at a personal level. What I've learned in life is that everything can't sunshine and rainbows. That people do get the short end of the stick at times, not everyone can be a winner.

Think about it this way. If those that are, as you put it, being exploited are paid anything close to US wages, do you think it will fix things? Make things better for them?

What will happen is the company will be forced to dramatically increase the cost of its product to compensate. Or dramatically cut money elsewhere, so fewer skilled positions, cheaper marketing, cutting R&D costs, who knows. Either way, it will result in the company having trouble selling its product, because either costs will go up at the consumer level or the product won't sell because of quality and lack of marketing. Which in turn makes the company less profitable, investors pull out, and it will start to go under. Then those workers that were being "exploited" have no job because there is no company.

You're amazingly naive if you think there is some magic solution where everyone "wins" in your mind.

 

[Danoff]

That's not the case though. It's literally like being a billionaire and giving a homeless person a job that only allows him to buy one bowl of rice a day, when you are plenty capable to do more. He still starves, just at a slower rate.

No, what I want is that if we are going to give these people our jobs, at least pay them enough that they can get out of impoverishment and sickness...

Lovely idea, it's known as socialism. It doesn't work because it creates a disincentive for the billionaire to create the company that employs people in the first place. What you describe literally kills the goose that lays the golden eggs.

But then when they get healthy they are less desperate and less able to be manipulated, so where's the incentive to do that?

...the other corporations in the area that are willing to pay an extra 10 cents an hour who start poaching your employees. There is incentive to do it, but it takes time, it happens slowly, and it isn't forceful the way you'd like it to be. Interestingly enough it works waaay better than what you'd like us to do - which doesn't work.

Again, economics. It's worthwhile to understand.

You're amazingly naive if you think there is some magic solution where everyone "wins" in your mind.

Everyone does win. But not in the way he described. I suspect this is what you meant to convey.