Statistics...

[Dowding]

Education is not always the key. Some of the most educated people in the world were (and are) racist and bigoted. Equality within a resource-rich environment is the only way we will ever have a truly perfect society.

Probably won't happen in my lifetime ( ), but I can only hope.

Miko - what you write doesn't sound racist. America (like any other country) can't claim to have a 'classless' society. However, I believe that all people are born equal - the society that raises them implants them with 'acceptable' ideas, and one of those is ethnic identity. I reckon if you took a small black boy and a small white boy and set them down with some toys, they will play together happily forever. Only when you implant into them, that they are different besides colour that racism starts to develop.

BTW - big business only serves profit in the end. It does not really give a f**k about the society in which it operates. That's why it is OK for Nike to have not a single factory in the US producing footwear - it is farmed out to the far east where labour is dirt cheap, despite the fact there is plenty of people who are available to fill the vacancies.

 

"The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal."

How very glib. Or conversely,

"The modern definition of a 'liberal' is someone who is winning an argument with a racist."

[Toad]

 

Originally posted by Igloo:
Here, everyone has their own hard set opinions and it really does not matter what information you bring forth...

Jeez, Ig! Don't give it up without even trying!

Just one time give us an argument where you actually DO bring forth some verifiable information rather than just your august opinion!

Then see how it goes.

[Toad]

 

Originally posted by Dowding:
BTW - big business only serves profit in the end. It does not really give a f**k about the society in which it operates. That's why it is OK for Nike to have not a single factory in the US producing footwear - it is farmed out to the far east where labour is dirt cheap, despite the fact there is plenty of people who are available to fill the vacancies.

Those dang capitalists! Always trying to make a profit so they can stay in business! I HATE that! Why don't they just give product away until they fold? Society would enjoy the freebies for a while!

Why, pray tell, should they not make shoes overseas where wages are less? Is the US suffering due to the lack of Nike factories? Unemployment is pretty low right now.

If wages were more, wouldn't the shoes cost more? Would that be a good thing?

[Dowding]

Capitalism is capitalism, and I think everything big business does is designed to benefit nobody but the shareholders (no matter who or what they screw in the process - smaller businessmen, the environment, developing cultures). As Michael Moore, would say, that is "...the awful truth."

Ethical Big Business? Its one of the biggest oxymorons going.

As for Nike (and dozens of other big businesses), its the labour they use that I object to - often child labour, working them ridiculous hours for a few cents (if they are lucky). Its almost as exploitative as the slave trade.

 

If wages were more, wouldn't the shoes cost more? Would that be a good thing?

So you reckon Nike passes on the savings from cheap labour to the consumer? Come on, Toad, tell me you're not that naive.

[Maverick]

Dowding,


Please, this is NOT a personal atack but an inquiry based on your last post.

I am curuous. If business (big or otherwise)is so bad, I am to assume you work soley in the public sector? You work only in a government enterprise?

If business is bad, who supplied the computer you use, the clothes you wear, the food you eat and the home you live in? Did the Government do all that for you? Did some business (or plural) provide all those things?

If you work in the private sector, and ethical big business is an oxymoron, does that make you a hypocrite since your efforts support the business? Are you an oxymoron as an ethical person in suport of an unethical enterprise?

Is there such a thing as an "ethical government" and is only government ethical? How do you tell if government IS ethical or not? (Same for business)

Mav <  gets on flame suit, LOTS of gel and digs a bunker!   <GDR>


Mav

[Dowding]

Firstly - I'm applying for Officer training in the RAF, among other things (just finished uni). I am not on income support, but work in a factory in the mean time.

I have nothing against business, I live in a capitalist country. I 'consume' like any good Westerner and I do not believe myself to be perfect or above criticism.

I have no illusions when it comes to big business - I just feel people ought to see it as it is; ethics in business seems to me to be an exercise in public relations.

I feel it is my right, responsibility and duty to criticize the actions of unelected (and elected) organisations, and their actions. If I don't agree with an action they do, I will say so.

Ethics is a deeply subjective thing - I don't believe a truly ethical government can exist, considering self-interest is a cornerstone of its foundations. I judge by my values and what I see as important (which I understand other people might not share).

I like inclusive, global, trans-national ideas. I am not absolutely atheistic, but organised religion has no place in my life.

The US is not ready to take over the world, either economically or politically. There is much 'evil' in America, like any other country or system.

Overall, I find it difficult to accept that things as they stand are 'as good as it gets'. Ideas must be challenged and changed for progress to be made.

Mav - I don't mind being asked to explain what I mean, and I also understand that you might disagree.   I wouldn't bother posting here if everyone shared my opinions - it would be very dull.

[Toad]

Dowding: As for Nike (and dozens of other big businesses), its the labour they use that I object to - often child labour, working them ridiculous hours for a few cents (if they are lucky). Its almost as exploitative as the slave trade.

I don’t like it either.

Do you think those countries/laborers would be better off without the Nike factory?

Would those workers take the job if it didn’t seem like a better option to them than NOT working for those wages?

It has always been thus in the history of the world. These factories and oppressive wages are going to bring more factories and create the need for more laborers....and with competition for workers, wages will rise along with the standard of living. Admittedly, it is a long, drawn out process, one I wish we could instantly transform. But in the real world it doesn’t work like that.

Mexico is just now getting over the hump. Remember when Mexico was the “cheap, oppressed labor?” They went through that period. They are still not up to “world class wages”. There is no doubt, however, that the standard of living in Mexico has improved.

So it will be in those areas. You walk before you can run. Factories must be built for jobs to be created, for the standard of living to rise.

So you reckon Nike passes on the savings from cheap labour to the consumer? Come on, Toad, tell me you're not that naive.

No, I believe that Nike sets a profit target. This profit target has to be high enough to satisfy the shareholders or the company may not remain in business very long. Capitalism, like it or not.

So, if that target is not met, one of two things happens.

1. They will raise Prices if the market will support that.

 Otherwise,

2.  Production will be curtailed (factories close and people, even poorly paid ones, are put out of work) until demand becomes more balanced with supply and prices rise to an “acceptable“ level..

Are you suggesting that moving the factories back to the US and paying higher wages to US workers would somehow be a better world situation?

Prices on Nikes would undoubtedly rise. Some US workers, who in any event are in a better economic situation/lifestyle than the Nike workers in 3rd world countries, would enjoy an even better economic situation/lifestyle.

How would that help the 3rd world workers?

You may not like the Capitalist process, but please point out a successful alternative.

Communism is an abject failure in raising a country’s standard of living to “1st World” standards.

True Socialism? I’m not aware of any truly successful “pure socialist” companies or nations. Are you?

Capitalism exists and thrives because it works better than anything else does. Certainly not because it is perfect.
 


[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 10-13-2000).]

[Maverick]

Miko,

Two of Heinliens books I keep in my house for re-reading are: Stranger in a Strange Land and Time Enough For Love. Actually I am one of Robert's greatest fans. I still have just about everything I have found that he wrote.  There are a couple that I like but don't feel made much of a statement and they are Job A Comedy of Justice and The number of the Beast.

Mav

[Dowding]

 

Originally posted by Toad:

I don’t like it either.

Do you think those countries/laborers would be better off without the Nike factory?

Wasn't it your good self, who was saying 'Where is the outrage?' while criticising people for a 'tsh, tsk' attitude? Seems you've changed your tune, Toad.  

Saying that the labourers will be somehow better off is no reason to actively exploit poorer countries/people. Take Saipan for instance. This is under US control, I believe, and this leads to inhabitants of China (for example) to want to move there to pursue the 'American Dream'. At one factory for GAP, people were recruited from the Chinese mainland, with the proviso that they pay about $4000. Obviously, they can't afford this so the factory has a convenient contract which goes as follows:

1) Agree to work until the debt has been paid back (plus interest), at whatever hours the factory demands
2) Agree to never fall in love or marry (this is true believe it or not)
3) Agree not to get pregnant
4) Work 7 days a week, with compulsory overtime

This is also applied to children as young as 10.

I can't see how you can justify the exploitation of children by quoting economic theory. Is there anything you can't put a value on?

 

Are you suggesting that moving the factories back to the US and paying higher wages to US workers would somehow be a better world situation?

That is not the point - the point is whether exploiting child labour is justified.

 

Communism is an abject failure in raising a country’s standard of living to “1st World” standards.

Take a look at Russia under Stalin, and compare the industry before 1917, and with that to be found in 1953. Communism (albeit Stalin's bloody version) created an industiral super-power from an essentially agrarian society in a few decades. This would have been very difficult to achieve without Stalin and communism.

There is something to be said for the view that communism didn't fail, that it was prevented from succeeding. This is certainly the case in Cuba.

No system is perfect, but that doesn't excuse turning a blind eye to its failings.

[Maverick]

Dowding

Saipan is not a commonwealth of the US and as such is no more under US control than is Britain.

As to the leap into the industrial age in Russia. Ask the millions who died under Stalin if they think it was worth it. Is that the type of government you wish to tout as a world leader?????? Their "experiment" lasted less than 80 years and has proven to be a failure. Why should they be looked upon as a success story here?

Mav

[This message has been edited by Maverick (edited 10-16-2000).]

[Dowding]

Maverick,

My point wasn't that Stalin was a humanitarian or just or fair or even human. Toad said that communism was an abject failure in raising a country's standard of living to the 1st world. This is simply not true if you look at the facts; communism dragged Russia into 20th century and built a country to rival the USA.

I was taking the same cold, monetary based stance as Toad does when it comes to child labour/slavery. Toad implies the suffering of the individual is irrelevant in the face of economic progress.

A view Stalin would be proud of, comrade.

[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 10-16-2000).]

[Maverick]

Dowding,

That last post was both uncalled for and untrue. It was not in your usual style to berate the person for a comment I feel you have obviously misconstrued. In my opinion your comparison to Toad and Stalin needs to be retracted and an apology issued. Do you really venerate Stalin so much???

I agree with Toad. Communism is a failed political experiment that resulted in the deaths of untold thousands of people. How many people must die before you think "bringing the country into a 1st world status" is too high a price to pay.  

Toads whole point was that if nike (or whatever company) did not employ those kids or adults, they would likely be in an even worse financial position.

You seem to think that business is supposed to be "ethical" and not employ those folks. Just how do you expect them to get along without a job at all?

I am not in favor of child labor. I am certainly not in favor of slavery either. I believe it is the country that those people live in who is responsible for seeing to the welfare of it's own people. If I were hungry and without any money and an employer offered me a job that would allow me to live I would take it. So would you. If the wages were not up to "western" standards but I could meet all of the essentials in that country then it is a living wage. That to me is certainly better than no wage at all.

From where I sit Russia (USSR) had a strong military. That does not constitute a first rate country however.

Finally, please do not use the term "comrade" when referring to me or my beliefs. I neither profess nor endorse Communism. If you wish to, that is your choice. Do not include me in it.

Mav

[This message has been edited by Maverick (edited 10-17-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Maverick (edited 10-17-2000).]

[Dowding]

Maverick - parts of my last post was very much tongue in cheek. I am in no way a communist or supporter of Stalin - I don't in any way 'admire' him or his actions. He was a monster second to none, not even Hitler.

You completely miss my point concerning 'the price of progress'. I find it deeply abhorrant that people should suffer for any kind of progress, economic or industrial. That was the point of my post.

I was not in any way trying to equate Toad to Stalin. That would be ridiculous and insulting - two things I strive not to be (obviously failed here).

My point was that Stalin very much believed the suffering of the individual is completely irrelevant to the economic and industrial progress he was creating (this had to be true considering the number who starved to death, were shot etc, under his regime). I was drawing parallels between this attitude, and Toad's justification that child or underpaid labour somehow benefits the whole country - i.e. the suffering of the individual worker is somehow mitigated by the benefit brought to the economy of the country as a whole.

As for 'Comrade' this is a word that has been around for centuries (many more than communism). It was really aimed at Toad in a jokey kind of way. I wasn't accusing anyone of being a communist.

As for third world labour - they shouldn't employ kids and I can't see how anyone can justify them doing it. They shouldn't have to sign contracts like the one I gave above. It would be too much to ask the companies to pay the people they employ just a little more - spread the wealth in a socialistic kind of way.

[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 10-17-2000).]

[Toad]

 

Originally posted by Dowding:
Toad said that communism was an abject failure in raising a country's standard of living to the 1st world. This is simply not true if you look at the facts; communism dragged Russia into 20th century and built a country to rival the USA.

That's a real hoot, Dowding!

"Built a country to rival the USA?"

YGBSM! They even imported American Standard Toilets when they redid the Bolshoi during the "Cold War"!

They built a military...focused more on brute force and numbers...that rivaled ours, I'll give them that. Couldn't maintain it, but they did build it.

But a country/society that rivaled the US?

They couldn't even FEED themselves most years.

They bought wheat (amongst other foodstocks) around the world just about every year I can remember...and I live in an area where the wheat came from so we watched it.

No, sorry...you're way off on this one!   2nd World? Yah, I'd go with that.


Dowding: You completely miss my point concerning 'the price of progress'. I find it deeply abhorrant that people should suffer for any kind of progress, economic or industrial. That was the point of my post.

I agree Dowding, it seems unfair, doesn't it?

In fact, I wonder WHY  people ANYWHERE even apply for jobs like those, don't you?

I guess you're saying they would be better off NOT working for NIKE, right?

Surely they can see that as well as you? Tell me, why do they TAKE THOSE JOBS?

You know, my maternal granfather immigrated and took a job like that here. My paternal great grandfather immigarted and took a job like that here. One working the railroads, the other in coal mines.

Tell me Dowding, why did they take those jobs?

 

[Dowding]

I said communism built a country to rival the USA. If you disagree with this, then what do you think the Cold War was about?

I'm a bit confused as to your attitude here, Toad:

 

Dowding: You completely miss my point concerning 'the price of progress'. I find it deeply abhorrant that people should suffer for any kind of progress, economic or industrial. That was the point of my post.

I agree Dowding, it seems unfair, doesn't it?

It sounds like you believe child-labour 'seems' to be unfair, but in actual fact it is justified. Perhaps you could clarify this matter for me.

The point about your relatives is spurious: no large multinational enterprise was benefitting from working conditions which would be unacceptable in its country of origin. Nor were they having their human rights violated by a contract of the type I described above (which again, would not be allowed in the multi-national's country of origin).

Or perhaps your relatives did sign contracts that forbid them marrying and having children - but that can't be right, since neither you or your wife would be here today!  

The role of a multi-national suppying factory can also have devastating effects on the local community. People flock to the factory's environs in the hope of work, leaving behind the structured, ordered life of their native villages. The individuals working at the factory are paid very little, really - they can't afford to send their kids to school, for instance. Disease and crime infests the shanty towns created around the factories. The people are unable to leave the shanty, because they simply have no money to do so, and continue working at the factory.

And this continues to increase the profit margins of the multi-national.