6 ms·

I'll bite: What happens to the poor when the inhumane supply chain that has sustained them (albeit poorly) goes away? Also, a googler complaining about slave-l

• astazangasta 11y ago
  Are you seriously suggesting that a humane system of production is impossible? The status quo or oblivion' is a terrible false dichotomy.
  • Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    It is impossible in the near term. One only needs to look at what happened when protest against child labor resulted in companies no longer using child labor in their supply chains. Ideally, those children should've been cared for by welfare, but in many places thew welfare system either wasn't there, wasn't able to handle the change, or it was too slow to aid. Many of those children ended up in a worse situation; some even changing to even worse illegal professions to survive. Now, in the long run, that will be better than just keeping the status quo. But we should remember that a quick change can be significantly worse in the short term, especially one where the focus is incorrectly applied (in these cases, the focus is on goods being produced by a child labor instead of the conditions that result in children working to begin with; ending the child labor does not end the conditions and will sometimes make things much worse).
    • brightball 11y ago
      This is an important lesson. Even the most noble of intentions come with unintended consequences. It's one thing if the situation was a matter of children being forced to work. If a kid finds work on purpose to help himself or his family eat and you suddenly make it illegal without removing the NEED for him to have to work to help his family then you've made the situation worse while instituting a policy to make yourself feel better. My view on politics as I've gotten old has gone squarely to the singular point: No complaints. No rules. Solutions or shut up.
      • eropple 11y ago
        > My view on politics as I've gotten old has gone squarely to the singular point: No complaints. No rules. Solutions or shut up. This is a really good way to make sure that important things aren't talked about (and, it should go without saying, disproportionately hurts already marginalized people even further). Complaints about a situation are step one of finding a collaborative solution. It may take time to get there, and the process might be annoying (heaven forfend). But I would suggest considering the circumstances you find yourself in that allows you to find them annoying, and being charitable about the search for a solution instead of decreeing from on high.
        • jes 11y ago
          > Complaints about a situation are step one of finding a collaborative solution. Can parties opt-out of your definition of a collaborative solution, or does your definition of collaborative include forcing people to participate, whether they wish to do so or not?
          • eropple 11y ago
            Of course you can opt-out. But rejection goes both ways: we live in a society, and there are consequences to being asocial and antisocial, and depending on the problem, and the solution, that might be a thing. But you can always leave if something's so untenable, if you can find somewhere with rules more to your liking.
            • jes 11y ago
              Thank you for clarifying that for me. Can I choose not to leave, if I respect other people's natural rights? My issue about leaving is that if I have done nothing wrong, I shouldn't have to flee from others who wish to violate my rights. Instead, they should respect my right to be unmolested. Interested in your thoughts, if you wish to expand on this topic.
              • eropple 11y ago
    • bad_user 11y ago
      Source? I have a hard time believing that. If companies really stopped using kids in their supply chains, common sense would be for more adults to find jobs, which would result in better conditions for other kids. In other words focusing on "conditions" misses the whole point: child labor is anticompetitive because it's all about lowering prices by exploiting the weak and the defenseless. Thinking about the "conditions" won't move the needle, not as long as child labor remains competitive. Child labor would happen near you if the law would allow it, because it makes economic sense to hire children instead of adults for half the price and there are always poor people to exploit. Also, have you ever considered that some of those exploited children were born because child labor is a possibility? One should not forget that an economy is a very complex beast, any changes have far reaching consequences and that doing the right thing is never easy.
      • MawNicker 11y ago
        Basic income is easy and would solve all of these problems. Just ensure everyone has the capital to satisfy their basic needs. Then if child labor emerged near me I'd know it was inspired by self-discipline or ambition and not poverty. I wanted to work when I was 14 but I wasn't allowed to. Apparently my employment was caught in the crossfire of the rich people exploiting poor kids and the regulators trying to stop them. You can't just ban the employment of poor kids. That's certain to fail politically. So ban the employment of all kids? Ugh. It doesn't have to be like this. Just make it impossible to be poor. You can say that it just changes what it means to be poor. In fact that's essential. When someone with food, shelter and the unsatisfied desire for an Xbox can't see themselves as poor it is only because there is someone poorer. I can't compete with this poorer person's desperation for security. They would do anything for food and shelter. Despite being a member of this new poor class I'm totally secure. I just want an Xbox. I won't enter a job market that is merely good enough for the desperate until I am also sufficiently desperate. Like much of America is becoming. The only solution to this problem is to extinguish the status quo of insecurity. The poorest of the poor need to be secure or soon none of us will be.
  • rsync 11y ago
    "Are you seriously suggesting that a humane system of production is impossible?" I am reminded of Joseph Campbell: “Life lives on life. This is the sense of the symbol of the Ouroboros, the serpent biting its tail. Everything that lives lives on the death of something else. Your own body will be food for something else. Anyone who denies this, anyone who holds back, is out of order." No, there is not going to be pure and blameless system of production and consumption.
    • astazangasta 11y ago
      "Pure and blameless" need not be our standard for "humane". At the least we can accept that a system of production better than the one we have is possible; let's start there. For example, enforcing the existing debt slavery laws and having labeling laws indicating this status would be a great start.
• tsunamifury 11y ago
  What happens everywhere, they go find something else to do. And the odds of that being ethically better go up as fewer at the top order from unethical suppliers. Current failings of our world are not excuses not to improve it, or to be better people. On another note, a personal attack is not appreciated here, regardless of where I work. Your comment history is rich with these types of things. We are happy to have you here, but please think about contributing more constructively.
  • devdas 11y ago
    And if the work they can do happens to be in a different country?
    • beat 11y ago
      The question here is really "Do they have the resources to move to where the work is?" Immigration to work better and earn more, whether temporarily or permanently, has been happening since transportation became a thing. Go to Dubai and see how many Pakistanis are doing jobs there. Or look in the average American commercial kitchen and count the Mexican and other latino immigrants. Almost everyone in America is a descendant of immigrants, for that matter. In many cases, those immigrants were fleeing violence and persecution, their passage paid by overlords who felt it was very decent and moral of them to ship the people overseas rather than just killing them off (i.e. the Irish in America).
      • devdas 11y ago
        Also if they can get work visas.
        • beat 11y ago
          Those help, yes. Not absolutely necessary, though - every wealthy country in the world relies on illegal immigrants. Transportation is more of an issue (and can itself turn into a form of indentured servitude).
  • 11y ago
• beat 11y ago
  The inhumane supply chain is feeding them because it won't allow them to feed themselves. Humans fed themselves for many thousands of years before the modern mechanisms of oppression were introduced. Remove the oppression, and they'll go right back to it.
  • Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    >Humans fed themselves for many thousands of years before the modern mechanisms of oppression were introduced. Older forms of oppression have always existed. Look at other species to see that even without a culture or society, the weak are exploited.
    • beat 11y ago
      The point is, without the exploitation, they would care for themselves. The original argument suggested that modern slaves would not be able to feed themselves without their masters providing the food. That's wrong.
      • Lawtonfogle 11y ago
        The problem is you can't do a full social change. If all you do is stop the undesirable labor, you can end up with people unable to feed themselves. This has happened before with ending child labor.
  • Chlorus 11y ago
    You might want to rethink the word 'modern', unless you consider the grain riots of the Roman Republic ~2000 years ago 'modern'
    • beat 11y ago
      I do, actually. Human civilization is 3-5 times older than the Romans, and human existence a hundred times older. The Romans had steel (swords and shackles), literacy, and a sophisticated transportation network. What we have today is just refinements on Roman ideas.