3 ms·

Not sure if I follow your thought process, are you suggesting that people in developing and underdeveloped nations used to have more leisure time in the past th

by em500 6y ago

Not sure if I follow your thought process, are you suggesting that people in developing and underdeveloped nations used to have more leisure time in the past than they do now?

h0l0cube 6y ago
My thought process is that there are large populations in developing nations are so trapped in debt they can do nothing but work all their waking hours, and they would not be paid money that would permit increasing their value as a human resource. This is a phenomenon that is happening right now, today. It's effectively the same as slavery... I'm not saying 'it used to be better', but I'm not buying the line that globalisation has removed people from being 'overworked', or being effectively slaves. Nor do I believe it ever could, without some form of government intervention. The simple truth is, if there's a place in the world where it is possible to pay someone only to work, and nothing else, there will be a company willing to exploit that, and there will always be a country willing to exploit its population to get an economic leg-up. Even the most high-minded bleeding-heart left liberals are still unwilling to pay a few bucks extra for something that is manufactured on 'living wages'.
- chii 6y ago
  > if there's a place in the world where it is possible to pay someone only to work that place is _everywhere_ on planet earth. Calling the need for somebody to work 'effective slavery' is wrong. Slavery is involuntary. work is voluntary.
  - h0l0cube 6y ago
    You might have misread me, but I could have been clearer. A distinction can be drawn between someone who has the benefit of a wage where they can save money, and without. If the options are, work somewhere that pays just enough to live, or perish - it's not really an option. Let's say that someone who, in an alternate universe would have the aptitude to work as a Software Engineer in Silicon Valley, happened to be born in the poorest province in a developing nation, and the only options available were work day and night, with enough pay for food and lodging, no internet access. Is that the same as someone born in Europe, has public education, access to the internet, uses the library, becomes a developer, gets hired by FAANG... etc?
    - imtringued 6y ago
      You're ignoring the reality that the alternative to having a bad job is not having a job at all. People work on their own farm and grow their own food. Nobody is forcing them off their farms. When they decide to work they do so voluntarily because nobody can take farming away from them. You're not going to solve sweatshops by taking away people's agency. You get rid of them by providing viable alternatives.
      - h0l0cube 6y ago
        > People work on their own farm and grow their own food. This seems to be ignoring reality. If you're born in a locality without options to grow your own food, or don't have a farm to inherit, these aren't actually options. And actually, a lot of poor people have been forced off their lands, when lucrative commercial interests have swayed law-makers and bureaucrats. Property rights aren't quite the same in poorer countries. > You're not going to solve sweatshops by taking away people's agency. Obviously. > You get rid of them by providing viable alternatives. I'm not sure how this fantasy become reality without protectionist government intervention, or the whole world deciding they won't buy cheaper socks because they aren't certified fair trade. I'm pretty certain which one of those two is more likely though.

by em500 6y ago

Not sure if I follow your thought process, are you suggesting that people in developing and underdeveloped nations used to have more leisure time in the past than they do now?

h0l0cube 6y ago

My thought process is that there are large populations in developing nations are so trapped in debt they can do nothing but work all their waking hours, and they would not be paid money that would permit increasing their value as a human resource. This is a phenomenon that is happening right now, today. It's effectively the same as slavery... I'm not saying 'it used to be better', but I'm not buying the line that globalisation has removed people from being 'overworked', or being effectively slaves. Nor do I believe it ever could, without some form of government intervention. The simple truth is, if there's a place in the world where it is possible to pay someone only to work, and nothing else, there will be a company willing to exploit that, and there will always be a country willing to exploit its population to get an economic leg-up. Even the most high-minded bleeding-heart left liberals are still unwilling to pay a few bucks extra for something that is manufactured on 'living wages'.

chii 6y ago
> if there's a place in the world where it is possible to pay someone only to work that place is _everywhere_ on planet earth. Calling the need for somebody to work 'effective slavery' is wrong. Slavery is involuntary. work is voluntary.
- h0l0cube 6y ago
  You might have misread me, but I could have been clearer. A distinction can be drawn between someone who has the benefit of a wage where they can save money, and without. If the options are, work somewhere that pays just enough to live, or perish - it's not really an option. Let's say that someone who, in an alternate universe would have the aptitude to work as a Software Engineer in Silicon Valley, happened to be born in the poorest province in a developing nation, and the only options available were work day and night, with enough pay for food and lodging, no internet access. Is that the same as someone born in Europe, has public education, access to the internet, uses the library, becomes a developer, gets hired by FAANG... etc?
  - imtringued 6y ago
    You're ignoring the reality that the alternative to having a bad job is not having a job at all. People work on their own farm and grow their own food. Nobody is forcing them off their farms. When they decide to work they do so voluntarily because nobody can take farming away from them. You're not going to solve sweatshops by taking away people's agency. You get rid of them by providing viable alternatives.
    - h0l0cube 6y ago
      > People work on their own farm and grow their own food. This seems to be ignoring reality. If you're born in a locality without options to grow your own food, or don't have a farm to inherit, these aren't actually options. And actually, a lot of poor people have been forced off their lands, when lucrative commercial interests have swayed law-makers and bureaucrats. Property rights aren't quite the same in poorer countries. > You're not going to solve sweatshops by taking away people's agency. Obviously. > You get rid of them by providing viable alternatives. I'm not sure how this fantasy become reality without protectionist government intervention, or the whole world deciding they won't buy cheaper socks because they aren't certified fair trade. I'm pretty certain which one of those two is more likely though.