6 ms·

Not only that, but the conditions in the West are contingent on the work done in the rest of the world. There's a reason we're not all working in sweatshops mak

Not only that, but the conditions in the West are contingent on the work done in the rest of the world. There's a reason we're not all working in sweatshops making all the products we are constantly using, and it's because we have poor people in other countries doing it instead. For their living standards to rise, ours will have to lower (though the economy is not a zero sum game of course, and technology/automation can reduce the necessary labour). I don't think it's malicious or anything - I just think that this perspective is a little ignorant of how the world really works.

chii 5y ago
> we have poor people in other countries doing it instead. and they become less poor afterwards. Eventually, they will no longer accept the low wages as their own wealth increases. i think this is a good outcome - all parties benefit from the transaction. This will take a long time to play out, and in the mean time, the research and development of tech would progress enough to find a solution to the energy and resource problem - increasing efficiency, or finding new sources to extract (my money is on asteroids). But the way it will play out, means that there's always a gradient of relative "conditions" - from the lowest, to the highest. As long as this gradient is always shifting up - aka, everyone's condition is improving - i think it is acceptable.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  > and they become less poor afterwards. This doesn't happen when you're paid subsistence wages, which sweatshop workers are. It's exploitation of the poor, pure and simple - there's no trickle-down economics in play, they just get to stay poor but alive while the goods they make are sold to wealthier countries. It would be really nice if free markets played out the way free market advocates say they do, but they don't. > But the way it will play out, means that there's always a gradient of relative "conditions" Personally, I'd rather we lived in a meritocratic system where hard work and innovation benefits the individual responsible, and everybody earns the value of their work. I don't like the idea of a perpetual underclass based on characteristics unrelated to personal capability, like nationality or race.
  - ericmay 5y ago
    >This doesn't happen when you're paid subsistence wages, which sweatshop workers are How did any country ever become wealthy? The US and UK for example went through the Industrial Revolution too, where people were paid subsistence wages and worked in sweatshops...
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > The US and UK for example went through the Industrial Revolution too, where people were paid subsistence wages and worked in sweatshops... Then they had mass, deadly, pro- and anti-labor violence culminating in various labor protections which resulted in a less-miserable distribution of the rewards of industry, a process which has been interspersed with backsliding and repetition over time.
      - ericmay 5y ago
        Right and so then they became less poor afterward.
        beaconstudios 5y ago
        This argument boils down to "it was a good thing we exploited them, it gave them the impetus to fight back against our exploitation". Is this meant to be a dialectical argument or just a really weird moral one?
        ericmay 5y ago
        > and they become less poor afterwards. > This doesn't happen when you're paid subsistence wages, which sweatshop workers are. I’m just trying to figure out if this is true or not. Seems to me the evidence is clear that such workers become wealthier over time. China, the United States, United Kingdom, and others seem to be clear examples of that. Injecting a moral argument here doesn’t change the practical reality of how the world works. The opportunities presented to sweat shop workers are not great, and often times working at a sweatshop is the least bad option. But my point of contention was with this exchange of comments. I do think sweatshop workers become less poor over time, and the evidence I see is present in many countries where this happened.
- softcactus 5y ago
  That's very easy for you to say in your current situation. I think you would not find it acceptable if you were one of the sweatshop workers. This is the exact logic that has been used to justify slavery/exploitation throughout history.
  - yetihehe 5y ago
    What is your argument exactly, that we should not give job to workers in poorer countries? So that they don't have any money?
    - softcactus 4y ago
      Pay people without exploiting them. You can pay people decent wages and avoid putting them in unnecessary danger while still making a significant profit. If that truly cant be done, then that industry needs to be nationalized to cover the deficit.
    - beaconstudios 5y ago
      the economy is not a binary choice between "pay people subsistence wages" and "don't pay them at all". We could pay people better, invest in the development of underdeveloped countries that we exploit (no, IMF loans do not count). We could focus on helping people instead of exploiting them for profit. Many options are available.
      - yetihehe 5y ago
        Why don't you do this? If you don't have resources for this, why do you think other people have them? Ask yourself honestly, if you won a lottery yesterday, would you give it away to those workers in underdeveloped countries? I would not, because I'm too greedy, but I don't think you would really give money away either, and I supported Ukraine with about $100, which is probably the biggest donation I have done in my life, many people could live on it for two weeks where I live. Many options are available, but not all of them are as good as just giving them jobs. And if you wanted to give them better paying jobs - who will pay? Would you pay more for some laptop because it supported some unknown person on the other side of earth? Why don't you just send them some money today? You have that option after all.

chii 5y ago

> we have poor people in other countries doing it instead. and they become less poor afterwards. Eventually, they will no longer accept the low wages as their own wealth increases. i think this is a good outcome - all parties benefit from the transaction. This will take a long time to play out, and in the mean time, the research and development of tech would progress enough to find a solution to the energy and resource problem - increasing efficiency, or finding new sources to extract (my money is on asteroids). But the way it will play out, means that there's always a gradient of relative "conditions" - from the lowest, to the highest. As long as this gradient is always shifting up - aka, everyone's condition is improving - i think it is acceptable.

beaconstudios 5y ago
> and they become less poor afterwards. This doesn't happen when you're paid subsistence wages, which sweatshop workers are. It's exploitation of the poor, pure and simple - there's no trickle-down economics in play, they just get to stay poor but alive while the goods they make are sold to wealthier countries. It would be really nice if free markets played out the way free market advocates say they do, but they don't. > But the way it will play out, means that there's always a gradient of relative "conditions" Personally, I'd rather we lived in a meritocratic system where hard work and innovation benefits the individual responsible, and everybody earns the value of their work. I don't like the idea of a perpetual underclass based on characteristics unrelated to personal capability, like nationality or race.
- ericmay 5y ago
  >This doesn't happen when you're paid subsistence wages, which sweatshop workers are How did any country ever become wealthy? The US and UK for example went through the Industrial Revolution too, where people were paid subsistence wages and worked in sweatshops...
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > The US and UK for example went through the Industrial Revolution too, where people were paid subsistence wages and worked in sweatshops... Then they had mass, deadly, pro- and anti-labor violence culminating in various labor protections which resulted in a less-miserable distribution of the rewards of industry, a process which has been interspersed with backsliding and repetition over time.
    - ericmay 5y ago
      Right and so then they became less poor afterward.
      - beaconstudios 5y ago
        This argument boils down to "it was a good thing we exploited them, it gave them the impetus to fight back against our exploitation". Is this meant to be a dialectical argument or just a really weird moral one?
        ericmay 5y ago
        > and they become less poor afterwards. > This doesn't happen when you're paid subsistence wages, which sweatshop workers are. I’m just trying to figure out if this is true or not. Seems to me the evidence is clear that such workers become wealthier over time. China, the United States, United Kingdom, and others seem to be clear examples of that. Injecting a moral argument here doesn’t change the practical reality of how the world works. The opportunities presented to sweat shop workers are not great, and often times working at a sweatshop is the least bad option. But my point of contention was with this exchange of comments. I do think sweatshop workers become less poor over time, and the evidence I see is present in many countries where this happened.
softcactus 5y ago
That's very easy for you to say in your current situation. I think you would not find it acceptable if you were one of the sweatshop workers. This is the exact logic that has been used to justify slavery/exploitation throughout history.
- yetihehe 5y ago
  What is your argument exactly, that we should not give job to workers in poorer countries? So that they don't have any money?
  - softcactus 4y ago
    Pay people without exploiting them. You can pay people decent wages and avoid putting them in unnecessary danger while still making a significant profit. If that truly cant be done, then that industry needs to be nationalized to cover the deficit.
  - beaconstudios 5y ago
    the economy is not a binary choice between "pay people subsistence wages" and "don't pay them at all". We could pay people better, invest in the development of underdeveloped countries that we exploit (no, IMF loans do not count). We could focus on helping people instead of exploiting them for profit. Many options are available.
    - yetihehe 5y ago
      Why don't you do this? If you don't have resources for this, why do you think other people have them? Ask yourself honestly, if you won a lottery yesterday, would you give it away to those workers in underdeveloped countries? I would not, because I'm too greedy, but I don't think you would really give money away either, and I supported Ukraine with about $100, which is probably the biggest donation I have done in my life, many people could live on it for two weeks where I live. Many options are available, but not all of them are as good as just giving them jobs. And if you wanted to give them better paying jobs - who will pay? Would you pay more for some laptop because it supported some unknown person on the other side of earth? Why don't you just send them some money today? You have that option after all.