5 ms·

I wish the above poster hadn't used Uyghurs as an example because that's a bit more politically complex. But would you argue that when a large business moves i

I wish the above poster hadn't used Uyghurs as an example because that's a bit more politically complex. But would you argue that when a large business moves into an undeveloped region and sets up a sweatshop with hazardous conditions, the people living there are not compelled to participate in capitalism? What if the owners of the business have been applying international pressure to the government to prevent the introduction of regulation to provide the citizens with safety, a better share of profits, or free market competition? I agree that in the west we generally have the privilege to decline a participation in a free market economy, but this falls apart on the edges of society, which unfortunately comprises of billions of people

maxerickson 4y ago
People that work in industry in places with lax regulation are often very much choosing to do that work. It isn't something we should celebrate of course, but they see it as their best choice. It's probably generally the case that improving conditions for workers would result in productivity increases in those economies, so it is sort of doubly stupid.
- elliotto 4y ago
  I think we agree on the poor conditions / difficulty of the situation but just disagree on our conclusion of the description of the circumstances. I agree that working for these exploitative organisations is their best choice, but I would define this as slavery. If the organisation has the means to provide livable standards, but instead decides to actively lobby against competition and regulation that would make it provide those standards, then this is capturing those workers as slaves. The free market has decided that these individuals will not have the right to exercise their choices, indenturing them to a corporation. They only have the right to work for them, or to starve.

maxerickson 4y ago

People that work in industry in places with lax regulation are often very much choosing to do that work. It isn't something we should celebrate of course, but they see it as their best choice. It's probably generally the case that improving conditions for workers would result in productivity increases in those economies, so it is sort of doubly stupid.

elliotto 4y ago
I think we agree on the poor conditions / difficulty of the situation but just disagree on our conclusion of the description of the circumstances. I agree that working for these exploitative organisations is their best choice, but I would define this as slavery. If the organisation has the means to provide livable standards, but instead decides to actively lobby against competition and regulation that would make it provide those standards, then this is capturing those workers as slaves. The free market has decided that these individuals will not have the right to exercise their choices, indenturing them to a corporation. They only have the right to work for them, or to starve.