3 ms·
> who are available for exploitation You just randomly threw in the word exploitation again. They're aren't being exploited. Wages are different across the wo
by LewisVerstappen 3y ago
> who are available for exploitation
You just randomly threw in the word exploitation again.
They're aren't being exploited. Wages are different across the world because of cost of living & PPP.
As the article stated, a child can earn 4 times the national minimum wage. That's not exploitation. They're much better off.
Expecting every American company to pay American wages for workers in Pakistan would hurt people in Pakistan as it completely eliminates the incentive for companies to send jobs there.
> is an opportunity to study and question the system that creates the conditions such that there is a labor market comprising children who are available for exploitation for cheap labor by very rich Western companies
The reason why is because Western countries embraced market-based economies whereas India, China, South America, etc. spent decades embracing socialism/communism and threw away decades of potential growth/prosperity.
A very interesting experiment is to look at North Korea and South Korea. In the 1950s, both countries were identical. One went the market-based route and allied with the West. The other went the communist-route and allied with China.
You can also look at the "Asian Tiger Economies". Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong. They all embraced market-based economies and and their economies exploded with prosperity.
There's tons of research into why some countries prosper and some don't.
- joelwilliamson 3y agoAfter the Korean War, North Korea had significantly more industry, more natural resources and more agricultural land, as well as a larger population.
- mattdeboard 3y ago“Exploitation” has (at least) two meanings: 1. treating someone unfairly for one’s own benefit 2. make use of & benefit from some resource Are you sure this labor pool isn’t being exploited?
- LewisVerstappen 3y ago> “Exploitation” has (at least) two meanings: 1. treating someone unfairly for one’s own benefit 2. make use of & benefit from some resource When you're referring to two people, then exploited always refers to definition 1. Have you ever heard anyone say "I exploited my employee" in a context where they're referring to definition 2? If you're talking about mineral deposits or something, then sure... you can apply definition 2. "The company exploited the ore's rich iron deposits".
- mattdeboard 3y agoLabor is a resource. That’s why the phrase “human resources” exists. Your contention that “exploitation” can’t refer to labor is a political construction, not a rational one.
- LewisVerstappen 3y agoWell, my suggestion is to avoid using terms with multiple meanings in a position where it can easily be construed in a different way then you intend.
- pjscott 3y agoEmployers are, indeed, making use of and benefiting from their employees. And vice versa. But so what? If they didn't benefit, they wouldn't bother.
- mattdeboard 3y ago> so what Indeed, so what?
- lucaspm98 3y agoThe first definition is the inherently negative common usage when applied to person-to-person or entity-to-person relationships. Applying the second definition to the labor market would mean every worker is being exploited, because no profit-seeking corporation (or resource efficient government program) would keep a workforce that is a net loss to the organization.
- mattdeboard 3y ago> Applying the second definition to the labor market would mean every worker is being exploited No, it means the labor side of the labor market is being exploited by capital. It means the capital side of the labor market is being exploited by labor. And yeah, that’s an accurate and correct use of “exploit.”
- imtringued 3y ago>The reason why is because Western countries embraced market-based economies whereas India, China, South America, etc. spent decades embracing socialism/communism and threw away decades of potential growth/prosperity. India is one of the most neoliberal countries in the world. Meanwhile China is much further ahead. The growth that China has experienced in the past few years exceeds the total economic output of India. Enjoy writing more comments in bad faith
- pjscott 3y agoIndia spent decades under a very restrictive economic regime. That changed a lot after the big liberalization of 1991, but the official economic policies are still moderately stifling. The comment you're responding to was not made in bad faith. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalisation_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalisation_in_Ind...
- LewisVerstappen 3y agoAre you joking? Do you have any idea what happened to India after the British left up til the early 1990s? Maybe read up a bit - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalisation_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalisation_in_Ind...
- Jensson 3y agoIndia and China were equally poor 1990, India was very poor back then yeah but so was China.