5 ms·

This is good news for gamers, I'd be interested to know what the impact will be in China in terms of human rights/living conditions. I have heard a little about

by TrevorJ 17y ago

This is good news for gamers, I'd be interested to know what the impact will be in China in terms of human rights/living conditions. I have heard a little about some of the Chinese companies who hire people to farm gold for long hours every day for poor wages and worse living conditions.

philwelch 17y ago
But then you run into the question about sweatshops that no one wants to ask: if it sucks so much to work in a sweatshop, why do these people willingly do so? Answer: the alternative is even worse.
- davidblair 17y ago
  Sweatshops are unacceptable even if no better alternative currently exists. This is not about what stage of develop an economy is in but instead it is about helping people see past present situation. How can alternatives develop when the current practice is so brutally efficient at keeping costs down making other choices inefficient by comparison?
  - mwerty 17y ago
    Better alternatives developing in the future is a fairy tale. This puts food on the table now.
  - dublinclontarf 17y ago
    Are... are you a politician? So if the alternative to a sweatshop is homelessness and starvation that's better? How does that help people "see past [their] present situation"? What does that even mean? Have you even been to China? Unless you have family or friends to support you the only alternative to employment is starvation or crime. I fail to understand how making someone unemployed will do anything BUT keep costs down(among other things). For some reason people think sweatshops are an awful thing, compared to working for MicroSoft sure. Look at Victorian Britain. Yes they had sweatshops filled with women and children, who without the work would have starved(to death). Never mind the affordable goods that those factories produced.
    - TrevorJ 17y ago
      "So if the alternative to a sweatshop is homelessness and starvation that's better?" No viable choice exists precisely because the current system is tolerated. Is this something individual workers can fix? No, maybe not, but as long as people collectively put up with sweat shops, companies who wish to treat workers better have a huge uphill battle to compete with the low overhead. Things can't get better till the practice is halted.
  - xenophanes 17y ago
    > Sweatshops are unacceptable even if no better alternative currently exists. So, you want the poorest people in the world to have a worse life, now, because it'll make you happier about the state of the world? You're asking them to give something up. The worst off people in the world should sacrifice for you?
    - davidblair 17y ago
      I applaud people working long hard hours to get ahead. I am not against working hard but instead the abuse on the part of employers. They hold the power in this situation, not the people. There are types of employment that are simply unacceptable. During the industrial revolution, ability to support ones family was used to justify young children working in factories. During the civil war, the south fought for the right to use slave labor in order to maintain their standard of living.
      - berntb 17y ago
        Krugman's take on this: http://www.slate.com/id/1918 http://www.slate.com/id/1918 I'd also like to note that I am fascinated by people with high standards and willing to let others suffer for them. :-)
      - xenophanes 17y ago
        Slave labor lowered the South's standard of living, btw. It's inefficient and costly compared to a free market. The view that slavery is practical, economical, or beneficial in any way is a pro-slavery myth! Sweatshops will go away when the country is richer, with or without laws. The hard fact is that nicer working conditions cost money. That means lower wages. If everyone is well off, like in USA, that cost is clearly worth it. If people are very poor, they may prefer the money (which they need to buy necessities) to the improved working environment.
        TrevorJ 17y ago
        "Sweatshops will go away when the country is richer, with or without laws" Explain to me what motivation a company with cheep access to unskilled labor has for improving conditions of it's employees please. What evidence do you have that low wages mean better working conditions for workers? What economic mechanism do you suppose will guide companies to pay unskilled laborers more as the company becomes more profitable? Or are you banking on the general goodwill and fairness of the employer here?
- TrevorJ 17y ago
  It easy to answer. The existence of sweatshops as a culture means that companies that wish to treat employees better cannot compete with such low overhead. This is why there are no better options. No viable and humane solution can be reached while such poor working conditions are allowed.
- GavinB 17y ago
  Often the primary goal of sweatshop bosses is not to maximize their personal wealth but to maximize their relative wealth and status. Those in charge are frequently unwilling to make changes that would benefit their net profits because it would give workers too much power and leverage and bring the workers closer to their status. Violence, intimidation, and misinformation are the tools used to pervert the free market and maintain the status quo. The free market is a wonderful thing but it's all too often used as the theoretical backstop for situations where the market is actually rigged.
jrockway 17y ago
I have heard a little about some of the Chinese companies who hire people to farm gold for long hours every day for poor wages and worse living conditions. Yeah, these people should be making me shoes and tainted milk instead. (Gold farming is the least of China's worries.)

by TrevorJ 17y ago

philwelch 17y ago

But then you run into the question about sweatshops that no one wants to ask: if it sucks so much to work in a sweatshop, why do these people willingly do so? Answer: the alternative is even worse.

davidblair 17y ago
Sweatshops are unacceptable even if no better alternative currently exists. This is not about what stage of develop an economy is in but instead it is about helping people see past present situation. How can alternatives develop when the current practice is so brutally efficient at keeping costs down making other choices inefficient by comparison?
- mwerty 17y ago
  Better alternatives developing in the future is a fairy tale. This puts food on the table now.
- dublinclontarf 17y ago
  Are... are you a politician? So if the alternative to a sweatshop is homelessness and starvation that's better? How does that help people "see past [their] present situation"? What does that even mean? Have you even been to China? Unless you have family or friends to support you the only alternative to employment is starvation or crime. I fail to understand how making someone unemployed will do anything BUT keep costs down(among other things). For some reason people think sweatshops are an awful thing, compared to working for MicroSoft sure. Look at Victorian Britain. Yes they had sweatshops filled with women and children, who without the work would have starved(to death). Never mind the affordable goods that those factories produced.
  - TrevorJ 17y ago
    "So if the alternative to a sweatshop is homelessness and starvation that's better?" No viable choice exists precisely because the current system is tolerated. Is this something individual workers can fix? No, maybe not, but as long as people collectively put up with sweat shops, companies who wish to treat workers better have a huge uphill battle to compete with the low overhead. Things can't get better till the practice is halted.
- xenophanes 17y ago
  > Sweatshops are unacceptable even if no better alternative currently exists. So, you want the poorest people in the world to have a worse life, now, because it'll make you happier about the state of the world? You're asking them to give something up. The worst off people in the world should sacrifice for you?
  - davidblair 17y ago
    I applaud people working long hard hours to get ahead. I am not against working hard but instead the abuse on the part of employers. They hold the power in this situation, not the people. There are types of employment that are simply unacceptable. During the industrial revolution, ability to support ones family was used to justify young children working in factories. During the civil war, the south fought for the right to use slave labor in order to maintain their standard of living.
    - berntb 17y ago
      Krugman's take on this: http://www.slate.com/id/1918 http://www.slate.com/id/1918 I'd also like to note that I am fascinated by people with high standards and willing to let others suffer for them. :-)
    - xenophanes 17y ago
      Slave labor lowered the South's standard of living, btw. It's inefficient and costly compared to a free market. The view that slavery is practical, economical, or beneficial in any way is a pro-slavery myth! Sweatshops will go away when the country is richer, with or without laws. The hard fact is that nicer working conditions cost money. That means lower wages. If everyone is well off, like in USA, that cost is clearly worth it. If people are very poor, they may prefer the money (which they need to buy necessities) to the improved working environment.
      - TrevorJ 17y ago
        "Sweatshops will go away when the country is richer, with or without laws" Explain to me what motivation a company with cheep access to unskilled labor has for improving conditions of it's employees please. What evidence do you have that low wages mean better working conditions for workers? What economic mechanism do you suppose will guide companies to pay unskilled laborers more as the company becomes more profitable? Or are you banking on the general goodwill and fairness of the employer here?
TrevorJ 17y ago
It easy to answer. The existence of sweatshops as a culture means that companies that wish to treat employees better cannot compete with such low overhead. This is why there are no better options. No viable and humane solution can be reached while such poor working conditions are allowed.
GavinB 17y ago
Often the primary goal of sweatshop bosses is not to maximize their personal wealth but to maximize their relative wealth and status. Those in charge are frequently unwilling to make changes that would benefit their net profits because it would give workers too much power and leverage and bring the workers closer to their status. Violence, intimidation, and misinformation are the tools used to pervert the free market and maintain the status quo. The free market is a wonderful thing but it's all too often used as the theoretical backstop for situations where the market is actually rigged.

jrockway 17y ago

I have heard a little about some of the Chinese companies who hire people to farm gold for long hours every day for poor wages and worse living conditions. Yeah, these people should be making me shoes and tainted milk instead. (Gold farming is the least of China's worries.)