 |
|  |
 |
|
PeteH
|
|
quote: Their land WASN'T destroyed... they are completely capable of going back to their old lifestyle. |
Oh really? So, say I was, hmm, a resident of any of the islands used for nuclear testing, who wishes to return to my life in a quiet fishing village. Probably not going to work to well.
Or even right here at home, I suppose you would tell all the Indians livingon reservations that they shoudlnt complain, they can just go back to their old life, after we have deforested nearly the whole country, dammed and polluted the rivers, irradiated large areas with uranium mining and other nuclear waste, and will arrest them for trespassing if they try and gather food. But sure, they are free to go back to how they were.
If you think this same process hasn't occurred everywhere we have expanded into, you have your head in the sand.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001 time: 00:34
|
|
quote: Oh really? So, say I was, hmm, a resident of any of the islands used for nuclear testing, who wishes to return to my life in a quiet fishing village. Probably not going to work to well. |

That one island used for nuclear testing, you mean. Yup, the people living there make up such a huge percentage of the sweatshop workforce.
quote: Or even right here at home, I suppose you would tell all the Indians livingon reservations that they shoudlnt complain, they can just go back to their old life, after we have deforested nearly the whole country, dammed and polluted the rivers, irradiated large areas with uranium mining and other nuclear waste, and will arrest them for trespassing if they try and gather food. But sure, they are free to go back to how they were. |
The native americans don't work in sweatshops, so it doesn't matter 
Plus, we HAVEN'T deforested anywhere NEAR the entire country. We HAVEN'T irradiated large areas of the US ( ).
The US is a developed country, we're talking about Africa, Southeast Asia, etc, moron.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
General Ludd
|
 |
Minion of the Dominion
Aug 2001 time: 05:34
|
|
This is a really strange debate. The people I am arguing with seem to agree with all of my points. (and actually back them up more then I do. )
Both Kucinich and Imran seem to agree that without the sweatshops, people would be starving. So what, exactly, is the argument here?
I don't think people even know what we're arguing anymore, so let's go back...
The thing that spawned this whole sub-argument was my comparison of sweat-shop workers to slaves. My point was, that they met all the credentials of a slave, only that they are forced to work through economic force rather then brute force. Now, if you agree that they would be starving without the sweatshops, how can you say that they have a freedom of choice (ie. a freedom to starve)?
I also said that saying sweatshop workers should be thankful for their jobs is like saying slaves should be thankful to their masters - how is that not a valid comparison? If primitive societies are starving by default, as Kucinich says, the africans should of been thankful for the chance to go to america and pick cotton and be fed. Just as these people should be thankful to work in sweatshops, and be fed.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
quote: Why do you say "obviously?" Where do these extras coming from? I can't see any extras for sweatshop workers in counties such as Thailand, the Philippines, and the PRC. |
Of course there are. The sweatshops are offering more money than the employees had before. That's why there gets to be so much demand for these jobs. |

The "demand" is high because the only other choice is starvation. You are talking displaced people who have no other choice.
quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
quote: Secondly, a lot of these people actually prefer farming if their livelihood wasn't displaced by cheap foreign agri imports |
Foreign agri imports don't have an effect on sustenance farming. |
What gives you the idea that most of these were sustenance farmers?
quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
quote: Anti-globalisation groups have some good reasons. |
Not that I can see. If sweatshops is their only reason, then it is a failing argument. Because the US, England, as well as South Korea all had sweatshops and were a natural progression of all these country's economies. |
Imran again fails to grasp the whole picture.
First of all, these are not local sweatshops, like those in 19th century England. The exploitation of these workers do not accumulate wealth in their own countries. Only TNC are fattened. Secondly, a lot of these workers are displaced farmers.
Which means globalisation has been turning entire counties into huge sweatshops for TNCs with no real way of climbing out the hole, considering these countries are forced to use loans from IMF or World Bank to buy food to feed the people, loans that are originally intended to build infrastructure.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001 time: 00:34
|
|
quote: Originally posted by General Ludd
This is a really strange debate. The people I am arguing with seem to agree with all of my points. (and actually back them up more then I do. )
Both Kucinich and Imran seem to agree that without the sweatshops, people would be starving. So what, exactly, is the argument here?
I don't think people even know what we're arguing anymore, so let's go back...
The thing that spawned this whole sub-argument was my comparison of sweat-shop workers to slaves. My point was, that they met all the credentials of a slave, only that they are forced to work through economic force rather then brute force. Now, if you agree that they would be starving without the sweatshops, how can you say that they have a freedom of choice (ie. a freedom to starve)?
I also said that saying sweatshop workers should be thankful for their jobs is like saying slaves should be thankful to their masters - how is that not a valid comparison? If primitive societies are starving by default, as Kucinich says, the africans should of been thankful for the chance to go to america and pick cotton and be fed. Just as these people should be thankful to work in sweatshops, and be fed. |
Their "starvation" is the SAME as the "starvation" of ANY ancient civilization. If you took ancient Egypt and transplanted it to today, wouldn't you have a bunch of people moaning about the starving Egyptians? But for their time, they weren't. IT'S ALL RELATIVE. The only reason we call it "starving" is because we are used to a higher standard.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Barinthus
|
 |
A Magical Moment...
Jan 2004 time: 21:34
|
|
quote: Originally posted by loinburger
As for Walmart treating employees like crap, I believe it. I had two retail jobs while I was in high school, one for a mom-and-pop shop and one for a store in a medium-sized hardware store chain (the chain was local to Illinois and Wisconsin, with maybe a few stores in Indiana). They were both crap jobs. My sister-in-law is currently working retail for a mom-and-pop shop out in California, and from everything she's said it's a crap job. Retail jobs are crap jobs, period. That being said, I preferred working at the chain than at the mom-and-pop store. My manager (also the owner of the store) at the mom-and-pop store made it clear to me that I could be fired on a whim. However, if they arbitrarily fired me at the chain then there were still several rungs of the ladder where I could file complaints, and in fact that was the only thing that kept me in that job for so long (the department manager hated my guts, but he was already on thin ice with the store manager, so he couldn't afford my causing trouble if he fired me for no reason).
That's about the only difference, actually -- retail jobs are still crap jobs, either way you slice it. |
Actually there are plenty of retail jobs that are not crappy due to better attitude by the company toward their employees, perks and so on. Costco has a reputation for being a great place to work. Virgin company too.
Retail job itself can be crappy but employers can do a lot to make the workplace itself a positive and perhaps even fun place to work. That's the point - Wal-Mart didn't have to be like that.
Organizational culture goes a long way to make a workplace a great or lousy one. I used to be a dishwasher and a prep cook. It's hard work, low pay, and so on but due to my terrific co-workers and cool bosses, I actually enjoyed working there.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34. Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|