3rd world debt

[Boetie]

rmnunez posts The lower the wages, the less significant these are to the profit margin.

Where does a person come up with a statement like the one above?

Wages is profits. This is how it works Company A and Company B have competed to a point where they can no longer lower prices. Company A pays their workers x per hour and produces y products per hour. Company B figures out two options pay the workers less than x or require workers to produce y times 2 per hour or both. The cut in wages is profit. Simple math is all it is.

Capitalists have never solved the contradiction of exploiter vs exploited.

[zynner]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Yes, if there is a 600% profit margin due to Third World wage discrepancies, and the workers only get a minute fraction of that 600% profit margin, they are indeed being exploited.

Here are the actual income statements for Nike for each of the past 3 years:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=NKE&annual

Here are the actual income statements for Walmart for each of the past 3 years:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=WMT&annual

Can you show us this 600% profit margin due to third world wage discrepancies?

Also, can you tell us how much money those workers in those third world countries were earning before they became workers that have been "exploited?"

~ zynner

[zynner]

Quote by: Boetie ... Company A and Company B have competed to a point where they can no longer lower prices.

So, "lower prices" is something they are trying to attain, according to your example.

Company A pays their workers x per hour and produces y products per hour. Company B figures out two options pay the workers less than x or require workers to produce y times 2 per hour or both. The cut in wages is profit.

Not according to your premise. You said they CAN'T lower prices anymore, implying they want to. Now that Company B HAS lowered its costs, it CAN lower its prices. If they lower prices, they have NOT increased profit, except in that they can increase TOTAL SALES, which will allow them to HIRE MORE WORKERS.

Capitalists have never solved the contradiction of exploiter vs exploited.

There is no exploitation in capitalism. By "capitalism," I mean the original definition, which is NO government intervention, except to defend rights against an aggressor.

So, under capitalism, employers and employees each compete and work with one another. There is no exploitation because the employees agree to terms with the employers.

What we have today is not capitalism. It is a mix of socialism, fascism, and merchanitism. We have the government heavily involved and taking sides. Wherever the government is doing that, you can be sure it is not a capitalist economy.

~ zynner

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: grandpa Well, now you're acting a sthough it's only teh workers making the decision. How is that logical? If the plant managers and bosses are the ones who should have all the rights, as so-called Libertarians here have suggested, then obviously workers have severely limited chances.

Owners own material and workers turn material into product. Owners buy the labor of workers in order to turn their material into a product. Workers sell their labor to the owners in order to make money.

Where do you get lost?

But you're "gunna" support dehumanizing them and using them as blatant wage slaves? I'm not asking anyone to hold their hands--I'm suggesting we stop blatantly exploiting and dehumanizing people around the world. Grandpa h.

And I contend that someone can only be exploited if they are being physically forced to do something that they are not under contract to do.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: grandpa This makes no sense. There's no amount of work one can do to guarantee "improved wages," because third world sweatshops don't value their workers. They aren't going to cave in and grant people improved living conditions. Why do you think labor activists get assassinated in places like Colombia? It's because they want workers to be completely like machines, with no personalities, no interests--lower than dogs.

Hopefully they will implement machines in the future to do those jobs.

But, until that day, humans may and do sell their labor to owners for an agreed upon wage. If they don't agree, they don't work there. It's that simple.

Obviously that wans't the case with slavery, either. There are always different choices, but none of them justify institutionalized poverty and exploitation. Grandpa h.

That's exactly what the case was with slavery, by definition.

Slaves were physically forced to something. They had only one choice: do that thing.


No one is being exploited. They all do it out of their own free will.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: grandpa By stealing vast sums of money from the workers? Grandpa h.

This is voodoo economics.


What you've done is the following:

you assume that a worker should be making X.

If that worker actually makes Y (which is less than X) you assume that they should've been paid X regardless of any other factor.

Then you assume that the amount X-Y is real.

Then you assume that amount X-Y has been stolen from the worker because it's real, it should be owned by the worker, and it's not in the worker's posession.



This is a very historical and utter false logic chain. It's dispicably used by socialists because they know that it's wrong AND STILL USE IT to appeal to the workers who are falsely led to believe that they should be getting more money.

Pathetic.


Get this in your head RIGHT NOW: X-Y IS IMAGINARY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: grandpa So nobody in Finland runs a business? Grandpa h.

As unlikely as it seems, there are actually capitalists still living in Finland.

[rmnunez]

Wages are not profits, Boetie, they are costs associated with production. The difference between the cost of production and the market price of the goods is what we call profit.

There are 2 issues; whether the difference between the market price and the cost of production is excessive and whether some substantial portion of that excess profit is derived from low wages. Determining what constitutes an "excessive" profit is a subjective thing that depends on our individual views on how wealth should be distributed and needs met. But we should be able to calculate the portion of profit ascribed to reduced wages.

This interests me in the maquiladora context. In Mexico, after a few years of dwindling outputs we witness an upsurge in maquiladora activity. People decried the decline denouncing the MNCs which we were told relocated to South East Asia, Guatemala and China. Lower labour costs, poor worker-safety protections, no environmental regulation and weak trade unions with docile workers beaten into submission by repressive authorities -we are told are the prerequisites MNCs seek in their maquiladora host candidates.

Intelligent analysis and Mexico's experience suggest there are some distortions in the concern over labour exploitation. Wages are a variable and in the more labour intensive manufacturing activities this could be relevant, but the quality of labour is an important part of its value too.

The sports apparel industry has been said to derive excessive profits atributed to low wages paid sweatshop workers, but most of the markup (from which the profit is derived) results domestically in the market country as the goods pass from distributors to wholesellers and then retailers. What do the pieces of plastic, straps and rings in a pair of sneakers cost? What does it cost to move the bits of whatever goes into the product from their source to the place assembled, and then what is the cost of moving the assembled product to the market? Obviously there will be a range in values, some things are made of more expensive components, others require more labour. We need to know these costs before concluding 600 or any other percentage in profit resulted from low wages.

[Ghumanto]

what is more important - give 2rd world a chance to flourish.
Bangladesh is a 3rd world country . It exports ready made garments to the US and with a heavy duty imposed on the goods by US customs.
The amount of duties Bangladeshi goods paid in 2005 is more than the total amount of duty paid Norweigian exports to the US!!!
So, how would accept the so called trade liberlisation / WTO blah blah !!!!
Only if the US waivs the tarrif from 3rd world products ( as the EU does in some cases ) - 3rd world can progress much faster - WITH OUT ANY AID / debts .

[grandpa]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Owners own material and workers turn material into product. Owners buy the labor of workers in order to turn their material into a product. Workers sell their labor to the owners in order to make money. .

And owners steal most of the money created by the workers who make the products.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Where do you get lost? .

I am not "lost." I'm pointing out the obvious fact that sweatshops are all about exploitation.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 And I contend that someone can only be exploited if they are being physically forced to do something that they are not under contract to do.

Well, for one thing--many workers are forced to do work. As I've said, labor leaders have been assassinated. Here's a question for you to answer brilliantly--if basically the entire area you are living in is privately owned, do people have the option of not working for that company, or not reacting to those private interests? Of course they don't.
People deal with corporate influence all the time--are you telling me it's all a matter of contract?

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 But, until that day, humans may and do sell their labor to owners for an agreed upon wage. If they don't agree, they don't work there. It's that simple.

No, it isn't. Many workers don't agree with their wages and working conditions, but take what they can get. If they can't get any better jobs, they will organize to negotiate better working conditions (which many "Libertarians" seem to oppose) or resort to violence or starve. Those are very limited choices, by my standards--and should be seen as such by yourself. You simply refuse to put yourself in these people's shoes intellectually, but may wear these people's shoes anyway.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 That's exactly what the case was with slavery, by definition. Slaves were physically forced to something. They had only one choice: do that thing. No one is being exploited. They all do it out of their own free will.

Slaves too had other choices. They could organize and get rid of their oppression conditions, and that's what sweatshop workers should do now.
Exploitation is, according to my dictionary, "Utilization of another person or group for selfish purposes." The idea that we should minimize exploitation does NOT violate any kind of principle of liberty, though you mysteriously seem to believe it would.
If you are to live on privately owned land, as is the case in many situations, then you either work or are expelled.
What a vast supply of choices!! What liberty! But it's all free will.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 This is voodoo economics. This is a very historical and utter false logic chain. It's dispicably used by socialists because they know that it's wrong AND STILL USE IT to appeal to the workers who are falsely led to believe that they should be getting more money. Pathetic. Get this in your head RIGHT NOW: X-Y IS IMAGINARY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I pointed out the FACT that millionaires and billionaires take disproprtionate amounts of money from their companies, and therefore from their workers--and that workers often do not get paid well enough for their work.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 As unlikely as it seems, there are actually capitalists still living in Finland.

Socialists can, and do, own businesses. Just like certain employers are more socially conscious than others. Finland is a largely socialistic country with a pretty good economy. I'm not arguing it's perfect, as no country is, but I wouldn't call it utterly awful.

Grandpa h.

[brien]

Quote by: Milton Bradley I think foreign debt needs to be considered on a case, by case basis. Where ever the U.S., the U.N., the World Bank, the International Monetary fund are found to be involved, we should cancel the debt. These people have been enslaved far too long already.

Enslaved? Give me a break. When you or I go to the bank and borrow money, are we enslaved? When banks issue credit cards to people who clearly can't afford them or manage them properly, are they being enslaved? This is clearly a radical word to describe irresponsibility. Could it perhaps be that many so called "third world" nations accept this money and it then is stolen by corrupt officials who have no intention of using it to help the people it is intended for in those countries.

I believe you have confused the matter and are assigning blame to the "big bad Capitalist nations" that take the RISK of loaning money that they will probably never see again. The blame needs to be shouldered by those whom are at fault for the defaults, not placed upon the altruistic "money grubbing capitalist pigs" that seek to "exploit" the third world nations. Do you think that financial institutions that loan money are out to exploit those who make a contract to accept the money and pay it back? If so then, perhaps Communist China has the answer that is best suited for these situations. Redistribute the wealth of the nation and create a society where everyone is is equal, but some are more equal than others. This is what happens in China.

Perhaps a better solution is to allow the "Big Bad Capitalist" nations to decide how much money to GIVE to the poor and destitute in "third world" nations and then deliver it directly to them bypassing the theiving corrupt government officials. The "Big Bad Capitalist" nations could set up a distribution network and ensure that the money goes directly to the programs that are trustworthy, honest and effective.

I for one, would favor a line item in the voting booth as to whether I approve of the amounts and the countries to GIVE aid to on a biannual basis. I would consider how that country views America and how they demonstrate their loyalty to those who financially help them. I believe if we as Americans, are going to GIVE money to any country, first, second, or third world, we should determine if they are friend or foe so that we may get some kind of return for our generosity. Why should we finance a country, or a group of people, that hates America and may end up using the resources we extend against us or the good people of the nation where they reside? You may say this giving money with strings attached and you are exactly correct. We, as a nation, should expect a reasonable outcome for the money we offer.

Yes there should be a "Litmus test" rather than just throwing money around the world with nary a care as to what happens to it and what results that money may produce. I compare it to giving a alcoholic bum on the street a dollar so he can further his alcoholism rather than placing him/her in a program to treat his/her condition. This is a no brainer in my mind. The alcoholic needs the program not the money.

[grandpa]

Quote by: brien Enslaved? Give me a break. When you or I go to the bank and borrow money, are we enslaved? When banks issue credit cards to people who clearly can't afford them or manage them properly, are they being enslaved? This is clearly a radical word to describe irresponsibility. Could it perhaps be that many so called "third world" nations accept this money and it then is stolen by corrupt officials who have no intention of using it to help the people it is intended for in those countries. .

When your country is owned by the IMF, the World Bank and subject to the fascistic corporate philosophy of the WTO--you are essentially owned by corporations.
If we shouldn't give generously to foreign countries then maybe we should get the hell out of them.

Grandpa h.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: grandpa And owners steal most of the money created by the workers who make the products.

Let me say this again, maybe you'll understand this time:

the owners own the materials. Thus, the owners own the products that the laborers make.


Are you so naive to think that just because you applied labor to materials that those materials are now yours!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

That's the worst logic that I'v ever heard. Ever. In my entire life. It's mind boggling. Anti intellectual.


The owners own the products. The end. They can do with them whatever they want, including sell them.

Obviously.

I am not "lost." I'm pointing out the obvious fact that sweatshops are all about exploitation.

Sweatshops are nothing more than places where materials are turned into products. Both material and product are owned by the owners. The laborers sell their labor in order to make money.

None of that is exploitation by definition since no one is physically being forced to do anything.

Well, for one thing--many workers are forced to do work.

Is someone pointing a gun to their head and saying "work or die" ? If they are, then that's not right, I agree.

However, I suspect (and know) that's simply not the case.

Here's a question for you to answer brilliantly--if basically the entire area you are living in is privately owned, do people have the option of not working for that company, or not reacting to those private interests? Grandpa h.

Your question: If you are living in a house that is not owned by you, do you have the option of not working for the owner?

Um....hello? Do you live in this world?

It happens every day in every part of the world. I guess you've never heard of apartments.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: grandpa No, it isn't. Many workers don't agree with their wages and working conditions, but take what they can get.

So, you just agreed that they have a choice to not take that. Thank you.

If they can't get any better jobs, they will organize to negotiate better working conditions (which many "Libertarians" seem to oppose) or resort to violence or starve.

I don't know or care what libertarians oppose, but I could case less if laborers organize to demand better wages.

The only thing I oppose is laws that restrict owners from hiring new workers who are willing to work in the same conditions that are being disputed.

Those are very limited choices, by my standards

So we get to the root of your argument: because you don't like something, it should change.

Well, grandpa, tough shit.

Slaves too had other choices. They could organize and get rid of their oppression conditions, and that's what sweatshop workers should do now.

Again a misunderstanding or purposful misuse of definitions.

Slaves had no other choices. They were told explicity "work or die".

The idea that we should minimize exploitation does NOT violate any kind of principle of liberty, though you mysteriously seem to believe it would.

Wrong again.

I have nothing against minimizing exploitation.

I only disagree on what falls under the definition of exploitation.

If you are to live on privately owned land, as is the case in many situations, then you either work or are expelled. What a vast supply of choices!! What liberty! But it's all free will. Grandpa h.

I live in an apartment. It's owned by someone priate who is not me. As long as I pay my rent, they don't care where I work.

Your logic is utterly flawed.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: grandpa I pointed out the FACT that millionaires and billionaires take disproprtionate amounts of money from their companies, and therefore from their workers--and that workers often do not get paid well enough for their work. Grandpa h.

It's not a fact, it's your opinion.

The owners own the products. They can choose to pay the laborers as little wage as the labors are willing to accept.

If you don't like it, TOO BAD!

[grandpa]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Let me say this again, maybe you'll understand this time: the owners own the materials. Thus, the owners own the products that the laborers make. Are you so naive to think that just because you applied labor to materials that those materials are now yours!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? That's the worst logic that I'v ever heard. Ever. In my entire life. It's mind boggling. Anti intellectual.

You think people should be owned and you're calling me "anti-intellectual?"
Sometimes I truly worry about you Libertarians.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Sweatshops are nothing more than places where materials are turned into products. Both material and product are owned by the owners. The laborers sell their labor in order to make money. None of that is exploitation by definition since no one is physically being forced to do anything.

Poverty isn't forcing people to do anything? Making people rely on corporations for their livelihood isn't forcing people to do anything?

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Is someone pointing a gun to their head and saying "work or die" ? If they are, then that's not right, I agree. However, I suspect (and know) that's simply not the case.

Actually, that often is the case in places like Colombia and Nigeria, and it can be the case in any place where workers have no rights to organize. It was the case in the old Mining Days where I live. You either need labor laws or you need to have collective ownership in order to reduce the likelihood of conflict and violence.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Your question: If you are living in a house that is not owned by you, do you have the option of not working for the owner? Um....hello? Do you live in this world? It happens every day in every part of the world. I guess you've never heard of apartments.

Your condescension is simply not going to do here.
If you are renting an apartment, you are forced to pay rent. You are working to provide money to pay that rent, so you are therefore working for that landlord. That's what I was saying. You obviously can't understand that obvious, easily observable state of affairs.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 So, you just agreed that they have a choice to not take that. Thank you. .

I said anyone has a choice. there's no way around that, but in the setup you claim is so grand and liberating, the choice is work or starve. It is institutionalized tyranny, and is a mockery of liberty.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 The only thing I oppose is laws that restrict owners from hiring new workers who are willing to work in the same conditions that are being disputed. .

So you oppose laws that regard workers as human beings and grant them legal rights in their places of work?

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 So we get to the root of your argument: because you don't like something, it should change. Well, grandpa, tough shit.

It's not a matter of me simply not liking something, there's a whole world history of phenomena relating to workplace related violence and dehumanization.
People could very easily turn to violence to resolve labor and private interest disputes, as the Colombian government has done and as the Zapatistas in Mexico were basically driven to do.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Slaves had no other choices. They were told explicity "work or die".

Work for sixteen cents an hour or die. Man, that's liberating!!

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 I have nothing against minimizing exploitation. I only disagree on what falls under the definition of exploitation.

You do not regard workers as human beings with rights, but rather as subjects to be owned and taken great advantage of--that is explotation. Look it up.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 I live in an apartment. It's owned by someone priate who is not me. As long as I pay my rent, they don't care where I work. .

You simply are goofy here. Did I say they care where you work? No!! I said they want you to work for them. When you are supplying money for them, regardless of where it comes from, you are essentially working for their ends. If you don't work for them, they'll want you discarded and treated like something less than human.

Grandpa h.