If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
it is not that easy. often, to earn enough to survive, they have to put in slot of "volantary overtime". Trade Unions are sometimes outlawed by the government in these countries. So, in other words, for businesses producing cheaply abroad - win win situation. And where trade unions members do protest for wage rise - they can soon fire them and find someone else willing to do the work - these people are poor, do nearly anything for money.
Sure, their past jobs may have been bad - but isn't it western companies who are meant to lead the way? Set an example? Shouldn't we pay them no less than we would, ourselves, want to be payed?
well yes, thats what I'm saying. Western companies often move abroad because they can pay less and stamp out union activity because often there are no laws protecting workers.
a) All this talk of unions etc is fairly redundant because in mostr developing countries the majority of people are poor farmers.....
Teh_Gerbil, paying workers in a factory in Vietnem the same as those in a factory in Detroit would be a total catastrophe for that countries economy.......
And if they were to pay the same then why would the company move to that country anyway?
Why?
Same as any company does, to be closer to its market and its suppliers.
If they earn enough to buy the products, then everybody wins.
Except the thieving and exploitative company shareholders making $39 profit on a $40 pair of trainers, of course...
Because the massive increase in wages for the few, would lead to increased prices and lower realtive wages for everyone else.......
I though you lot were the ones who didn't like the idea of privelaged minorities, now you support them?
No, do you really think Nike gas a large market in Vietnam or the Phillippines?
The major reason for location, ceteris parabus, is lower costs.........
Not at present, because the people don't earn enough to buy the stuff.
Pay them the value of the labour and they do...
Most people in those countries have at least one family memeber working in the sweatshops. So most people would benefit.
Pay the farmers their value too, and everyone wins.
No, I don't have a pension, but what's that got to do with anything? I argue that the current financial system is inherently exploitative, and if it was changed we wouldn't need to have investments and pensions. But as I currently live in this system I have to do what's best for me in it. Me not having a pension doesn't stop workers being exploited, here and abroad, does it.
I despise Stagecoach buses, but I still need to get to work in a morning, so I need to give them money. That's life. It doesn't mean I think it's right.
Please describe to me the situation where we don't 'need' investment or pensions!
It sounds interesting..........
If Titus Salt could manage to pay a fair wage and look after the ill and old, why the hell can't we in our supposedly modern and caring society?
Also all you are advocating is state pensions, something we already have!
Considering your seeming distrust of govt, why do you advocate a communist system?
No, just accurate analysis. Would you say a 30% appreciation in the pound didn't cause a slight (massive) dent in British manufacturing? :chin:
There is a big movement from the land to factories, as happened in the industrial revolution in England. Unions are vitally important.
They can pay an equivalent, give them decent rights and conditions and look after the environment.
Well, exactly.
Relevance?
That's rich, coming from someone who can't even work out how profit arises!
The USSR was capitalist, albeit a state capitalism rather than private capitalism
Why do you think communism is necessarily anything to do with the state?
Because Kermit criticised shareholders, if you have a private pension then you are a shareholder, and thus would make his criticim hypocritical........
Sorry, how is that hypocritical? Just because one has a critique of capitalism doesn't mean that they don't need to use it to survive.
You mean someone who doesn't agree with you?
How ridiculousof you to suggest that your opinion is the only truth, you have criticised others for it in the past as well, unbeleivable!
Yeah Yeah yeah, same bollocks as before............
never mind what communism might be in some perfect world, every time it has been tried, by people with similar ideas and ideals to your own, it has turned out bad, doesn't that tell you something?
Nice excuse.......
I take it you have a pension then?
I've never suggested such and you know it. However, every time I've attempted to discuss profit with you, you avoid answering. Very telling.
Sorry, what?
Well, no, because your statement is actually not true. Maybe actually reading my posts might help, rather than responding to what you assume I wrote.
Sorry, what the fuck? Tell me how I can live and escape capitalism please. While you're at it, you can also tell me why having a critique of capitalism precludes me from participating in our society.
Thanks.
No, I don't actually.
Yes you have, you have made it plainly clear what you believe is right, I have suggested another theory which you instantly dismissed and you have implied that anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot...........
Please stop lying Toadborg. Yes, I have made it clear what theory makes the most sense to me, but last time I attempted to discuss it with you, you insulted me and then refused to discuss it any further.
[eta]
P.S.
You too have made it very clear what your ideology is, yet you refuse to actually discuss it. Why?
Clearly we mean different things by the word.
I suspect your meaning of 'discussion' is hammering away until everyone else gives up, I have never seen any evidence you are open to any other ideas.......
What pray, do you think my 'ideology' is?
Errr...please stop lying. If I was a little short in my reply, it may have been because I was at work, but I did not "instantly dismiss" anything.
Clearly.
Ha! Maybe you need to actually pay attention to my posts rather than (as I have mentioned countless times) what you assume I write.
Capitalist, neo-liberal
No it wouldn't, as I have illustrated. I hate Stagecoach, but I can't walk to work, so I have to use them.
I live in a capitalist society, so I have to use that society to look after myself and my family. It doesn't mean I agree with that society, but me not having a pension changes nothing except it means I have a cold house and a starving wife.
Or are you trying to suggest that people can live outside of the socio-economic framework that they find themselves in?
Although, for the record, I don't have a pension either.
One other question:
If you don't agree that profit comes from not giving a worker the full value of his work, where does it come from?
I'm not asking whether you agree with profit or not- that's up to you. But if profit does not arise from not giving workers their full value and overcharging consumers, where does it arise from?
In classical economics, profits arise from market power, i.e. monoplies or oligopoly.
This can be slightly differently interpreted to mean 'super-normal' profit such that we allow for a 'normal' amount of profit to fit in with the real world.
Note that this profit arises from the appropriation of consumer surplus however, not form workers.......
Another theory is that profit represents a return to entrepreneurship, the reward of profit is the incentive that spurs people on.
So the issue is not clear cut, there are other theories as well no doubt, it isn't my area really.......
May I enquire as to how you determine what the 'full value' of the workers product is?