I just went into walmart for the first time in months... I feel physically ill

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Most people want to live in democracies. Dictators are funded so that they protect the property rights of American corporations,.

How much money do you think we have? According to you the United States funds everybody and everything.

Hey I want to be funded. Yo, Congressman! Give me some funding and I'll be glad to do your bidding.........

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by General Ludd


But your own articles said that the alternative is sifting through a garbage dump. More then nothing is not neccisarily much (or even enough). How many times do I have to say this?

The alternative is GOING BACK TO HOW THEY WERE BEFORE, which is COMPLETELY POSSIBLE.

But they don't want to, because the sweatshops are better.

Sweatshops are an integral step of industrialization. Every single industrialized country today went through this step.

[PeteH]

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]

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.

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.

[Theben]

When she left I rounded the corner to see him put his hand in the air and pull it back into his chest and say 'yeah baby! that's how you make them feel like crap and keep them in line" then he looked up and saw me. I just walked away.

Another piss-poor manager. Seems there are too many out there these days. 2/3rds of teh time these guys are poorly trained.

I say sue them for fostering a "hostile work environment".

[Theben]

Originally posted by Kucinich

So it's the fault of the political system, not the corporations

So you're saying it's Bush's fault? Now you sound like Sava.

Corporations are not blameless for corrupt political systems that they support. Don't be naive, young skywalker.

Which is an economy, just a very primitive one

I was under the impression he was referring to a modern capitalist system. Of course there's always an economy of sorts, which is so obvious why mention it.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Theben
So you're saying it's Bush's fault? Now you sound like Sava.

I deserved that

Corporations are not blameless for corrupt political systems that they support. Don't be naive, young skywalker.

Let me rephrase it, then - it's a fault of the political system, not globablisation.

Quote:

Which is an economy, just a very primitive one

I was under the impression he was referring to a modern capitalist system. Of course there's always an economy of sorts, which is so obvious why mention it.

Because many posters were assuming that there WASN'T any other economy

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Kucinich




The alternative is GOING BACK TO HOW THEY WERE BEFORE, which is COMPLETELY POSSIBLE.

So you think that's how they've been living for millions of years - sifting through garbage dumps?

Their old way of life isn't possible anymore, and those who want to go back can't.

Their land WASN'T destroyed... they are completely capable of going back to their old lifestyle.

Regardles of their land - which has been polluted quite thouroghy - their previous society has been destroyed. Farming isn't as profitable as it once was, and they are probably expected to have wages equivelent of the people working 16 hour a day slave labour, so their cost of living has gone up.

I have yet to see any evidence from you or Imran that sweatshop workers can actually afford things like luxuries and even retirement with the 'generous' wages they are given.

The native americans don't work in sweatshops, so it doesn't matter

No, we put them to work in the mines and lumber industries instead. Added bonus - we get to dump the waste on their land and not have to worry about it.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by General Ludd
So you think that's how they've been living for millions of years - sifting through garbage dumps?

No, duh, it's called AGRICULTURE. Agricultural subsidies in first-world nations don't prevent sustenance farming.

Their old way of life isn't possible anymore, and those who want to go back can't.

Of course it is.

Regardles of their land - which has been polluted quite thouroghy - their previous society has been destroyed. Farming isn't as profitable as it once was, and they are probably expected to have wages equivelent of the people working 16 hour a day slave labour, so their cost of living has gone up.

They can go back to sustenance farming. They can't go back to something more than that (selling the food) simply because agricorporations, with or without subsidies, are far more efficient at turning out superior quality food at a lower price. Unless you somehow think it is morally wrong to offer a better product for a lower price, the agricorporations are completely blameless.

I have yet to see any evidence from you or Imran that sweatshop workers can actually afford things like luxuries and even retirement with the 'generous' wages they are given.

They can afford more than they could before.

No, we put them to work in the mines and lumber industries instead. Added bonus - we ge to dump the waste on their land and now have to worry about it.

Again: the native americans don't live in a third-world country. They are completely unrelated to the discussion.

[General Ludd]

Of course it is.

Then I ask you the same thing I asked Imran, why are so many third world farmers starving?

And why are people sifting through garbage dumps rather then sustaining themselves?

They can go back to sustenance farming. They can't go back to something more than that (selling the food) simply because agricorporations, with or without subsidies, are far more efficient at turning out superior quality food at a lower price.

Then how do they pay for their land and taxes?

They can afford more than they could before.

And how much could they afford 'before' (without)? Nothing

More then nothing isn't much!

Again: the native americans don't live in a third-world country. They are completely unrelated to the discussion.

I don't know, alot of native reservations could be compaired to third world countries.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by General Ludd
Then I ask you the same thing I asked Imran, why are so many third world farmers starving?

Because "starvation" is pretty much the default for a primitive civilization. We'd probably say a lot of the ancient egyptians were "starving" too. It's all relative.

Plus there've been some droughts and stuff. Again, nothing that wouldn't have happened without the sweatshops.

And why are people sifting through garbage dumps rather then sustaining themselves?

Because they moved to the city.

Then how do they pay for their land and taxes?

Do most African countries even have property tax?

And how much could they afford 'before' (without)? Nothing

More then nothing isn't much!

So? The point is that they are better off, however slightly. More than nothing is - get this - [/i]more than nothing[/i].

I don't know, alot of native reservations could be compaired to third world countries.

Not really. Gambling is not a primary industry of third world countries, nor are the reservations "industrializing"

[loinburger]

Originally posted by General Ludd
More then nothing isn't much!

Sure it is. It's an infinity-percent increase.

[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.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb

How much money do you think we have? According to you the United States funds everybody and everything.

Hey I want to be funded. Yo, Congressman! Give me some funding and I'll be glad to do your bidding.........

Recent figures showed that America was offering military help to at least 100 countries in the world. Plus, aren't they the #1 weapon manufacturer?

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by General Ludd
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)?

You're absolutely right. People seem to think that you can freely chose to starve. I've given up arguing with them.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Kucinich

Because "starvation" is pretty much the default for a primitive civilization. We'd probably say a lot of the ancient egyptians were "starving" too. It's all relative.

It's quite rare actually that a civilization didn't have enough to feed everyone. The vast majority of starvations are the result of unfair wealth redistribution. This was made possible by the development of agriculture, because sedentary nations had a much easier time policing its people and imposing terrible work conditions on the peasants (through ownership of the land, the first ever 'mean of production' in human history).

Plus there've been some droughts and stuff. Again, nothing that wouldn't have happened without the sweatshops.

Every day, enough food is produced to feed more than adequately at least 10 billion humans. Why is it that 800 millions suffer outright starvation, and that billions suffer from malnutrition? Whose fault is it, really?

[Urban Ranger]

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.

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?

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.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kucinich
Do most African countries even have property tax?

1. We are not just talking about Africa, and surely African countries ahve property taxes too, except in places where there's no government.

2. Do you think a person can just walk on a piece of land and claim it his own? You know, there are other people around.

[Kuciwalker]

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.

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

2. Do you think a person can just walk on a piece of land and claim it his own? You know, there are other people around.

Didn't stop the Europeans when they "discovered" the Americas.

[Barinthus]

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.

[Barinthus]

Originally posted by Tiamat
Give me a freeking break! I worked at walmart until two weeks ago and you have no where to turn for anything in that company. You compain it's your job!!!!!!

I had a guy I went through orentation with named Sam. Sam was from Oregon and had gotten into a spot of trouble and had some tickets which in turn got his drivers license suspended. He informed them that his license was suspended on his application, informed them again in orentation, informed them everyday he was at work in the Tire and Lube Express that he had no drivers license. One day his supervisor ordered him to drive a car into the parking lot. Sam again informed him that he had no DL and that he didn't want to be held responsible if something did happen while pulling into the lot. He was trying to save walmart a lawsuit as well as himself. When he told his supervisor that he didn't feel comfortable driving the cars. We were told from day one that there was an open door policy there and that we could always utilize it.

When Sam utilized it he utilized himself right out of a job. He went to the store director and told him what he was trying to do.......be honest and the store director fired him. He told him he was of course eligible for re-hire but booted him right out of his job because he was being honest and trying to keep a lawsuit from happening.

On my note.....I worked in the deli. Walmart starts everyone off at $7.20 per hour. I was doing hard physical labor lifiting 30 pound slicers, moping the floor, doing dishes for over an hour and a half every night and I mean the slicers, scrubbing burned on grease in the pans and we were not allowed to use brillo pads or anything that would assist us in cleaning them. We weren't allowed to use rubber gloves and expected to keep our hands in steaming hot water along with sanitizer that made our hands crack and bleed. So who ever says they don't care is correct.

The managers don't give a flying crap about their employees or what they are going through. I also saw the store manager in the office with two other assistant managers talking to an employee....really talking down to her in front of the other managers and made her cry. When she left I rounded the corner to see him put his hand in the air and pull it back into his chest and say 'yeah baby! that's how you make them feel like crap and keep them in line" then he looked up and saw me. I just walked away.

I quit within two days after that.

That's a disgusting story. This only firms my conviction that Wal-Mart is the true evil corruptive blight on the American economy.

[Barinthus]

Originally posted by Kucinich


*sigh*

Those countries are basically ancient civilizations that have been exposed to advanced civilazations. Name one ancient civilization that was truly a democracy.

India... unless you meant back in their ancient days?

There's no true democracy even today. The States are techinically a republic, not a democracy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So what, exactly, is the argument here?

We are arguing that sweatshops are good and a natural progression of the economy.

The "demand" is high because the only other choice is starvation. You are talking displaced people who have no other choice.

Why was the demand so high when the sweatshop first arrived? Are you saying the entire society was starving until the sweatshop got there? If the sweatshop was worse than the previous work, how did they get workers?

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.

Even if TNCs get most of the money, it definetly helps the country. Look at South Korea for evidence of that. It leads to a gradual process of richer and more educated kids (higher income tax revenues).

The only reason we call it "starving" is because we are used to a higher standard.

I still haven't recieved an answer if these countries were starving before the sweatshops got there.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by DataAeolus
India... unless you meant back in their ancient days?

Yes, I meant the ancient days.

There's no true democracy even today. The States are techinically a republic, not a democracy.

You understand what I mean - the US and Europe are democracies. Japan is a democracy.

Rome, in contrast, was an oligarchy. Athens was mostly an oligarchy (it was pretty democratic, but you also have to remember that it was ONE CITY).