Guest guest Posted November 26, 2004 Report Share Posted November 26, 2004 >~~~But, they didn't go out to work much at all until after womens' lib. That's my point. I wasn't talking about rights. I was talking about what actually happened. >Carol A lot of Women's Lib was about " equal pay for equal work " ... not about GOING to work. My Mom and Aunt both worked, but they got paid a lot less than their male counterparts. To me it is a lot about POWER. If a woman produced 80% of what a family ate, then that woman had a lot of say about how the family was run. But in the 50's paradigm, the man " went to work " and the woman " kept the house " , which by that point was a nominal job since automation had done most of the work. My Mom, for one, was unhappy and bored. I swore never to be in THAT boat! The 50's housewife was alone in an empty house, the kids at school, very little esteem. That was an historical anomoly. Women rebelled, but by that point they didn't know what the " right " paradigm might be, and really, we still don't. I'm trying something different, and it's working pretty well, but it's still an experiment. Ideally, a woman raising kids has as much power and say-so as her husband, over the household and the children's well-being, and finances. She can breastfeed and still be more than a servant. Most women at this point in time take for granted that their husband cannot beat them or rape them legally, as was the case in the early 1900's, and they can vote and spend money and own property. Elsewhere in the world, this is still not the case, and women are more 'property' than 'people'. Heidi Jean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 26, 2004 Report Share Posted November 26, 2004 >~~~~> You're contrasting two things that ought to be thought of as >complimentary. The " supply and demand " of money is determined by government >intervention in the money market, upon which the demand for housing rests. > >Chris Some of it. Some of it is *climate*. People are moving to the coasts, for a number of reasons, and in my area, the " yuppies " are investing heavily in real estate. You have this 5% of the people who own 95% of the dollars, and they buy stuff. Horse farms, big houses. For some reason, people like the moderate climate of the coasts, and they invest a lot. The net result is that while prices fall in the interior, the go up astronomically on the coasts. Heidi Jean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 26, 2004 Report Share Posted November 26, 2004 >>But wouldn't it be suicidal for government schools to teach economics? Unless they really mangled it, of course. Aven<< ~~~Not at all. I took it in high school as an elective. It doesn't get into the particulars of the money spent by the government. It teaches economics itself. When you take bookkeeping, you don't learn about any one company, you learn how bookkeeping works in general. Carol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 26, 2004 Report Share Posted November 26, 2004 >>>~~~> Women had the right to work before and after women's lib.<< ~~~But, they didn't go out to work much at all until after womens' lib. That's my point. I wasn't talking about rights. I was talking about what actually happened. Carol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 Out sourcing jobs, brings the price of goods down. When that happens, we have more money to spend. When we have more money to spend, we spend it and that creates more jobs, many of which will be small businesses right here in our country. If we stop out sourcing, prices will go up instead, and the reverse will happen. It's basic economics, which we all should have learned in high school. Things would be better for it. Carol ~~~~~> Of course, it should, for perspective, be considered that the choice to employ people in other countries is a reciprocal choice between the employer and those willing to work for that employer in those countries. Are the workers in these countries as greedy as the employers? Or, are the employees who would retain these jobs if government were to intervene as greedy as these employers for wishing to use force to retain their higher-paying jobs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 > I'm not sure I understand the question. Certainly I'd like to see the laws > repealed, and federal spending reduced to pre-WWI levels (< 5% of GDP). That was what I wanted to know. > > To give me an idea of where you're coming from, what do you think would > happen if the United States repealed all labor laws? Conversely, what > do you > think would happen if a very poor country such as Ethiopia ($700 per > capita > GDP) adopted US labor laws? > > > That's a good question. I don't know the answer, but I would imagine that if labor laws were repealed here in the US, wages would drop for one thing. If a poor country adopted US labor laws, we'd pay more for shoes. Deanna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 > -----Original Message----- > From: Deanna [mailto:hl@...] > > Bravo, Chris. You have made some very fine points here. But > about the minimum wage: Companies are outsourcing even some > good paying engineering jobs to countries with lower overall > wages. So, I think regulation must reign in major corporate > greed to some extent. I agree, 100%! Businesses shouldn't be allowed to pay an Indian $15,000 per year to do a job when there's a white man who's perfectly willing to do it for $75,000! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 I think it's more than basic economics. It's basic human rights in some real world cases. I actually choose to pay more for shoes from places OTHER than Walmart. Gee, isn't it nice Americans can consume so much of the world's resources for such little money, getting fatter every day, while third world children produce most of these cheap products with serious health consequences acquired from repetitive stress injuries among other problems, often without adequate food nor any pay. Deanna Carol wrote: > Out sourcing jobs, brings the price of goods down. When that happens, > we have more money to spend. When we have more money to spend, we > spend it and that creates more jobs, many of which will be small > businesses right here in our country. If we stop out sourcing, prices > will go up instead, and the reverse will happen. It's basic > economics, which we all should have learned in high school. Things > would be better for it. > Carol > > > > ~~~~~> Of course, it should, for perspective, be considered that the > choice > to employ people in other countries is a reciprocal choice between the > employer and those willing to work for that employer in those > countries. Are the > workers in these countries as greedy as the employers? Or, are the > employees who > would retain these jobs if government were to intervene as greedy as > these > employers for wishing to use force to retain their higher-paying jobs? > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 I think you also need to look at technology leaving the US. I'm surprised China isn't making our weapons systems. National security plays a role that is much more important than the price of shoes. We should be safeguarding our secrets, but we are not. We are exporting them at our own peril. Deanna Deanna wrote: > I think it's more than basic economics. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 Well, without our jobs, they may not have anything at all. Carol Gee, isn't it nice Americans can consume so much of the world's resources for such little money, getting fatter every day, while third world children produce most of these cheap products with serious health consequences acquired from repetitive stress injuries among other problems, often without adequate food nor any pay. Deanna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 -----Original Message----- From: Deanna " ...Gee, isn't it nice Americans can consume so much of the world's resources for such little money, getting fatter every day, while third world children produce most of these cheap products with serious health consequences acquired from repetitive stress injuries among other problems, often without adequate food nor any pay. " Deanna Isn't it great that organizations that promote fair labor practices have done such a great job of educating the world on child labor and fair labor practices? I know several very large manufactures and I myself am a small manufacturer. I have talked with these friends who are in large scale clothing manufacture (one is the largest baby bib manufacturer in the US) and some smaller scale manufacturers and this is one of the first things they look at when selecting a cut and sew contractor: Fair labor practices. They all say that they travel there and observe for themselves first-hand the conditions in the factories before contracting with anyone. I myself traveled to Haiti 2 years ago to look into outsourcing some of my manufacturing. I was taken around by a woman who is the head of a government (Haitian gov't) sponsored manufacturing and trade assoc that regulates labor practices in manufacturing in port au prince. She took me to 4 factories where I met with the owners. I saw no children in any of these places and I think there are enough unemployed adults in Haiti that a child wouldn't have a chance in hell of getting a job doing anything that paid a wage. The folks working in these factories were all paid what is a fair wage in that country and all took a lunch break about 1pm after which they sat around and rested for a while before returning to their sewing machines. I asked specifically about fair labor practices after visiting the smallest and poorest of these factories and she told me a story about something that a large factory had done. They had bought ergonometric chairs for the seamstresses to sit on at the sewing machines. The seamstresses all brought pieces of wood to place in the bottoms of the chairs. Her organization went in to find out what was going on. The seamstresses explained that the chairs were uncomfortable and they needed the firmness of the wood to sew more comfortably. I do think there is much less child labor in most of these places than is commonly thought. After all, Wal-Mart couldn't purchase huge numbers of Mexican and Haitian made clothing lines if they were made by children or under any unfair labor practices. I would still like to outsource to Central America or Haiti when the time is right. I would feel that I was helping keep one little family in food and shelter in a country where abject poverty is the rule and not the exception and nutrition is having a piece of cassava bread for breakfast and some rice with bean sauce for dinner and if you were lucky a bit of goat's meat. (Gosh I mish that Haitian food!) Connie Bernard http://www.PandoraPads.com Organic Cotton Feminine Pads, Tampons, Nursing Pads, Natural Progesterone Cream, and Children's Supplements. On-line Discount Voucher: nn242g223 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 > -----Original Message----- > From: Heidi Schuppenhauer [mailto:heidis@...] > >~~~~> You're contrasting two things that ought to be thought of as > >complimentary. The " supply and demand " of money is determined by > >government intervention in the money market, upon which the > demand for housing rests. > > Some of it. Some of it is *climate*. People are moving to the > coasts, for a number of reasons, and in my area, the > " yuppies " are investing heavily in real estate. You have this > 5% of the people who own 95% of the dollars The top 40% have 95% of the wealth. The top 5% have about 60%. > and they buy > stuff. Horse farms, big houses. What do horse farms and big houses have to do with lower- and middle-class housing? > For some reason, people like > the moderate climate of the coasts, and they invest a lot. > The net result is that while prices fall in the interior, the > go up astronomically on the coasts. Speculative bubbles do happen, but they rarely last long, and those involved usually lose a lot of money unless they get out at the right time. The real question is, with prices as high as they are, why aren't builders keeping up with demand? One possible factor is the so-called " smart growth " initiatives that limit the supply of new housing. General red tape around construction is another. Keep in mind also that housing prices haven't tripled everywhere in Washington (if I were you, I'd sell the house, buy a cheaper one elsewhere, and pocket the difference, but that's just me). You just happen to live in a particularly hot neighborhood, and your experience is not the norm. Anyway, if some people can't afford to live in the nicer areas, what's the problem? Let them move. They may even make some money on their houses once sanity returns to the market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 In a message dated 11/27/04 2:12:50 AM Eastern Standard Time, cah@... writes: > The point I was trying to make about the vote, (that evidently was lost > somehow), was that it and women going to work had little to do with each other. > They've been linked together as if they go hand in hand, and I feel they're > unrelated to each other. _____ ~~~~> Yes you did say that-- I think it was lost on me because I didn't really understand why anyone would suggest that they *were* related, which had never occurred to me. _____ I wasn't saying one was any more important than the other, OR, for that matter, > that either one was even important at all in the grand scheme of things. > They're both just a part of history. My only real point was that the womens' > movement had a great influence on women going to work......that it hasn't > only been a high divorce rate that's caused it. And, that womens' entrance into > the work force pretty much in 'droves' in the 60s and 70s has greatly > influenced the wage rates. ____ ~~~> Good points. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 In a message dated 11/27/04 2:31:21 AM Eastern Standard Time, heidis@... writes: > Some of it. Some of it is *climate*. People are moving to the coasts, > for a number of reasons, and in my area, the " yuppies " are investing > heavily in real estate. _____ ~~~~> That explains regional differences, not the overall upward trend of home prices. ______ You have this 5% of the people who own 95% > of the dollars, ______ ~~~~> I think your confusing a couple statistics and am not sure what you're saying. You say " own " but your speaking of " dollars, " and the former seems to indicate your speaking of wealth while the latter seems to indicate your speaking of income, which are two different statistics. ______ and they buy stuff. Horse farms, big houses. For some reason, > people like the moderate climate of the coasts, and they invest a lot. > The net result is that while prices fall in the interior, the go up > astronomically > on the coasts. ______ ~~~~> Regardless of what rich people want in some areas, as long as there are less monied folks who want homes, and builders of homes are not restricted from building homes that can sell at prices those folks can afford, there will be homes that those folks can afford. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 In a message dated 11/27/04 9:56:04 AM Eastern Standard Time, hl@... writes: > Cute, . By this economics only view: > If $15,000 per year to do a job is better than paying $75,000 for the > same job, > then $0 per year to do a job is better than paying $15,000. > Therefore, let us allow slavery to maximize the cheapness of goods and > services. _______ ~~~~> Are you seriously suggesting that volunteer work should be illegal? An Indian *not willing* to do the job for $0/year but forced to do it anyway, is a slave. An Indian willing to do the job for $0/year is a volunteer, not a slave. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 In a message dated 11/27/04 10:38:34 AM Eastern Standard Time, hl@... writes: > Come on. Someone willing to volunteer is fine. Slavery can and does > exist today. Do you think forced child labor is okay? _____ ~~~~> No, of course not. But you presented the issue of slavery as a reduction of 's argument. You suggested that there was a continuum that connects $75,000/yr, $15,000/yr, and slavery, and that being equally permissive towards the first two logically required being equally permissive to the final point on the continuum, slavery. My point is not that slavery does not exist, but that slavery does not exist on the continuum described above. It is a separate phenomenon that is distinguished by its involuntary character, making it fundamentally different from the voluntary worker who receives either $75,000/yr or $15,000/yr. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 > I agree, 100%! Businesses shouldn't be allowed to pay an Indian > $15,000 per > year to do a job when there's a white man who's perfectly willing to do it > for $75,000! > > > Cute, . By this economics only view: If $15,000 per year to do a job is better than paying $75,000 for the same job, then $0 per year to do a job is better than paying $15,000. Therefore, let us allow slavery to maximize the cheapness of goods and services. Deanna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 In a message dated 11/27/04 3:16:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, bberg@... writes: > >Hey if I am willing to endure rape to save the lives > >of my children, does that mean I volunteered for it? It is > >not so cut and dry. When faced with a dilemma, many people > >will be willing to do things they would not consider otherwise. > > This lacks context. Why are your children's lives in danger? Are they > starving, and is a man offering to feed them in exchange for sex from you? > Or is he threatening to kill them if you don't have sex with him? There's a > big difference. In one case, you're already in a bad situation that has > nothing to do with him, and he's offering to help you for a price. You're > free to accept or refuse based on your scale of values. In the other, you're > doing just fine and then he comes along and threatens to kill your children > if you don't do something for him. I'm slightly afraid to ask this, but > which do you think is a better analogy for low-wage factory workers? ____ ~~~~>I didn't see Deanna's email yet, but I'll wait till she responds to now anyway as I'd be interested to see the context. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 Come on. Someone willing to volunteer is fine. Slavery can and does exist today. Do you think forced child labor is okay? Deanna ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote: > In a message dated 11/27/04 9:56:04 AM Eastern Standard Time, > hl@... > writes: > > > Cute, . By this economics only view: > > If $15,000 per year to do a job is better than paying $75,000 for the > > same job, > > then $0 per year to do a job is better than paying $15,000. > > Therefore, let us allow slavery to maximize the cheapness of goods and > > services. > _______ > > ~~~~> Are you seriously suggesting that volunteer work should be > illegal? An > Indian *not willing* to do the job for $0/year but forced to do it > anyway, is > a slave. An Indian willing to do the job for $0/year is a volunteer, > not a > slave. > > Chris > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 Hey if I am willing to endure rape to save the lives of my children, does that mean I volunteered for it? It is not so cut and dry. When faced with a dilemma, many people will be willing to do things they would not consider otherwise. Deanna > An Indian willing to do the job for $0/year is a volunteer, not a slave. > > > > Chris > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 >The top 40% have 95% of the wealth. The top 5% have about 60%. Still buys a lot of houses! >> and they buy >> stuff. Horse farms, big houses. > >What do horse farms and big houses have to do with lower- and middle-class >housing? A high tide floats all boats? I don't know exactly how it works, but I'd guess the guy in the mobile home who sold his place for mass bucks has to go out and buy something else. Plus the influx isn't *just* the massively rich, a lot of it is folks who just are richer than the folks who used to live here. It happened out on the islands too ... used to be full of poor hippie types, now it's full of richer types, both the acreage and the more crowded places that used to be rundown lower income housing. >Speculative bubbles do happen, but they rarely last long, and those involved >usually lose a lot of money unless they get out at the right time. The real >question is, with prices as high as they are, why aren't builders keeping up >with demand? Partly because we DO value quality of life around here and don't want to turn into another Los Angeles or San Franscisco. Sure, we could cut down every last tree and put in a ton of housing tracts (and that is happening, plus loads of apt. dwellings). But then, of course, the *desireable* housing is where it is zoned so that can't happen, which is exactly why we moved here, and why other folks want the same place. All the poor folk, of course, should move to where it is crowded, dirty, has lots of tornadoes, high crime, which is exactly what happens. > One possible factor is the so-called " smart growth " initiatives >that limit the supply of new housing. General red tape around construction >is another. Keep in mind also that housing prices haven't tripled everywhere >in Washington (if I were you, I'd sell the house, buy a cheaper one >elsewhere, and pocket the difference, but that's just me). You just happen >to live in a particularly hot neighborhood, and your experience is not the >norm. It is the long-term experience norm, however. Housing has gone up, land prices have gone up, as the population has gone up. And yeah, building rules etc. have a lot to do with that, plus wages for contractors (they are expensive!). But even with all the rules, mobile home prices have remained reasonable and they are nicely built, and people can and do build their own homes with their own labor quite cheaply. So I blame the land prices and cost of contractor labor. I just got a 4 bedroom mobile, 6-inch energy efficient insulation, 1300 square feet, new, for $53,000 delivered (including appliances and carpet), and it meets all the codes nicely. That's for my Mom to live in. Same house in LA or Seattle or Snohomish, built on the property, would sell for over $200,000. The mobiles are stick built just like regular houses, actually to higher standards than most. >Anyway, if some people can't afford to live in the nicer areas, what's the >problem? Let them move. They may even make some money on their houses once >sanity returns to the market. Let them eat cake! Sure, they will move, but the prices haven't come down over the years. The nice spots, with a view or clean air to breath or on a lake, will keep going up by the inexorable laws of capitalism, and the poor get the worst, the most crowded, the most polluted, etc. That's the way it's supposed to be, right? However, you also have to remember the job market. A poor person pretty much has to live where the job is, and if they want a support network, where their friends and family are. (aren't you always talking about how it's the job of kids to take care of their parents etc?). That's one reason LA has become like it is. ALL the houses there, even in the bad neighborhoods, are pricey! Heidi Jean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 In a message dated 11/27/04 4:36:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, hl@... writes: > No. It is not racist or chauvinistic. It is a nationalistic view I am > taking. ______ ~~~~> With respect to the objective elements of the definition of " chauvinism, " one of which, according to my Websters, is " excessive or blind patriotism, " nationalism is chauvinism, as " patriotism " is, according to the same source, a love of one's country. " Excessive " is a subjective term, and one of scale, so it would depend where on that scale your view lies, in the eyes of the person using the word, but it is certainly applicable to the extent it can be objectively defined. ______ > Do we want to outsource national > defense? If not, why not? > ______ ~~~~~> Nations are made of people, and people have their own interests, some of which coincide with those of others within a nation while clashing with yet others. There is therefore no such thing as " national defense " per se, because resources are limited, not unlimited, and therefore must be allocated selectively, necessarily defending some interests of some people at the expense of other interests of the same people or of other people. Thus, there is only defense of certain things pertaining to certain groups of individuals within a nation, rather than a unified defense of a monolithic national interest. As an example, for a long time the oil in Iraq was selectively defended with a much greater amount of resources by US troops than other property within Iraq. Had the same resources been put towards protecting the property of store owners or individuals, or different businesses, or archeological interests, etc, different groups of individuals would have benefited at the expense of those who had a greater interest in protecting the oil. When 9/11 happened, the government failed to protect the World Trade Center and those involved in the tragedy. When the Republican National Convention occurred, a force of 10,000 police men successfully defended the President. A smaller amount of human resources were employed in the search for Osama bin Laden. These are more examples of how allocating resources in different amounts to different tasks results in the selective defense of some interests at the expense of other interests within a nation. Since the government is able to levy its fees by force, without regard to its success at the task of defense, it is not required to be successful to maintain its revenues. A firm located within, or outside of, the US that must perform successfully at providing its defense services, has a greater incentive to protect the property entrusted to it than does the US government, because protecting US property could generate an enormous amount of revenue, and failing the task or deliberately avoiding it would result in a loss of that revenue. This is reflective of Bastiat's dictum, " If goods don't cross borders, soldiers will. " The tying of financial interests between nations creates a common interest in peace, because the various interests within the various nations are dependent on the protection of the property involved in their financial assets for the continuous generation of revenue. On the other hand, a defense firm that maintains its revenue by the use of force (such as the US government) could not only be incompetent, but even deliberately avoid defending the property entrusted to it, and not only continue its revenue, but even use this incompetence or other failure as a political justification for increasing the revenue it acquires by force. It is relatively easy to slip by incompetently or deliberately failing to defend the " national interest " when there is no such thing. A firm that had specific property to defend with specific amounts of resources to achieve specific results could be objectively evaluated by its customers as to whether it was failing or succeeding to perform the duties being paid for. Maybe " outsourcing " " national " defense isn't such a bad idea? Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 > -----Original Message----- > From: Deanna [mailto:hl@...] > > I agree, 100%! Businesses shouldn't be allowed to pay an Indian > > $15,000 per year to do a job when there's a white man who's > perfectly > > willing to do it for $75,000! > > Cute, . By this economics only view: What economics-only view? I was just pointing out the racism (or chauvinism) inherent in the anti-outsourcing movement once you peel back the thin veneer of--actually, there is no veneer. I find it tremendously amusing to see leftists state in no uncertain terms that Americans deserve better jobs than foreigners simply by virtue of being Americans, and that if an Indian is happy to do the same job for less, then he can go to hell. > If $15,000 per year to do a job is better than paying $75,000 > for the same job, then $0 per year to do a job is better than > paying $15,000. All else being equal, absolutely. I have a thought experiment that I like to pull out for this. Suppose that tomorrow someone published a software program that could generate any other program from a brief, natural-language description of how it should behave. This would completely destroy the software industry. I'd be out of a job. So would Heidi, unless she could find a way to make Glutenating a full-time job. Would you consider this a blessing or a curse? > Therefore, let us allow slavery to maximize the cheapness of > goods and services. Do I really have to explain to you what's wrong with that line of reasoning? If you can offer any plausible evidence that any product is made with slave labor, please tell me, and I'll never buy it again. I'll also tell all my friends never to buy it again. Keep in mind, though, that slave labor is not defined as a job with wages below some arbitrary point. The slave analogy is especially absurd when applied to Indian programmers in light of the fact that the $15,000-$20,000 prevailing salary is 5-7 times the per-capita GDP of $2900 (CIA World Factbook). As for your rape analogy from a later post... > Hey if I am willing to endure rape to save the lives > of my children, does that mean I volunteered for it? It is > not so cut and dry. When faced with a dilemma, many people > will be willing to do things they would not consider otherwise. This lacks context. Why are your children's lives in danger? Are they starving, and is a man offering to feed them in exchange for sex from you? Or is he threatening to kill them if you don't have sex with him? There's a big difference. In one case, you're already in a bad situation that has nothing to do with him, and he's offering to help you for a price. You're free to accept or refuse based on your scale of values. In the other, you're doing just fine and then he comes along and threatens to kill your children if you don't do something for him. I'm slightly afraid to ask this, but which do you think is a better analogy for low-wage factory workers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 And no one steals children away from mothers. They voluntarily give them up for a time in order to free up that time to earn money. - ------------------------- , You are correct in the case of daycare that it is voluntary. However, compulsory attendance age laws are, in fact, a way states steal away children parent(s), also taking from them the right to control when their children begin and end education. Did you know there are active cases in many states to make preschool compulsory? Not only is that ludicrous, but my younger son will graduate high school by age 16, possibly sooner. Well, until recently, depending on our state of residence, he might not be able to attend college because of compulsory age attendance laws. But recent developments have helped. The feds trump the states yet again. http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/hslda/200204301.asp " This means that any home schooled graduate, regardless of age, is beyond the age of compulsory attendance under federal higher education law. The result is that institutions may enroll such students, regardless of age, without fear losing eligibility for federal benefits. " Deanna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 > What economics-only view? I was just pointing out the racism (or > chauvinism) > inherent in the anti-outsourcing movement once you peel back the thin > veneer > of--actually, there is no veneer. I find it tremendously amusing to see > leftists state in no uncertain terms that Americans deserve better > jobs than > foreigners simply by virtue of being Americans, and that if an Indian is > happy to do the same job for less, then he can go to hell. No. It is not racist or chauvinistic. It is a nationalistic view I am taking. And my politics don't fit neatly into left or right pockets, if you were lumping me in with leftists. Do we want to outsource national defense? If not, why not? Taking science and technology secrets and outsourcing them to other countries could hurt our nation in the long run. Computer chips being built overseas are a prime example of an industry using foreign labor and spilling sensitive technologies to countries that may use them for hostilities towards the US in the future. In fact, Intel is poised to make chips in India: http://www.computerworld.com/managementtopics/outsourcing/story/0,10801,97594,00\ ..html?SKC=outsourcing-97594 I don't think it is for racial diversity that they do this. It is cheap labor and relaxed environmental laws. India will have some nice technology to exploit as they please, possibly against the US, theoretical. This is why we usually require security clearances for sensitive positions in the US. Chip manufacturing overseas is a security risk to the US, imo. For another instance, it is illegal to export any browser with 128 bit encryption, yet everyone's got it now. Would you like to open wide the doors to globalization? Well, if so then copyrights might as well be abolished too. Just one, big, happy village, where everyone can learn how to build and aim ballistic missiles at their neighbors? Whose laws would govern such an experiment? Or are we all just supposed to get along? > > > If $15,000 per year to do a job is better than paying $75,000 > > for the same job, then $0 per year to do a job is better than > > paying $15,000. > > All else being equal, absolutely. I have a thought experiment that I > like to > pull out for this. Suppose that tomorrow someone published a software > program that could generate any other program from a brief, > natural-language > description of how it should behave. This would completely destroy the > software industry. I'd be out of a job. So would Heidi, unless she could > find a way to make Glutenating a full-time job. Would you consider this a > blessing or a curse? You would have to adapt. Heidi would Glutenate the world. That is just not the same as the outsourcing of jobs, though. This kind of thing happens all the time. Industries rise and fall on innovation. It has always been that way. > > > Therefore, let us allow slavery to maximize the cheapness of > > goods and services. > > Do I really have to explain to you what's wrong with that line of > reasoning? > If you can offer any plausible evidence that any product is made with > slave > labor, please tell me, and I'll never buy it again. I'll also tell all my > friends never to buy it again. Keep in mind, though, that slave labor > is not > defined as a job with wages below some arbitrary point. The slave > analogy is > especially absurd when applied to Indian programmers in light of the fact > that the $15,000-$20,000 prevailing salary is 5-7 times the per-capita GDP > of $2900 (CIA World Factbook). > Fine, you win. Slavery was a poor example. Pornography, especially the exploitation of children is an example of slave labor. Images are considered a product and not a service. Of course, how would you know you were contributing to it by simply using pornographic materials? You wouldn't, possibly. We do know, however, that the sex trade is alive and well, especially in Southeast Asia. So does that mean you and your friends will abstain completely (not that you indulge in such practices, of course, but it is a valid response to your offer) This does have some bearing on the rape example. But honestly, it was only an example to show willingness is relative. But the third choice you gave below was that to which I referred. Deanna > As for your rape analogy from a later post... > > > Hey if I am willing to endure rape to save the lives > > of my children, does that mean I volunteered for it? It is > > not so cut and dry. When faced with a dilemma, many people > > will be willing to do things they would not consider otherwise. > > This lacks context. Why are your children's lives in danger? Are they > starving, and is a man offering to feed them in exchange for sex from you? > Or is he threatening to kill them if you don't have sex with him? > There's a > big difference. In one case, you're already in a bad situation that has > nothing to do with him, and he's offering to help you for a price. You're > free to accept or refuse based on your scale of values. In the other, > you're > doing just fine and then he comes along and threatens to kill your > children > if you don't do something for him. I'm slightly afraid to ask this, but > which do you think is a better analogy for low-wage factory workers? > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.