Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

clark · 2003-02-13 10:32:02

Are we justified in exploiting others for our prosperity then?

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-13 12:04:10

I would say no... but then, what would you say?

clark · 2003-02-13 13:17:34

Would we be justified in exploiting others if it enabled our prosperity, which then allows us to lead the world into space?

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-13 13:24:22

Again, under those exact specifications, I would say no... what would you say?

clark · 2003-02-13 13:33:42

Yes, under either condition, but I do so for pragmatic reasons.

I tend to believe that our exploitation of other peoples is mitigated by the benefits we offer in return. Of course, there are certain types of exploitation I am less inclined to believe that we need, or are justified, in perpetrating.

Under what "specifications" would it be okay for you?

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-13 13:43:27

That our exploitation benefits them (a variable you left out but seem to apply with your answer).

This is why we can chose a form of capitalism over socialism since it benefits those who are exploited somewhat more kindly, at least duing the growth stage.

clark · 2003-02-13 13:56:05

So compassionate exploitation is okay?

A relationship where a majority of the benefits are realized by one party is acceptable and equitable, if the remainder is realized by the exploitated party?

Real world analysis:

So a sweat-shop owner who employs illegal immigrants is justified in their actions and profit since the illegal immigrants get a job and an opportunity to enjoy other benefits of our society?

soph · 2003-02-13 14:00:50

Well, the illegal immigrants choose to leave their country, and in many cases the sweat shops are better conditions. In no way am I condoning sweatshops-but the immigrants are free to leave, if they wish.

clark · 2003-02-13 14:04:38

As a citizen you should be outraged.

Sweat-shops don't pay taxes on the labor they employ. They have an inherent unfair advantage when competing with companies that do not employ sweat shop labor, since they can reduce the cost of production on the labor side, they can pull in a larger profit, and thereby improve on their capital side, or they can slash prices (which is how we benefit) and have a better competitive advantage.

the result is that other companies have to employ the same tactics in order to remain competitive- it leads to a spiral downwards, not up.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-13 14:08:01

Realistic exploitation is okay.

Exploiting people when resources are abundant is not realistic, because those people can acquire the resources they need, and the only way to prevent that is to create laws or have a military forcing them to be exploited (which is what is already happening, mind you, with capitalism).

If a majority of the benefits are realized by one party, in a system where resources are not abundant, then it would be better that this person use those resources themselves, because partitioning them off to everyone equally would mean very little increase for all parties involved. Such a distribution is unrealistic.

If a sweat shop owner employees illegal immigrants it would arguably fall in the category of forced exploitiation; there are laws against immigrants who aren't registered with the INS to work and so on.

soph · 2003-02-13 14:09:20

the result is that other companies have to employ the same tactics in order to remain competitive- it leads to a spiral downwards, not up.

Aha! Or the opposite could be true, a competitor could offer $0.50 per hour more, better conditions, and more benefits. They could attract the better workers. Competition also applies in reverse-companies must cater to workers to retain the best labor.

But I agree, sweat shop-type conditions are in no way acceptable. I was responding to the question as asked, without emotional input-strictly logically. Obviously, morally, I am opposed to these conditions.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-13 14:24:26

A competitor couldn't and doesn't do that for the most part. Even if the higher uppers give up their bonuses or whatever, it doesn't work that way. The money they get is pennies compared to the money the workers at the bottom make. 1 person making a million is a lot less than a thousand making 30 thousand- if the big guy up top were to distribute his 100k bonus to the employees, each employee would only get 100 dollars!

The only people who can get away with paying more for employees, and having cheaper services, are monopolies, because they already have the required capital to do so. Just look at Microsoft, they're practically giving away XBoxes. I read that the XBox is going to eat billions of Microsoft's capital. Just so that Microsoft can get into the console industry. The XBox isn't for this generation, it's to open up a door for the next generation! Name recognition, etc.

Bill White · 2003-02-13 14:36:43

Well, the illegal immigrants choose to leave their country, and in many cases the sweat shops are better conditions. In no way am I condoning sweatshops-but the immigrants are free to leave, if they wish.

soph - US "sweatshops" aren't the issue here. Its the clothing and plastics industries in the 3rd world.

Google "Nike" and "(K)?athy Lee Gifford" and I predict you will be much closer ot the topic clark is talking about.

soph · 2003-02-13 16:42:25

Josh, that's simply not true. Step into the business world. And monopolies can be broken-Coca-Cola is an example.

Bill-yes, I know how they operate. I also know that wages are continually increasing, as are conditions. Someday, these cheap third-world labor sources will have wages not far below our own.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-13 18:37:05

soph, you can't simply say ?that's simply not true? without actually saying what you think, explicitly, isn't true, and explaining why it's not true. Simple assertions mean absolutely nothing.

Obviously my example does have exceptions, but that hardly makes it less true.

soph · 2003-02-13 18:51:36

Sorry, you're right:

A competitor couldn't and doesn't do that for the most part.

That's simply not true. Hell, just step into a high school! Kids will work where there's the highest pay, easiest hours, and best benefits. The same applies to the mature business world ("I'm going to get another $10/hour there, sorry, but if you can't afford a raise, I'm going to have to take it").

Yes, the executives get the most money. Who should get more money, the founder and owner of the company, or the labor it employs? One is replaceable, one is imperative (without Bill Gates, where would Microsoft be? A software engineer may be replaceed, but Bill Gates?). Also, you don't want to give fat bonuses to people who might leave the next week, after having looked for a more lucrative job, and stayed for the money.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-13 19:43:12

Um, we weren't arguing that. Obviously people are going to look for the highest wages. That's now what we are arguing about. My comments don't deny that.

We were talking about competitors offering higher wages, and so on (I don't feel like a lengthy response because my computer crashed on me after a rather comprehensive response to you). It's silly to think that competitors do that. They only do that when they can get away with it, like when they have a new service to offer that no one else has or whatever.

Simply filling the labor gap with all these magical incentives dosn't do anything, you have to have demand first.

Why?

Because it costs money to have better conditions.
Because it costs money to have higher wages.
Because it costs money to better benefits.

This is why you do have companies which have sweatshop workers, because they can get away with it.

Did you even read my reply?

I'm done with this current reply, but I'm sure you'll find a way to pick at it. Perhaps because I left out comments about labor specialization (which were in my original post before my computer crashed), but whatever. It'll be fun to respond to your misrepresentations.

soph · 2003-02-13 19:49:34

Or valid interpretations of what you said. You love to pick at things I never said, don't distort things to slag me.

But that's where governments come in. Under any system, this will occur, if there is no law to prevent it.

For employers to get away with sweatshop labor, there has to be a large surplus of available labor, or an industry consensus to allow the conditions. Otherwise, SuperCorp can say, come here, I'll offer you more money for your work! He will attract more workers, who will work harder, because they are paid more (it is an economic principle that people who feel more appreciated work harder), so you increase productivity. The companies you speak of often make huge profits anyway.

For example, for I believe about a production cost of $5 a shoe, Nike sells the shoes for $75+. A little increase in conditions/wages won't hurt.

In fact, Vietnamese labor wages have increased substantially, without government intervention. This is because the market disapproved of Nike's, Reebok's, and Adidas's actions, and showed its disapproval by boycotting products. Thus, the market can exert its influence on labor practices. Granted, these laborers deserve more money, and better conditions, but the system, as Adam Smith had said, improves as productivity improves and labor becomes aware.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-13 19:56:10

Productivity is a very small part of it, though. Don't kid yourself. Monopolies can outprice competition even if that competition is much more productive.

soph · 2003-02-13 19:59:52

But all the competition has to do is find a niche to be successful. Why hasn't Apple gone out of business? Or Linux? Or Pepsi? Or any other number of companies that continue in spite of "monopolistic" control of markets?

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-13 20:06:37

Yes. That's what I said, ?They only do that when they can get away with it, like when they have a new service to offer that no one else has or whatever.?

But then, is it really competition, or merely a new service sector?

Think about it... IBM PCs and Macs don't compete for the most part. IBM PCs are supposed to be really cheap, easy to build, have lots of software and hardware, etc. Macs are supposed to be specialzied workstations, simple to use, lots of advanced imaging software, and so on.

soph · 2003-02-13 20:16:23

But then, is it really competition, or merely a new service sector?

Isn't that the whole point of competition? To provide new, better, cheaper/more efficient prodcuts?

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-13 20:20:46

Sure, but we're talking different products.

soph · 2003-02-13 20:22:06

I can do the same basic things with a PC as with a Mac. Thus, they aren't all that different.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-13 20:27:19

They're both personal computers, but they serve different purposes. Macs are intended to be simple, PCs are intended to be cheap. For example, you can't find half the software library on Macs that you can find on PCs.

They're sufficiently different to be called different sectors.

I can write emails on a custom email machine, that doesn't mean it's not all that different from a PC.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2003-02-13 10:32:02

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#52 2003-02-13 12:04:10

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#53 2003-02-13 13:17:34

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#54 2003-02-13 13:24:22

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#55 2003-02-13 13:33:42

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#56 2003-02-13 13:43:27

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#57 2003-02-13 13:56:05

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#58 2003-02-13 14:00:50

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#59 2003-02-13 14:04:38

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#60 2003-02-13 14:08:01

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#61 2003-02-13 14:09:20

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#62 2003-02-13 14:24:26

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#63 2003-02-13 14:36:43

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#64 2003-02-13 16:42:25

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#65 2003-02-13 18:37:05

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#66 2003-02-13 18:51:36

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#67 2003-02-13 19:43:12

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#68 2003-02-13 19:49:34

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#69 2003-02-13 19:56:10

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#70 2003-02-13 19:59:52

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#71 2003-02-13 20:06:37

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#72 2003-02-13 20:16:23

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#73 2003-02-13 20:20:46

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#74 2003-02-13 20:22:06

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#75 2003-02-13 20:27:19

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

Board footer