Just tap out already man

Another poster who apparently has something to say but can't be bothered to articulate it.

At what wage is it appropriate to hire people in poor countries?

Right. Can we move on from this. You are both being dumb, and spending time arguing over stuff you clearly agree on.

1. Obviously jobs in poor countries are good. The low wage/exploitation wording was poor.

2. Also obviously. Thats not a get out of jail card for every exploitative practice. Where you draw the line is however a matter of debate.

3. Setting up an industrial park with a goal of creating 60k jobs is certainly a worthy goal.

4. Development organisations shoild be able to do more than one thing at once. However how they choose to spend their money is certainly fair debate.

5. The fact the industrial parks seems to have massively underdelivered is also deserving of criticism and debate.

Do either of you disagree with any of this? If no, lets have the actual debate on the interesting parts where you disagree, like whether or not any of this comes close to being illegal

The position you're putting forward is that any job marginally better than working in a rice paddy or a salt mine isn't exploitative. That seems like a weird take to a lot of us.

#ImWithRainier

If the factory job is marginally better than working the rice paddy, good has been done. QED

Because it isn't. You can't simply disregard markets and expect companies to pay western middle class wages to people in poor countries.

If you want to talk about specific practices that are immoral or exploitative, fine. Calling the hiring of workers at wages that leave them better off than they would be otherwise "exploitative" removes any real meaning from that word.

no

That's patently absurd. You're proposing that it's impossible to exploit someone who is given a choice. I'm not going to bother with obvious counter-examples, if you pursue that line you'll find yourself rightly called an apologist for all kinds of heinousness.

If working in a rice paddy is marginally better than begging in the gutters, do we conclude that rice farmers aren't exploited?

Like, are any workers in the world actually exploited other than maybe sex slaves?

Sex slaves get room and board though.

Can't find the last scene (rice planting) of The Seven Samuri.

NOOB question: If somehow regulations existed ensuring multinationals had to pay $8/hr minimum to employees abroad, what would the most likely outcomes be?

Factories exploit workers because the workers would be better off working jobs that are unavailable to them. Brilliant logic there.

The outcome would be that a lot of people in the third world would lose their jobs and--according to the logic of certain posters--somehow be better off.

Its almost as if the world isn't a perfect place and some people don't have options that will provide them a western middle class salary.

Obviously the solution is to remove whatever their preferred employment option is.

I suggest you stop caring whether capitalists are making a profit or whether 3rd world factories meet western labor laws or however you are defining exploitation and start caring whether specific things people do help others.

I think there is someplace in between full on OHSA protections and western style union benefits and “my incredibly unsafe factory where people constantly get injured is ok because my employees would have to be human land mine detectors if they didn’t work for me.”

The question should not be whether these people are exploited (they are) but rather whether it is a bad thing to exploit even when there would be no job if exploitation was disallowed and even when the worker is glad there is someone willing to exploit them. If I hate mowing my own lawn but am not willing to pay more than five dollars an hour to have someone else do it, am I doing something wrong if I put up a sign offering to pay that just in case there is someone who will take me up on it? Of course not.

But there are exceptions. Namely if the exploitation is demeaning to a whole group, including those who would decline to be exploited. "Midget Bowling" for instance, is wrong even if there are some small people who would accept the job.

Ffs. I thought all the ****** free marketeers that read the first four chapters of econ 101 and then decided they knew enough were run out of here years ago.

Yes guys. If everyone has perfect information, access to enforceable contracts and makes rational decisions then yes, sweat shops are good and we dont need any further thinking.

Also quit with the straw man that the only options are rice fields, sweatshops or middle class wages.

It's only the first two unless you are counting emigration. Life sucks when you're poor.

You can have low wage factories with basic worker protections. Just because people would take worse, doesnt nake it okay.

30 people died in a fire in a call centre here in the philippines before christmas. Early days but pretty clear that fire regulations and checks were not followed.

That doesnt suddenly become okay because the workers chose the job willingly.

I think the problem here is that "exploitation of low wage workers" can mean all kinds of things, many of which are legitimately terrible and some of which are not. I haven't read the Clinton links (obviously) so idk which is under discussion here.

It's in the other thread.

But considering you responded to 'Please proceed,' as in, go on, expound, et cetera with, 'If you have something to say, say it,' well, my hopes are not very high.

That sounds like a problem the Phillipine government should handle. I don't see why they can't strike a balance between worker safety and development.