The accumulation of great wealth depends upon society. Without society, there can be no such thing.

That is fact.

Money is power. Power is either usurped or delegated, there is no other way to obtain it.

Why are slave-like labor scales necessary?

Can't win with arguments? Then lie.

I support "sweatshops" which offer a decent wage (FOR THAT COUNTRY) and treat their employees humanely. I don't support the mistreatment of anyone and never said I did. It's shameful that you consider this "having a discussion". One side providing supporting evidence, one side providing arguments based on facts and reason and the other crying "If you agree with him, you are pro-slavery!" What a joke you are at this sort of thing.

I didn't see anything in the section you quoted that could be called a lie. I saw an opinion piece. It seems a little over the top to accuse somebody of being a liar for expressing an opinion. (I wouldn't have called you a "joke". We are not supposed to do that in this forum.)

P.S. Sweat shops are inherently inhumane, abusive and exploitative. It seems very cruel to approve of that kind of environment for anybody in the world.

You should get your eyes checked and grab a dictionary.



Your opinion counts for nothing. The people who live in 3rd world counties and suffer after the "sweatshop" they worked at closes means everything. Just because you value your smug sense of moral superiority over their suffering, doesn't mean it's right.

Keep the insults coming. I love them. the stories I have heard about form about the suffering in sweatshops is enough to make your hair curl. Here is the story of a sweatshop worker in American Samoa, where Tom Delay told a gathering that that this was the American ideal that e had always ben working for.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfjbdIK2ijU

Keep the insults coming. I love them. the stories I have heard about form about the suffering in sweatshops is enough to make your hair curl. Here is the story of a sweatshop worker in American Samoa, where Tom Delay told a gathering that that this was the American ideal that e had always ben working for.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfjbdIK2ijU

Keep the insults coming. I love them. the stories I have heard about form about the suffering in sweatshops is enough to make your hair curl. Here is the story of a sweatshop worker in American Samoa, where Tom Delay told a gathering that that this was the American ideal that e had always ben working for.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfjbdIK2ijU

Whoa! Triple Post!

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/10/opinion/sweatshops-under-the-american-flag.html

Those who did that have been forced to pay the owed wages and I'm sure they are being prosecuted. I'm all for sweatshops that treat their employees well and pay the agreed upon wage, which are the majority of "sweatshops". You can find exceptions, like the one above, but the majority of them treat their workers well and pay them as agreed.

We were discussing the FACTS about "Sweatshops". Opinions don't count. If you have FACTS and conclusions, they have a place. Opinions don't. Mine either.

I didn't know about that. Thank goodness for those civil rights activists who pushed the American Government to take action. Of course, there is no such likelihood outside of the American jurisdiction for such activism. The only reason that happened is because of the publicity Tom Delay's visit to Samoa. Is there any liklihood that such a thing will happen in China or even Mexico.

I hadn't heard that other sweat shops treat their workers well. It flies in the face of the definition of "sweat shop".

EDIT: Post removed to maintain company secrets.

Very cryptic.

Sorry, I posted some details of the facilities that my former employer has in India. Good wages (for India), air conditioning, etc.

I know of a Chemical Engineer, an MD and a guy with a masters in Quantum Physics who left their jobs to work for them in their "sweatshop".

India's outsource businesses cannot be considered "sweat shops". India has strong worker's rights laws, and has even recognized the right to unionize since 1926. I think we may have a problem with terminology. I'm kind of a stickler for that. It is difficult to have coherent conversations when you are speaking different languages.

Spider,

You give Christianity a bad name, and that is saying a lot coming from me.

Pick an argument, and set it forth. If there is one in the midst of what you've already said, then point me to it. I'm not going to spend hours talking about things that are superficial. Let's get to the root of the problem(s).

1. You hold that an employer has no moral obligation to his own nation, but rather has one to the poor citizens of another?

Is that right?

Nope, not at all.

Those who run a company have the legal and moral obligations to keep the contracts they agree to and treat their employees humanely. That's the extent, I would say, of their moral obligation.

In speaking of "sweatshops" which keep their legal and moral obligations, they improve the lives of most of their employees. The company has no moral obligation to build or run a "sweatshop" in a country, because companies are legal devices created to generate revenue for the owners of the company. But those who would try to shut down all sweatshops ARE acting in an immoral manner, regardless of how good their intentions are.

If employees become dissatisfied with their agreed upon wages, they can request a raise or quit. They don't have the right to agree to work at a certain wage and then change their mind and ask Big Government or Big Union to come in and force the employer to raise their wages, unless their work conditions have changed significantly.

Well, the Bible says that God is love and Christianity is God's body on earth, so I guess you are saying that to me is that I Give Love a Bad Name.

I know someone who had a tree farm in India. He would brag about paying people $12 a month to work dawn to dusk. He justified it saying that it was way more than any of the other farmers paid. That may be but he said they lived like kings ... I highly doubt that ...


556 rupees a month when a movie ticket could easily cost 120 rupees ... whoa ... Kings!

What constitutes "humanely"?



So the improvement of the lives of the employees constitutes meeting the owners' moral obligation? Is there no obligation to the nation that they are citizens of?



So as long as they are following the laws of the land, and they create revenue for the owners of the company, nothing more need noting? That's it? That concludes the moral aspect?



Employees do not have a right to the fruits of their own labor?