How would they be protected in the free-market?
-
Workers often go to sweatshops because governments force them off their land
-
Sweatshops still, however, provide an alternative to starvation. Even Krugman realizes this: Slate article
-
Workers in Asia are not operating in a free market. Are you suggesting a free market is allowed in those countries? Then I might predict what happened in the US during the IR - increase in wages, productivity, and standard of living.
As the demand for producer goods increases (workers), the price of those workers (wages) will be bid up. So, it will be like what happened here in early America. Workers were treated poorly and as productivity increased and the demand for workers rose employers HAD to treat them better or they will leave their jobs for positions that treated their employees better.
Here is a video on sweatshops.
What could possibly benefit low wage earners more than the free market? Businesses are driven to the impoverished area to exploit cheap labor, the lower the relative cost of labor the larger the incentive to move operations there. The more businesses that exploit the cheap labor, the more that labor is driven into scarcity causing wages to rise.
Contrast this with government implementing a minimum wage, sure those that are employed make more, but the incentive for business to flock to the area is lessened, more people remain unemployed, labor is never driven into scarcity so wages never naturally rise, and less is produced so the cost of living is harmed relative to the free market alternative even for those lucky ones that got a minimum wage increase.
Imagine you were to take the entire Federal Register of regulations and you were to apply it to Bangladesh. Would the entire country suddenly get safe, air conditioned offices and a good pay? Of course not. There’d be even more poverty if it were enforced fully.
Protected from what?
Rain, sleet, falling rocks, you name it.
Low wages of course. I think it’s pretty well documented that low wages are the #1 cause of cancer in the opinion of idiots.
Ha! That was good.
You lie!
Don’t you know that low wages run around at night, gnawing at telephone wires, thereby disrupting Internet connections?
Ok. In all seriousness, let’s first agree on definitions. How are you defining “low wages”?
by the free market
Below a living wage. Duh.
Congressman Joe Wilson, is that you?
Slaves, by definition, do not earn wages.
I think the question was about low wages..in Asia. I care. It’s a terrible thing what the Chinese government is forcing upon its people. There are clear human rights violations.
Strictly speaking, this is not true. There were times that Frederick Douglass earned wages for himself while a slave. Read his biography here, and if you want to just skip to the relevant portions, just do a search for the word “wages”. Slavery is less about the specifics of wages/salaries/taxes and more about the relationship between the individuals involved, in my opinion.
This is rather ambiguous and does not provide a clear distinction between various types of productive activity. There’s no doubt that slaves, laborers, land owners and capitalists are productive, but the question is, what is the key (essential) difference amongst them? How are they defined? Typically, they are defined by their respective forms of remuneration: slaves earn nothing, laborers earn wages, land owners rent and capitalists earn interest.
You can, throughout the course of your life, transition between any of these categories. The key point, though, is that this provides a concrete definition that clearly distinguishes between various types of phenomena. In other words, it does not allow for the muddled thought and arguments made by individuals who rely on ambiguity to defend their confused positions.