So I’m trying to figure this out. Assuming this article is true, why is it the case that the Chinese workers simply cannot just quit the jobs to escape the bad conditions?
Why are the wages not higher? Is it not true that the workers are offering a high marginal value product?
If government intervention is the problem, what exactly is it?
“Assuming this article is true, why is it the case that the Chinese workers simply cannot just quit the jobs to escape the bad conditions?”
Because there is no other opportunity. Its either horrible conditions or starvation. Its slavery.
Another beautiful example of private property and hierarchial domination.
How can you as anarchists defend the use of men by other men in such an exploitative process and yet defend the “liberties” of the individual? The only liberty that is being defended is that of the capitalists, those who actually do own the private property.
Is intervention worth it in this case? Maybe. But it would certainly have consequences. It’s easy to identify problems, harder to find good solutions.
Those people are not forced to work there; they’re free to leave at any time they want. It’s unfortunate that the Chinese government will not allow a far greater degree of economic freedom so there could be more investment and job opportunities which would of course lead to a better standard of living. They’ve moved in the right direction the past few decades but there is still A LOT of work to be done.
“Because there is no other opportunity. Its either horrible conditions or starvation. Its slavery.”
Yes, the Chinese were far better off under Mao when it was either starvation or a firing squad.
Nobody is trying to say that “bad” (an arbitrary and subjective term of course) working conditions are pleasant or desired. The point is that if I own property and I allow you to work on it it is on my terms. I’m sure you would see nothing wrong with threatening to beat me and throw me in a cage like an animal if I didn’t comply with your arbitrary, all knowing wisdom of how things should be.
By the way, how would a lack of private property NOT have hierarchial domination? Oh of course, all the central planners would be angels from heaven. Yes, automatically when a group of people that threaten others and take their property by force own the industry or control it, then it’s a land of flowers and unicorns. But when a company depends upon the voluntary actions of consumers who must be satisfied enough with their product to buy it suddenly the world is slavery and disaster.
Do you even know what a “capitalist” is? A capitalist, in a market economy, advances money to owners of land and labor and capital goods (so long as it is not the very first stage of course) in turn for the product that they produce. The capitalist does this because if he can sell those product(s) at a higher price than what he advanced, he makes money; if not, he loses. Either way, the owners of land/labor get PAID first. Let’s take the evil capitalist out of the equation, in a process that takes say four years to complete. Now the people higher up in the productive process have to wait years to get paid because the money must come from the consumers and back up the stages of production. How’s that for crappy working conditions?
Those people are not forced to work there; they’re free to leave at any time they want. It’s unfortunate that the Chinese government will not allow a far greater degree of economic freedom so there could be more investment and job opportunities which would of course lead to a better standard of living. They’ve moved in the right direction the past few decades but there is still A LOT of work to be done.
“Because there is no other opportunity. Its either horrible conditions or starvation. Its slavery.”
Yes, the Chinese were far better off under Mao when it was either starvation or a firing squad.
Nobody is trying to say that “bad” (an arbitrary and subjective term of course) working conditions are pleasant or desired. The point is that if I own property and I allow you to work on it it is on my terms. I’m sure you would see nothing wrong with threatening to beat me and throw me in a cage like an animal if I didn’t comply with your arbitrary, all knowing wisdom of how things should be.
By the way, how would a lack of private property NOT have hierarchial domination? Oh of course, all the central planners would be angels from heaven. Yes, automatically when a group of people that threaten others and take their property by force own the industry or control it, then it’s a land of flowers and unicorns. But when a company depends upon the voluntary actions of consumers who must be satisfied enough with their product to buy it suddenly the world is slavery and disaster.
Do you even know what a “capitalist” is? A capitalist, in a market economy, advances money to owners of land and labor and capital goods (so long as it is not the very first stage of course) in turn for the product that they produce. The capitalist does this because if he can sell those product(s) at a higher price than what he advanced, he makes money; if not, he loses. Either way, the owners of land/labor get PAID first. Let’s take the evil capitalist out of the equation, in a process that takes say four years to complete. Now the people higher up in the productive process have to wait years to get paid because the money must come from the consumers and back up the stages of production. How’s that for crappy working conditions?
“So I’m trying to figure this out. Assuming this article is true, why is it the case that the Chinese workers simply cannot just quit the jobs to escape the bad conditions?”
Because China is a socialist brutal dictatorship which traps the vast majority of its citizens in extreme poverty by continuously inflating the Yuan, preventing free exchange, and therefore the accumulation of capital. They can quit this job, but they have nowhere else to go (or at least nowhere that can match that salary, thanks to American foreign capital). Wages will not equal its marginal product when there are high barriers to competition. Think of all those who died in order to implement this wonderful and egalitarian system!
mr1001nights, is that you?
“Is intervention worth it in this case? Maybe.”
Wait a minute… Microsoft doesn’t want you to see this image yet they allow complete strangers to walk around their factories taking pictures? And if security is so tight how come they allow their employee to carry cameras on work? Miners in South Africa are stripped naked at the end of their shift to insure they do not smuggle gold nuggets or diamonds out.
Am I the only one scratching my head over this?
You cant use natural rights as the premise of morals.
Otherwise, slaery is justified, because my master owes the land. So I am subject to him.
Paying your workers $0.50 an hour while you make billions is not right.
Common ownership implies no classes. How can hierarchy be created of this?
Taking away un-deserved property is not a crime. Property is theft!
Someone who owns the means of productions. I like your definition, too, though.
The risk of workers is much higher. But the addition of risk in the equation is ridiculous all together.
Why not just be a normal worker, unless you think your gonna make easy money by being a capitalist?
Oh yes, India, Bangladash, Indonesia, Guatamala, Taiwan, etc are much better right?
You can sneak something in. They actually have very tight secruity at sweatshops (Armed guards, cameras, etc). Hell, the assinasstions of union leaders is pretty common.
There was a speech on it by an activist where he talked about the difficult process he had to go through in securing information from sweatshops.
Drake: “Because there is no other opportunity. Its either horrible conditions or starvation. Its slavery.”
Socialism leads to people being thrown into those conditions. I like how the stand of living is improving for the Chinese in those factories. Better than being equally poor under socialism.
Yup, being equal and starving is much better.
How is “deserved” determined? Murder is birth!
So if person owns paint, a paint brush, and canvas, which are used to make paintings, then that person is a capitalist? I better go break the news to the commie art students at school.
And the theft of private property is common too.
You seem to be having trouble defining slavery. If I allow you on to my property, which is an extension of myself because I was able to purchase it due to the fruits of my labor, I can state the conditions by which I allow you onto my property. If I am paying you, for example, to do the carpeting in my house and say that this is the only reason I am allowing you onto my property and that you can’t take things from my home, and you proceed to eat the food in the refrigerator and take my DVD player on your way out, you have infringed upon my rights. What is “right”? Threatening people with violence to fulfill your delusional beliefs is right I guess. But somehow allowing people to voluntarily, yes, it is voluntary not slavery, come to an agreement between each other is not right.
Lol, common ownership. Do you really believe this nonsense? Let’s say the “community” has a “common ownership” of all the farms in a 150 square mile land. The farms produce all sorts of agricultural products, such as wheat, corn, soybeans, lean hogs, cattle, etc. Now since the “community” owns these, they must be all gathered into one big pile and redistributed equally (lest there be classes). Obviously, somebody has to be the planner. Or there can be a group of planners, whatever floats your boat. The fact of the matter is, there needs to be a group of people who are in charge of managing distribution and ensure that nobody is “holding out”. If somebody decides they don’t want a subpar standard of living, and starts substinence farming, of course the only way to solve this “problem” is to threaten them with violence or use violence against them because the peaceful and natural amrket incentives to meet the needs of others is absent in your world. Whether you call it a State or government is irrelevant; if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.
You said “why not be a normal worker” instead of a capitalist - as if the two are mutually exclusive. People have multiple capacities and producers and consumers and they can be capitalists and entrepreneurs as well. Anybody who works for a wage can use their savings to invest, in which they are also taking on the role of capitalist. Of course it is “easy money” being a capitalist; which explains why investing is the easiest thing in the world. So you at least realized that without the capitalist, the workers face a much higher risk (along with waiting a very long time to get paid) but then said the addition of risk is ridiculous? Please explain that statement as it makes absolutely no sense.
You left out the union violence in India, whereupon they murdered a factory manager (which is course just one instance of many). Let me ask you a question. First, we know that in an anarcho-capitalist society, people can do what they want so long as they don’t infringe upon property rights of others. So if you and your pals want to pool your resources and have your communist paradise and live like crap, nobody would really care. If we reverse this, and live in a communist society, would you and your comrades extend us the same courtesy?
How much would you pay them if they were your employees?
How much were they paid before the company hired them?
How much did you pay for the mouse you’re using now?
You’re suggesting that the owner should pay them more than the minimum necessary to have them working there. Why should he be the one to pay this “extra” charity? Would you be willing to write a check to the workers and cover the difference toward what you perceive to be a “decent” pay?
Z.
If you step in here and start trying to force Microsoft to pay these people more, what happens if they just move their factory somewhere else and these people become worse off? Is that risk worth the potential gain you could get by intervening?
you don’t gain from intervening though.
As buying labor becomes harder there will be more unemployment and businesses will be out of workers.
But the workers who are left will get paid more. Assuming there are any left. Is that risk worth it?
Theft from whom? This is a logical fallacy. For theft to have any meaning, property rights must first be clearly defined and subsequently violated. Theft is the involuntary transfer of property from one party to another. Exclaiming property “is” theft is circular reasoning.
It’s the ghost of Proudhon.
Self-refuting statements ftl.
I think they mean theft from the ‘commons’
Most of the time they define private property as immoral, but to get around the problem define private possession as moral
I think it is interesting:
If I make a stick and give it to you and you use it to shake apples 4 from a tree and give me one in return for my stick, I engage in privatizing means of production and am immoral (even tho now you have 3 apples and I 1, ie both are better off)
If I make a stick and instead of increasing your productivity just sit there and scratch my ass with it, I am not privatizing means of production (since it is only used in private) and thus engage in a moral act.
Doesn’t make much sense to me…