20 Dec 08
Originally posted by FMFLet me say that this post is the ultimate "thread pollution". I can't tie together everything Wajoma, you oir anyone else has ever posted here or elsewhere on the internet. It is hard enough to follow and reconcile the posts in a single thread.
What would be your rational argument for asserting, as you did on this forum not so long ago, that [b]President Elect of the USA Barack Obama is a kindred spirit of the Nazis? Do you really think you can lecture fellow posters on "rational arguments" and "moral and ethical parallels" and the definition of "hatred" when you yourself appear to ha ...[text shortened]... right this time, while you, normbenign, may not be.[/b]
"What would be your rational argument for asserting, as you did on this forum not so long ago, that [b]President Elect of the USA Barack Obama is a kindred spirit of the Nazis?"
NAZIs were national socialists. Pretty simple isn't it, Barak Obama isn't bashful about his advocacy of socialist programs, up to and including nationalization of whole industries, the means of production and distribution. Democrats and Republicans alike for decades have leaned toward Fascism, nominal ownership and control of business, but under heavy handed regulations and taxation which amount to government running those nominally private entities. Obama's expressed proposals go a step further. I can lecture until my conclusions are refuted by more than emotional appeals.
Wajoma, so far is in harmony with my own views on government interference. We are both (l)ibertarians, not necessarily conservatives.
Neither of us is happy for starvation wages being paid anywhere. It isn't government's proper role to dictate wages, which ought to be a free will contract between two parties, whether by individual or collective bargaining. Incidentally, third world sweatshops as part of an international free market are dramatically improving living conditions and wages in those third world countries, as well as in the countries that offshored that manufacturing.
Since you brought up sneakers, let's talk about Nike. Began making athletic shoes in Oregon, and expanded to a plant in New Hampshire. When jogging and distance running became the rage in America, Nike had about 400 employees making shoes. Growth resulted from moving the operation to Indonesia, and Nike paid Indonesian workers about 5 times the going wages. Four hundred manufacturing jobs in a couple of years turned into tens of thousands of jobs in design, marketing, advertising and distribution, most of them paying exponentially over the lost manufacturing jobs. That's what free markets do.
You appear to be saying that Wajoma now favors government interference, but the Bush changes really diminish government interference. It is not inconsistent at all. The government is not interfering in a contract, but removing a previously imposed interference. Quite simple really.
"It as a regulation, pure and simple. It is taking the side of people with certain ideological motivations, against the rights of the employer whom Wajoma normally champions."
It is a regulation, which diminishes government authority to force workers to do what they don't want for moral reasons. In a perfect world, I would definitely prefer that government be entirely out of employer/employee relations, other than seeing to it that contracts and promises are kept, and that force and fraud are minimized. A regulation which minimizes government interference isn't perfect, but a step in the right direction. (l)ibertarians unlike liberals and conservatives aren't expecting utopia or perfection. We can't even agree what it is among ourselves, but we know when liberty is getting the short end of the stick.
21 Dec 08
Originally posted by FMFGood! I'm glad to assist, so now you understand, but then you already did, the principle of using perjoratives toward a group, or philosophy, or point of view but not toward and individual debater.
Yeah, right. I'm starting to get the hang of The Normbenign Principle when it comes to insults.
An example of direct name calling is Howard's "you're ignorant."
A parallel to that would have been if I said "you're a mindless idiot.
I cited a POV where eating almost anything is environmentall evil, and implied you might be part of that mindless group. That leaves you the option of denying membership in that group, or arguing that the POV is not mindless.
You regularly use the same debating tactics, and we all probably occasionally slip up and slide into a direct ad hominem.
21 Dec 08
Originally posted by normbenignYou cited a POV?? Evil? Mindless?
I cited a POV where eating almost anything is environmentall evil, and implied you might be part of that mindless group. That leaves you the option of denying membership in that group, or arguing that the POV is not mindless.
This post of yours is boring sophistry.
21 Dec 08
Originally posted by FMFHaving tracked down the "ACTION: proposed rule." I am guilty of one thing, firing from the hip, not inconsistency or contradiction. Reading through even a a few pages of the legalese under which we are oppressed is even more tedious than a post from Howie. The rule is to be applied to healthcare entities, so it is not necessarily an employer/employee contractual matter. The other point is that it applies to health care entities that receive guvamint money, and it is to ensure no guvamint money is used to coerce health care entities to perform procedures against their blah blah. Which is odd because this is contrary to laws which state that if a person turns up on the doorstep of the healthcare entity with certain conditions they must be treated even if the healthcare entity does not receive guvamint money. What a mess, all this is just one more reason to get guvamint out of the healthcare service industry.
That's not what I said, as you well know. I specifically worded my long explanation so that you could not bail out with this particular piece of (predictable) disingenuousness. The post is there for you to read. I spent some time spelling out what I meant carefully out of respect for you and because the rather gormless and haughty normbenign was getting on my ne ...[text shortened]... ontinue to dig. Your off own message slip up here could not have been more glaring.
From FMF: "This fits with your ideology and so you approve of this particular instance of government interference in the enforcement of contracts and the content of contracts."
Now who is misrepresenting who?
From FMF "...against the rights of the employer whom Wajoma normally champions."
I champion the rights of the individual regardless of their status as employer or employee
So desperate to find a chink?
21 Dec 08
Originally posted by WajomaOK, fair enough. It was what I interpreted your meaning to be. So I thought it constituted a challenge to you rather than a misrepresentation. But yes, cut and pasted all on its lonesome like that, it does rather lose its context. It was at the end of a whole sequence of sentences that argued something, oh hell, whatever. It was not my intention to misrepresent. Sorry. But I still think you were being inconsistent when this whole thing started and that you seem to have decided to restore your consistency but only by defining things in oddly specific ways. e.g. "it is not necessarily an employer/employee contractual matter" which, I suppose means, it is, but not only that, it could be other stuff, which means maybe I was referring to that other stuff, I'm not talking about the thing you're talking about. And do you really deny that this is an instance of government interference in the "enforcement of contracts and the content of contracts"? Are you claiming that this "midnight regulation" won't apply to the contracts of millions/100s thousands of health workers in the U.S.? These were contracts that employers and employers freely entered into. Now Bush has introduced a new rule that will impact all those contracts. You define it as a "relaxation" of regulation? It will have an impact on millions of contracts. Were people forced to sign them? It is interference.
From FMF: "This fits with your ideology and so you approve of this particular instance of government interference in the enforcement of contracts and the content of contracts."
Now who is misrepresenting who?
Originally posted by Wajoma
From FMF "...against the rights of the employer whom Wajoma normally champions."
I champion the rights of the individual regardless of their status as employer or employee
In our conversations about sweatshops you have always championed the rights of financially powerful individuals and entities and urged the voiceless poor to look elsewhere if they feel that massive corporations, in cahoots with local governments, are paying infrahuman wages. These governments, ever helpful, are also willing to crack a few heads and make a few upstarts disappear if the individuals over here start defining or aspiring to "rights" in a way that diverges from the Wajoma definition - which is one apparently based on mathematics.
Oh yes, you deplore the use of force. That's nice.
26 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignThanks for the corporate propaganda. I have worked with an NGO dealing with malnutrition among Nike workers. I have personally met factory workers: I can assure you they are not paid 5 times the "going wages". Where did you get that little gem from? Pure corporate PR puff. "Tens of thousands of jobs in design, marketing, advertising and distribution"? Are you joking? The people who design, market and distribute Nike shoes don't live in Indonesia. Hardly anybody living here can afford to buy them. What distribution? Tens of thousands of jobs in the sectors you mentioned? You're pulling my leg I think. What "lost manufacturing jobs" are you talking about? You're in a such a hurry to cough up your corporate apologetics that you can't even make it clear which part of the world you are referring to!
Since you brought up sneakers, let's talk about Nike. Began making athletic shoes in Oregon, and expanded to a plant in New Hampshire. When jogging and distance running became the rage in America, Nike had about 400 employees making shoes. Growth resulted from moving the operation to Indonesia, and Nike paid Indonesian workers about 5 times the going w ...[text shortened]... vertising and distribution, most of them paying exponentially over the lost manufacturing jobs.
Originally posted by normbenign
third world sweatshops as part of an international free market are dramatically improving living conditions and wages in those third world countries
In what way? What do you actually know about the "living conditions" in, say, Indonesia, prior to the imposition of the international "free" market here? What do you actually know about the "living conditions" here now? What measurement are you using to evaluate "living conditions"? You're making some sweeping claims from you armchair there. What is the substance of them?
26 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFhttp://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/ecdecc/y2006v55i1p201-21.html
Thanks for the corporate propaganda. I have worked with an NGO dealing with malnutrition among Nike workers. I have personally met factory workers: I can assure you they are [b]not paid 5 times the "going wages". Where did you get that little gem from? Pure corporate PR puff. "Tens of thousands of jobs in design, marketing, advertising and distributio some sweeping claims from you armchair there. What is the substance of them?[/b]
Just some overall data on Indonesian wages. The 5X Nike stat was read some 15 years ago, so I can't source it now. Nike paid $5/day when the going local wage was $1/day.
I never said the new jobs were in Indonesia. Nike grew as a company, outsources about 400 manufacturing jobs which paid six or seven bucks an hour, and almost overnight the company exploded with much higher paying jobs in the US, including a number of millionaires like Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods.
Corporate propaganda? Why? Nike doesn't pay me! Nike is a perfect example of free markets uplifting everyone involved including the "sweatshop workers", and ultimately the US sweatshop workers who were freed to pursue better paying work.
26 Dec 08
Originally posted by normbenignIn what way? What do you actually know about the "living conditions" in, say, Indonesia, prior to the imposition of the international "free" market here? What do you actually know about the "living conditions" here now? What measurement are you using to evaluate "living conditions"? You're making some sweeping claims from you armchair there. What is the substance of them?
third world sweatshops as part of an international free market are dramatically improving living conditions and wages in those third world countries
Originally posted by normbenign
Just some overall data on Indonesian wages. The 5X Nike stat was read some 15 years ago, so I can't source it now. Nike paid $5/day when the going local wage was $1/day. [...] Nike is a perfect example of free markets uplifting everyone involved including the "sweatshop workers", and ultimately the US sweatshop workers who were freed to pursue better paying work.
I have actually met some of the Indonesian people we are talking about. They earn in the region of $190 for a 270 hour month. (Why do you claim that "the going local wage was $1/day", that's what leppers at traffic lights make - why is that your term of reference?) Even a plywood hovel in Jakarta costs about $100 a month. "Overtime" is not optional (refuse and you're fired) and is paid at a lower hourly rate than regular work. There is medical coverage of up to $12 in a single month (but can be claimed only a maximum of twice a year) for medicine, but not for treatment (if your kid gets bronchittis here it'll set you back about $200). There is no pension scheme. Nike does not pay Indonesian taxes. Officials from the Departments of Labour and Tax here are known to be on their payroll as "consultants".
You say that, after setting up these "sweatshops" in places like Indonesia, Nike exploded with much higher paying jobs in the US, including a number of millionaires like Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods. How wonderful for Nike! How wonderful for Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods! You also say Nike is a perfect example of free markets uplifting everyone involved.
Uplifting? I have no choice but to question whether you have any decency about you at all. Same goes for Wajoma.
Uplifting? What do you actually know about what the "living conditions" were here before the imposition of the international "free" market here? What do you actually know about the "living conditions" here now?
Uplifting? Are you talking about the pleasure Indonesians have taken over the years from watching Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods perform?
26 Dec 08
Originally posted by normbenignOh what a surprise; NoBrain is a right wing fascist who actually approves and encourages sweatshops so that he only has to pay $200 for a pair of his favourite nike trainers.
http://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/ecdecc/y2006v55i1p201-21.html
Just some overall data on Indonesian wages. The 5X Nike stat was read some 15 years ago, so I can't source it now. Nike paid $5/day when the going local wage was $1/day.
I never said the new jobs were in Indonesia. Nike grew as a company, outsources about 400 manufacturing jobs which paid ...[text shortened]... rkers", and ultimately the US sweatshop workers who were freed to pursue better paying work.
Way to go, moron.
26 Dec 08
Originally posted by FMFClearly Nike is hosing those poor Indonesians and should take its job elswhere.
In what way? What do you actually know about the "living conditions" in, say, Indonesia, prior to the imposition of the international "free" market here? What do you actually know about the "living conditions" here now? What measurement are you using to evaluate "living conditions"? You're making some sweeping claims from you armchair there. What is the substanc ...[text shortened]... ver the years from watching Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods perform?
27 Dec 08
Originally posted by FMFI am hardly trying to make Indonesia a worker's paradise. GNP per capita in 1995 was $980.
In what way? What do you actually know about the "living conditions" in, say, Indonesia, prior to the imposition of the international "free" market here? What do you actually know about the "living conditions" here now? What measurement are you using to evaluate "living conditions"? You're making some sweeping claims from you armchair there. What is the substanc ...[text shortened]... ver the years from watching Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods perform?
By Western standards, we might ask why anyone works for Nike. It must be that there aren't better options. If there were, why would anyone stay?
The $1/day was at the time that Nike built there. That was about 30 years ago, so by your own calculations people are better off now than then. It was only 90+ years ago that American workers were making $1/day, and were offered $5/day by Henry Ford.
27 Dec 08
Originally posted by howardgeeHowie, fascism is a left wing collectivist ideology, not right wing.
Oh what a surprise; NoBrain is a right wing fascist who actually approves and encourages sweatshops so that he only has to pay $200 for a pair of his favourite nike trainers.
Way to go, moron.
And I don't buy $200 trainers. When I ran marathons in the past, I preferred Addidas and Etonic shoes to Nikes. Actually, the high end running shoes were still made in the US for a few years before that was moved to Indonesia.
What is the alternative to Nike paying higher wages in Indonesia. They could move back to the States, and leave the people unemployed!
Dictating wages is not a proper role of government, and always results in higher unemployment among the groups whose wages are artificially inflated.
27 Dec 08
Originally posted by normbenign"..fascism is a left wing collectivist ideology, not right wing.."
Howie, fascism is a left wing collectivist ideology, not right wing.
And I don't buy $200 trainers. When I ran marathons in the past, I preferred Addidas and Etonic shoes to Nikes. Actually, the high end running shoes were still made in the US for a few years before that was moved to Indonesia.
What is the alternative to Nike paying higher wages i ...[text shortened]... d always results in higher unemployment among the groups whose wages are artificially inflated.
What are you talking about?!?!? Please educate yourself for once:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
"...fascism is far right..."
"..Dictating wages is not a proper role of government.." Ever heard of the minimum wage? If all countries were civilised enough to enforce this concept, then sweatshops would not exist.
27 Dec 08
Originally posted by howardgee"...fascism is far right..."
"..fascism is a left wing collectivist ideology, not right wing.."
What are you talking about?!?!? Please educate yourself for once:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
"...fascism is far right..."
"..Dictating wages is not a proper role of government.." Ever heard of the minimum wage? If all countries were civilised enough to enforce this concept, then sweatshops would not exist.
It depends on how you define left and right, which is not clear-cut. Fascism has leftist elements, it advocates a large and strong government.
If all countries were civilised enough to enforce this concept, then sweatshops would not exist.
Actually, some countries with extensive redistribution policies have no minimum wage.