Cothing Retailers or Social Activists?

Originally posted by MrHand
Missed this post before.

Someone that is paid can be a slave.

Consider the following definition: a person entirely under the domination of some influence or person.

This is quite common all over the world. People are held, against their will, but paid a pittance for wages. I define that as being a slave.

However, I'd like to point out that you t ...[text shortened]... ou thought someone should be paid a living wage for making jeans (a yes or no question really).

My definition would include either the threat of physical force or the actual use of force, they're so closely related anyway.

So yes, a slave may be paid, but to be a slave there must be actual force i.e. held in captivity. Anyone free to leave their job is not a slave, and this doesn't mean someone that's been breed'n em with little hope of feed'n em, this doesn't mean someone that has gotten themselves into debt, this doesn't mean someone that hasn't got a house or is hungry or can't afford a second car. What it does mean is physical coercion.

So is the Jeans manufacturer shackling people to their work station? Or is the Jeans manufacturer offering a 93 cents a day jean sewing alternative to a 89 cents a day doubled over in a rice paddy?

The employer employee relationship is one of mutual exploitation.

Those that cry cry about "a working living wage" (as if anyone is working for a dying wage lol) should take a look around them, do you own anything made in China, Indonesia, Philippines etc etc then chances are someone has handled that product that is on a tiny fraction of the US minimum.

What does this mean?

YOU'RE A HYPOCRITE

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
You and people like you don't spend enough money on clothing, I bet, for them to care what you think. Gay interior decorators and talk show hosts (not to mention privelaged young ladies) probably spend far more on clothing than you or I ever will.

Thus, they get to decide what politics the clothing stores have. Pretty simple. Money talks...not just having it, but spending it.

That's a good point; as always, you bring a welcome perspective to these "debates."

Originally posted by Wajoma
My definition would include either the threat of physical force or the actual use of force, they're so closely related anyway.

So yes, a slave may be paid, but to be a slave there must be actual force i.e. held in captivity. Anyone free to leave their job is not a slave, and this doesn't mean someone that's been breed'n em with little hope of feed'n em, ...[text shortened]... a tiny fraction of the US minimum.

What does this mean?

YOU'RE A HYPOCRITE

Actually, when I made the point about slaves being able to be paid, I was not talking about "sweat shops" but rather conditions such as where women are held against their will in the sex trade but still paid or where workers are held in remote locations and forced to work for a pittance (this is common in Brazil for example).

I made this in response to DSR who inferred that you are not a slave if you are paid.

Regarding the "living wage," I don't think someone should be paid enough to live even modestly, but they should be able to at least make it to the poverty line. Sweatshops fall far short of that. It seems you're ok with that, and that is certainly your perrogative.

I took issue with someone who actually condemed companies for trying to do good things. Do you think it is a bad thing for companies to promote the welfare of others?