What's the point of labor laws...

[Hacp]

To enjoy the economic benefits of slavery without the social instability. Or to put it differently, to avoid the social instability of oppressive employment terms, while using our global labor price disadvantage to give the rest of the world a hand up. See it's all in the presentation!

Slavery? No one is forcing anyone to be slaves. The people of China are free to work or not work. They just choose to work because with work comes money and with money they can buy food.

 

[PrinceofWands]

What kind of patriot are you? Are you saying that America, the same America our founding fathers lived in, sucked ass? The people who fought and died for the land they love would disagree.

Learn to read...I said after industrialization...ie 1870ish.

 

[Hacp]

Learn to read...I said after industrialization...ie 1870ish.

Edit: Ok never mind. I see that you said between 1870 and some time in between. But did anyone force these workers to work? NO! Slavery was abolished by then.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Edit: Ok never mind. I see that you said between 1870 and some time in between. But did anyone force these workers to work? NO! Slavery was abolished by then.

You're a worthless, ignorant, pitiable waste of flesh. Not that you don't have a right to be, just feeling sorry your parents wasted sperm on you. Hopefully you die horribly soon, and the world can celebrate its improvement.

I won't even waste breath arguing against your brand of evil and stupidity.

 

[DanDaManJC]

Edit: Ok never mind. I see that you said between 1870 and some time in between. But did anyone force these workers to work? NO! Slavery was abolished by then.

The point is that we had a "free market" post 1870s... and everyone had the "choice" to work or not work --- and the "evil capitalists" were actually damn evil and exploited labor. It wasn't until government regulation that there were sane working conditions.

For more reason why we have labor laws you could read a piece of American history, The Jungle by Upton Sinclair:

Info @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle

The underlying assumption here is that it's just as ethically wrong for someone to be forced between a choice of wage-slavery and starvation as traditional slavery. If you can't agree to that, then... well we're all at a brick wall.

 

[PaperclipGod]

Deliberately obtuse? Standard rightwing methodology.

I'm not sure how that's obtuse, it's a pretty simple question based on this:

Government control of industry and the ability to legislate favors to certain voting blocks.

Completely bass-ackwards, usual for the source at hand. More like this-

"Industry control of government and the ability to buy legislative favors (particularly from repubs) for themselves."

International Free Market! World Economy! Free Flow of Capital! Trickledown Economics!

Righties' memories are sooo convenient...

So... are you saying that labor laws help industry?

If you're not, say so. All this random ad-hominem crap is just confusing, because I have no idea what your point is.

 

[PaperclipGod]

I personally don't fly to China every time I feel like eating out. Do you?

My point is that we CAN'T just buy stuff from other countries in most situations. Thus, the labor laws help those people most of the time. The rest of the time it harms people like children who can't work due to the labor laws and it hurts and people who want to be indentured servants.

Sure, sometimes we can buy stuff from China. But, buyer beware. My last Chineese custom order (for a project at work) was due in Feburary and I'm still waiting. They keep sending messages such as "the Chineese new year held up production". Sure, I save a bit of money, but time and kept promisses are money too.

Well, the service industry is certainly something that can't be easily exported. But all the products that are used in that industry are -- the take-out boxes for your food, the plastic utensils, even the sauces and seasonings are all imported.

As for the part about child labor and indentured servants... I see your point. However, by simply importing that product from a country that doesn't have the same worker protections, all we're doing is exporting that misery onto someone else. Even worse, the money spent on those items -- which would otherwise be staying within this country -- is now being sent overseas to help the economy of some foreign country.

Sure, $4/hr is crap, but isn't it better than nothing?

Or as an alternative, why not legislate that we will only trade with countries that have the same worker protections as us? In that case, a lot of manufacturing jobs that would have been sent overseas would instead be kept in the US.

 

[PaperclipGod]

Well, we could get more production out of our employees if we let managers beat them like other countries do.

Flying would be cheaper if pilots could be made to fly 90 hours a week. Truck drivers could easily be made to do 100 hours.

No reason children can't do 40 hours + school.

Most things would be cheaper without OSHA. After all, workers are just a commodity; break one, get a new one.

Overtime pay is unnecessary. If people want to feed their kids, they'll be happy to work long hours for a pittance.

And why stop at labor laws if we want to follow China's example? How about dropping environmental laws too to be competitive? What's a few Love Canals here and there? Lead is cheap. Why not use it in children's toys? Moldy drywall is cheap too. Who really cares about toxins in toothpaste?

All excellent points, but you still aren't addressing the initial question: What good are all of those protections if we simply circumvent them buy importing products from a country which lacks those protections?

We're stuck with the same inferior products, children are still working 40 hour weeks, and to top it off, we're stuck with high unemployment as well.

 

[Red Dawn]

Slavery? No one is forcing anyone to be slaves. The people of China are free to work or not work. They just choose to work because with work comes money and with money they can buy food.

So you condone Sweatshop working conditions and believe that they should exist in America?

 

[PaperclipGod]

There are a number of answers to your question.

One is that we're responsible for what happens here. Having bad things happen here and justifying it with 'well it happens in China too' isn't a good approach.

But there are competitive factors as well. Welcome to a global economy with inequality.

On things like pay level, it's not going to be equal. There's a balance between taking advantage of cheap foreign labor, and protecitng our own labor force.

The basic tool is tariffs. That's how our government got nearly all its revenue for over half the time of the US. They can be used for cost issues, moral issues, whatever.

We should have government working to spread higher standards globally - pressuring other governments to hav worker safety, etc.

Unfortunately, almost the entire agenda seems to be protecting the interests of the owners. And we see the result things like plummeting pay for American workers.

The US could be drug down to returning to child labor, low safety standards, no workman's comp, and so on. We don't do a lot of that because of labor laws.

The costs of shipping goods from overseas seems to have sometimes added an informal 'tarriff' that has helped a little with protecting American labor, but not much.

When I can go on Amazon and order a one dollar item made in China shipped to my location free in two days with Amazon prime, it's clear the China shipping costs aren't that big.

IMO, we need a political effort to look at trade issues with the priority being the good of the American people and the world, not merely the good of the owners' profits.

There doesn't seem a good chance of that. In the meantime, the laws provide some protection for American workers, and that's a good thing.

How benevolent is that protection, though? In essence, we're not allowing people to work. We're saying "it's better for you to be unemployed than to work for $4/hr."

I agree that the extreme of emulating China's labor laws isn't any good, but as long as we're allowing cheap imports to continue, why not allow the US manufacturing sector to compete? That one dollar item you bought on Amazon isn't much, but better to have that dollar helping an american company which employs cheap american labor than the foreign equivalent, right?

 

[Red Dawn]

How benevolent is that protection, though? In essence, we're not allowing people to work. We're saying "it's better for you to be unemployed than to work for $4/hr."

I agree that the extreme of emulating China's labor laws isn't any good, but as long as we're allowing cheap imports to continue, why not allow the US manufacturing sector to compete? That one dollar item you bought on Amazon isn't much, but better to have that dollar helping an american company which employs cheap american labor than the foreign equivalent, right?

So you are suggesting that the 10% that are unemployed would benefit working for wages that aren't even enough to pay for housing, food, transportation, etc?

 

[PaperclipGod]

The point is that we had a "free market" post 1870s... and everyone had the "choice" to work or not work --- and the "evil capitalists" were actually damn evil and exploited labor. It wasn't until government regulation that there were sane working conditions.

For more reason why we have labor laws you could read a piece of American history, The Jungle by Upton Sinclair:

Info @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle

The underlying assumption here is that it's just as ethically wrong for someone to be forced between a choice of wage-slavery and starvation as traditional slavery. If you can't agree to that, then... well we're all at a brick wall.

I think you're looking at it a bit myopically, though. Yes, the thought of someone working long hours at a dangerous job just to feed themselves is not a pretty sight. However, that cheap labor fueled so many positive things: Huge infrastructure improvements (e.g., thousands of miles of railroad track), the reconstruction of the South, and - believe it or not - a higher standard of living overall. Don't forget that the 1870's-1890's were a period of massive immigration -- the limited protections afforded to workers in that period certainly didn't impede rumors of "streets paved with gold."

Also, at that time, to be an "industrialized nation" was a rare achievement. Increasing worker protections and manufacturing costs weren't able to be immediately countered by moving production to a different country -- manufacturers had very limited options when they required skilled labor and modern infrastructure. That's why labor laws worked so well at that time... the labor actually had an inherent value with which to bargain with.

With globalization, that inherent value has been completely degraded, such that any single country which tries to protect its workers is punished by having those workers lose their jobs to a foreign country.

I imagine it like this: There are 100 people working in a factory for $4/hr. 5 of them band together and demand better wages. But instead of increasing their compensation, the factory simply fires them and hires new workers for $4/hr. Those 5 dissenting workers represent countries with progressive labor laws. The factory represents any multi-national corporation.

We allow corporations to operate on an international level without having any sort of strong international government. As a result, corporations can simply play one country off another in search of the best labor "deal." Unlike on a local level where we can make it illegal to fire striking workers, there is no such law or method of enforcement on the international level.

Perhaps it's time to start enforcing tariffs not against countries, but against individual corporations?

 

[PaperclipGod]

So you are suggesting that the 10% that are unemployed would benefit working for wages that aren't even enough to pay for housing, food, transportation, etc?

Yes. Are you suggesting that they're better off with no income at all?

 

[Red Dawn]

Yes. Are you suggesting that they're better off with no income at all?

There's welfare and unemployment. There's also plenty of jobs that pay minimum wages if they want to get off of the government's teet. Pizza Delivery, Convenience Store Clerks, Gas Station Attendants and of course Fast Food places like McDonalds.

 

[nonlnear]

There's welfare and unemployment. There's also plenty of jobs that pay minimum wages if they want to get off of the government's teet. Pizza Delivery, Convenience Store Clerks, Gas Station Attendants and of course Fast Food places like McDonalds.

Tell that to American Samoa.

(And no, I'm not using that as a counterargument for minimum wages in general. Only that if they are going to be used, they need to be applied carefully.)

 

[Red Dawn]

Tell that to American Samoa.

(And no, I'm not using that as a counterargument for minimum wages in general. Only that if they are going to be used, they need to be applied carefully.)

LOL

Back to the subject at hand. If those who are unemployed aren't going to do minimum wage jobs what makes you think they'll work for $4 an hour?

 

[nonlnear]

LOL

Back to the subject at hand. If those who are unemployed aren't going to do minimum wage jobs what makes you think they'll work for $4 an hour?

Why the LOL? Do you have any clue what has happened in American Samoa due to the imposition of federal minimum wages, or do you just like the feeling of your head in your ass?

 

[PaperclipGod]

There's welfare and unemployment. There's also plenty of jobs that pay minimum wages if they want to get off of the government's teet. Pizza Delivery, Convenience Store Clerks, Gas Station Attendants and of course Fast Food places like McDonalds.

I'm a little confused... you describe welfare in a pejorative manner ("government teet"), yet you think it should be left up to the person receiving welfare as to whether or not they take a minimum wage job?

If those who are unemployed aren't going to do minimum wage jobs what makes you think they'll work for $4 an hour?

I suppose I'm including government welfare under the umbrella of "labor laws." In my view, you'd reduce welfare in parity with the protections of labor laws.

There are many tertiary benefits with this as well, not just lower unemployment -- e.g., lower costs for entrepreneurs and startups means the barriers to innovation are lower. Folks that would otherwise have played it safe are more likely to invest their money in a new idea or market niche, as they have less to lose and more to gain.

I'm not suggesting that we should revert to serfdom, only that a moderate movement in the direction of cheaper labor would benefit our economy. Perhaps in 30 years the economy will again be prosperous enough that it would make sense to move towards more restrictive labor laws... but as it is, labor laws seem to be a sacred cow, even if its to the detriment of the country.

 

[Red Dawn]

There are many tertiary benefits with this as well, not just lower unemployment -- e.g., lower costs for entrepreneurs and startups means the barriers to innovation are lower. Folks that would otherwise have played it safe are more likely to invest their money in a new idea or market niche, as they have less to lose and more to gain.

But if they can't get anybody to work for them what good would it do?

 

[PrinceofWands]

Perhaps it's time to start enforcing tariffs not against countries, but against individual corporations?

Or both? There are nations which specifically cater to exploitative corporate practices. There's no reason they should get a walk for encouraging this type of behavior.

 

[Blackjack200]

I imagine it like this: There are 100 people working in a factory for $4/hr. 5 of them band together and demand better wages. But instead of increasing their compensation, the factory simply fires them and hires new workers for $4/hr. Those 5 dissenting workers represent countries with progressive labor laws. The factory represents any multi-national corporation.

What you leave out of your analogy (intentionally, I'm sure) is that those 5 workers (countries) also happen to buy the vast majority of the products that the factory produces. The solution is for those 5 countries to agree not to buy from the company that fired them. Of course, MN corporations would never tolerate that. So here we are.

 

[hal2kilo]

You're a worthless, ignorant, pitiable waste of flesh. Not that you don't have a right to be, just feeling sorry your parents wasted sperm on you. Hopefully you die horribly soon, and the world can celebrate its improvement.

I won't even waste breath arguing against your brand of evil and stupidity.

We both got enough of him at the same time I see.

Move out of your parents basement!

 

[Blackjack200]

We both got enough of him at the same time I see.

Move out of your parents basement!

He must be trolling, there's no way anyone could seriously post these kinds of opinions while living with their parents.

 

[kalrith]

I personally don't fly to China every time I feel like eating out. Do you?

Instead of flying to China and being served by people making $2.50/hour, I go to my local restaurant and get served by people making $2.50/hour.

That makes perfect sense! Thank you labor laws!

 

[Sclamoz]

Why don't we pay the 8 million people in jail to do the same thing so they can pay for their room and board?

2 problems solved.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8289