On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 13:19:15 +0000, [H]omer wrote:
> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
>> ____/ Kier on Friday 23 November 2007 22:54 : \____
>>> On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 10:22:26 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote:
>
>>>> yeah! those folks don't need jobs after all. Let 'em starve.
>
> Slavery is not a "job", as you put it.
>
>>>> One thing I *never* see in these "burn the sweatshops" whines is
>>>> anyone asking the workers what *they* think.
>
> You mean you need to /ask/ if a child wants to be sold into slavery?
>
> http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=19gUiVcE49E
>
> And this travesty is not restricted to just children. You demand
> testimonies as proof?: http://uk.youtube.com/user/nlcnet
>
> Translations available here: http://www.nlcnet.org
>
> So far you demonstrated that you're a Global Warming denialist, and now
> a Slave Labour denialist.
How on Earth do you reach such a ridiculous conclusion about Jim, from his
not wishing to see factories immediately destroyed, thereby putting people
completely out of work?
>
> Want to go for the hat trick and deny the Holocaust as well?
Get some perspective, man, for goodness' sake.
>
>>> They're probably glad of the work
>
> I'm sure.
Yes. It is at least better than no work at all, however unpleasant it may
be. Not all workers in sweatshops *are* what you term slaves (and forced
child labour is really a different issue anyway).
>
> I'm not so sure that they're glad of being essentially kidnapped,
> beaten, humiliated, restricted to when they may use the toilet,
> subjected to inhuman living conditions, and suffering from extremely
> poor health ... all for a pittance that is probably less than they'd
> make begging on the streets. Not that they ever see much of that
Obviously not, or they'd be out there begging.
> pittance, (assuming it is paid in a timely fashion, if at all), since by
> all accounts most of it is sent home to feed those who sold them into
> slavery in the first place.
When it's their families, it's often the case that they sell the child out
of desperate need, not greed.
>
> I would imagine the thing these poor souls are most glad of, is death.
I doubt you know as much about it as you think. Of course it is not a good
thing, but there are better ways to improve matters than the one you
suggest.
>
>>> The answer is to improve the conditions and pay - gradually
>
> The answer is to take affirmative action against companies and countries
> that support slavery, whilst providing aid for the victims, in the form
> of both immediate relief and a sustainable infrastructure.
>
>>> if necessary
>
> If necessary?
Gradually, if necessary, is what I said, don't misrepresent me. Nothing
can be done overnight.
>
>>> The workers will be happier and will have more money to contribute
>>> to the local economy by buying goods
>
> A far better way to contribute to the local economy, is to help
> establish a sustainable local industry, that keeps the wealth of that
> economy /local/, rather than allow western companies to suck resources
> out of it - for a pittance that contributes almost nothing to anyone
> ... except the bankroll of those western companies.
Have I said anything which indicates I think that is a bad idea? No, of
course not. But simply buring down factories willy-nilly is not an answer.
>
>>> rather than simply having enough money to buy food to keep
>>> themselves alive, and thereby help to create more jobs.
>
> The insignificant amount that these companies allow to flow /into/ the
> countries they exploit, is just enough to perpetuate the slave labour
> problem, but contributes little to creating an autonomous economy that
> sustains employment independent of those companies. They are motivated
> only by cheap labour, and do nothing to solve the long term problems ...
> indeed they exacerbate and prolong them.
They are unlikely to be motivated to do better by the methods you
describe, and what would replace the work they provide? Certainly these
practices must be stopped, but it's better to try working *with* the
companies, to improve conditions - they cannot rely on cheap labour
forever, it's in their interests to do better for workers in the long run.
--
Kier
|
|
