Hongomon! Long time no see. How's tricks?
You write:
Why aren't children allowed to "choose" to take similar jobs in the U.S., Canada, or a list of other nations?
So your problem is not with the fact that people in these nations choose to accept employment at what you consider to be insufficient wages, your problem is that they allow their children to do so?
To answer your question, the reason children are not legally allowed to accept such a job in most Western countries (although there are plenty of pre-adolescents in farm families who work harder than many slackers I know who suck off unemployment insurance and welfare benefits) is that the governments of those countries have made it illegal for them to do so, just as the previous Afghani ruling clique made it illegal for women to work. Different cultures have different ways of doing things. Just one of the many joys of a multicultural planet, I guess.
The capitalist use of the term "force" requires the most literal of definitions.
How is it possible for rational discourse to occur if one side insists on evading the accepted definition of a commonly used word because to use it correctly would destroy their position? You can "prove" any point of view you want if you make up definitions as you go along. I don't twist definitions. Whether you agree with my points or not, you cannot deny that I speak literally and do not employ even subtle rhetorical tricks to obscure my meaning. Would that my opponents were capable of doing so.
You feel you need to make the distinction, fine, but I hardly think you've thrown out the other uses (such as by Alex and Phluck in this thread.)
Yes, I do feel the need to use words as they were meant to be used. Just because some feminazis insist on calling sex "rape" doesn't make it so. Just because Phluck insists on calling advertising "force" doesn't make it so.
Lets call a spade a spade. Factory workers in developing countries (regardless of their age) are not forced to accept offers of employment from Nike or Martha Stewart or whoever -- they are enticed to do so. What is the enticement? A standard of living higher than the one they currently enjoy. No amount of evasion and definition-twisting can conceal the fact that these people accept these jobs voluntarily, even eagerly. Or, as you yourself admit:
Anyway, what "forces" people to "choose" to take such employment must vary from one situation to the next, but it generally boils down to shitty conditions where there are little or no other options to go around.
One big cause of this is war.
Correct. That is one of the reasons options are limited for some.
The U.S. military strategy in Southeast Asia... (snip)... I don't know if the resulting mass urbanization was part of a master plan or not, but a huge population of displaced refugees do make a very available, very willing workforce.
Funny you should mention this. The Vietnamese economy is booming -- the fastest-growing economy in Asia at the moment. In the last decade the Vietnamese government has embraced the capitalist ethic to a greater degree than even China has.
The result was similar mass urbanization and similar destruction of local economies.
1) It is far easier to rebuild a farm after a war than to rebuild a city.
2) Urbanization doesn't require war. Urbanization has been occurring since pre-Roman Empire times, accelerated exponentially during the Industrial Revolution, and is arguably greater in countries which never suffered had their farmland "destroyed" in war, i.e. England, Sweden, Canada, United States, Japan, etc.
Now we might hear the response, "Oh, so it would be better for these evil corporations to stay out and let these people starve?" I'd say no...
Why would you say so? Why should the US government allow its corporations to set up production facilities in other countries when American workers are being laid off as those same corporations close American factories? Why should American corporations improve the living standards of foreigners when they won't provide jobs for every American?
...but this takes us back to the problems of child labor and other unfair practices. People are being taken complete advantage of.
How are they being taken advantage of? They are being provided better opportunities by the foreign corporations than they are by their domestic corporations (in those countries where there ARE domestic corporations). If anyone is getting screwed in this scenario, it is the domestic corporations, not the employees.
Often they are poorer than dirt, there's no raise on the horizon, they have little or no education, no means of providing one to their co-worker children, and they probably have no idea what people are talking about when they use words like "freedom" and "opportunity".
How is this the fault of the foreign corporations? If the foreign factories didn't exist, they would still be poorer than dirt, there would be no cash on the horizon, much less a raise, they would still have little or no education, no means of providing one to their co-worker children, and they would probably still have no idea what people are talking about when they use words like "freedom" and "opportunity". What's your point?
And how many of them work for mega-huge multi-national corporations?
Not as many as want to.
pinky
--------------------
Edited by pinksharkmark (12/10/02 09:35 AM)
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Buddha5254 
Murex 
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
