|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
 Posted - 08/29/2001 : 18:50:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
But some unions have driven smaller single owner companies out of business or out of the country.
I never said that unions are the cause of woes to business or to economic stability in the US. I said 'Neither capatilistic companies nor unions are without fault.'
Let us at least agree that union extremists (whatever that is) are not what we are talking about. That would be arguing against a straw man. I am arguing that companies that move manufacturing overseas do it because they can get away with treating workers and the environment like shit over there, despite what they say about the unions over here.
Greg.
I can agree with you here Greg. It's just not a oneway only street. That's my point, I guess, I disagree with sweeping generalizations. Not all companies are bad and not all unions are good. Corruption runs through both.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
 |
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2001 : 15:21:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Not all companies are bad and not all unions are good. Corruption runs through both.
I'm not arguing about corruption here. If corruption exists (as it most certianly does), then it is an aberration. My argument is that corporations have a duty to maximize "shareholder value". They answer to no one but their (major) shareholders. Here's an illustration of what I mean:
Company X produces pipe fittings.
Company X pays their labor employees an average of $8.00 per hour.
Company Y (a competitor) moves manufacturing offshore to East Jahunga.
In East Jahunga, company Y pays labor $0.65 per hour with no benefits.
In East Jahunga, company Y dumps waste machine oil and solvents in a pit out back.
Company Y is kicking company X's ass because of much lower manufacturing costs.
What option does company X have?
What is necessary in a global economy is international regulation. There must be international standards for workers health & safety, compensation, and environmental. Otherwise, exploitation - either active or passive- is going to be all of our problem.
Greg.
|
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2001 : 15:23:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Not all companies are bad and not all unions are good. Corruption runs through both.
I'm not arguing about corruption here. If corruption exists (as it most certianly does), then it is an aberration. My argument is that corporations have a duty to maximize "shareholder value". They answer to no one but their (major) shareholders. Here's an illustration of what I mean:
Company X produces pipe fittings.
Company X pays their labor employees an average of $8.00 per hour.
Company Y (a competitor) moves manufacturing offshore to East Jahunga.
In East Jahunga, company Y pays labor $0.65 per hour with no benefits.
In East Jahunga, company Y dumps waste machine oil and solvents in a pit out back.
Company Y is kicking company X's ass because of much lower manufacturing costs.
What option does company X have?
There is no corruption involved in the above scenario. The factory may be union or non-union. Company X's officers may be men/women of high ethical standards and personal integrity.
What is necessary in a global economy is international regulation. There must be international standards for workers health & safety, compensation, and environmental. Otherwise, exploitation - either active or passive- is going to be all of our problem.
Greg.
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2001 : 20:26:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
What is necessary in a global economy is international regulation. There must be international standards for workers health & safety, compensation, and environmental. Otherwise, exploitation - either active or passive- is going to be all of our problem.
I can agree with you here also. I think we agree in general but disagree on the details. Nothing big.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2001 : 14:17:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
What is necessary in a global economy is international regulation. There must be international standards for workers health & safety, compensation, and environmental. Otherwise, exploitation - either active or passive- is going to be all of our problem.
Very illustrative and well-done scenario, Greg. I think the really difficult (unspoken) question, though, here is whether company Y made an ethical decision in choosing to move their operations to East Jahunga. Of course, the answer depends on your theory of ethics, but it seem that you presume that Y has done a Very Bad Thing, or else why would you perceive the need for supranational laws preventing such actions? I myself am skeptical of the claims that (1) company Y acted immorally, and moreover that (2) we ought to bring to bear the force of international treaties to prevent such actions.
Some relevant questions immediately spring to mind. Exactly what sort of treatment should be considered exploitive and therefore immoral? Where and how is that line drawn? Would company Y overall benefit or harm the standard of living in East Jahunga, or in the globe at large? Ought nation states be granted sovereignty over the health and welfare of their own subjects / citizens?
"Government is not reason: it is not eloquence; it is FORCE! Like fire, it is a DANGEROUS servant, and a FEARFUL master."
- George Washington
Edited by - tergiversant on 09/06/2001 14:45:49 |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2001 : 14:40:02 [Permalink]
|
Regarding the millions of dollars made by CEO's and their ilk, Tokyodreamer and @tomic had the following exchange:
quote:
quote:
Tokyodreamer:
So what do you propose to do? Take their wealth from them by force, and give it out to those in poverty?
If you were granted the sole power to change the world in any way you choose, what would you do?
@tomic:
I would indeed see some of that wealth, that was taken wrongly from the poorer hard working classes, given back.
Surely you mean “some more of that wealth.” Roughly half of it is already being redistributed via our three-level (city/state/federal) progressive tax scheme. As to the rest of it, what do you think becomes of it? Do the ultra-wealthy roll in piles of filthy lucre, laughing maniacally? Do they stuff their mattresses with it? Do they spend most of it on luxury items for themselves?
No, no, and no. They invest it. It is the very capital that drives our economy, from stocks in private companies to federal bonds and treasury bills. Don't take my word for it, though, we should pick out the richest people in America and have a close look at how their wealth breaks down.
If I am correct, though, what then are the rich folk doing wrong? Ought they reallocate more of their funds away from economic development and into more charitable ventures? What ventures might prove worthwhile and what fraction would you personally deem appropriate?
quote:
I think that this is how we try to keep a foot on the brakes of capitalism. If left on its own capitalism would eventually look like the capitalism of the 19th century where normal people needed to work 16+ hours a day for nearly nothing. This was before unions helped change that. If left alone long enough, capitalism would probably end up looking more like Europe in the middle ages where the serfs had nothing and the nobility owned everything.
Perhaps you are correct, but I remain skeptical. Many prominent economists have claimed that the shift in wealth from the rich to the middle classes was the not result of unionization and similar legal effort, but rather that of a change in marketplace dynamics, an alteration in the supply of and demand for skilled labor in the U.S.
"The highest level of prosperity occurs when there is a FREE-MARKET economy and a minimum of government regulations." Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
Edited by - tergiversant on 09/06/2001 14:42:44
Edited by - tergiversant on 09/06/2001 14:44:37 |
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2001 : 15:50:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Some relevant questions immediately spring to mind. Exactly what sort of treatment should be considered exploitive and therefore immoral? Where and how is that line drawn? Would company Y overall benefit or harm the standard of living in East Jahunga, or in the globe at large? Ought nation states be granted sovereignty over the health and welfare of their own subjects / citizens?
tergiversant,
Excellent points, and ones that I hoped would come up.
Exactly what sort of treatment should be considered exploitive and therefore immoral? When an employer treats workers as a commodity. Company Y moved because it could get a better price for human labor. Company Y didn't just exploit workers in East Jahunga, it also exploited the workers in Company X. When one works for company (or other entity), there is either a literal, or a de facto contract that the individual gives so many hours of their finite lives to producing for the company. In return, a wage commensurate with those hours is agreed upon. The wage must be such that the worker is rewarded beyond subsistence. I believe in an ethical standard that disallows humans to be used as means to an end and treats humans as ends in themselves. What are the best years of your life worth?
Would company Y overall benefit or harm the standard of living in East Jahunga, or in the globe at large? What happens in East Jahunga (in the short term) depends directly on what the situation was before the company moved there. Of course worker health and safety contribute to the standard of living. Would you like to be asked if you would rather die of starvation or poisoning? Of course, since the company would never tell the workers that their health was in danger they wouldn't even know they had the choice. In the long term, the global standard of living would be harmed since workers all over would be forced into competing for jobs at the lowest possible cost to the company. In essence, humans become commodities to be used and/or discarded at will by a corporate elite. I don't know if you remember the 80's that well (I don't know how old you are). It seemed like every day the US population was bombarded with propaganda about how much longer and harder the Japanese worker worked than the American worker. Did the Japanese mellow out and start working less like the Americans? No, the opposite happened.
Ought nation states be granted sovereignty over the health and welfare of their own subjects / citizens? Yes, however it is the resposibility of free peoples elsewhere to pressure totalitarian regimes into empowering their people. A good example is China. Many corporations are lauding the "reforms" made in China in the last decade. These "reforms" however, entail only the opening of markets and a capitalistic philosophy by the Chinese laedership. There is no increase in individual liberty in China although we keep hearing how it's going to happen. The net result of the opening of China to capitalism is that it has gone from a communist regime to a fascist regime. Big corporations and investment bankers love fascism.
Greg.
|
|
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2001 : 01:22:48 [Permalink]
|
One of the things which most annoys me about corporations is that they regard profit as an end in itself and not as mearly a means to an end.
Radioactive GM Crops.
Slightly above background.
Safe to eat.
But no activist would dare rip it out.
As they think it gives them cancer. |
|
|
|
Mespo_man
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2001 : 07:45:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Yes, however it is the resposibility of free peoples elsewhere to pressure totalitarian regimes into empowering their people. A good example is China. Many corporations are lauding the "reforms" made in China in the last decade. These "reforms" however, entail only the opening of markets and a capitalistic philosophy by the Chinese laedership. There is no increase in individual liberty in China although we keep hearing how it's going to happen. The net result of the opening of China to capitalism is that it has gone from a communist regime to a fascist regime. Big corporations and investment bankers love fascism. [Greg]
Big corporations and investment bankers love STABILITY, regardless of who is running the country. They will invest in stable economies. How is it that I can work for a corporation, a law firm actually, that has offices in Hong Kong, Bejing, Tokyo and Taipei unless there was a stable work environment? Politically, Japan and both Chinas would just as soon kick each other's asses, but in the marketplace they can work together towards mutually beneficial goals.
My law firm's relationship with the Chinese government is symbiotic. They don't tell us how to run our business. We don't tell them how to run their government. In exchange, we provide them with valuable legal services and they don't interfer with any of our communications or free flow of information and personnel into and out of China.
The business of business IS business.
(:raig
|
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2001 : 09:06:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Big corporations and investment bankers love STABILITY, regardless of who is running the country.
And part of the stability that they love is lack of restriction on their activity and lack of regulation. Facism is the most (short term) stable government.
quote:
My law firm's relationship with the Chinese government is symbiotic. They don't tell us how to run our business. We don't tell them how to run their government.
Isn't it nice that corporations in the US have the same rights as individuals but are not held to the same ethical standards?
quote:
The business of business IS business.
My point exactly, therefore we cannot expect them to do what is best for anyone but themselves. Even if what is best for them is bad for others. Let us not then delude ourselves with this notion of free markets creating a system of enlightened self-interest. There is no such thing as a free market and no such thing as enlightened self-interest. Free people, through their representation in government, must make and enforce the rules. Otherwise, a facist elite will and that would be disaster for freedom.
Greg.
|
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
|
|
Mespo_man
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2001 : 08:39:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
An illustration of my point.
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/251/oped/Should_Wall_Street_be_open_to_slavers_+.shtml
Greg.
Sudan is an easy target. We can make up any shortfalls of Sudanese oil from other sources. Other than oil, they really don't have anything we want. Let's see Congress impose market restrictions on...
1. Israel - because of their official assassination policy. Naw. We're committed to Israel, not the Palestinians.
2. China - because of there "equal discrimination" policies against all but officially sanctioned religions. And then, only by the narrowist of definitions. Not to mention other human rights abuses. Naw. Too big a trading partner. Besides we're going to "teach" them how to be nice.
3. U.S. domestic tobacco companies. HA! We've given them a monetary slap on the wrist. Last time I looked, they were still there.
Actually Greg, I agree that it's the electorate that should make big business toe the line. But when Congress gets their grubby paws in the fight, it becomes so politically motivated and devoid of CONSISTENT ethical application as to be meaningless.
Do you see how interlocked everything has become? How do you regulate inter-global commerce AND keep the politics out of it. You can't. That's why the markets have to remain open. There are many ways to tag and trace money that comes through legitimate pipelines. You make THAT information public knowledge or threaten to make it public knowledge and then you've got leverage.
(:raig |
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2001 : 09:09:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Actually Greg, I agree that it's the electorate that should make big business toe the line. But when Congress gets their grubby paws in the fight, it becomes so politically motivated and devoid of CONSISTENT ethical application as to be meaningless.
The problem is that corporations buy politicians and it's getting worse. Individual voters at this point are so confused that half of them don't bother to vote. Look at any issue that puts the persuit of profit of corporations against the well being of individuals and you will see millions of dallars of corporate money going into the campaigns of politicians, into phony grass roots organizations (that sound in name like their for the general welfare of citizens), and into media PR. True grass roots organizations don't have a chance. They don't have as much money, they don't own the media, and they don't own any powerful politicians. You may or may not realize this but in the US, corporations have all the inaleinable rights of individual citizens. The advantages they have over us individuals are focus, money, and organization.
I agree that Sudan is an easy target. That is why it's illegal for US companies to drill for oil there. I would love to see how much stock in the companies that do drill there is owned by US energy companies. In terms of profit and affect, tell me the difference between a dollar invested in a company that drills in Sudan and actually drilling there yourself. I also agree with your three examples. To me however, they are no different than Sudan.
quote:
Do you see how interlocked everything has become? How do you regulate inter-global commerce AND keep the politics out of it. You can't. That's why the markets have to remain open.
To me, that's a defeatest argument that I cannot accept.
quote:
There are many ways to tag and trace money that comes through legitimate pipelines. You make THAT information public knowledge or threaten to make it public knowledge and then you've got leverage.
How can individuals do that without hiring lawyers and accountants and high priced PR firms? Especially when most have been placated and cofused into thinking either nothing can, or nothing should be done.
Greg.
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2002 : 15:56:06 [Permalink]
|
Bump!
 @tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
