@boj4ngles said:
Okay let me try to make this simple for you to understand.
@imsh_pl said:
This is essential to realize. It's wrong to look at workers who work for a shitty pay and compare them to workers in a more civilized society. It's crucial to understand that the alternative for these guys is to either starve to death or be a prostitute, and they'd much rather work for scraps.
There is another option as well that doesn't involve starving, prostitution or economic exploitation. They could be paid a decent wage that reflects the retail price of the goods they produce.
'Decent' by what standards?
I agree with you, the wages are terrible compared to ours. None of us would work for such petty money. But to the chinese workers the wage is 'decent', or at least better than the alternative. We know that because they chose to work there. All value is subjective, don't forget that.
Is it possible for the employers to pay more without losing that much profit? Maybe. But then the employers would lose their position in the market to all the other companies who use the cheap labor. Furthermore, if the workers are paid less then the prices are lower and the goods are more numerous, which means that the buying power of the workers' wage is bigger.
But okay, you brought up the issue of 'paying a decent wage'. How do you propose to do this? By introducing a minimum wage? That would literally slaughter any chance for the poorest workers to even stay alive.
Let's assume that the workers who are worst off bring their employer $1,5/h profit, and the employer pays them $1/h. Now let's say the minimum wage is $2 per hour. This means that all of the workers whose productivity level is below $2/h can't get a job. Furthermore, because workers earn more now, all of the prices will be going up, and even though the workers earn more, the purchasing power of one unit of currency is smaller than before.
I think you are confusing Caribbean style plantation slavery with the broader concept of European colonialism. For the most part, European colonialism did not utilize slave labor, at least not in the traditional notion that Americans are used to. Colonialism enabled local governments that were corrupt and exploitative by paying them with European goods and currency. In exchange the local governments exploited their own populations and resources. (...) Those countries had functioning governments when Europeans showed up, we just got those governments to take advantage of their people on our behalf.
So in the European-style colonialism the europeans bribed the governments who would then force the people to work, and use violence against them if they didn't comply, without the people's explicit consent.
How is that NOT slavery? Does the fact that the whip is held by a government official instead of a private plantation owner somehow make the situation different?
Log in to comment