Posted on 07/17/2010 2:01:17 AM PDT by citizenredstater9271
Liberals and socialists like to cry about "sweatshops" and claim they show the "failure" of capitalism. That is false. This video explains it.
I’ve seen sweatshops before and there’s no defending them, especially since exploitative child labor is usually involved.
So the choices are: 1. Sweatshop 2. Starve 3. Socialism
What would you chose?
The only thing worse than a 3rd world country being exploited, is not being exploited.
Yes. Thats the point made in this video.
The alternative to sweatshops is almost unimaginable grinding poverty. The children involved will not be going to fully staffed daycare centers with one staffer with a masters degree in early education per child, but to a tin shed hovel with a dirt floor and very little food or worse.
Leave the people in the third world alone and let them make the best living they can.
As someone whom has seen sweatshops before. I think that there has to be something mentally, morally and emotionally wrong with you if you think sweatshops are worthy of defending.
Wow! That is stunning. Kids working all day long for pennies and you think that is just fine. WOW!
“Leave the people in the third world alone and let them make the best living they can.”
And don’t let them feel entitled to anything more or else you’ll threaten them with moving your third rate factory to some other impoverished area to maintain your lifestyle of crack cocaine and high priced hookers.
Well, are they hot?
The battle cry of fiscal “conservatives” often lacks moral clarity.
Hot? as in burning in hell hot?
Nah, sweatshops often aren’t as hot as the place in which their owners will eventually wind up...
Like is tough, more so in the third world. When plagued by the consequences of the good intentions of westerners, even more so.
Define: Sweatshop NOUN:
A shop or factory in which employees work long hours at low wages under poor conditions.
____________________________________________________________
I was first going to comment, before watching the video regarding how definitions of capitalism have actually changed. But...the video makes a correct explanation of the notion on how real capitalism benefits the workers.
What has changed, which the video fails to properly define, is the term “sweatshop.” The workers he describes in the video are highly paid in contrast to their countrymen. The pictures used do not show dirty, poorly lit, children sitting there pouring hot silicone into molds to make silly rubber bands for kids to wear in America.
The video is not talking about the true hellholes of sweatshops which are by nature, anti-capitalist and counter productive. The video is simply defending what liberals call low wages in a third world country...which in fact are decent jobs in the country moving the folks beyond their poverty.
He is using the term “sweatshop” as liberals define it, not as it is truly defined or commonly understood by real capitalists.
Nobody is saying not to offer people in the third world jobs.
You know you can offer jobs with wages comparable to westernized nations if your intent were truly atruistic and was meant to lift people out of poverty.
Don’t fall for the red herrings.
I’m not claiming altruism. I claim that allowing markets to operate provides real wealth and improved conditions. Letting sentimentality and withful thinking get in the way of the operation of markets will have dire consequences for the intended beneficiaries.
Consider the alternatives. People abandoned the farms and flocked to the mill towns of New England 170 years ago for the same reason that people in the third world fill up “sweat shops”.
Wages are offered comparable to the cost of living for the area. By your definition I work in a sweatshop in America...not a decent job in my area at a rate comparable to the cost of living in my area.
Cost of living = cost of doing business.
Altruism is only available through production that creates the wealth. If there is no production...there is no wealth.
Is that what you think the goal of capitalism is?
Check out the price of foodstuffs in their neighbourhood.
I don’t like the uphill battle against the characterization sweatshop. If it’s a job why call it a sweatshop?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.