>The US is currently experiencing record low unemployment - so there are
>plenty of jobs to be had. I'll admit to not be up on the state of the
>Australian economy, so I can't comment.
It's supposedly as strong as it has ever been, but the Austrlian dollar
buys ~50US cents - and continues to drop. Since I came to live in Australia
it has gone from 1.35 US$/A$ (not-floating) to ~50 USc/A$ (floating). Not
particularly relevant - but hey.
>
>> You assume good will on the part of the CEOs - when they have
>>no incentive to do such. Operations are moved to lower wage conditions but
>>rarely do prices come down.
>
>The Nike example is anecdotal. The prices for a great many manufactured
>good produced in developing countries have come much further down.
I must admit I didn't check the provenance of this tale before I used it as
an example - to eager to rebut you argument. But there can be no question
that an equivalent job in a developing nation does not provide an
equivalent standard of life for the worker that the same job provides in a
developed nation. I am not expecting the developing nations workers to
enjoy the same standards of life - but an equivalent standard for their
country. While I can't provide facts and figures or even a concrete
example, I understand that most manufacturing workers in develo[ing nations
live considerably below independently determined "poverty lines".
>
>Besides, you are improperly valuing the Nike sneaker as the sum of its
>manufactured parts, without considering the value of Michael Jordan's
>endorsement - which accounts for almost all of the value of the sneaker to
>the consumer.
What? There is no profit involved for Nike Co.? I don't think you believe
this - nor meant to say this. Nike is selling a product for what the market
will bear _to make a profit_. Many companies which depend on "sweat shop
labour" sell their product at a rate which would enable them to employ a
developed nation's workforce. They choose not to to make a greater profit.
While that in itself is not a problem, the way that said profits are made
is an issue of concern. The wages that are paid to developing nations
workers are only one of the issues with these practices. Frequently there
is a total lack of any sort of environmental protection - which is an issue
to concern the developed world. That behaviour will come to haunt us - we
share the same environment with the developing world. Furthermore, concerns
over the status of developing nations and exploitation of national
resources at unfair recompensation is rarely considered.
>
>> Jobs are not moved to lower wage conditions out
>>of any sort of altruism - greed is the common reason.
>
>Who said anything about altruism? I was talking about the invisible hand.
Laissez Faire? I was of the opinion that that idea had been thrown on the
scrap heap with many other monetarist principles.
>
>Let me but it a different way - I am not saying that the way the company
>arrived at its decision was altruistic. I am saying that the altruistic
>decision and the company's decisions are identical.
Let us take your argument to it's end. Would it not lead to all companies
taking their manufacturing base to the developing world? After all, it is
cheaper, and it provides great benefit to the originating nation. What
would be the effects of such a situation?
>
>>So, unless you have a college education you don't deserve a living wage?
>>This is a rather extreme position to take.
>
>What's a living wage? There are a great many people in this world
>*living* on just dollars a day. The minium wages of the developed world
>are almost exorbitant by comparison.
So unless you have an education, you should be reduced to a subsistence
situation? I can't accept that either.
>
>My position is that your wage should be determined in part by your
>contribution to society. The value you bring to the market should be the
>value you bring home from your market. If you are unskilled, then you are
>likely not producing much value, and should expect your work to be valued
>as such - minimum wage.
Who declares what is valuable - and what level of recompsense you should
receive? A number of individuals who earn truly exorbitant wages provide
very little to society. Frequently these are the same class of individuals
who determine what the "working class" (used with caution) should receive.
Do you accept that the work a divorce lawyer or tax accountant does is more
valuable then a farmer?
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| "...When someone is saved from certain death by a strange |
| concatenation of circumstances, they say that's a miracle. |
| But of course, if someone is killed by a freak chain of |
| events - the oil spilled just there, the safety fence broken |
| just there - that must also be a miracle. Just because it's |
| not nice doesn't mean it's not miraculous..." |
| Terry Pratchett, Interesting Times |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Andrew Grichting-a.k.a many other other things including "that |
|sadistic bastard"- [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
