• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Were we better off before industrialization?

Well, were we?


  • Total voters
    53
You must be right because unemployment is at 100% because of the minimum wage... :doh do you bother to think about what you say or do you just assume everyone can be steamrolled like you surely do in bar-guments.

Minimum wages don't exist in the third world. That's why companies go there for labor. If you impose a minimum wage on them (how would you do that, by the way?), then there is no incentive for them to set up their manufacturing base overseas.

Unless, for the sake of society, you are regulated by a minimum wage. :2wave: and amazingly enough, we STILL have businesses operating in this country since the minimum wage was begun in 1938, despite your ignorant premises.

Well, fifty years of empirical literature has proven that minimum wage laws increase unemployment, mostly amongst teens and minorities. Another unintended consequence of good intentions mixed with bad economics. But I digress...

What do you think will happen to these jobs if a minimum wage is imposed on companies operating in the third world?

Basic social studies, that...

You have no idea what you're talking about.
 
No. It's okay for me to offer whatever wage I want and for people to accept or refuse that wage accordingly.

And if everyone hiring in the market is offering subhuman conditions? Oh well?
 
What if my labor is worth less than $7.50 an hour to any potential employer?
Then you'd get fired and another $7.50 employee would be hired. Why is that so hard for you to figure out?
 
No relevant counter-points to my argument.



Wish in one hand and crap in the other and see which one fills up first.

I'm just pointing out that corporations have no morals and should be viewed that way instead of the deities we've turned them into. Surely you can see that?
 
Minimum wages don't exist in the third world. That's why companies go there for labor. If you impose a minimum wage on them (how would you do that, by the way?), then there is no incentive for them to set up their manufacturing base overseas.
OH THE HORROR!!!! What would our poor multi-billion dollar companies do if they can't rape a third world country? *gasp* QUICK GIVE THEM WHATEVER THEY WANT BEFORE THEY CHARGE MORE FOR MY LAMP!!!!!! :lamo

Well, as I'm sure you'd admit if you weren't simply trying to win an argument that you would have to impose Tariffs on imported goods rather than try to force a minimum wage on another sovereign nation.

Well, fifty years of empirical literature has proven that minimum wage laws increase unemployment, mostly amongst teens and minorities. Another unintended consequence of good intentions mixed with bad economics. But I digress...
On the other side of that coin, it's helped a lot of FAMILIES get by... trade offs are rarely great for all involved but again, I have to side with the people who really NEED a minimum wage. How does it hurt minorities when they are the group most likely to need it?

What do you think will happen to these jobs if a minimum wage is imposed on companies operating in the third world?
Hmm... bring jobs back to the USA?


You have no idea what you're talking about.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
 
:rofl, I must be one big prick, because here I thought that most funding for research comes from the government. I must be losing it. :roll:

I'll decline comment on your being a prick or not. However, I recommend you do a bit more *cough* research on this topic before you get into the field.... :shrug:

Federal funding in the broad field of health-related research has increased from approximately $2 billion in fiscal year (FY) 1960—in constant, inflation-adjusted (FY 1999) dollars—to slightly less than $16 billion this fiscal year.

Similarly, R&D investments by research-based pharmaceutical companies have grown from $2 billion in 1980 to $21.1 billion in 1998. --How to Fund Science

Note that while Big Pharma does spend more on medical R&D than the government, Big Pharma spends roughly twice as much on advertising and marketing.


While continuing to grow substantially, the federal government’s relative share of biomedical research funding has declined from about two-thirds in 1980 to less than half of the total spent today. --Toward a Policy Agenda On Medical Research Funding

Finally:
To understand how research is divided overall, consider it as three branches: basic, translational, and clinical. Basic is research at the molecular level to understand how things work; translational research takes basic findings and tries to find applications for those findings in a clinical setting; and clinical research takes the translational findings and produces procedures, drugs, and equipment for use by and on patients.

Pharma operates under a great deal of pressure these days, and not just from the political side — everyone wants to avoid being left holding the next Vioxx. But as a matter of focus, their only area of interest is that last category: clinical research. What’s more, they’re only really interested in clinical research into areas that hold the promise of recouping the cost of their investment, and more. They are a business, and they perform as one.

So Pharma is interested in making money as their primary goal — that should surprise no one. But they’re also interested in avoiding litigation. Suppose for a moment that Pharma produces a drug to treat one non-life threatening condition, and it’s a monetary success, earning profits measured in billions of dollars. But then one of their researchers discovers it might have other applications, including life-saving ones. Instead of starting on research, Pharma will stand pat. Why? Because it doesn’t make any business sense to go through an entire FDA approval process and a round of clinical trials all over again, and at the end of the day, they could just be needlessly jeopardizing the success of a multi-billion dollar drug. It makes business sense to just stand with what works perfectly fine for the larger population, not try to cure a more focused and more deadly condition. --How Medical Breakthroughs Happen
 
Last edited:
No **** it's not perfect. It doesn't take much for a ****ing international multi-billion dollar corporation to treat people like ****ing people but no, in order to add that extension to their penis they need to treat humans like **** anytime they can.

Must be easy enough to get the folks who work in sweatshops to agree to it. They don't feel exploited when they're getting paid multiple times what local businesses usually pay.

Oh and do a little math with my age. My grandparents we share croppers and before them...

Then why the Hell are you equating a job that has two individuals agreeing on with actual slavery? My great grandfather was also a fisherman.
 
Last edited:
Then you'd get fired and another $7.50 employee would be hired. Why is that so hard for you to figure out?

Then what am I suppossed to do? Why can't I agree to a lower wage if the employer is willing to pay it?
 
OH THE HORROR!!!! What would our poor multi-billion dollar companies do if they can't rape a third world country? *gasp* QUICK GIVE THEM WHATEVER THEY WANT BEFORE THEY CHARGE MORE FOR MY LAMP!!!!!! :lamo

Rape? Oh boy another mangling of the English language. If I want to pay less for a lamp, and a poor Chinese guy wants to work for $5 a day, who are you or anyone else to stop me?

Well, as I'm sure you'd admit if you weren't simply trying to win an argument that you would have to impose Tariffs on imported goods rather than try to force a minimum wage on another sovereign nation..

Why would we do that?

On the other side of that coin, it's helped a lot of FAMILIES get by... trade offs are rarely great for all involved but again, I have to side with the people who really NEED a minimum wage. How does it hurt minorities when they are the group most likely to need it?
.
Nobody needs a minnimum wage.

Hmm... bring jobs back to the USA? .

Unemployment rates have remained steady through globalization until the banking crisis.
 
And if everyone hiring in the market is offering subhuman conditions? Oh well?

Then a competitor cleans their clocks by attracting more, better quality workers by offering better jobs. You can call sweatshops inhuman all you want, they're still a lot better than what those people have. Stop comparing what those people have to what you do. They usually don't have the luxury of 4 year degrees or safe drinking water. Again, I've asked for a better way to get these people out of poverty. I've yet to hear a response.

I'm just pointing out that corporations have no morals and should be viewed that way instead of the deities we've turned them into. Surely you can see that?

They also have no power over potential employees
 
Back to the thread...

Before the industrialization lethal diseases were pretty much common place, child mortality was high, most people worked from sun up to sun down, and the only people that had leisure time were the rich. What do you think?
 
Then a competitor cleans their clocks by attracting more, better quality workers by offering better jobs.
Firstly, if there's a job shortage in the market, attracting "more" laborers isn't an issue. As to "better quality", if it's a job with little entry requirements, like a factory job, there's usually no good way to gauge "better" workers.

You can call sweatshops inhuman all you want, they're still a lot better than what those people have.
Just because they're better than the status quo, that doesn't mean they couldn't be even better, by offering safer conditions, or more pay, or more practical schedules. Better than nothing doesn't equal good.

Stop comparing what those people have to what you do. They usually don't have the luxury of 4 year degrees or safe drinking water. Again, I've asked for a better way to get these people out of poverty. I've yet to hear a response.

Factories that treat people as people and not a commodity would be a start.
 
Back to the thread...

Before the industrialization lethal diseases were pretty much common place, child mortality was high, most people worked from sun up to sun down, and the only people that had leisure time were the rich. What do you think?

That was not the case in the americas, however.
 
Back to the thread...

Before the industrialization lethal diseases were pretty much common place, child mortality was high, most people worked from sun up to sun down, and the only people that had leisure time were the rich. What do you think?
Nearly everyone has some leisure time now, and the rich have more money to spend in their leisure time?
 
i'd love to live the life that the Australian Aborigines had, i already love going bush, so living in it would be no sweat for me
 
Must be easy enough to get the folks who work in sweatshops to agree to it. They don't feel exploited when they're getting paid multiple times what local businesses usually pay.
So because you are able to take advantage of someone, you should. We already know this about corporatists, got anything new?

Then why the Hell are you equating a job that has two individuals agreeing on with actual slavery? My great grandfather was also a fisherman.
Umm, because taking advantage of a persons situation in order to profit is a form of slavery. If the option is to die or work like a dog in unsafe conditions for what amounts to owing the company store... either you can't understand it or won't... I'm gonna go with intellectual dishonesty.
 
Rape? Oh boy another mangling of the English language. If I want to pay less for a lamp, and a poor Chinese guy wants to work for $5 a day, who are you or anyone else to stop me?

rape
1   /reɪp/ Show Spelled [reyp] Show IPA noun, verb,raped, rap·ing.
–noun
1. the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.
3. statutory rape.
4. an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside.
5. Archaic. the act of seizing and carrying off by force.

Maybe you should learn the language before you make yourself look foolish.

You're just another con who thinks taking advantage of someone for personal gain is acceptable. Thanks Reagan!!

Why would we do that?
Too protect American jobs. You're not too swift on this stuff are you?

Nobody needs a minnimum wage.
Obviously they do.


Unemployment rates have remained steady through globalization until the banking crisis.
Do you have some source for that?
 
Back to the thread...

Before the industrialization lethal diseases were pretty much common place, child mortality was high, most people worked from sun up to sun down, and the only people that had leisure time were the rich. What do you think?
True except for the amount of leisure time. After industrialization lethal diseases are pretty much common place, child mortality is lower but we have a higher rate of disabled people because they are kept alive. Most people work about the same amount of hours, it just may be at two or three jobs or they continue work at home and the majority like what they do less and have less pride and enjoyment regarding that work.
 
Back
Top Bottom