• 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
Too protect American jobs. You're not too swift on this stuff are you?
Click to expand...

But we all know that this isn't going to happen so what is the point of arguing for it? Moreover, how does this mesh with your moral argument against the exploitation (what you call slavery) of foreign labor?
 
Khayembii Communique said:
But we all know that this isn't going to happen so what is the point of arguing for it? Moreover, how does this mesh with your moral argument against the exploitation (what you call slavery) of foreign labor?
Click to expand...
1) Because it's a discussion forum.
2) Huh? Protecting American jobs is exploitation, how?
 
NoJingoLingo said:
2) Huh? Protecting American jobs is exploitation, how?
Click to expand...
You said it in your own words:
NoJingoLingo said:
because taking advantage of a persons situation in order to profit is a form of slavery.
Click to expand...
You cry out against the exploitation of foreign labor to protect the exploitation of domestic labor.
 
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ramBFRt1Uzk"]YouTube- Steven Pinker: A brief history of violence[/ame]

this pretty sums up my feelings on the subject.
 
Cookie Monster said:
You said it in your own words:

You cry out against the exploitation of foreign labor to protect the exploitation of domestic labor.
Click to expand...
Oh I see, you think domestic labor is being exploited. Got it. See it didn't make sense until you let us in on the conversation you were having in your head.

I don't think domestic workers (other than illegal workers) are exploited... well, except currently... Sheesh... maybe you're right. Unemployment is high while worker productivity is at it's highest ever. :confused:
 
NoJingoLingo said:
Oh I see, you think domestic labor is being exploited. Got it. See it didn't make sense until you let us in on the conversation you were having in your head.

I don't think domestic workers (other than illegal workers) are exploited... well, except currently... Sheesh... maybe you're right. Unemployment is high while worker productivity is at it's highest ever. :confused:
Click to expand...

Even by your own definition, workers here are exploited(what you call slavery; but perhaps better: wage-slavery); our bosses all make profits off of us, and if they don't we get the boot. The difference between here and China or Mexico etc., is that the rate of exploitation is higher in those places, just as it is now higher here than just a few years ago.
 
Cookie Monster said:
Even by your own definition, workers here are exploited(what you call slavery; but perhaps better: wage-slavery); our bosses all make profits off of us, and if they don't we get the boot. The difference between here and China or Mexico etc., is that the rate of exploitation is higher in those places, just as it is now higher here than just a few years ago.
Click to expand...
I can agree with what you are saying except I don't think I used "slavery" in reference to today's worker in the USA. Just to clarify that point.
 
NoJingoLingo said:
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?
Click to expand...

All I see is a lame strawman argument that has no relevance to anything I've said.
 
NoJingoLingo said:
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.
Click to expand...

Do you have a relevant counter-point to my argument, or is inane blathering the only thing you're capable of?

On the other side of that coin, it's helped a lot of FAMILIES get by...
Click to expand...

While harming other families.

...trade offs are rarely great for all involved but again, I have to side with the people who really NEED a minimum wage.
Click to expand...

Once again, empirical literature shows that minimum wage laws hurt the people they are intended to help, namely minorities and teens.

How does it hurt minorities when they are the group most likely to need it?
Click to expand...

It's simple supply and demand. A minimum wage acts as a binding price floor, which results in a surplus of labor (unemployment). A person with no skills or education is therefore excluded from the labor market because the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equilibrium_price"]equilibrium price[/ame] of their labor is below the price floor.

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

Oh yes, I'm sure there are millions of Americans clamoring for minimum wage jobs where they sew clothing...:roll:
 
Last edited:
the makeout hobo said:
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.
Click to expand...

Even the craptastic foreign companies pay 2-3xs more than local businesses. People will also still look for the best businesses.

the makeout hobo said:
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.
Click to expand...

Again, if you have a workable way of doing this, I'd love to hear it. I'll take less crappy over eally crappy any day, and apparently so would these people, as they move in to take these jobs in droves

the makeout hobo said:
Factories that treat people as people and not a commodity would be a start.
Click to expand...

Labor is a commodity. Businesses do their best to attract it, and people will only accept it voluntarily. It's not like people are just giving out middle class jobs in these areas,
 
Last edited:
NoJingoLingo said:
So because you are able to take advantage of someone, you should. We already know this about corporatists, got anything new?
Click to expand...

If they agree to it, why not. You still haven't stated why it's any of your business to stop the mutually agreed upon trade.

NoJingoLingo said:
Umm, because taking advantage of a persons situation in order to profit is a form of slavery.
Click to expand...

So you taking a raise is slavery? So you paying for something is slavery? You get taken advantage of every day. Your comparisons to actual slavery devalue what actual slavery is.

NoJingoLingo said:
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.
Click to expand...

And if you take away the second option, what do they have left?!

NoJingoLingo said:
Because we have things called standards.
Click to expand...

You're begging the question. Why do we have this standard, because it's the standard. Again, you still haven't answered my question as to why it's any of your business if an employer agrees with me to pay me less than $7.25 an hour.
 
NoJingoLingo said:
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.
Click to expand...

And mutually agreed upon trade can be twisted to fit any of these definitions how? Violent seisure? How is offering someone something that is less crappy than what they have violent seizure?

NoJingoLingo said:
You're just another con who thinks taking advantage of someone for personal gain is acceptable. Thanks Reagan!!
Click to expand...

It's acceptable if both parties agree to it. You have no right to stop them. They're poor, not children

NoJingoLingo said:
Too protect American jobs. You're not too swift on this stuff are you?
Click to expand...

And globalization hasn't had much of an impact on US employment. You say that you're 64. You sure make a lot of personal attacks for a 64 year old

NoJingoLingo said:
obviously they do.
Click to expand...

Are they too stupid to rise up? Many are able to get off of minnimum wage quickly.

NoJingoLingo said:
Do you have some source for that?
Click to expand...

As a matter of fact it stays pretty stable throughout the 1990s. It only shoots up after the dot.com bubble burst, and the real estate bust.

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/images/2009/Apr/unemployment-rate.gif
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
If they agree to it, why not. You still haven't stated why it's any of your business to stop the mutually agreed upon trade.



So you taking a raise is slavery? So you paying for something is slavery? You get taken advantage of every day. Your comparisons to actual slavery devalue what actual slavery is.



And if you take away the second option, what do they have left?!



You're begging the question. Why do we have this standard, because it's the standard. Again, you still haven't answered my question as to why it's any of your business if an employer agrees with me to pay me less than $7.25 an hour.
Click to expand...
I see no point in continuing this discussion with you because we have a fundamental disagreement.
You look at the value of the minimum wage and a worker from a purely profit based position.
I look at the value of the minimum wage and the worker from a societal based position.
 
Ethereal said:
Do you have a relevant counter-point to my argument, or is inane blathering the only thing you're capable of?
Click to expand...
I stated it but you'd rather be obnoxious than have reasonable discourse.

While harming other families.
Click to expand...
What other families? Minority families? No, it helps them.

Once again, empirical literature shows that minimum wage laws hurt the people they are intended to help, namely minorities and teens.
Click to expand...
Empirical eh? That sounds very scientific... I guess I better believe you because you made it sound scientific.
Don't you really mean, a think tank/economist created their opinion and put it on paper?

It's simple supply and demand. A minimum wage acts as a binding price floor, which results in a surplus of labor (unemployment). A person with no skills or education is therefore excluded from the labor market because the equilibrium price of their labor is below the price floor.
Click to expand...
Your specious premise doesn't take into account external forces and presumes labor is nothing more than any piece of machinery. In the real world, these are people.

Oh yes, I'm sure there are millions of Americans clamoring for minimum wage jobs where they sew clothing...:roll:
Click to expand...
With unemployment at 9.7 percent, you'd be right.
 
NoJingoLingo said:
I stated it but you'd rather be obnoxious than have reasonable discourse.
Click to expand...

Well, let's see, I informed you that the only reason companies hire people in underdeveloped nations is because they are a cheap source of labor. Then I informed you that artificially increasing their wages (which you never explained how to effectuate) would remove the incentive to hire such workers, which would force children into prostitution or starvation, which the studies show to be true. You proceeded to bloviate and rant about evil corporations, failing to address a single point I made.

What other families? Minority families? No, it helps them.

Empirical eh? That sounds very scientific... I guess I better believe you because you made it sound scientific.
Don't you really mean, a think tank/economist created their opinion and put it on paper?
Click to expand...

No, I mean hundreds of peer-reviewed studies have found that the minimum wage increases unemployment, mostly amongst minorities and teens.

50 Years of Research on the Minimum Wage

Your specious premise doesn't take into account external forces and presumes labor is nothing more than any piece of machinery. In the real world, these are people.
Click to expand...

You can blather all you want, but nothing will alter the basic dynamics of supply and demand. A minimum wage acts as a binding price floor which results in a surplus of labor.

price_controls_floor.gif


Pf = Price Floor, Pe = Equilibrium Price, Qd = Quantity Demanded, Qe = Equilibrium Quantity, Qs = Quantity Supplied.

But maybe you're right - maybe every economist in history is just totally mistaken...:roll:

With unemployment at 9.7 percent, you'd be right.
Click to expand...

Highly doubtful. Most Americans do not want low-paying and tedious manufacturing jobs. Children in third-world countries need those jobs more than the average American, anyway, but you'd rather see them forced into prostitution or starvation.
 
Did we really work harder in the preindustrial era? Farming is hard work but you only do it part of the year.


Farming is 7/24/365.
And its very hard work.
 
earthworm said:
Did we really work harder in the preindustrial era? Farming is hard work but you only do it part of the year.


Farming is 7/24/365.
And its very hard work.
Click to expand...
No, it's not 24/7365. Yes it is hard work.
 
Ethereal said:
Well, let's see, I informed you that the only reason companies hire people in underdeveloped nations is because they are a cheap source of labor. Then I informed you that artificially increasing their wages (which you never explained how to effectuate) would remove the incentive to hire such workers, which would force children into prostitution or starvation, which the studies show to be true. You proceeded to bloviate and rant about evil corporations, failing to address a single point I made.



No, I mean hundreds of peer-reviewed studies have found that the minimum wage increases unemployment, mostly amongst minorities and teens.

50 Years of Research on the Minimum Wage



You can blather all you want, but nothing will alter the basic dynamics of supply and demand. A minimum wage acts as a binding price floor which results in a surplus of labor.

price_controls_floor.gif


Pf = Price Floor, Pe = Equilibrium Price, Qd = Quantity Demanded, Qe = Equilibrium Quantity, Qs = Quantity Supplied.

But maybe you're right - maybe every economist in history is just totally mistaken...:roll:



Highly doubtful. Most Americans do not want low-paying and tedious manufacturing jobs. Children in third-world countries need those jobs more than the average American, anyway, but you'd rather see them forced into prostitution or starvation.
Click to expand...

OK, after further study on the subject I'll concede that to your point on the minimum wage here in the USA.
 
sazerac said:
I've always felt lucky like we are alive during the greatest time to be alive on Earth. That we are at the pinacle of the best of times. >>

Back in the early fifties, I heard people say the same thing about TVs. Probably said it back in the twenties about radios too.

ricksfolly
Click to expand...
 
ricksfolly said:
sazerac said:
I've always felt lucky like we are alive during the greatest time to be alive on Earth. That we are at the pinacle of the best of times. >>

Back in the early fifties, I heard people say the same thing about TVs. Probably said it back in the twenties about radios too.

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

They'll probably say it in the year 2059 about ______.
They won't be able to fathom how we ever lived without it, how we could've been happy without it, what we did for entertainment before it was invented.

Before there was television, people spent a lot of their leisure time watching the sky.
They lay around in the grass and watched for cloud pictures.
They stared up at the stars at night and tried to find the constellations.
They were more connected to the weather, and to the natural world.

When I was a kid- up until I was about eight or nine, maybe- I spent a lot of time watching the clouds. Watching the stars. Digging holes. Looking at bugs. Stuff like that. Swimming in the lake. I only came inside to sleep.
Although more sophisticated entertainments were available, I usually wasn't very interested in them.
I was never bored.

At some point, I got turned on to all these things- music, television, books, internet- and now, like everyone else, I can't fathom living without any of it.

But I think I was happier before. It was more peaceful.
I used to lose track of time- and of myself- when I was playing outside, in a way I never do when I'm watching tv or playing on the computer.

I don't necessarily feel sorry for people that lived a long time ago.
They had comforts and entertainment and occasional leisure time, just as we do. And maybe they enjoyed their lives more than we do. Maybe the pace was slower, and the years didn't fly by so fast.
Medical advances have helped us cure many diseases, but our average lifespan isn't much longer than that of people who lived before the advent of antibiotics, and immunizations, and chemo and radiation, and open heart surgery.
I can't point to any one thing and say, "Our quality of life is so much better now", because I'm not sure that's true.
Certainly socially it's better for some people: women, minorities, the handicapped.
I think it might be worse for the elderly.

In the old days, a lot of babies and children died of disease, and they don't now, so that's one thing we can definitely say has improved.

I don't know, it's a tough call.
Maybe some things are better and some things aren't.
Click to expand...
 
NoJingoLingo said:
I see no point in continuing this discussion with you because we have a fundamental disagreement.
You look at the value of the minimum wage and a worker from a purely profit based position.
I look at the value of the minimum wage and the worker from a societal based position.
Click to expand...

No, I look at it as an agreement between a worker and an employer. It would be none of my business to prevent the transaction from taking place if both parties agree to it, even if it's $0.01 an hour.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom