The "Workers' Paradise" eats its own

[Suddenly]

So a higher-quality, more expensive item CAN be sold in Wal-Mart IF you can push out the extra units. If you can't, then apparently the additional quality just isn't worth that much to consumers.

Right. Where you and I would disagree on this is on the additional quality not being worth more, as in reality consumers don't on the whole realize they are getting lower quality. You would (and perhaps rightly) hold the retailer or manufacturer blameless absent affirmative fraud. In today's society where everthing seems to be fungible and there are so many items to be dealt with in everyday life, I think a higher duty of care would be in order.

Certainly that would be a horrible thing, but even compared to the early 19th Century farms in the US, where this wasn't happening, people were better off in the "unsafe" "sweat shops" of the "robber barons." It's ridiculous to compare them to us; it's perfectly reasonable to compare them to what they had before.

I disagree with the logic here. Somehow that because people may have been mistreated in the past it is fine to mistreat them now? There are some big differences between China now and the U.S. back then. First is the governmental differences. People here were able to pass laws against poor labor practices, by voting. This will not be happening anytime soon in China.

Second is the fact that in that period of American history there wasn't a foreign country that had been through this before, one that profited from allowing cost saving practices that it itself had outlawed. This isn't about evolution of the worldwide economy, this is about externalizing costs to those unable to bear them. We don't allow companies to put the cost of poor safety practices on American workers, and we shouldn't allow them to do it to the Chinese, willing help of their government or no.

It is becoming freer, though, at least in an economic sense. It's got a long way to go, but it is moving in that direction. And the more it moves in that direction, the better off its people are.

That's one way of putting it. The other is that our lust for cheap manufactured goods is helping to extend the reign of one of the most corrupt and repressive regimes on the face of the earth.

 

[shanek]

Somehow that because people may have been mistreated in the past it is fine to mistreat them now?

This pathetic strawman has been bandied about before in these discussions, but I never thought YOU'D stoop so low as to resort to it...GEEZ!

It isn't about people being "mistreated." The WHOLE CRITERIA of claiming that they're "mistreated" is in comparison to what we in the US have today! And that's exactly the illogic I was speaking to. You're using a bogus criteria to support your claim that they are being mistreated in the first place. That is the essence of my rebuttal. Now, you're trying to turn that around, assuming the very thing you were wanting to conclude and using it against me.

People here were able to pass laws against poor labor practices,

Uh-huh. Of course, for the most part these laws came about AFTER the free market had pretty much already solved the problem. Where were the laws forcing Ford to give his workers eight hour days and pay them $1/hour? Answer: there weren't any.

China IS making progress in the free market, and as long as they get sufficiently out of the way, the free market WILL solve the problems just as it did here.

We don't allow companies to put the cost of poor safety practices on American workers,

Right; we'd rather create unemployment instead. Better them not working at all than working in a place where someone else deems unsafe; after all, they're too stupid to make that choice for themselves, right?

and we shouldn't allow them to do it to the Chinese,

So, now the US gets to set policy for China, too? Oughta work about as well as it did in Iraq...

 

[Suddenly]

This pathetic strawman has been bandied about before in these discussions, but I never thought YOU'D stoop so low as to resort to it...GEEZ!

It isn't about people being "mistreated." The WHOLE CRITERIA of claiming that they're "mistreated" is in comparison to what we in the US have today! And that's exactly the illogic I was speaking to. You're using a bogus criteria to support your claim that they are being mistreated in the first place. That is the essence of my rebuttal. Now, you're trying to turn that around, assuming the very thing you were wanting to conclude and using it against me.

The whole debate is about whether they are being mistreated. I disagree that whether or not mistreatment occurs depends on the sophistication of the society of the alleged subject of mistreatment, and would say that it depends more on the sophistication of the society of the alleged mistreators. This has nothing to do with strawmen.

There is a huge extra variable in the Chinese situation as opposed to turn of the century America, namely the existance of a outside country that profits from subjecting other people to situations that it does not allow its own people to be subject to.

Uh-huh. Of course, for the most part these laws came about AFTER the free market had pretty much already solved the problem. Where were the laws forcing Ford to give his workers eight hour days and pay them $1/hour? Answer: there weren't any.

I'll think about how the free market fixed all this next time I travel past a mine war site, or were those redundant as well?

Nevermind that the miners largely lost these wars until the government changed its stance and started protecting the Unions rights to exist. The whole saga here:

http://www.wvculture.org/history/minewars.html

The defeat of the miners at Blair Mountain temporarily ended the UMWA's organizing efforts in the southern coalfields. By 1924, UMWA membership in the state had dropped by about one-half of its total in 1921. Both Keeney and Mooney were forced out of the union, while Blizzard remained a strong force in District 17 until being ousted in the 1950s. In 1933, the National Industrial Recovery Act protected the rights of unions and allowed for the rapid organization of the southern coalfields.

That or just reject your self-serving revisionist history as it pertains to the labor movement and its effects. Ever consider that maybe people were disgusted by the poor labor conditions and acted via democracy to fix what was seen as an injustice? For example:

http://www.historybuff.com/library/refshirtwaist.html

To this day, 84 years later, no one is absolutely sure on how the fire started. It is said that one of the men, who was smoking, threw either a match or cigarette onto the clutter-filled floor. On December 28th, 1911 Harris and Blanck were acquitted of wrong doing -- specifically, if the doors on the west side were locked or not (a measure probably taken to prevent theft). Twenty-three families sued the two owners and eventually they each were paid a sum of $75. The New York legislature, appalled by the event, created a commission headed by Senator Robert F. Wagoner, Alfred E. Smith, and Samuel Gompers to investigate conditions in the city's sweatshops. This resulted in the present labor laws protecting factory workers in health, disability and fire prevention. The division of Fire Prevention was also created as part of the Fire Department. Their function is to rid factories of fire hazards. Among other restrictions, all doors must now open outwards, no doors are to be locked during working hours, sprinkler systems must be installed if a company employs more than 25 people above the ground floor, and fire drills are mandatory for buildings lacking sprinkler systems.

Right; we'd rather create unemployment instead. Better them not working at all than working in a place where someone else deems unsafe; after all, they're too stupid to make that choice for themselves, right?

First, this assumes they had a choice by any meaningful defintion of the word. Second, this assumes that they could not be employed under safer conditions. Lose either assumption and your implication crumbles.

Any consideration of "choice" needs to recognize that independant unions are banned in China, and also recognize the strong trend toward class-sensitive submissiveness in the Chinese culture. When the government and industry bans together with the sole goal of profit, it would seem proper to be quite skeptical that the freedom of the Chinese to chose exists in any practical application.

So, now the US gets to set policy for China, too? Oughta work about as well as it did in Iraq...

Now who is it with the strawmen? I thought we were talking about boycotting and refusing to deal with companies that engage in certain behaviours as a moral choice. I could have sworn somebody keeps bringing up boycotting as a legitimate force in a free market.

 

[shanek]

There is a huge extra variable in the Chinese situation as opposed to turn of the century America, namely the existance of a outside country that profits from subjecting other people to situations that it does not allow its own people to be subject to.

What does it matter if the people who profit from it are within the country (as it was with the US) or elsewhere?

I'll think about how the free market fixed all this next time I travel past a mine war site,

How was the Mine War a product of the free market? The whole area was essentially placed under martial law. It started when Sheriff Hatfield took up arms against the mining companies and it escalated from there. That's an example of big government trying to protect "exploited" workers and failing miserably.

Nevermind that the miners largely lost these wars until the government changed its stance and started protecting the Unions rights to exist.

And never mind that the wars wouldn't have come about if the Federal government hadn't been actively fighting the unions to begin with.

That or just reject your self-serving revisionist history

First, this assumes they had a choice by any meaningful defintion of the word.

They did. They could have easily stayed on the farm, or left the job to go back to it. They didn't. Whine all you want, but they did have a choice, and they made it.

When the government and industry bans together with the sole goal of profit, it would seem proper to be quite skeptical that the freedom of the Chinese to chose exists in any practical application.

And I have said several times that China has a long, long way to go in this regard. But you are here blathering against the very progress the free market is making there, which, as it grows, will only make it more difficult for China to keep its stranglehold on its people. What you are calling for is MORE government over there, when what the people there desperately need is LESS government.

Now who is it with the strawmen? I thought we were talking about boycotting and refusing to deal with companies that engage in certain behaviours as a moral choice. I could have sworn somebody keeps bringing up boycotting as a legitimate force in a free market.

That wasn't what you said. You said, "we shouldn't allow them to do it to the Chinese." Allow. As if it's our right to prohibit it. If that isn't what you meant, fine, but don't go flaming me for your misstatement.

 

[Luke T.]

In a grim replay of the Industrial revolution in the United States and other countries, machinery will crush or sever the arms, hands, and fingers of some 40,000 Chinese workers this year, according to government-controlled news media.

What if they get behind on the number of injured workers? Will factory supervisors feel pressure to inflate the number of injuries on their reports to the Central Committee to meet the severed limb quota? If they don't meet the quota, will they be sent to camps for not severing enough body parts?

"Comrade Hu, we set a quota of six severed legs, 18 crushed hands, and 96 lost fingers for your factory this year. We are well aware this an increase over last year's quotas, and your objections have been noted.

"For this quarter, you have lost no legs, only three hands, and are way behind with only 13 amputated fingers. You attempted to falsify your report by counting the fingers on the lost 3 hands toward a total of 28 fingers, thereby putting you ahead for the quarter in the finger column. We strongly suggest you double your efforts this upcoming quarter in order to meet your annual quota, or we shall add your head to that quota."

 

[fishbob]

And I have said several times that China has a long, long way to go in this regard. But you are here blathering against the very progress the free market is making there, which, as it grows, will only make it more difficult for China to keep its stranglehold on its people. What you are calling for is MORE government over there, when what the people there desperately need is LESS government.

Not really a matter of More or LESS government, but a matter of special interest pandering government versus effective government. Oops - oxymoron. Sorry.

What will most likely happen in China is that workers will eventually figure out how to win claims against unsafe factory conditions, which will make the factory owners realize that maintaining safe working conditions is cheaper in the long run. In the meantime, body parts quotas will be met or exceeded.

What most people want government to do is to reduce the time lag between industrialization and safety realization. A hundred years is too long.

 

[Suddenly]

What does it matter if the people who profit from it are within the country (as it was with the US) or elsewhere?

What matters is that I would judge the morality of an action based on the moral standards of the actor and not the situation of the subject of the action.

And never mind that the wars wouldn't have come about if the Federal government hadn't been actively fighting the unions to begin with.

Which is my point. I'm saying a large part of the problem in China is due to the fact that their government sucks and they have no redress. In America, once these wars happened and people saw what was going on, things changed through the political process. In China, when the people rise up history shows that even the blood stains dissapear within a week. Things are different when business and government are the same entity, and neither answers to the people.

Which leads to the point you responded to with the . Here, when disaster occurs, the papers report it and laws are changed to prevent future problems. An example of this is the fire I referenced. Change occurs for the better in labor relations because of the free flow of information and either government regulation or the threat of such regulation along with threatened boycotts. The lynchpin to all this is free access to information, and the Chinese government isn't exactly ignorant of this fact.

Which leads to the final point for now, your repeated contention that the Chinese are better off in the factories." Is this contention based in some sort of objective fact, such as opinion polls or other data, or is it a logical conclusion drawn from the assumption that people always make decisions in their best interests and since the Chinese "chose" to go to the factories, they must be better off?

 

[Suddenly]

What if they get behind on the number of injured workers? Will factory supervisors feel pressure to inflate the number of injuries on their reports to the Central Committee to meet the severed limb quota? If they don't meet the quota, will they be sent to camps for not severing enough body parts?

"Comrade Hu, we set a quota of six severed legs, 18 crushed hands, and 96 lost fingers for your factory this year. We are well aware this an increase over last year's quotas, and your objections have been noted.

"For this quarter, you have lost no legs, only three hands, and are way behind with only 13 amputated fingers. You attempted to falsify your report by counting the fingers on the lost 3 hands toward a total of 28 fingers, thereby putting you ahead for the quarter in the finger column. We strongly suggest you double your efforts this upcoming quarter in order to meet your annual quota, or we shall add your head to that quota."

I think it has to do with the laws of statistics, which causes funny language problems. Statistically speaking, there will be a number of injuries. However, in reality I guess we can't say there will be any injuries.

Kind of like if you are going to flip a coin a million times, and I say that it WILL come up heads at some point. Statistically, I'm right. I don't even want to calculate the chance of a million consecutive heads (I think it is .5^1000000), but it is close enough to zero that nobody but an anal lawyer would care.

However, it is still technically incorrect to say that it will. It is just that there is no simple way to express such an overwhelming possiblilty without being misleading or sounding like that anal lawyer, and nobody wants to do that...

Actually, given the history of the Chinese government and some of its odd policies, if someone there identified a correlation between injuries and productivity I wouldn't be too suprised to see such an actual quota. They've done dumber things.

 

[Luke T.]

I think it has to do with the laws of statistics, which causes funny language problems. Statistically speaking, there will be a number of injuries. However, in reality I guess we can't say there will be any injuries.

I was just having fun with the language and the stories of quota systems in communist governments.

I agree with the point shanek made that it is a good thing this industrial transistion is taking place in China. The associated injuries in the workplace are an unavoidable evolutionary step, unfortunately.

I often think about the Three Gorges Dam project and the massive economic impact that is going to have on the world. Should be interesting.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by ShaneK:
Yes, and that was the same benefits that the "robber barons" gave people here in the 19th Century. Amazing how these people voluntarily chose the "sweat shops" instead of continuing the farm work. They DID have a choice, y'know.

What happened in Ireland from 1845-1847 is a salutary example of what happened when people didn't have that choice.

Originally posted by Suddenly:
Which is my point. I'm saying a large part of the problem in China is due to the fact that their government sucks and they have no redress. In America, once these wars happened and people saw what was going on, things changed through the political process. In China, when the people rise up history shows that even the blood stains dissapear within a week. Things are different when business and government are the same entity, and neither answers to the people.

Don't forget that workers in Victorain Britain had no redress either. Universal male sufferage didn't come to the UK until the almost the end of the 19th century. One could make the point that industrialisation and the movement of society from agriculture to industry is a catalyst for reform.

 

[Suddenly]

Don't forget that workers in Victorain Britain had no redress either. Universal male sufferage didn't come to the UK until the almost the end of the 19th century. One could make the point that industrialisation and the movement of society from agriculture to industry is a catalyst for reform.

Somehow we got fixed on the proposition that disapproving of the present working conditions is somehow the same as disaproving of industrialization in and of itself. I really don't see that.

We can take it as a given that cheap Chinese labor benefits us and the world in general. All that is left is the nagging moral questions about the specifics of how cheap we are going to allow that labor to be. Would we object to outright slavery? I'd guess so, regardless of the potential effects. The question is where that line gets drawn. I see lots of reference to "choice," but I have problems applying that concept to a Chinese farmer moving from being victimized by agricutural policy to working in a factory in a less than free society by any measure.

It seems it is taken as assumed that there will be some sort of evolution towards a better life for the Chinese, and that end justifies any present conditions.

I'm curious as to whether people think that industrialization is in and of itself a guarantee for progress of a society. If the people move from being maimed and starved by collective agriculture to being starved maimed and starved as unskilled labor in a factory there really isn't a huge difference.

I was going to say more about the difference between China now and the West then, but I've got to go...

 

[Luke T.]

Somehow we got fixed on the proposition that disapproving of the present working conditions is somehow the same as disaproving of industrialization in and of itself. I really don't see that.

We can take it as a given that cheap Chinese labor benefits us and the world in general. All that is left is the nagging moral questions about the specifics of how cheap we are going to allow that labor to be. Would we object to outright slavery? I'd guess so, regardless of the potential effects. The question is where that line gets drawn. I see lots of reference to "choice," but I have problems applying that concept to a Chinese farmer moving from being victimized by agricutural policy to working in a factory in a less than free society by any measure.

What about your cheap lettuce that was picked right here in the U.S. of A. by "undocumented workers"?

It seems it is taken as assumed that there will be some sort of evolution towards a better life for the Chinese, and that end justifies any present conditions.

I'm curious as to whether people think that industrialization is in and of itself a guarantee for progress of a society. If the people move from being maimed and starved by collective agriculture to being starved maimed and starved as unskilled labor in a factory there really isn't a huge difference.

I was going to say more about the difference between China now and the West then, but I've got to go...

Chinese labor unions.

 

[Luke T.]

The U.S. isn't doing so great, either.

During 1980--1997, 103,945 civilian workers died in the United States from occupational injuries, an average of 16 work-related deaths per day.

Boycott American killer goods!

 

[specious_reasons]

One could make the point that industrialisation and the movement of society from agriculture to industry is a catalyst for reform.

It wouldn't surprise me if you're right on that account. There are several factors I can think of that industrialization make to democratic reform more conducive.

You can be darn sure that the Chinese govt is going to be doing all it can to counteract that catalyst, though.

I would assume that the Chinese government is anathemic to the LP. What is the LP solution to the Chinese government?

 

[Luke T.]

Geez, China has how many people? A billion or more? And the U.S has less than 300 million?

Check this out.

Traumatic Deaths: Each year, an estimated 10,000 persons are killed on the job.

That's the U.S., not China. And those are deaths, not injuries.

Amputations: Although amputations account for less than 1% of estimated injuries, they often impair a worker's skills. An estimated 21,000 workers suffered amputations in 1982.

Fractures: Falls and blows from falling objects produce many types of injuries, the less severe forms being contusions, abrasions, and sprains. During 1982, an estimated 400,000 work-related fractures occurred.

Eye Loss: Although it is difficult to measure the extent of eye loss or blindness among workers, NIOSH estimates (based on NEISS data) indicate that approximately 900,000 occupational eye injuries occurred in 1982.

Lacerations: An estimated 2,250,000 work-related lacerations occurred in 1982

America eats its own.

 

[Luke T.]

But that was 1982, Luke T.! Things have changed!

Oh, yeah?

In Pennsylvania, 85,783 workers were injured on the job in 1998.

In Pennsylvania, 221 workers died as a result of work-related injuries in 1999.

In the United States, 6,023 workers died as a result of work-related injuries in 1999.

In 1999, approximately 17 American workers suffered fatal on-the-job injuries each day.

So who is behind this trash China campaign, I wonder.

 

[specious_reasons]

Chinese labor unions.

??

Could you add more than the link, Luke? What's the point you're backing up here? The Chinese Labor Unions are "approved" by the Chinese govt. I consider that evidence that the Chinese govt is doing everything it can to counteract democratic reform.

BTW, the organization you cite is based in NY,NY. Websites like that are not allowed in China.

 

[Luke T.]

Look how shemp's news story starts out:

The Pingshan People's Hospital in the thriving industrial city of Shenzhen has a ward devoted to hand injuries. In one room, Yan Kaiguo, 23, cradles his bandaged right hand. On April 8, a machine at an electronic circuit board plant had crushed part of his index finger.

Yan feels lucky that he lost only part of his finger, down to the first knuckle. He's confident he won't lose his job, which pays about $96 a month.

Pure yellow journalism.

Appeal to emotion right out of the gate. That's not reporting.

 

[Luke T.]

??

Could you add more than the link, Luke? What's the point you're backing up here? The Chinese Labor Unions are "approved" by the Chinese govt. I consider that evidence that the Chinese govt is doing everything it can to counteract democratic reform.

BTW, the organization you cite is based in NY,NY. Websites like that are not allowed in China.

Suddenly said he was going to post more about China now and the West then, and I thought I would point out the labor unions in China now are about at the stage our labor unions were then. We had the government and business actively opposing reform at the time, too.

 

[shanek]

What happened in Ireland from 1845-1847 is a salutary example of what happened when people didn't have that choice.

Could you provide more information about what you're talking about? I'm hardly up on Irish history.