Sweatshops Benefit the Poor

[AllieBaba]

Capitalists earn, through hard work, the privilege of enjoying their own down time and the comforts their efforts have brought them.

The poor don't belong to ideagogues who think they have the right to dictate how they live and work. You can't be supportive of alternate lifestyles, then at the same time say that because somebody's lifestyle is so different from yours, it is "ok" to exploit those people in order to provide cheap labor.

What a bunch of garbage.

 

[Againsheila]

The simple fact of the matter is that sweatshops are the best opportunity some people have, and they take it. If the alternative was prostitution or death you're going to choose a sweatshop as well.

Judging from my own experience with Mexico, before we put our sweatshops there, they had other choices. No one was starving to death. Now birth defects are on the rise on both sides of the border due to OUR sweatshops. Women are hired but not men. People who were given promises of employment are now stuck in dead end jobs that don't pay enough to even get an apartment, they are living in cardboard shacks near the factories and drinking dirty water and their children are getting sick.

We put our sweatshops there, and guaranteed slave labor. The Mexican government sold their people for profit. No the people are not better off, they are worse off and they know it, why do you think so many are coming here?

 

[Shogun]

The simple fact of the matter is that sweatshops are the best opportunity some people have, and they take it. If the alternative was prostitution or death you're going to choose a sweatshop as well.

which pretty much keeps you neo-plantation owners out of the equation, eh? Heaven fucking forbid anyone judge you for taking advantage of desperate dregs. I mean, i'd hate for you to feel like a slave master while you pull in a thousand dollars for every measly buck you have to pay wage slaves. Hell, all you offer is non-sexual prostitution, capitalista. Your kind are like pimps beating down a woman until she gives you 95% of the street value of her ass.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The simple fact of the matter is that sweatshops are the best opportunity some people have, and they take it. If the alternative was prostitution or death you're going to choose a sweatshop as well.

which pretty much keeps you neo-plantation owners out of the equation, eh? Heaven fucking forbid anyone judge you for taking advantage of desperate dregs. I mean, i'd hate for you to feel like a slave master while you pull in a thousand dollars for every measly buck you have to pay wage slaves. Hell, all you offer is non-sexual prostitution, capitalista. Your kind are like pimps beating down a woman until she gives you 95% of the street value of her ass.

I don't think I've personally taken advantage of anyone. Other than that I'm not sure how you expect me to respond to your little attack.

 

[AllieBaba]

Socialists claim they are "for the people". Yet they have no problem with exploiting the people using the condescending reasoning that if they didn't, those people would have it even worse.

At the same time, they refuse to recognize human rights abuses....

Garbage.

 

[Shogun]

The simple fact of the matter is that sweatshops are the best opportunity some people have, and they take it. If the alternative was prostitution or death you're going to choose a sweatshop as well.

which pretty much keeps you neo-plantation owners out of the equation, eh? Heaven fucking forbid anyone judge you for taking advantage of desperate dregs. I mean, i'd hate for you to feel like a slave master while you pull in a thousand dollars for every measly buck you have to pay wage slaves. Hell, all you offer is non-sexual prostitution, capitalista. Your kind are like pimps beating down a woman until she gives you 95% of the street value of her ass.

I don't think I've personally taken advantage of anyone. Other than that I'm not sure how you expect me to respond to your little attack.

Not every southerner PERSONALLY owned a fucking slave.. But we sure did see who leaped at the effort to defend a slave-based southern lifestyle, eh?

Having ones ****** Ass beat on the plantation sure does beat running from a tiger in Africa, right Colonel? What is being renamed Toby compared to living in an African hut, right buddy? WHAT A DEAL! Who needs the FREEDOM to die of Malaria when your kind have an excuse and a nice warm hovel out by the cotton field, right dude? I mean, plantation owners FED their SLAVES! SEE! slavery beats living a savage live in Africa so let's hop on the capitalista bandwagon and stop judging them for making such stupid, bullshit pleas to validate their punchline excuses for wage slave capitalism!

 

[Shogun]

Socialists claim they are "for the people". Yet they have no problem with exploiting the people using the condescending reasoning that if they didn't, those people would have it even worse.

At the same time, they refuse to recognize human rights abuses....

Garbage.

what the fuck are you talking about? it's the CAPITALIST here who wants us to pretend labor should be so cheap that paying slum wages should excite everyone.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well those southerners who fought for the Confederacy and didn't own slaves probably fought because they felt they were being robbed by the government through tariffs to the benefit of the northern states. They also probably fought to protect their lives, families, and property considering that the northern army was going through the south murdering, burning, raping, and pillaging as they went. That went for slaves too by the way.

I'm not sure how we got to the Civil War or why you think I support slavery, but those are the facts at any rate.

 

[Shogun]

Well those southerners who fought for the Confederacy and didn't own slaves probably fought because they felt they were being robbed by the government through tariffs to the benefit of the northern states. They also probably fought to protect their lives, families, and property considering that the northern army was going through the south murdering, burning, raping, and pillaging as they went. That went for slaves too by the way.

I'm not sure how we got to the Civil War or why you think I support slavery, but those are the facts at any rate.

what you think they "probably" fought for doesn't negate the fact that they WERE fighting for a system built upon the rationalized slavery of human beings. I'm sure you would have fit right in, capitalista.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well those southerners who fought for the Confederacy and didn't own slaves probably fought because they felt they were being robbed by the government through tariffs to the benefit of the northern states. They also probably fought to protect their lives, families, and property considering that the northern army was going through the south murdering, burning, raping, and pillaging as they went. That went for slaves too by the way.

I'm not sure how we got to the Civil War or why you think I support slavery, but those are the facts at any rate.

what you think they "probably" fought for doesn't negate the fact that they WERE fighting for a system built upon the rationalized slavery of human beings. I'm sure you would have fit right in, capitalista.

So were the founders of our nation. The British offered freedom to some slaves if they fought for them.

Those evil founders of ours, we never should have become a nation.

 

[Shogun]

Well those southerners who fought for the Confederacy and didn't own slaves probably fought because they felt they were being robbed by the government through tariffs to the benefit of the northern states. They also probably fought to protect their lives, families, and property considering that the northern army was going through the south murdering, burning, raping, and pillaging as they went. That went for slaves too by the way.

I'm not sure how we got to the Civil War or why you think I support slavery, but those are the facts at any rate.

what you think they "probably" fought for doesn't negate the fact that they WERE fighting for a system built upon the rationalized slavery of human beings. I'm sure you would have fit right in, capitalista.

So were the founders of our nation. The British offered freedom to some slaves if they fought for them.

Those evil founders of ours, we never should have become a nation.

Indeed, which is why we don't keep REPEATING those fucking mistakes. I hate to break it to you but our founding fathers weren't semi-gods just because you think bringing them up validates slavery-lite. Hell, a lot of them also beat their wives and dueled each other. I guess THAT means we should bring back the fucking wife beater and backyard shootouts too, eh?


jeesh.. if this is the capacity of your logic then, clearly, I can understand why such a flawed economic system appeals to you. I mean, why would someone expect the silver spoon class to concede their dependence on pauper labor?? It's not like a plantation owner is going to go pick cotton!

 

[Agnapostate]

No. Smoot-Hawley is exactly the matter.

Generally, nations that have more open trade and investment policies are richer, grow faster and lift standards of living more than those that do not. I have posted several studies with the corroborating data for you before.

I would certainly have to see the specific data that you are referring to again, considering that GDP per capita declined during the "neoliberal" era of 1973 to 1992. (Especially the 1980's, obviously). The issue of population growth might also have been neglected in the estimates that you are referring to.

Capitalists earn, through hard work, the privilege of enjoying their own down time and the comforts their efforts have brought them.

This claim relies on a desperately utopian understanding of political economy, and is not remotely tenable. The reality is that capitalists are largely successful through several factors. Their own effort is not entirely irrelevant, no, but their wealth is mainly due to government infrastructure and the labor of previous generations of workers. Paul Boller sums it up nicely.

"One of South Carolina Senator's E. Holling's favorite stories was about the veteran who returned from Korea and went to college on the G.I. Bill, then he bought his home with an FHA lown, saw his kids born in a VA hospital, started a business with an SBA, got electricty from the TVA and, then water from a project funded by the EPA, His children participated in the school lunch program and made it through college with the help of government guarented student loans. His parents retired to a farm on their Social Security checks, getting electricity from the REA and the soil tested by the USDA. When there father became ill, his life was saved with a drug developed through NIH and his family saved from financial ruin by medicare. The veteran drove to work on the interstate, mored his boat in a channel dredged by army engineers, and when floods hit, took Amtrak to Washington to apply for disaster relief. He also spent some of his time there enjoying the exhibits in the Smithsonian museums. Then one day he wrote his Congressman a angry letter complaining about high taxes and heavy government spending. The government, he said, echoing President Reagan, should get off his back."

I would recommend having a look at Gil Alperovitz's and Lew Daly's [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Unjust-Deserts-Taking-Common-Inheritance/dp/1595584021/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b"]Unjust Deserts: How The Rich Are Taking Our Common Inheritance and Why We Should Take It Back[/ame]

 

[Toro]

I would certainly have to see the specific data that you are referring to again, considering that GDP per capita declined during the "neoliberal" era of 1973 to 1992. (Especially the 1980's, obviously). The issue of population growth might also have been neglected in the estimates that you are referring to.

GDP per capita after inflation rose by about 2% per year during that time. It actually rose at a slightly faster pace from 1975-2004 than 1945-1974. It also was slightly higher than trend from 1980 through 2004.

Its all at the St Louis Fed. I'll get around to posting it one day.

Actually, here it is

 

[Agnapostate]

GDP per capita after inflation rose by about 2% per year during that time. It actually rose at a slightly faster pace from 1975-2004 than 1945-1974. It also was slightly higher than trend from 1980 through 2004.

Its all at the St Louis Fed. I'll get around to posting it one day.

Actually, here it is

That's not the case. The neoliberal era of 1973 through 1992 routinely resulted in lower growth rates than the Bretton Woods era of 1950 through 1973 in essentially every region except Asia, which did not follow neoliberal proscriptions in the first place. Perhaps your estimate failed to account for population growth.

 

[Toro]

That's not the case. The neoliberal era of 1973 through 1992 routinely resulted in lower growth rates than the Bretton Woods era of 1950 through 1973 in essentially every region except Asia, which did not follow neoliberal proscriptions in the first place. Perhaps your estimate failed to account for population growth.

I am not sure where you are getting your data from to base your opinion, since you are not offering any, but you can calculate everything yourself.

You can download the GDP data from the St. Louis Fed here.

St. Louis Fed: Download Data for Series: GDPCA, Real Gross Domestic Product

You can download the population data from the Census Bureau here.

http://www.census.gov/popest/states/tables/NST-EST2008-01.xls
http://www.census.gov/popest/archives/1990s/popclockest.txt

In 1945, GDP was $1.7863 trillion in 2000 chained dollars. The population was 139,928,165. Per capita GDP was $12,766.

In 1975, GDP was $4.3112 trillion. The population was 215,973,199. Per capita GDP was $19,962.

Per capita GDP growth from 1945 to 1975 was 1.50%. (19962/12766)^(1/30)-1

In 2005, GDP was $10.9895 trillion. The population was 295,560,549. Per capita GDP was $37,182.

Per capita GDP growth from 1975 to 2005 was 2.09%. (37182/19962)^(1/30)-1

Your selection of 1973 is a curious one as no economist I know of refers to that as the beginning of the "neoliberal age," nor do I know of any conservatives who would argue that Jimmy Carter was anything like Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher. The abandonment of the currency regime of Bretton Woods does not signal much other than currencies were allowed to float as the United States abandoned the gold system. 1973 was also the last year before a big recession while 1950 was the first year out of a recession, which is convenient for anyone data mining to make a political point as the data is end-point sensitive.

Business Cycle Expansions and Contractions

That is why I posted a graph going all the way back to 1870. Since 1870, GDP per capita has grown at a trend rate of 2.0%.

In 1980, GDP was $5.1617 trillion. The population was 227,224,681. Per capita GDP was $22,716.

In 2000, GDP was $9.817 trillion. The population was 282,171,936. Per capita GDP was $34,791.

Per capita GDP growth from 1980 to 2000 was 2.15%. (34791/22716)^(1/20)-1

Doing the same exercise, per capita GDP growth from 1980 to 2008 was 1.89%.

I forgot to add, using your time frames, from 1950 to 1973, GDP per capita growth was 2.48%. From 1973 to 1992, it was 1.80%. However, again, the selection of those time periods is self-serving since you are using selective data from different points of time on the business cycle. 1950 was when the economy was beginning to accelerate out of a recession caused by the end of WWII. Similarly, 1992 was also the beginning of an expansion after the economy was coming out of a recession caused by high interest rates and the Gulf War. A statistician would not use those dates but rather would corresponding similar points in the business cycle.

 

[Agnapostate]

My data is from Angus Maddison's Monitoring the World Economy 1820-1992. Again, I need to inquire about your data's inclusion of population growth.

 

[Toro]

I have Maddison's Contours of the World Economy, though I have yet to get around to reading it.

All the data is there in the links I posted for you to download and check yourself, including the population data.

It is also somewhat disingenuous to come to make any conclusions regarding Europe given that Europe was rebuilding after WWII, funded to a great extent by American capital.

 

[Agnapostate]

Your selection of 1973 is a curious one as no economist I know of refers to that as the beginning of the "neoliberal age," nor do I know of any conservatives who would argue that Jimmy Carter was anything like Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher. The abandonment of the currency regime of Bretton Woods does not signal much other than currencies were allowed to float as the United States abandoned the gold system. 1973 was also the last year before a big recession while 1950 was the first year out of a recession, which is convenient for anyone data mining to make a political point as the data is end-point sensitive.

I mention 1973 because it is considered the end of the Bretton Woods era that preceded the era of international deregulation. I also question the value of citing Reagan and Thatcher, considering that "growth" is not the only concern to raise, and that socioeconomic ills increased under the neoliberal regimes of Reagan and Thatcher. Indeed, Gini coefficient measurements of income inequality rose from 0.419 to 0.479 between 1975 and 1993.

Moreover, exacerbations of inequality are not restrained to the U.S., just as the neoliberal failure in Southeast Asia was not restricted to Thailand. Researchers Park and Brat have conducted similar Gini coefficient measurements of GDP per capita in 91 countries and have discovered a similar increase, as noted in A Global Kuznets Curve?. Simply consider the abstract.

This paper studies the inequality of nations, treating the country as the unit of analysis. First, measures of inequality are computed for 1960 to 1988. The international distribution of income has become more unequal over time. Secondly, the contribution of R&D investments and spillovers to global inequality is studied. Cross-country differences in R&D significantly account for the changes in the global distribution of income. National R&D investments have both a divergence and a convergence effect and, on net, the empirical results indicate that world R&D has a convergence effect. Controlling for R&D, the paper finds an inverted-U relationship between global inequality and global development.

Hence, such issues need to be properly accounted for.

I forgot to add, using your time frames, from 1950 to 1973, GDP per capita growth was 2.48%. From 1973 to 1992, it was 1.80%. However, again, the selection of those time periods is self-serving since you are using selective data from different points of time on the business cycle. 1950 was when the economy was beginning to accelerate out of a recession caused by the end of WWII. Similarly, 1992 was also the beginning of an expansion after the economy was coming out of a recession caused by high interest rates and the Gulf War. A statistician would not use those dates but rather would corresponding similar points in the business cycle.

Again, estimates of world GDP from 1980 to 1995 need to calibrate the fact that world population grew at a rate of 1.6 percent per year over the same period of time. National estimates need to account for the same issue, particularly in wealthy, industrialized nations.

 

[Toro]

I mention 1973 because it is considered the end of the Bretton Woods era that preceded the era of international deregulation.

I suppose, but Bretton Woods was primarily a currency arrangement, or at least it was until 1973. The reason why it ended was because the United States was spending on the Vietnam War and on increased social spending, causing inflation and a potential gold drain out of the economy. Thus, Nixon suspended the conversion of dollars into gold and managed exchange rates under Bretton Woods collapsed. This isn't the only time such currency arrangements have collapsed. In fact, they are quite common and rarely work for an extended period of time. However, the collapse of Bretton Woods isn't really "international deregulation" that we think of today. Most of it happened after 1980. And it is not all good either. Our current financial mess is partly because financial market had become too deregulated.

I also question the value of citing Reagan and Thatcher, considering that "growth" is not the only concern to raise, and that socioeconomic ills increased under the neoliberal regimes of Reagan and Thatcher. Indeed, Gini coefficient measurements of income inequality rose from 0.419 to 0.479 between 1975 and 1993.

You mentioned growth earlier, so that is what I addressed. Income per capita generally did not fall from 1973 to 1992.

However, you are correct that income inequality did rise under Reagan and Thatcher, as it did under Bush II. However, for most income groups, income rose. Not all, mind you. For example, white uneducated males of a specific age make 40% less in real terms today than they did in 1968. However, most demographic groups saw in increase in income, though the poorer saw less growth in income than the wealthy.

Also, there is no correlation between "neoliberal" reforms as you call it and the widening of income inequality. In some countries, inequality rose with reforms and in some, it did not. Likewise, inequality also rose in countries that did not undertake reforms, and in others, it did not.

Finance & Development, September 2001 - Trade, Growth, and Poverty

News & Broadcast - Poverty Drops Below 1 Billion, says World Bank

In fact, there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that rising inequality is due to the rising application of technology not "neoliberal" reforms, meaning that those who are most able to apply technology are benefiting the most and vice-versa.

Moreover, exacerbations of inequality are not restrained to the U.S., just as the neoliberal failure in Southeast Asia was not restricted to Thailand.

"Neoliberal" policies in Southeast Asia have been enormously successful.

Even if inequality has risen, there are less people living in poverty than ever before. I understand that inequality has social consequences but it is important to note that in many of those countries, the poor would have been worse off in absolute terms had the forces creating inequality not taken place.

Again, estimates of world GDP from 1980 to 1995 need to calibrate the fact that world population grew at a rate of 1.6 percent per year over the same period of time. National estimates need to account for the same issue, particularly in wealthy, industrialized nations.

It includes population growth.

The World Bank publishes a data set every few years called "World Development Indicators." If you go back and read the most recent reports compared to 1980, by virtually every indicator, with the exception of perhaps pollution, people have a higher standard of living today than they did back then.

 

[Agnapostate]

No. Smoot-Hawley is exactly the matter.

Generally, nations that have more open trade and investment policies are richer, grow faster and lift standards of living more than those that do not. I have posted several studies with the corroborating data for you before.

Ah, I was trying to recall where this had been mentioned.

It's largely a myth that the U.S. relied on fairly neoliberal trade policies before the introduction of the Smoot-Hawley tariff, a claim made by even so prominent a figure as your beloved Bhagwati. In reality, the tariff rate remained in the average range established since the Civil War period. In 1875, for instance, the average rate ranged between 40 and 50%. In 1913, the average tariff rate on manufactured products was 44%, whilst the 1931 rate was only 4 percentage points higher at 48%.

More than that, the analysis of Smoot-Hawley itself having significantly deleterious direct effects is a dubious one. What's more insightful is to examine the role of the additional factor of deflation. Irwin's The Smoot-Hawley Tariff: A Quantitative Assessment is commendable in this regard. Consider the abstract:

In the two years after the imposition of the Smoot-Hawley tariff in June 1930, the volume of U.S. imports fell over 40%. To what extent can this collapse of trade be attributed to the tariff itself versus other factors such as declining income or foreign retaliation? Partial and general equilibrium assessments indicate that the Smoot-Hawley tariff itself reduced imports by 4-8% (ceteris paribus), although the combination of specific duties and deflation further raised the effective tariff and reduced imports an additional 8-10%. A counterfactual simulation suggests that nearly a quarter of the observed 40% decline in imports can be attributed to the rise in the effective tariff (i.e. Smoot-Hawley plus deflation)

So this business about the damaging effects of Smoot-Hawley is just another element of traditional "free market" rhetoric that turned out to be false, I'm afraid. As I've mentioned to you many times now, the use of strategic trade policy (namely interventionism) to protect infant industries ultimately plays a critical role in the establishment of solid capital markets, inasmuch as such industries are given time to "grow up" and thus become competitive.