Retribution not enough

[Jim Choate]

On Sat, 20 Oct 2001, Tim May wrote:

> Talking about "low wage sweat shop jobs" indicates profound confusion on 
> your part.
> 
> Sorry to be so blunt, but this is the way it is. Henry Hazlitt wrote a 
> good book on basic economics.
> 
> I doubt I can convince you in a few paragraphs, but consider some 
> miscellaneous points, which are all closely related:
> 
> * "Low wage" compared to _what_?

What it takes to have reasonable living standards and sufficient resources
to help ones children do better than themselves. The reality is that these
sweatshops do exist, that they do exploit the workers, and that they are
specifically managed to keep the workers from exploiting economic, social,
and educational resources. Why? Because if the producers allow this
behaviour they put themselves out of business.

> * Comparing the wages to U.S. wages is not meaningful, for many reasons.

It isn't the wages, it's the human condition that is comparable. The
econimics are only a single measure of a multi-variant situation.

> * To those getting paid $300 an hour, most jobs in the U.S. are "low 
> wage sweat shops." Perhaps the U.N. can attempt to force U.S. average 
> wages to be raised?

Very(!) few people get $300/hr. However, the vast majority of peoples in
N. America and Europe manage to have a substantialy higher quality of life
style than in S. America, Africa, and the Middle/Far East. Why? Because
they lack a fundamental belief, let alone respect for, human beings. They
are seen as nothing more than another resource to be used for ones own
advancement (and this implies that those used are denied their
opportunities).

> * If the labor is being "exploited" by being paid "too little," this is 
> an excellent opportunity for an efficient producer to enter the market 
> and offer more. Henry Ford did this with car production early in the 
> 20th century, Intel is doing it now with factories in Malaysia, Costa 
> Rica, and mainlaind China. More "globalization" explotin' da peeples, I 
> guess.

If the market were open, it isn't. The reality is that the market is
controlled in such a way as to keep the status quo. This ensures the
political, social, and economics supremacy of a small minority at the
expense of the many.

> "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only 
> exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from 
> the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for 
> the candidate promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with 
> the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy 
> always followed by dictatorship." --Alexander Fraser Tyler

This bozo can't tell the difference between a 'socialism' (which is what
he's describing) and a 'dictatorship'. Sounds more like he's begging the
question.


 --
    ____________________________________________________________________

     The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.

                                             Edmund Burke (1784)

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage at ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------