Child labour better than Poverty?
- Thread starter facaldo
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I read that and was like, "Wait, what does the DoD's research ***** have to do with child workers?" It took me a good three minutes to remember the other Mitre. I guess that's what years and years and years of avoiding any kind of team sport will get you...Cheeze_Pavilion said:
Anyway, yes, the fact that most of the wealth generated by foreign child labor is simply being exported back to the "first world" is very important. 19th-century Europe and America grew stronger through the toil of their children. But it's 21st-century Europe and America (and Japan), not 21st-century Africa and Latin America and Asia, that are reaping the benefits of modern African and Latin-American and Asian child labor.
-- Alex
If England was a desert with little to no water, then I highly doubt England would have had colonies. Chances are England would have been a colony in itself.Cheeze_Pavilion said:
Also, the Netherlands has the natural resources available to them so they can effectively adapt to their environments. They have the lumber to build dams to hold the water at bay, they have the fertile land to at least support an early civilization. If the demand for more food is higher, then they have other resources to trade for more food.
You go to a 3rd world country you'd be hard pressed to find any viable natural resources whatsoever. Some 3rd world countries have gold, or diamonds as a viable export, but that's not enough. Besides the rich of these countries are hogging all the money anyways.
Sorry let me get this right
You want me to pick from two wrongs
Thats like saying nuclear bombing is better than chemical gassing
If this post gets me banned I apologise, but trying to insist Child labour is better is sickening.
Charity and welfar is better than both!
You want me to pick from two wrongs
Thats like saying nuclear bombing is better than chemical gassing
If this post gets me banned I apologise, but trying to insist Child labour is better is sickening.
Charity and welfar is better than both!
If children are forced to work, then they don't get an education, and are unable to help their economies in later life, whereas if they go to school they can then get better jobs due to being educated.
Poor Workers + Low Wages = Profit.Pseudonym2 said:
That pretty much sums it up, it's a big evil multi-million dollar company, why would they treat people right if it means THEY loose out.
That was my first thought, but that doesn't make sense. Most of the CEOs are American. American CEOs are paid on average, around 400 times (best I can remember)more than the average working for their companies. With other countries it's close to 50 (best I cane remember.)If Nike can afford to pay someone $14 million to where a hat and their CEO more money than any of us will see our lives, why can't they spend some of that money on their workers instead?sirdanrhodes said:
There's a difference between what they should do, what they can do, and what they're going to do. A corporation is inherently amoral. It's only about making profit. Self interest is fine, and greed really can be a very good thing, but greed is also a very dangerous thing that needs to be watched. Corporations will cut costs to increase profits because that's their aim. Yes, some CEOs are philanthropists, especially later in life, and some board members are philanthropists, but the people who have the money to get in control of corporations tend to be the ones that understand how to get money best. Cut costs as much as possible, raise prices until the economy tells you to stop.Pseudonym2 said:
There will always be exceptions. But the Islamic Empire had some valuable resources at the time. Salt was worth a ton back then, it's still a major export but its value is pennies when compared to what it used to be. You must also consider that at the time much of the land in the Islam-Egypt area of the world was more fertile. The deserts are expanding even to this day, and it is a cause for concern for the locals.Cheeze_Pavilion said:
Doesn't this depend a lot on what you define as "poverty"?
If you ask "is sending your children to work better than letting them stay home and starve?" the answer is Hell Yes. Of course, that raises the additional question of why you decided to have children that you can't support.
Before the industrial revolution, child labor was the norm, with most children doing at least some work in the "family business" from a very early age--if they didn't work, there wasn't enough food to provide for them. Even then, if the weather changed or a crop disease got loose, many of these children starved.
With advancements in productivity, it became possible for adults to support children without those children having to work. (Plus, you know, birth control really helps with this problem.) That's why we don't have child labor now: it's not necessary.
As for Nike: companies have to make money to stay in existence and they probably can't afford the bad PR of associating with child labor--even if it's the only thing keeping those kids from starving. They were intelligent enough to cut their losses; that's hardly a black mark against them. The only wrong in this situation is the people who condemn a practice without bothering to understand what it is or why it comes about.
If you ask "is sending your children to work better than letting them stay home and starve?" the answer is Hell Yes. Of course, that raises the additional question of why you decided to have children that you can't support.
Before the industrial revolution, child labor was the norm, with most children doing at least some work in the "family business" from a very early age--if they didn't work, there wasn't enough food to provide for them. Even then, if the weather changed or a crop disease got loose, many of these children starved.
With advancements in productivity, it became possible for adults to support children without those children having to work. (Plus, you know, birth control really helps with this problem.) That's why we don't have child labor now: it's not necessary.
As for Nike: companies have to make money to stay in existence and they probably can't afford the bad PR of associating with child labor--even if it's the only thing keeping those kids from starving. They were intelligent enough to cut their losses; that's hardly a black mark against them. The only wrong in this situation is the people who condemn a practice without bothering to understand what it is or why it comes about.