Do you think it is better to work in a sweatshop than to be unemployed?

[Ezekel]

Sweatshops are bad. Not working can be worse. If you are only unemployed for a short time period its not a problem. It is better to work and make some money than to just sit around waiting for a better job to show up. You can also continue to look for a better job while you are working.

 

[Zac_Dai]

If it was the only job you could get and the country's economy depended on it wouldn't it better to work in a sweatshop than not at all? Also, do should the United States get involved in those countries affairs or leave them alone?

In market economies there should ALWAYS be a job for you somewhere, you just gotta lower your personal criteria to see it. Therefore unemployment is usually voluntary and you hardly would end up having to go to a sweatshop. As for sweatshops outside developed countries they really dont have a choice do they when there are no wellfare benefits.

There are 2 million unemployed people in the UK alone. That is a sizable chunk of the workforce.

Jobs can be scarce at the best of times, and when a massive recession looms they can be impossible to find.

Actually being unemployed doesnt mean you cant find a job. All it means is that you cant find a job that reflects your education/pay and that is why I refer unemployment as voluntary. For example when an economist gets fired he usually stays unemployed gaining wellfare checks while seeking new high-paying jobs instead of receiving a job as a local cleaner or going to work to wal-mart.

Of course in extreme situations there actually will be some people who are unable to find ANY job at all but we are not there yet and so many low-paying low-education businesses still have lack of manpower. The problem with European nanny model and especially northern model is that it encourages unemployment and receiving wellfare benefits instead of looking for a crappy paying job and as such doing something useful.

There is only around 600,000 job vacancies in the UK with around 2 million looking for work. I don't call that voluntary. Its insulting to these people that to say they are unemployed voluntarily, a lot of them have a mortgage to pay and a family to feed if they could get any job the next day they would.

An Economist is unlikely to get employed in a low wage job such as toilet cleaning even if he wanted to, employers don't like over qualified people in such positions for very good reasons.

Also I don't see anything wrong with a welfare state considering Norway is ranked 1st for quality of life yet has a comprehensive welfare system.

 

[PatientGrasshopper]

If it was the only job you could get and the country's economy depended on it wouldn't it better to work in a sweatshop than not at all? Also, do should the United States get involved in those countries affairs or leave them alone?

In market economies there should ALWAYS be a job for you somewhere, you just gotta lower your personal criteria to see it. Therefore unemployment is usually voluntary and you hardly would end up having to go to a sweatshop. As for sweatshops outside developed countries they really dont have a choice do they when there are no wellfare benefits.

True yes in those countries it's either work in a sweatshop or starve. As for there always being a job in market economies, our idea of a minimum wage really screws that one up. Some people can't do a job worth minimum wage yet a company is required to pay them that?

Only depends on what I got paid, if it was fair for the work then sure if not than no.(in your hypothetical situation)

But personally I really wouldn't I'm already past the manual labor stage of my work career (in reality)

Even if you are past that point in your career what if no jobs at your skill level opened up?

 

[PatientGrasshopper]

If it was the only job you could get and the country's economy depended on it wouldn't it better to work in a sweatshop than not at all? Also, do should the United States get involved in those countries affairs or leave them alone?

Honestly, I'm not quite sure what you're asking here, but I'll give it a shot.

I doubt many 'sweatshop' workers would consider not working an option, since that would mean they couldn't eat. Overpopulation is especially painful in 3rd world countries since there simply aren't resources or opportunities to begin with and an oversaturated workforce drives the cost of labor down even further. People without privilage do what is nessecary to survive and take what they can get, which isn't much in many parts of the world. Concerns regarding the overall country's enconomy don't even factor into decision making in those circumstances.

As far as the United States getting involved - they already are, as profiteers. If you're asking if they should step in and try and make changes, they can't (technically) - nations are sovereign. I realize the irony of that in light of their performance history regarding foreign policy, but generally the only people looking to make the the globe more equal are first world citizens conducting 'fair trade' business or forming activist groups of their own volition.

So... I guess the point I'm blundering towards is that the question you're asking would only be asked in a first world country and we should all count our lucky fucking stars to be born in or living in a post-industralized society of relative privilage and choice.

Yes, my point exactly, and I think the worse crime for the US is not taking advantage of those countries, as it does give them more work but outsourcing labor which could be done in the US again I blame the minimum wage.

Sweatshops are bad.

If you don't understand that, then consider yourself lucky enough to be ignorant of why they are bad.

Although, that you can't understand the value of education because you've been provided it all your life is rather ironic.

Yes they are bad, OK but work is work, we have so many regulations in the US it atually puts some people at a disadvantage.

I would rather be unemployed than work in a sweatshop. That's all there is to it.

So then you would starve.

If it was the only job you could get and the country's economy depended on it wouldn't it better to work in a sweatshop than not at all? Also, do should the United States get involved in those countries affairs or leave them alone?

In market economies there should ALWAYS be a job for you somewhere, you just gotta lower your personal criteria to see it. Therefore unemployment is usually voluntary and you hardly would end up having to go to a sweatshop. As for sweatshops outside developed countries they really dont have a choice do they when there are no wellfare benefits.

There are 2 million unemployed people in the UK alone. That is a sizable chunk of the workforce.

Jobs can be scarce at the best of times, and when a massive recession looms they can be impossible to find.

Actually being unemployed doesnt mean you cant find a job. All it means is that you cant find a job that reflects your education/pay and that is why I refer unemployment as voluntary. For example when an economist gets fired he usually stays unemployed gaining wellfare checks while seeking new high-paying jobs instead of receiving a job as a local cleaner or going to work to wal-mart.

Of course in extreme situations there actually will be some people who are unable to find ANY job at all but we are not there yet and so many low-paying low-education businesses still have lack of manpower. The problem with European nanny model and especially northern model is that it encourages unemployment and receiving wellfare benefits instead of looking for a crappy paying job and as such doing something useful.

There is only around 600,000 job vacancies in the UK with around 2 million looking for work. I don't call that voluntary. Its insulting to these people that to say they are unemployed voluntarily, a lot of them have a mortgage to pay and a family to feed if they could get any job the next day they would.

An Economist is unlikely to get employed in a low wage job such as toilet cleaning even if he wanted to, employers don't like over qualified people in such positions for very good reasons.

Also I don't see anything wrong with a welfare state considering Norway is ranked 1st for quality of life yet has a comprehensive welfare system.

I agree with the part where you said that most people aren't voluntarily unemployed, yes there are a lot of people who are lazy and could settle for a lower job but are stubborn. I keep mentioning minimum wage a leading factor of unemployment. There also aren't enough jobs especially if someone lives in a a rather secluded area. However I disagree with welfare states being better, they have higher taxes and it encourages laziness.

 

[EXPLICITasian]

being asian... of course i'd work in a sweatshop (hell i do now)

 

[anti_strunt]

I would obviously work in a sweatshop if the other option was starvation. Many countries don't have the (relatively) cushy nonemployment benefits we in the decadent West are used to.

Businessmen who set up sweatshops however, do so for the express purpose of exploiting poverty and economic hardship for their own financial gain. So irregardless of the possible positive effect on the local economy (and yes, as I said, working for scraps is better than starving), they are still fuckings pigs.

Pigs how probably make a positive difference, but still pigs.

 

[Ciarang]

you'd probably get more from benefits from being unemployed than the wage you'd get from work in a sweatshop

 

[cuddly_tomato]

If it was the only job you could get and the country's economy depended on it wouldn't it better to work in a sweatshop than not at all? Also, do should the United States get involved in those countries affairs or leave them alone?

In market economies there should ALWAYS be a job for you somewhere, you just gotta lower your personal criteria to see it. Therefore unemployment is usually voluntary and you hardly would end up having to go to a sweatshop. As for sweatshops outside developed countries they really dont have a choice do they when there are no wellfare benefits.

There are 2 million unemployed people in the UK alone. That is a sizable chunk of the workforce.

Jobs can be scarce at the best of times, and when a massive recession looms they can be impossible to find.

Actually being unemployed doesnt mean you cant find a job. All it means is that you cant find a job that reflects your education/pay and that is why I refer unemployment as voluntary. For example when an economist gets fired he usually stays unemployed gaining wellfare checks while seeking new high-paying jobs instead of receiving a job as a local cleaner or going to work to wal-mart.

Of course in extreme situations there actually will be some people who are unable to find ANY job at all but we are not there yet and so many low-paying low-education businesses still have lack of manpower. The problem with European nanny model and especially northern model is that it encourages unemployment and receiving wellfare benefits instead of looking for a crappy paying job and as such doing something useful.

I think you have been eating to many tabloids again Dele.

Let X = number of jobs.

Let Y = number of people.

If Y>X then Y-X = Unemployment level.

You know those shelf stacking jobs? Cleaning up park jobs? They get literally thousands of applicants each week. People desperate to do anything to get money to get by. In certain areas unemployment is a real and terrible problem for a lot of people.

 

[axia777]

No. Real sweat shops are atrocious in the way they treat people. In reality they really could be considered human rights violations.

 

[PatientGrasshopper]

I would obviously work in a sweatshop if the other option was starvation. Many countries don't have the (relatively) cushy nonemployment benefits we in the decadent West are used to.

Businessmen who set up sweatshops however, do so for the express purpose of exploiting poverty and economic hardship for their own financial gain. So irregardless of the possible positive effect on the local economy (and yes, as I said, working for scraps is better than starving), they are still fuckings pigs.

Pigs how probably make a positive difference, but still pigs.

Exactly.

No. Real sweat shops are atrocious in the way they treat people. In reality they really could be considered human rights violations.

Yes, this is true but who's job is it to call them on it?

you'd probably get more from benefits from being unemployed than the wage you'd get from work in a sweatshop

What benefits? Countries with sweatshops don't have unemployment benefits.

 

[Dele]

If it was the only job you could get and the country's economy depended on it wouldn't it better to work in a sweatshop than not at all? Also, do should the United States get involved in those countries affairs or leave them alone?

In market economies there should ALWAYS be a job for you somewhere, you just gotta lower your personal criteria to see it. Therefore unemployment is usually voluntary and you hardly would end up having to go to a sweatshop. As for sweatshops outside developed countries they really dont have a choice do they when there are no wellfare benefits.

There are 2 million unemployed people in the UK alone. That is a sizable chunk of the workforce.

Jobs can be scarce at the best of times, and when a massive recession looms they can be impossible to find.

Actually being unemployed doesnt mean you cant find a job. All it means is that you cant find a job that reflects your education/pay and that is why I refer unemployment as voluntary. For example when an economist gets fired he usually stays unemployed gaining wellfare checks while seeking new high-paying jobs instead of receiving a job as a local cleaner or going to work to wal-mart.

Of course in extreme situations there actually will be some people who are unable to find ANY job at all but we are not there yet and so many low-paying low-education businesses still have lack of manpower. The problem with European nanny model and especially northern model is that it encourages unemployment and receiving wellfare benefits instead of looking for a crappy paying job and as such doing something useful.

I think you have been eating to many tabloids again Dele.

Let X = number of jobs.

Let Y = number of people.

If Y>X then Y-X = Unemployment level.

You know those shelf stacking jobs? Cleaning up park jobs? They get literally thousands of applicants each week. People desperate to do anything to get money to get by. In certain areas unemployment is a real and terrible problem for a lot of people.

No, it's something you learn by studying macroeconomics. Youre forgetting voluntary unemployment [http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_561548362/voluntary_unemployment.html]. In a regular market economy there are usually more jobs than people aka X >Y but there nearly always exists unemployment (which is a good thing). You assume that people always go working if there is a job available which would be true if there were no wellfare benefits but since there is, people have the luxury of choosing their jobs. You mention shelf stacking jobs and cleaning... Those businesses almost ALWAYS have a lack of manpower because only people accepting such crap jobs are students and 55-years nearly retired who cant find another job.

If it was the only job you could get and the country's economy depended on it wouldn't it better to work in a sweatshop than not at all? Also, do should the United States get involved in those countries affairs or leave them alone?

In market economies there should ALWAYS be a job for you somewhere, you just gotta lower your personal criteria to see it. Therefore unemployment is usually voluntary and you hardly would end up having to go to a sweatshop. As for sweatshops outside developed countries they really dont have a choice do they when there are no wellfare benefits.

There are 2 million unemployed people in the UK alone. That is a sizable chunk of the workforce.

Jobs can be scarce at the best of times, and when a massive recession looms they can be impossible to find.

Actually being unemployed doesnt mean you cant find a job. All it means is that you cant find a job that reflects your education/pay and that is why I refer unemployment as voluntary. For example when an economist gets fired he usually stays unemployed gaining wellfare checks while seeking new high-paying jobs instead of receiving a job as a local cleaner or going to work to wal-mart.

Of course in extreme situations there actually will be some people who are unable to find ANY job at all but we are not there yet and so many low-paying low-education businesses still have lack of manpower. The problem with European nanny model and especially northern model is that it encourages unemployment and receiving wellfare benefits instead of looking for a crappy paying job and as such doing something useful.

There is only around 600,000 job vacancies in the UK with around 2 million looking for work. I don't call that voluntary. Its insulting to these people that to say they are unemployed voluntarily, a lot of them have a mortgage to pay and a family to feed if they could get any job the next day they would.

An Economist is unlikely to get employed in a low wage job such as toilet cleaning even if he wanted to, employers don't like over qualified people in such positions for very good reasons.

Also I don't see anything wrong with a welfare state considering Norway is ranked 1st for quality of life yet has a comprehensive welfare system.

Quick googling said [http://www.jobrapido.co.uk/?w=&l=United+Kingdom] over 1 million jobs but maybe you could post some sources there pal.

Call it whatever you want but you are voluntarily unemployed if you dont want to work in ALL of the open jobs including sweatshops since you technically had a chance for a job which you didnt want to take.
When Joe the plumber gets fired he usually immediately starts looking for a similiar job matching his education, skills and pay level. This is voluntary unemployment since he only looks for certain jobs and wouldnt take worse jobs even if they were rubbed at his face. If and when the unemployment is prolonged, many start widening their search area accepting worse and worse jobs.
I dont blame people for choosing to be unemployed and I can understand it but unless folks running sweatshop laugh at your face and throw you out, you always have a chance to take that crappy paying low-end job.

You mention economists not getting jobs which I find a silly idea since when there is a need for more manpower and not enough of people applying, every reasonable company always hires anyone capable of working. Well atleast that was what the economist cleaner working with me said

The problem with wellfare states? Coming from a nearby wellfare state myself (Finland) I say wellfare state is only a problem to middle class and rich and rich people because because it takes hell of a lot from them and gives some of it to low-end of the society. While I agree that it has benefits (less crime) it still hurts a LOT when a reasonable apartment for family costs 300k? and a well-paid job (4k?/month) gets taxed 30-50%.
Our low-grade school system is often called one of the best in the world due huge prolonged PISA -test [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programme_for_International_Student_Assessment] success. It works exactly like a wellfare state (we really only have public school and only one or two privates). Speed in education is adjusted to the learning speed of the WORST student meaning everyone from geniuses to average uses only a fraction of their potential. This causes high averages (like the quality/happiness in wellfare states) but it also means those negleted high potential students are worse off than learning at their optimum speed. Thus the reason why our universities have A LOT worse top students than most of the other western countries just like most of our rich folks are 'poor' compared to countries with less wellfare.

 

[Dele]

you'd probably get more from benefits from being unemployed than the wage you'd get from work in a sweatshop

What benefits? Countries with sweatshops don't have unemployment benefits.

Umm nearly every country in the world has sweatshops..

 

[Zac_Dai]

you'd probably get more from benefits from being unemployed than the wage you'd get from work in a sweatshop

What benefits? Countries with sweatshops don't have unemployment benefits.

Umm nearly every country in the world has sweatshops..

Gonna quote this instead the other massive post.

Anyway I see where you are coming from but the situation in the UK is pretty bad, there literally isn't enough legal jobs for everyone. Even in the area I live in getting a supermarket job or a cleaning job right now is extremely hard. Not to mention jobs in the UK are poorly distributed across the country making it even harder for some people.

Even in prosperous times an Economist will find it harder to get a cleaning job simply because the employers do not want someone more educated then them or someone who knows employment law and there rights well.

Supermarkets and most retail outlets employ mainly teenagers because of the lower wages they can pay and the fact they will put up with more shit from management.

If you talk about sweatshops, which no one should be forced to work in ever, they do exist in the UK but only employ illegal immigrants as they have no rights in this country.

The situation is probably a lot different in Finland but this is the reality in the UK.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

The situation is probably a lot different in Finland but this is the reality in the UK.

From what I hear it's pretty much the same all over. There are just too many people these days who need jobs. Introducing a 30 hour working week would solve unemployment completely and give everyone more time to themselves, but chances of seeing a government try to put that on big business?

 

[Sycker]

No, I'd rather be unemployed due to the nanny state.

Bring on Jeremy Kyle.

 

[HuCast]

you'd probably get more from benefits from being unemployed than the wage you'd get from work in a sweatshop

What benefits? Countries with sweatshops don't have unemployment benefits.

Umm nearly every country in the world has sweatshops..

Sorry but I had to lol !!!

 

[anti_strunt]

If it was the only job you could get and the country's economy depended on it wouldn't it better to work in a sweatshop than not at all? Also, do should the United States get involved in those countries affairs or leave them alone?

In market economies there should ALWAYS be a job for you somewhere, you just gotta lower your personal criteria to see it. Therefore unemployment is usually voluntary and you hardly would end up having to go to a sweatshop. As for sweatshops outside developed countries they really dont have a choice do they when there are no wellfare benefits.

There are 2 million unemployed people in the UK alone. That is a sizable chunk of the workforce.

Jobs can be scarce at the best of times, and when a massive recession looms they can be impossible to find.

Actually being unemployed doesnt mean you cant find a job. All it means is that you cant find a job that reflects your education/pay and that is why I refer unemployment as voluntary. For example when an economist gets fired he usually stays unemployed gaining wellfare checks while seeking new high-paying jobs instead of receiving a job as a local cleaner or going to work to wal-mart.

Of course in extreme situations there actually will be some people who are unable to find ANY job at all but we are not there yet and so many low-paying low-education businesses still have lack of manpower. The problem with European nanny model and especially northern model is that it encourages unemployment and receiving wellfare benefits instead of looking for a crappy paying job and as such doing something useful.

I think you have been eating to many tabloids again Dele.

Let X = number of jobs.

Let Y = number of people.

If Y>X then Y-X = Unemployment level.

You know those shelf stacking jobs? Cleaning up park jobs? They get literally thousands of applicants each week. People desperate to do anything to get money to get by. In certain areas unemployment is a real and terrible problem for a lot of people.

No, it's something you learn by studying macroeconomics. Youre forgetting voluntary unemployment [http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_561548362/voluntary_unemployment.html]. In a regular market economy there are usually more jobs than people aka X >Y but there nearly always exists unemployment (which is a good thing). You assume that people always go working if there is a job available which would be true if there were no wellfare benefits but since there is, people have the luxury of choosing their jobs. You mention shelf stacking jobs and cleaning... Those businesses almost ALWAYS have a lack of manpower because only people accepting such crap jobs are students and 55-years nearly retired who cant find another job.

There's always the thriving black market for illegal organ transplants...

 

[Dele]

The situation is probably a lot different in Finland but this is the reality in the UK.

From what I hear it's pretty much the same all over. There are just too many people these days who need jobs. Introducing a 30 hour working week would solve unemployment completely and give everyone more time to themselves, but chances of seeing a government try to put that on big business?

Nope, we have too many humanists and too few real workers and history of no-immigration. Companies beg for more low-end jobs like nurses, cleaners and bus drivers (yes I said nurses because the paying sucks). Introducing a 30 hours week would weaken your economy and might cause unemployment to vanish completely which would cause bad things like massive inflation. Modest amount (3-6%) of unemployment is a natural part of capitalism and shouldnt be treated like it's a bad thing.

you'd probably get more from benefits from being unemployed than the wage you'd get from work in a sweatshop

What benefits? Countries with sweatshops don't have unemployment benefits.

Umm nearly every country in the world has sweatshops..

Gonna quote this instead the other massive post.

Anyway I see where you are coming from but the situation in the UK is pretty bad, there literally isn't enough legal jobs for everyone. Even in the area I live in getting a supermarket job or a cleaning job right now is extremely hard. Not to mention jobs in the UK are poorly distributed across the country making it even harder for some people.

Even in prosperous times an Economist will find it harder to get a cleaning job simply because the employers do not want someone more educated then them or someone who knows employment law and there rights well.

Supermarkets and most retail outlets employ mainly teenagers because of the lower wages they can pay and the fact they will put up with more shit from management.

If you talk about sweatshops, which no one should be forced to work in ever, they do exist in the UK but only employ illegal immigrants as they have no rights in this country.

The situation is probably a lot different in Finland but this is the reality in the UK.

Okay I guess gigantic amount of immigration UK gets has to have an effect on the availability of low-end jobs though I find it hard to believe that jobs would be so scarce on those unemployment levels. Now would be a good time to do what folks did 100 years ago when they couldnt find a job.. Immigrate to country which has a need for labor. If you wanna clean toilets I can get you a job

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Nope, we have too many humanists and too few real workers and history of no-immigration. Companies beg for more low-end jobs like nurses, cleaners and bus drivers (yes I said nurses because the paying sucks). Introducing a 30 hours week would weaken your economy and might cause unemployment to vanish completely which would cause bad things like massive inflation. Modest amount (3-6%) of unemployment is a natural part of capitalism and shouldnt be treated like it's a bad thing.

Unemployment is treated like a bad thing. Or more particularly, unemployed people are treated badly. I agree that small levels of unemployment are actually valuble to an economy. Among other things, you have a workforce resevoir in case a new industry opens or suchlike. But it is totally unfair to expect people to be unemployed without a decent welfare system.

The best option to deal with the immigration issue would be to force employers to pay immigrants the same wages as English people, thus steal the incentive to hire immigrants just because they are cheaper.