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

[BallPtPenTheif]

I'd be better off cultivating my own agriculture, shining shoes, and just working for myself than working in a sweatshop.

 

[mokes310]

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?

Edit:
I think the bigger crime is the way the US outsources labor that could be done by their own citizens. It is because our minimum wage mandates companies pay people a certain amount, when companies don't want to do that they send the work overseas. In the end it benefits those other countries but hurts us domestically.

Well, I'm currently unemployed, and I was laid off because my company sent my job to India. I was a programmer/reporter for the fourth largest cable operator in the US, and when the company restructured, they realized that I was the highest paid member of the department, and that they could hire someone for significantly less to perform my job. I trained my replacement (don't even get me started on how hard it is to train someone who's half a world away via net-meeting and over the phone), was called into HR one day, made to sign termination papers, and began collecting unemployment insurance a few weeks later. That was in June 2007.

As of today, I'm still unemployed. I've been hunting for jobs since July 2007 and have not had a single ounce of luck. According to employers, I'm not educated enough to work a job that I'm technically qualified for, and I'm also too experienced to gain an entry level position. For example, I applied for a position with Wal-Mart. I went through the interviews, and was told that I was too experienced for the position, even after I explained that all I wanted was a job putting things on shelves, and that money was no object.

The problem, at least for myself, is that companies are very afraid of people like me: qualified but without a Bachelors degree. Ask yourself, if you were the manager, who would you hire: a person like me, who is likely to leave as soon as a better job comes along OR someone who you can pay significantly less who isn't likely to leave?

To answer your questions, no, a sweatshop is technically not employment, it's a form of bonded servitude.

Also, the minimum wage has nothing to do with jobs being outsourced. From what I've gathered, the main reasons for outsourcing/job loss are the result of two extremes of the American political spectrum.

On one hand, we have free trade agreements which are extremely unfair to the American worker, since it allows corporations to ship jobs overseas with no tax penalties. They are now able to pay their workers less, while still making the same product and increasing the price to follow the CPI/Inflation Rate. In turn, they increase their profits, pay their executives more, while neglecting their dwindling American workforce.

To counter that, many labor unions, especially the UAW, have contract agreements with the big three and other corporations, that stipulate that the companies must pay for their workers health care and pensions. Now, I don't disagree with that at all, but the problem is that with every year, more and more auto workers retire, forcing these companies to pay higher and higher amounts to their pensions and healthcare. If you look at the statistics, these companies pay massive amounts for their retired workers, which cuts into their profit margin (or lack there of), forcing them to save money by outsourcing jobs.

That is why I believe a system of socialized medicine will benafit everyone: the workers and the companies. If we all pay into a healthcare system, remove the burden, or at least lessen the burden on the companies, we will see the balance books come closer to being in the black. But this is off topic, so I apologize.

Lastly, under the Bush administration, business taxation was virtually non-existant. As of today, right now, you can base your business out of a foriegn country like the Bahamas, Dubai, UAE, etc, do the majority of your business in the United States, but since you're a foriegn company, you are not made to pay a substantial portion of taxes that you would have paid if you were based in the US.

Now, I believe that this is wrong. A scaled business tax would make sense to me here. The proportion of business you do in the US should reflect the amount of tax you pay, and whether your forced to base your business here. For example, Haliburton is now based in the UAE, but still recieve millions upon millions in US taxpayer dollars for no-bid contracts, yet they pay next to nothing in US taxes for this business.

Sorry for the long-winded post, but that's my opinion and I'm stickin to it!

 

[axia777]

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?

I have no idea. I would like to think that I avoid buying products that use people to produce them under sweatshop conditions, but I would just be fooling myself. The reality of the situation is that even if we never shop at places like Wal-mart all most every product made in places like China, The Philippines, Africa, and Malaysia are made in this way. It is almost impossible to do this. That is why I by American any time I can get the chance. Because even if people get paid a shitty wage, I know that we have work regulations that keep the work environment from being deplorable. In the rest of the world it is like the second coming of the Industrial Revolution. Child slave labor is in full swing and it makes me sick.

 

[BallPtPenTheif]

For example, I applied for a position with Wal-Mart. I went through the interviews, and was told that I was too experienced for the position, even after I explained that all I wanted was a job putting things on shelves, and that money was no object.

You have to create a dumbed down resume. Like me, when I apply for jobs I don't put down my experience as a Producer/Director because it's either not relevant or would make me seem like a person looking for some quick cash until I find another job.

Hell, if I was applying for a stocking position at Walmart I wouldn't even put my college education on the resume.

If employment is that difficult where you are at you might think about relocating somewhere else.

 

[mokes310]

For example, I applied for a position with Wal-Mart. I went through the interviews, and was told that I was too experienced for the position, even after I explained that all I wanted was a job putting things on shelves, and that money was no object.

You have to create a dumbed down resume. Like me, when I apply for jobs I don't put down my experience as a Producer/Director because it's either not relevant or would make me seem like a person looking for some quick cash until I find another job.

Hell, if I was applying for a stocking position at Walmart I wouldn't even put my college education on the resume.

If employment is that difficult where you are at you might think about relocating somewhere else.

You would not believe how dumbed down my resume is already. It's laughable. I've basically made myself out to be a trained monkey, and yet I still get the "you're over qualified.

I've already relocated back to Green Bay, WI, moved back in with mom, (cuz I'm just about flat broke), and will be going back to school in Jan to finish my degree. Since I was laid off in California, I have to stay on their unemployment program, but I've just been notified that the firist extension has been extended by another seven weeks, and if I'm still unemployed after that, there's the second extension of seven weeks. I think the job market is much worse than most people realize. For example, until I'm collecting benafits again, I'm not counted on any unemployment numbers, and you'd have to figure that there are quite a few people in my position for them to be extending them the way they are, so I'd say the unemployment numbers are probably .5-1.5% higher than reported. And yes, I know that was a run-on sentance!

 

[Avida]

Depends on what i'd be making, shoes for orphans or the new bludgeonator 3000

 

[BallPtPenTheif]

You would not believe how dumbed down my resume is already. It's laughable. I've basically made myself out to be a trained monkey, and yet I still get the "you're over qualified.

I've already relocated back to Green Bay, WI, moved back in with mom, (cuz I'm just about flat broke), and will be going back to school in Jan to finish my degree. Since I was laid off in California, I have to stay on their unemployment program, but I've just been notified that the firist extension has been extended by another seven weeks, and if I'm still unemployed after that, there's the second extension of seven weeks. I think the job market is much worse than most people realize. For example, until I'm collecting benafits again, I'm not counted on any unemployment numbers, and you'd have to figure that there are quite a few people in my position for them to be extending them the way they are, so I'd say the unemployment numbers are probably .5-1.5% higher than reported. And yes, I know that was a run-on sentance!

Sorry to hear. You try any temp jobs? I used to do those when I was between jobs.

 

[mokes310]

You would not believe how dumbed down my resume is already. It's laughable. I've basically made myself out to be a trained monkey, and yet I still get the "you're over qualified.

I've already relocated back to Green Bay, WI, moved back in with mom, (cuz I'm just about flat broke), and will be going back to school in Jan to finish my degree. Since I was laid off in California, I have to stay on their unemployment program, but I've just been notified that the firist extension has been extended by another seven weeks, and if I'm still unemployed after that, there's the second extension of seven weeks. I think the job market is much worse than most people realize. For example, until I'm collecting benafits again, I'm not counted on any unemployment numbers, and you'd have to figure that there are quite a few people in my position for them to be extending them the way they are, so I'd say the unemployment numbers are probably .5-1.5% higher than reported. And yes, I know that was a run-on sentance!

Sorry to hear. You try any temp jobs? I used to do those when I was between jobs.

Thanks, but it is what it is. All I can do is keep trying, can't get bummed by being turned down.

I actually have been working with three different agencies, and between the three of them, I've had exactly four interviews. Each of which, I've been rejected by the employer. A major problem in the Green Bay job market is that the majority of office and tech jobs have moved around 30mi south of here to the Fox Valley (a group of five different cities). My car is still in CA, cuz I can't afford to get it shipped back, and it's not really realistic to drive to a job down there, then drive another 30-50 for school up here.

 

[PatientGrasshopper]

I'd rather be unemployed and waiting to hear back from potential employers from the resumes I sent out.

Not me I've been in that boat too long.

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..

That may be true, but it is not legal.

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

Bring on Jeremy Kyle.

Oh yes the good ol' nanny state,sit on your butt all day and let the cash role in.

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.

I don't know how immigration works in the UK but it would be a bad idea here in the US.

I'd be better off cultivating my own agriculture, shining shoes, and just working for myself than working in a sweatshop.

Oh an entrepreneur, well you are just too smart.

Edited for size.

Sorry for the long-winded post, but that's my opinion and I'm stickin to it!

I see what you are saying, there is that terrible point where you are too qualified for some jobs but not enough experience for others. For me I try to get a job and they say I need experience, now how can I get experience if every job requires experience before I get it? The jobs that always seem to come to me are pyramid schemes that I have to pay into $100s of dollars, but I don't even though they promise massive profits. The Minimum wage's effect is that it requires a company to pay a certain amount to someone. So the company doesn't want to do that so they find cheaper alternatives like outsourcing and illegal immigrants.
The problem with universal health care is higher taxes and inferior service,with super long waiting lines.

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?

I have no idea. I would like to think that I avoid buying products that use people to produce them under sweatshop conditions, but I would just be fooling myself. The reality of the situation is that even if we never shop at places like Wal-mart all most every product made in places like China, The Philippines, Africa, and Malaysia are made in this way. It is almost impossible to do this. That is why I by American any time I can get the chance. Because even if people get paid a shitty wage, I know that we have work regulations that keep the work environment from being deplorable. In the rest of the world it is like the second coming of the Industrial Revolution. Child slave labor is in full swing and it makes me sick.

As an added bonus it would keep our own economy strong as the money would keep circulating domestically. Not to say that trade with other countries is bad I am not suggesting that at all.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

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.

I don't know how immigration works in the UK but it would be a bad idea here in the US.

Not at all.

If you pay the immigrants the same wages as you do the resident population you cut out the cheap-labor aspect of it at a single stroke. I don't see how the alternative (employers all getting in immigrants to work on the cheap) can be any better.

 

[PatientGrasshopper]

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.

I don't know how immigration works in the UK but it would be a bad idea here in the US.

Not at all.

If you pay the immigrants the same wages as you do the resident population you cut out the cheap-labor aspect of it at a single stroke. I don't see how the alternative (employers all getting in immigrants to work on the cheap) can be any better.

Alright here is the problem as it is in the US. Here we have all these illegal immigrants come in and they get jobs because they can get paid cheaper because if they complain they will be exported. Now this takes jobs from American citizens. They also suck our resources by not paying taxes and often just use up social security. Now, you might suggest we just legalize everyone. Here's the problem with that, it would be too easy for just anyone to come in who has no skills and would be a drain on the economy because of their lack of skills. I think there was another point about it I wanted to make but forgot what it was.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

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.

I don't know how immigration works in the UK but it would be a bad idea here in the US.

Not at all.

If you pay the immigrants the same wages as you do the resident population you cut out the cheap-labor aspect of it at a single stroke. I don't see how the alternative (employers all getting in immigrants to work on the cheap) can be any better.

Alright here is the problem as it is in the US. Here we have all these illegal immigrants come in and they get jobs because they can get paid cheaper because if they complain they will be exported. Now this takes jobs from American citizens. They also suck our resources by not paying taxes and often just use up social security. Now, you might suggest we just legalize everyone. Here's the problem with that, it would be too easy for just anyone to come in who has no skills and would be a drain on the economy because of their lack of skills. I think there was another point about it I wanted to make but forgot what it was.

Exactly my point.

So if the government forces companies to pay immigrants the exact same wages as USA citizens they would no long have any incentive to hire immigrants instead of Americans yes?

They are all flocking there because there is an abundance of jobs for them - given to them by American businesses.

 

[PatientGrasshopper]

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.

I don't know how immigration works in the UK but it would be a bad idea here in the US.

Not at all.

If you pay the immigrants the same wages as you do the resident population you cut out the cheap-labor aspect of it at a single stroke. I don't see how the alternative (employers all getting in immigrants to work on the cheap) can be any better.

Alright here is the problem as it is in the US. Here we have all these illegal immigrants come in and they get jobs because they can get paid cheaper because if they complain they will be exported. Now this takes jobs from American citizens. They also suck our resources by not paying taxes and often just use up social security. Now, you might suggest we just legalize everyone. Here's the problem with that, it would be too easy for just anyone to come in who has no skills and would be a drain on the economy because of their lack of skills. I think there was another point about it I wanted to make but forgot what it was.

Exactly my point.

So if the government forces companies to pay immigrants the exact same wages as USA citizens they would no long have any incentive to hire immigrants instead of Americans yes?

They are all flocking there because there is an abundance of jobs for them - given to them by American businesses.

Did you even read the rest of my argument? That was just my setup and of course using that bit out of context would prove your point. We want to try to keep the amount of unskilled labor that would not be beneficial to a minimum.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

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.

I don't know how immigration works in the UK but it would be a bad idea here in the US.

Not at all.

If you pay the immigrants the same wages as you do the resident population you cut out the cheap-labor aspect of it at a single stroke. I don't see how the alternative (employers all getting in immigrants to work on the cheap) can be any better.

Alright here is the problem as it is in the US. Here we have all these illegal immigrants come in and they get jobs because they can get paid cheaper because if they complain they will be exported. Now this takes jobs from American citizens. They also suck our resources by not paying taxes and often just use up social security. Now, you might suggest we just legalize everyone. Here's the problem with that, it would be too easy for just anyone to come in who has no skills and would be a drain on the economy because of their lack of skills. I think there was another point about it I wanted to make but forgot what it was.

Exactly my point.

So if the government forces companies to pay immigrants the exact same wages as USA citizens they would no long have any incentive to hire immigrants instead of Americans yes?

They are all flocking there because there is an abundance of jobs for them - given to them by American businesses.

Did you even read the rest of my argument? That was just my setup and of course using that bit out of context would prove your point. We want to try to keep the amount of unskilled labor that would not be beneficial to a minimum.

I did read it, but it had no bearing on my argument. Dude... those unskilled jobs are essential. Without people stacking groceries and taking away garbage society would grind to a halt within a week. Somebody needs to do them, and if you done away with "unskilled labor" you would actually have to import immigrants in to take over those unskilled jobs.

You can't run a country only on high skill labor - somebody has to sell you food in a store.

 

[PatientGrasshopper]

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.

I don't know how immigration works in the UK but it would be a bad idea here in the US.

Not at all.

If you pay the immigrants the same wages as you do the resident population you cut out the cheap-labor aspect of it at a single stroke. I don't see how the alternative (employers all getting in immigrants to work on the cheap) can be any better.

Alright here is the problem as it is in the US. Here we have all these illegal immigrants come in and they get jobs because they can get paid cheaper because if they complain they will be exported. Now this takes jobs from American citizens. They also suck our resources by not paying taxes and often just use up social security. Now, you might suggest we just legalize everyone. Here's the problem with that, it would be too easy for just anyone to come in who has no skills and would be a drain on the economy because of their lack of skills. I think there was another point about it I wanted to make but forgot what it was.

Exactly my point.

So if the government forces companies to pay immigrants the exact same wages as USA citizens they would no long have any incentive to hire immigrants instead of Americans yes?

They are all flocking there because there is an abundance of jobs for them - given to them by American businesses.

Did you even read the rest of my argument? That was just my setup and of course using that bit out of context would prove your point. We want to try to keep the amount of unskilled labor that would not be beneficial to a minimum.

I did read it, but it had no bearing on my argument. Dude... those unskilled jobs are essential. Without people stacking groceries and taking away garbage society would grind to a halt within a week. Somebody needs to do them, and if you done away with "unskilled labor" you would actually have to import immigrants in to take over those unskilled jobs.

You can't run a country only on high skill labor - somebody has to sell you food in a store.

That's why we use the unskilled labor we already have in our citizens.

 

[Dubiousduke]

I'll just come out and say a big NO. Working there furthers the means of the man, thus ruining my chances of a real job.

 

[Dele]

On one hand, we have free trade agreements which are extremely unfair to the American worker, since it allows corporations to ship jobs overseas with no tax penalties. They are now able to pay their workers less, while still making the same product and increasing the price to follow the CPI/Inflation Rate. In turn, they increase their profits, pay their executives more, while neglecting their dwindling American workforce.

It's called capitalism. Might sting a bit here and there but overall it's good for you and everybody unless you describe yourself as someone who should be paid more for doing the same job somebody else does for cheaper.

 

[zacaron]

I would learn how to pick-pocket. Sweatshops are one step away from slave labor.

It seems everyone is actually dodging the real question, OK it is almost slave labor but is it better than no job at all?

no it isn't
some people with low pay jobs under minimum wage have resorted to begging and found that it is more profitable then work in some cases
so I would learn how to pickpocket or beg before I went to a sweatshop.

 

[PatientGrasshopper]

I would learn how to pick-pocket. Sweatshops are one step away from slave labor.

It seems everyone is actually dodging the real question, OK it is almost slave labor but is it better than no job at all?

no it isn't
some people with low pay jobs under minimum wage have resorted to begging and found that it is more profitable then work in some cases
so I would learn how to pickpocket or beg before I went to a sweatshop.

Well I do suppose that is an option.