On Wal-Mart

[bradford1]

This is the rough of a column I am writing for an anti-violence website. I did not upload the pictures. They are very sad anyway. I need to split this post up.

Slavery in the Pacific:
Examples of the Cruelty of American Globalization

A sweatshop in Saipan: Workers are indentured servants brought from China and southeast Asia to work in the camps. companies like Wal-Mart, and Abercrombie & Fitch tell workers to come to America and be free, for a fee to be shipped over to Saipan. In reality, the cost of transportation (sometimes illegally) is less than $1000, (As the ships are in horrible condition, and the workers are often transported in cargo boxes.)

however, the corporations have raised the loans artificially, making the workers work
off money that they do not owe – on less than a dollar a day in some cases.
In some camps, women are forced into prostitution. Conditions in these work
camps are atrocious, and usually life-threatening.

“Multinational corporations have been moving production facilities out of democratic, industrial nations into impoverished, developing countries in order to take advantage of cheap labor and to avoid scrutiny from governments and human rights organizations.”

- www.webster.edu

EVEN PRODUCTS WITH LABELS “MADE IN USA” ARE MADE IN ASIAN SWEATSHOPS SUPERVISED BY WAL-MART AND OTHER LABEL. SOMETIMES THE SWEATSHOPS ARE ON U.S. SOIL.

Saipan Work Camps Hurt Women’s Rights:
Female workers in Saipan, Guam, and American Samoa, forced laborers of America’s powerful corporations, are forced to get abortions when they become pregnant. Many of these pregnancies are unwanted results of forced prostitution.

A Sweatshop Owner in American Samoa is Charged With Human Trafficking (As originally published by the National Labor Committee): A sweatshop owner, manufacturing for Wal-Mart in the American controlled south Pacific island American Samoa, was charged with illegal human trafficking in 2001. The workers he was trafficking were transported in horrendous conditions. The 200 workers that this man transported to Samoan sweatshops were mostly Vietnamese and Chinese men and women forced to work. They were slaves, not uncommon to much of the manufacturing labor utilized by the Wal-Mart corporation. Target, Sears, and JCPenny, (But mostly Wal-Mart) purchased manufactured clothing from this factory fully knowing that the factory was a sweatshop that used slave labor. Wal-Mart has done nothing to compensate the losses of factory workers in both financial and human cost.

In American sweatshops throughout the south Pacific, workers are intimidated with violence. Workers are constantly beaten to maintain pace, and equipment in the sweatshops are often unsafe and out of date.

This is not the first time Wal-Mart has been involved in illegal immigration. It is known that Wal-Mart hires illegal Mexican and Latin American immigrants, pays them below minimum wage, locks them in the stores after hours (To prevent racially-motivated theft). If the workers complain, Wal-Mart fires them, and then deports them back to their countries of origin.

MOST AMERICANS DON’T WONDER AS TO WHY WAL-MART’S PRICES ARE SO CHEAP……

[bradford1]

Why Wal-Mart’s Slogan Tells No Lie: Anyone who has ever shopped at a Wal-Mart knows that Wal-Mart is cheap – too cheap as a matter of fact. A four pound bag of gummy bears isn’t ever sold for $1.00. A 12 pack of soda isn’t usually 90 cents. As of 2006, Wal-Mart is the biggest corporation in the world. It grew from a small southern business to its current manifestation in a very small amount of time. The story of Wal-Mart’s rise to power is riddled with exploitation, extortion, and blood money.

-Wal-Mart Extorts Suppliers: Of the few suppliers of goods to Wal-Mart that don’t use slave labor, most are extorted by Wal-Mart’s corporate might. Wal-Mart buys in bulk to such an extent, that the purchases of goods from a supplier (A legitimate one that Wal-Mart doesn’t own) make or break the supplier’s business. If the supplier won’t give Wal-Mart its good at Wal-Mart’s stated price, usually far less than the supplier can afford to sell at, Wal-Mart will purchase its goods from different suppliers (Or it will open up more slave operations in the south Pacific.), totally destroying the supplier’s small business. Wal-Mart’s low prices are partially profitable for it because it extorts small legitimate business into its price.

-Wal-Mart Exploits its Employees: Wal-Mart is guilty of employee exploitation on many levels. Workers in the department store are usually illegal immigrants, or retired people. The workers are often locked into the store to prevent theft. The illegal ones are paid below minimum wage, and given unsatisfying work standards. If those illegal workers complain about their condition, they are deported back to their country of origin, and Wal-Mart replaces them with another illegal immigrant. If you work for Wal-Mart, you are a mere number.

Employees on other levels are exploited and treated unfairly too. Wal-Mart gets its cheap labor from inhumane sweatshops, the workers in them are either forced to work there in horrendous conditions, or they are cheated into coming there (For example, they are told that they will find opportunity in America, if they work off the transportation debt, but the factory makes them pay off a ridiculously high fake add-on to what they actually owe. This means of hire, indenturing servants, was illegalized with slavery in the United States in the 1860’s. These sweatshops are usually in America’s south Pacific territory; such as Guam, American Samoa, and Saipan. Labels on the textiles and other goods manufactured there are labeled “Made in USA”, although most of these places are about American as England. Women in these grisly slave camps are often forced into prostitution; if they are impregnated they are forced to abort. The treatment of workers (Prisoners, more accurately.) in these forced labor camps (That is right, I said forced labor camps.) are inhumane, unethical, and crimes against human life as we know it. Wal-Mart has nameless thousands of human lives trapped behind barbed wire.

Wal-Mart Exploits You, The Consumer: Most Americans think that Wal-Mart is great; after all, it has low prices. As a matter of fact, 4/5 of Americans shop there. Rarely do American consumers think about where their money spent at Wal-Mart, however nominal or significant, really is going. While the low prices of Wal-Mart seem beneficial, take into consideration the fact that when you shop at Wal-Mart, your money goes to:

• Slavery
• Prostitution
• Extortion of small business
• The keeping of indentured servants
• Abortion against will
• Oppression of workers’ rights
• Exploitation of immigrants

And most of all, the death and suffering of innocent people.

Take this knowledge you have learned, think about your duty to your fellow man. Then see if you can come up with one good reason not to boycott and speak out against Wal-Mart, Sweatshops, and other dirty corporations guilty of these crimes.

WE ARE EXPECTED TO ACT AS PEOPLE!

[losiglow]

Walmart is the Devil! Just like Foozball!! LoL. Really though, I've hear a lot about wal-mart but most of this is new to me. While I've never like Wally world, I was wondering if you have any sources to back these claims up? Being a Right-wing nut job, I am totally pro business yet I don't like the ethics of Wal-Mart. I have worked in the Grocery industry and I know the claims of extortion among suppliers by Wal-Mart is true. But prostitution and being shipped over in shipping crates? Sources, sources, sources please.

[Imperator]

I once had to do a report on sweatshops, we were all given companies to hound about their labor practices.

I tried, but Sears never got back to me......

Thanks to outsourcing and sweatshops, Michigan's gonna be a ghost state in a few years. GM's massive layoffs are only the beginning. While they layoff Americans, they're more than happy to hire on in their South American factories.........

If it gets bad enough, all we'll have left is a giant military, and no businesses..........

[JoyDivision]

Errhhh... you americans and your sodas, and your wal-mart and your "aluminium".
Lmao! You guys cant even sau that right.

Moving onto topic, fair trade is something the americans need to learn about in Geography. I'm not sure what the american curicularium is like. But that should be included in it. But as I was saying, fair trade. Thats is what should be branded on every product. But thats only if they pay more money to the primary job. But instead the big fat bastards who owns Wal-Mart is doing nothing to help the world, but the americans who are brainwashed by there corrupt goverment.

[bradford1]

At 4/11/06 11:19 AM, Imperator wrote: I once had to do a report on sweatshops, we were all given companies to hound about their labor practices.

I tried, but Sears never got back to me......

Thanks to outsourcing and sweatshops, Michigan's gonna be a ghost state in a few years. GM's massive layoffs are only the beginning. While they layoff Americans, they're more than happy to hire on in their South American factories.........

If it gets bad enough, all we'll have left is a giant military, and no businesses..........

Your totally right. Detroit is quickly becoming a ghetto.

America is keeping its economic authority through violent imperialism. We use an army to maintain that.

[bradford1]

At 4/11/06 11:16 AM, losiglow wrote: Walmart is the Devil! Just like Foozball!! LoL. Really though, I've hear a lot about wal-mart but most of this is new to me. While I've never like Wally world, I was wondering if you have any sources to back these claims up? Being a Right-wing nut job, I am totally pro business yet I don't like the ethics of Wal-Mart. I have worked in the Grocery industry and I know the claims of extortion among suppliers by Wal-Mart is true. But prostitution and being shipped over in shipping crates? Sources, sources, sources please.

Sources on this subject were VERY difficult to find, of course I've spent alot of time on this. Here you go:

http://www.cleanclot..g/legal/04-01-08.htm

http://www.webster.e..lflm/sweatshops.html

http://www.globalexc..aipan/abc040100.html

http://www.asianweek..1_07_20/feature.html

http://www.nlcnet.org/scale/sweatshop.htm

http://www.commonpla..gap_clothes_and.shtm

http://www.thenewame..h/article_3116.shtml

http://www.westbrookourhome.com/Saipan.htm

I have more if you need them.

[Imperator]

America is keeping its economic authority through violent imperialism. We use an army to maintain that.

Ehhh.....not exactly........

But it's always a safe bet that at a minimum, there's job security in working for the gov't or military.

[losiglow]

Thanks for the links. Should be interesting reading. I'm sure Walmart trys hard to keep these things under wrap. All their advertising lately is boasting how they help small businesses and the local community. Alrighty then!

[Me-Patch]

Dismantle the corporate machine. Death to the fat greedy Executives of the world.

[SkunkyFluffy]

At 4/11/06 11:16 AM, losiglow wrote: Sources, sources, sources please.

Definitely. I can't accept anything so outlandish without proof.

Personally, I've always had mixed feelings about Wal-Mart. They were the subject of my thesis paper in Econ back in high school. Economically, they're above reproach. They employ more people than the US Army, providing countless American jobs and affordable products. Wal-Mart is more than just for the poor now: their quality of merchandise is up, as well as their variety of services. Hell, they're even trying to break into the banking business. You can get groceries, eye exams, and hunting equipment in the same store. Wal-Mart is everywhere and open all the time.

On the ethics issue of course there is more to discuss. Wal-Mart is on the one hand a "wholesome" corporation, refusing to sell explicit materials such as CDs, magazines, and movies. They provide a lot of funding for education, including sending their college-age employees to school. Wal-Mart gives the appearance of being family oriented and having traditional values. However, these kinds of accusations rear up fairly regularly, leading us to question some of the company's business practices.

As for their treatment of employees, I have known more than a few people who have worked for Wal-Mart and had good (if not excellent) experiences. The pay is actually quite decent, the hours are extremely flexible (a 24-hour store has numerous shifts, after all), and the benefits packages are attractive. Then again, these were all high-school-age workers. Perhaps for older employees it is different. Also, location may be an issue. Perhaps individual locations handle their workers differently. While this is something to be blamed mostly on regional management, the corporation may be held accountable for not discouraging exploitative or abusive business practices.

Frankly, I think both sides of the Wal-Mart argument are flawed. They surely cannot be as benevolent as all that. But to suggest that they are encouraging prostitution and forced labor in other countries is probably also an exaggeration. Is it possible that these abuses are being carried out by subsidiaries of Wal-Mart? If so, the company is surely not absolved of guilt--again, they should be doing all they can to discourage abusive practices--but neither is it entirely to blame.

Wal-Mart is a beneficial institution to this nation's economy, and some would argue that this is enough to justify whatever shady practices they permit or encourage. I am not of this opinion, but I do feel that Wal-Mart has come under some extremely biased and unfair scrutiny from those who are anti-corporation.

I reserve my judgment of Wal-Mart until I am satisfied that I have heard the facts.

[MoralLibertarian]

At 4/11/06 02:01 AM, bradford1 wrote: -Wal-Mart Extorts Suppliers: Of the few suppliers of goods to Wal-Mart that don’t use slave labor, most are extorted by Wal-Mart’s corporate might. Wal-Mart buys in bulk to such an extent, that the purchases of goods from a supplier (A legitimate one that Wal-Mart doesn’t own) make or break the supplier’s business. If the supplier won’t give Wal-Mart its good at Wal-Mart’s stated price, usually far less than the supplier can afford to sell at, Wal-Mart will purchase its goods from different suppliers (Or it will open up more slave operations in the south Pacific.), totally destroying the supplier’s small business. Wal-Mart’s low prices are partially profitable for it because it extorts small legitimate business into its price.

Lol, good one. Because Wal-Mart has mastered the art of cutting down the supply chain, much like Dell, they are hurting their suppliers. Hey buddy, hate to tell you, but this is how business works. The retailer names their price, the supplier says, "We can do that," and reworks their product. Or they say, "We can't do that," and Wal-Mart says, "Thank you for your time." How is Wal-Mart hurting the small business if they choose not to buy their product? The supplier is no worse off than they were initially.

-Wal-Mart Exploits its Employees: Wal-Mart is guilty of employee exploitation on many levels. Workers in the department store are usually illegal immigrants, or retired people. The workers are often locked into the store to prevent theft. The illegal ones are paid below minimum wage, and given unsatisfying work standards. If those illegal workers complain about their condition, they are deported back to their country of origin, and Wal-Mart replaces them with another illegal immigrant. If you work for Wal-Mart, you are a mere number.

Well, you think all labor is exploitation, but that's another point. I would like you to point to me a couple of instances where this happened, including the part where the illegal immigrant makes less money than minimum wage. Because if they are on the payroll, they cannot legally be paid less than minimum wage. I remember a couple cases a couple years ago, but they decided the litigation process was not worth the effort and discontinued the policy.

Employees on other levels are exploited and treated unfairly too. Wal-Mart gets its cheap labor from inhumane sweatshops, the workers in them are either forced to work there in horrendous conditions, or they are cheated into coming there (For example, they are told that they will find opportunity in America, if they work off the transportation debt, but the factory makes them pay off a ridiculously high fake add-on to what they actually owe. This means of hire, indenturing servants, was illegalized with slavery in the United States in the 1860’s. These sweatshops are usually in America’s south Pacific territory; such as Guam, American Samoa, and Saipan. Labels on the textiles and other goods manufactured there are labeled “Made in USA”, although most of these places are about American as England. Women in these grisly slave camps are often forced into prostitution; if they are impregnated they are forced to abort. The treatment of workers (Prisoners, more accurately.) in these forced labor camps (That is right, I said forced labor camps.) are inhumane, unethical, and crimes against human life as we know it. Wal-Mart has nameless thousands of human lives trapped behind barbed wire.

I would like your sources for each charge. But in any case, I don't doubt that other places in this country are fucked up. I don't see how it is Wal-Mart's problem. As retailers, they have a duty to choose the cheapest suppliers so they can sell their product at the most competitive price. At most, it's a sin of omission. The suppliers should be cracked down on for any violation in human rights, preferably by their own governments but if not then by a world organization with some clout. Blaming Wal-Mart for buying from cheap suppliers is like blaming a customer for buying from cheap retailers (which incidentally, a lot of you all seem to do).

With all this tripe sounding exactly like every other anti-Wal-Mart source I've read, I believe your work is heavily plagiarized, especially since you gave no sources.

[mofomojo]

It's pretty easy not to shop at Wal-Mart, I could juts go to a local store, make my own clothes, whatever.

It's hard not to shop at wal-mart, but not impossible. I'm sure that I could overt shopping at any major chains and retailers. Food retailers are usually pretty innocent anyways, since most of the food is grown locally in Canada, albiet with migrant workers - but at least they get paid minimum wage most of the time.

What can I say? Capitalism and competition sometimes encourages shady practices.

[michael006]

d00d i hate walmaret, its teh xiuscuckzor

[Gunter45]

If people don't work at the America sweatshops in Asia, then they work in Asian sweatshops. It's not like we invented the sweatshop. Besides, everyone harps on the fact that we're only paying them pennies an hour. Guess what? That's a decent wage over there. The economy isn't the same, if we paid them the American minimum wage, they would be extraordinarily wealthy. We're simply paying them a day laborer's wage.

[Ginger-Dave]

At 4/11/06 11:38 AM, JoyDivision wrote: Errhhh... you americans and your sodas, and your wal-mart and your "aluminium".
Lmao! You guys cant even sau that right.

We have Wal-mart in this country too y'know. It's called ASDA.

[bradford1]

At 4/11/06 06:01 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote:

At 4/11/06 02:01 AM, bradford1 wrote:

Lol, good one. Because Wal-Mart has mastered the art of cutting down the supply chain, much like Dell, they are hurting their suppliers. Hey buddy, hate to tell you, but this is how business works. The retailer names their price, the supplier says, "We can do that," and reworks their product. Or they say, "We can't do that," and Wal-Mart says, "Thank you for your time." How is Wal-Mart hurting the small business if they choose not to buy their product? The supplier is no worse off than they were initially.

The supplier is dependent on the purchases of Wal-Mart because they are so immense. Wal-Mart will purchase at THEIR price, or the supplier can go out of business. It really hurts small supplying businesses this way.

Well, you think all labor is exploitation, but that's another point. I would like you to point to me a couple of instances where this happened, including the part where the illegal immigrant makes less money than minimum wage. Because if they are on the payroll, they cannot legally be paid less than minimum wage. I remember a couple cases a couple years ago, but they decided the litigation process was not worth the effort and discontinued the policy.

I cited about 7-8 sources on an earlier post, look there.

It doesn't matter that the illegal immigrants can't legally be paid less than minimum wage, Wal-Mart is too important for the law.

I would like your sources for each charge. But in any case, I don't doubt that other places in this country are fucked up. I don't see how it is Wal-Mart's problem. As retailers, they have a duty to choose the cheapest suppliers so they can sell their product at the most competitive price. At most, it's a sin of omission. The suppliers should be cracked down on for any violation in human rights, preferably by their own governments but if not then by a world organization with some clout. Blaming Wal-Mart for buying from cheap suppliers is like blaming a customer for buying from cheap retailers (which incidentally, a lot of you all seem to do).

Some of the suppliers just happen to be actually owned by Wal-Mart. And I would blame someone for shopping at a retailer with a low price if that retailer used slave labor too.

Once again, look at my other post for some sources.

With all this tripe sounding exactly like every other anti-Wal-Mart source I've read, I believe your work is heavily plagiarized, especially since you gave no sources.

Well, it just so happens that THIS ISN'T YET PUBLISHED, I HAD SAID THAT IT WAS THE ROUGH AND UNEDITED COPY. Therefore, I cannot be liable for not citing sources with the actual column.

If you want some sources, look at my previous post.

[bradford1]

At 4/11/06 07:20 PM, Gunter45 wrote: If people don't work at the America sweatshops in Asia, then they work in Asian sweatshops. It's not like we invented the sweatshop. Besides, everyone harps on the fact that we're only paying them pennies an hour. Guess what? That's a decent wage over there. The economy isn't the same, if we paid them the American minimum wage, they would be extraordinarily wealthy. We're simply paying them a day laborer's wage.

Guess what? Alot of the labor in Saipan (which, like I said, is in the U.S. technically) comes from forced SLAVES!!! The other people usually don't come out of the work camps alive because of 2 reasons:

1.) The conditions in the camps are horribly dangerous.

2.) They are trying to pay off thousands of dollars of debt on less than a dollar a day.

This is some serious shit here. Read the fine print.

[Morextremist]

It isn't wal-marts fault, its capitalism's fault. People are just mad/jelious/envious because they're they aren't exploiting capitalism as much

[MarkyX]

The supplier is dependent on the purchases of Wal-Mart because they are so immense. Wal-Mart will purchase at THEIR price, or the supplier can go out of business. It really hurts small supplying businesses this way.

Um that's hwo businesses work. It's always been this way.

Why should Wal-mart have the obligation to supply every piece of equiment no matter what the price? It's their business. Your argument goes against pretty much everything that makes a free market free.

It doesn't matter that the illegal immigrants can't legally be paid less than minimum wage, Wal-Mart is too important for the law.

Sorry but working at Wal-mart requires little brain activity and education. I've worked at a similar environement and let me tell you something; at times I believed I was paid too much for what I was doing.

Unless you actually worked in a department store before, you shouldn't really be talking. Illegal immigration happens due to the numerous socialist programs that goes into hiring ONE person and the fact that the government supports illegal immigration. It makes much more business sense to hire someone who you don't have to pay vacation or healthcare or even minimal wage then someone where you must. Although it is very unethical, it is not illegal. Otherwise they would've been a mass deportation in california right now.

Some of the suppliers just happen to be actually owned by Wal-Mart. And I would blame someone for shopping at a retailer with a low price if that retailer used slave labor too.

Tell me something, how would you jumpstart an economy in a country without sweatshops? Because the only thing the chinese could've pulled off before they got big was farming. Reminds me of Russia. The wages being paid in china, you know, the whole 'dollar a day', is considered adequate there. Do you know how much food or rent costs in china? No? STFU then.

[RedScorpion]

At 4/12/06 03:13 AM, Morextremist wrote: It isn't wal-marts fault, its capitalism's fault. People are just mad/jelious/envious because they're they aren't exploiting capitalism as much

Much like saying 'The gun made me pull the trigger! Seriously!'

Just because capitalism is the current economic system, does not justify immoral practices.

At 4/12/06 08:30 AM, MarkyX wrote: Tell me something, how would you jumpstart an economy in a country without sweatshops? Because the only thing the chinese could've pulled off before they got big was farming. Reminds me of Russia. The wages being paid in china, you know, the whole 'dollar a day', is considered adequate there. Do you know how much food or rent costs in china? No? STFU then.

Think back before global economics, before international businesses. Countries - like China - had very productive lifestyles and were able to support many ambitions, like art, writing, and other skills besides their normal work. It appears that these people are under harsh, cruel conditions, subject to other's whims. With a debt of nearly a thousand dollars, and at a rate of 'a dollar a day' (that means they will also have to pay for food, housing and other living expenses), they will hardly have a life at all to enjoy.

Is America so feeble that it must stoop to slave labour to support itself? I think not.

Oh, and unless China has some sort of enormous inflation rate on their dollar compared to ours, 'a dollar a day' is pretty shitty.

[MoralLibertarian]

At 4/12/06 01:13 AM, bradford1 wrote:

At 4/11/06 06:01 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote:

At 4/11/06 02:01 AM, bradford1 wrote:

Lol, good one. Because Wal-Mart has mastered the art of cutting down the supply chain, much like Dell, they are hurting their suppliers. Hey buddy, hate to tell you, but this is how business works. The retailer names their price, the supplier says, "We can do that," and reworks their product. Or they say, "We can't do that," and Wal-Mart says, "Thank you for your time." How is Wal-Mart hurting the small business if they choose not to buy their product? The supplier is no worse off than they were initially.

The supplier is dependent on the purchases of Wal-Mart because they are so immense. Wal-Mart will purchase at THEIR price, or the supplier can go out of business. It really hurts small supplying businesses this way.

This is really stupid. I invented the extra-large butt-plug and anal massager: is Wal-Mart hurting my business because they refuse to put my product on their shelves? Egads, that's so stupid. You're stupid. Get out.

I cited about 7-8 sources on an earlier post, look there.

No no no sir. I'm not sifting through all of that propaganda. You back up each individual claim with your source. That's what professional researchers do, and that's what you're going to do now. Anything else is half-assed.

Some of the suppliers just happen to be actually owned by Wal-Mart.

Source please, so I know you're not pulling that out of your ass. I mean, you probably are.

Once again, look at my other post for some sources.
If you want some sources, look at my previous post.

No. You back up every claim with one source. You better do it if you want to be worth responding to.

[RedScorpion]

At 4/12/06 10:37 AM, MoralLibertarian wrote: That's what professional researchers do,

Psst. This is Newgrounds. I think anything 'professional' would be better spent on say... university papers and whatnot. =)

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 4/11/06 06:26 PM, mofomojo wrote: It's pretty easy not to shop at Wal-Mart, I could juts go to a local store, make my own clothes, whatever.

It's hard not to shop at wal-mart, but not impossible. I'm sure that I could overt shopping at any major chains and retailers. Food retailers are usually pretty innocent anyways, since most of the food is grown locally in Canada, albiet with migrant workers - but at least they get paid minimum wage most of the time.

So is it easy or hard not to shop at Wal*Mart?

And to the topic starter--I've been locked in the store I work in too, overnight, that's usually the case in any store. It's not to keep the workers in--it's to keep people from sneaking into the store and stealing stuff--or just wandering in.

[MoralLibertarian]

Your first source doesn't even mention wal-mart.

Wal-mart also promotes poor working conditions in factories. Facilities in China that produce clothing for the retailer pay their workers as low as $.13 an hour. Unfortunately, it is difficult to discover much about the practices in Wal-mart factories because Wal-mart refuses to disclose the names and locations of their sweatshops (Co-op America, 2001)

Note how they made a claim and then cited their source? Do that next time. This has nothing to do with poor working qualities. There's no mention that Wal-Mart owns this supplier, and this is dated info, from 5 years ago. Today, 50% of the Chinese population works for less than 1 American dollar a day. That's China's labor standards, it has nothing to do with the US, or Wal-Mart.

Third source mentions nothing about Wal-Mart.

Your fourth source mentions nothing about Wal-Mart.

Garment industry giants such as Gap, Inc. and Wal-Mart move from country to country seeking the lowest labor and operating costs and the weakest human rights regulations.

Too generic to comment upon. And too biased. You go where production is cheapest. Duh. (I've seen the Gap more than I've seen Wal-Mart in your sources. Why didn't you go after the Gap?)

Your sixth source doesn't mention Wal-Mart. I'm seeing a trend here.

Your seventh source...doesn't mention Wal-Mart. Nice sources asshole.

And your eighth source...well, this seems to be the meat and potatoes of your argument. For future reference, you don't have to put in a bunch of bullshit sources to add to your credibility. SO you plagiarized one document? Fine. That's better than plagiarizing eight.

Okay, a couple things I'd like to point out: women enter this contract of their own free will and move to Saipan from China. Here, they make wages of 3.00 an hour, which is remarkably better than 13 cents an hour.

Two, women can easily get out of their job at any time by doing one of the following: falling in love, getting married, getting impregnated (you exaggerated a bit about the forced prostitution thing, didn't you?), etc. They don't, because Saipan is better than China. They are making more there then they could make in China. For a poor woman, there is more opportunity in one American province than there is in all of China.

Three, one of the things that makes these sweatshops possible are American and Chinese protectionist tariffs. Recall that in your source, Saipan's main appeal is that there are no huge tariffs against them, which is why Wal-Mart likes to buy from them. Take away the tariffs, and there would be no appeal to buy from them.

Four, this article is very old. The first source updates it and illustrates how working condiditons have since improved.

Nice try.

[MoralLibertarian]

At 4/12/06 10:42 AM, RedScorpion wrote:

At 4/12/06 10:37 AM, MoralLibertarian wrote: That's what professional researchers do,

Psst. This is Newgrounds. I think anything 'professional' would be better spent on say... university papers and whatnot. =)

I'm holding him to this standard because he wants to publish this tripe.

[RedScorpion]

At 4/12/06 11:03 AM, MoralLibertarian wrote: I'm holding him to this standard because he wants to publish this tripe.

Oh yea, I remember him saying something along those lines...

This is the rough of a column I am writing for an anti-violence website. I did not upload the pictures. They are very sad anyway. I need to split this post up.

Here it is.

Please continue. But don't be too harsh. =)

[bradford1]

At 4/12/06 08:30 AM, MarkyX wrote:

The supplier is dependent on the purchases of Wal-Mart because they are so immense. Wal-Mart will purchase at THEIR price, or the supplier can go out of business. It really hurts small supplying businesses this way.

Um that's hwo businesses work. It's always been this way.

And that just because its always been there makes it perfectly right, huh?

Why should Wal-mart have the obligation to supply every piece of equiment no matter what the price? It's their business. Your argument goes against pretty much everything that makes a free market free.

I don't think you understand. Wal-Mart is using the fact that they are so enormous to get what they want out of small businesses.

It doesn't matter that the illegal immigrants can't legally be paid less than minimum wage, Wal-Mart is too important for the law.

Sorry but working at Wal-mart requires little brain activity and education. I've worked at a similar environement and let me tell you something; at times I believed I was paid too much for what I was doing.

I couldn't agree more. You do sound like quite the brain.
Also, I hope you understand that it isn't Wal-Mart's job to write the laws. Corporations don't have the powers of a dictator, or at least they shouldn't.

Unless you actually worked in a department store before, you shouldn't really be talking. Illegal immigration happens due to the numerous socialist programs that goes into hiring ONE person and the fact that the government supports illegal immigration. It makes much more business sense to hire someone who you don't have to pay vacation or healthcare or even minimal wage then someone where you must. Although it is very unethical, it is not illegal. Otherwise they would've been a mass deportation in california right now.

Well you see, it IS illegal. However, nobody seems to do anything about that. And I can boldly tell you right now THAT NO GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS IN AMERICA ARE SOCIALIST!!!!! WHERE THE HELL HAVE YOU BEEN IN THE PAST CENTURY?!?!?

Some of the suppliers just happen to be actually owned by Wal-Mart. And I would blame someone for shopping at a retailer with a low price if that retailer used slave labor too.

Tell me something, how would you jumpstart an economy in a country without sweatshops? Because the only thing the chinese could've pulled off before they got big was farming. Reminds me of Russia. The wages being paid in china, you know, the whole 'dollar a day', is considered adequate there. Do you know how much food or rent costs in china? No? STFU then.

A can of coke in China costs about 11 cents. An American dollar is about 8.64 yuans, the currency of China. It is not like you could live on 8 dollars and 64 cents a day with a big Chinese family to feed.

Secondly, sweatshops are forced labor camps. I would like you to work in a sweatshop and then tell me that it is humane and needed for economy. People die in sweatshops, they are not helping anyone but Wal-Mart.

I would jumpstart an economy by creating humane jobs, and filling them. I would jumpstart an economy by importing raw materials, and exporting manufactured products, bringing a surplus of money into my country. That means that my 'business' is making a 'profit' in dull terms.

The fact that you said that sweatshops are crucial speaks for itself.

Also, these camps that I am mentioning in particular ARE ON AMERICAN SOIL!!! That was the entire point! They are being sent to American soil, fenced in, surrounded by armed guards, and then forced to pay off thousands of AMERICAN dollars of debt on less than a dollar a day.

Not to mention that people die in these camps every day. How do you sleep at nightthinking that slave labor is needed for a successful economy?

[bradford1]

At 4/12/06 11:02 AM, MoralLibertarian wrote: Your first source doesn't even mention wal-mart.

It just so happens that Wal-Mart just so happens to sell these brands. They manufacture these brands in their camps to sell at Wal-Mart.

Wal-mart also promotes poor working conditions in factories. Facilities in China that produce clothing for the retailer pay their workers as low as $.13 an hour. Unfortunately, it is difficult to discover much about the practices in Wal-mart factories because Wal-mart refuses to disclose the names and locations of their sweatshops (Co-op America, 2001)

Note how they made a claim and then cited their source? Do that next time. This has nothing to do with poor working qualities. There's no mention that Wal-Mart owns this supplier, and this is dated info, from 5 years ago. Today, 50% of the Chinese population works for less than 1 American dollar a day. That's China's labor standards, it has nothing to do with the US, or Wal-Mart.

I told you that the column is a rough copy. I am going to add all of the sources before I publish it.

Maybe you would like to stop picking apart my arguement's layout, and start trying to pick apart what I actually say.

Third source mentions nothing about Wal-Mart.

Your fourth source mentions nothing about Wal-Mart.

Maybe you'd like to go to Wal-Mart and look at the clothes that they sell.

Garment industry giants such as Gap, Inc. and Wal-Mart move from country to country seeking the lowest labor and operating costs and the weakest human rights regulations.

Too generic to comment upon. And too biased. You go where production is cheapest. Duh. (I've seen the Gap more than I've seen Wal-Mart in your sources. Why didn't you go after the Gap?)

So when one of my sources finally says "Wal-Mart" by name, you say "too generic to comment upon" what a weakling.

You say that you have seen Gap in my sources more than Wal-Mart, well how do you know that this isn't just one part of an entire collection? Well it just so happens that the GAP is the next target.

Your sixth source doesn't mention Wal-Mart. I'm seeing a trend here.

Your seventh source...doesn't mention Wal-Mart. Nice sources asshole.

Once again, you don't take into consideration that Wal-Mart sells the products of all of these companies, and even works on the actual sweatshops.

I see a trend in you too. You can't admit that just maybe slave labor is unethical, so you attack my sources. You are a very childish debator.

If you are truly right, attack what I am actually saying - asshole.

And your eighth source...well, this seems to be the meat and potatoes of your argument. For future reference, you don't have to put in a bunch of bullshit sources to add to your credibility. SO you plagiarized one document? Fine. That's better than plagiarizing eight.

1.) I haven't plagiarized anything, as I haven't published anything.

2.) None of my sources were bullshit. Every one of them told of at least a company affiliated with Wal-Mart directly, that is using slave labor to make clothing.

3.) So the 8th one mentions Wal-Mart. Now you say I plagiarized the document. Nice fucking police work detective, unfortunately, using a few facts and statistics isn't plagiarism if a source is given, which I am going to do before I publish.

Okay, a couple things I'd like to point out: women enter this contract of their own free will and move to Saipan from China. Here, they make wages of 3.00 an hour, which is remarkably better than 13 cents an hour.

You know, that is one specific camp. Some camps pay less than a dollar a day.
Also, I'd like you to tell me that being forced into prostitution, and being killed in a slave camp is better than anything.

Two, women can easily get out of their job at any time by doing one of the following: falling in love, getting married, getting impregnated (you exaggerated a bit about the forced prostitution thing, didn't you?), etc. They don't, because Saipan is better than China. They are making more there then they could make in China. For a poor woman, there is more opportunity in one American province than there is in all of China.

Read the fine print: They have to abort their child to keep their job when pregnant.

2.) They may be out of the job, but they still owe thousands of dollars in debt.......
Have you ever borrowed from a loan shark? Then I guess you don't understand what "rip off your legs" means.

At the bottom of the 8th source: "Doe V was denied medical care despite requesting to see a doctor. Doe V’s housing quarters were insect and rat-infested and surrounded by a fence, and she shared a 10 square meter space with one other woman. Doe V personally witnessed a warning by Global Manufacturing Inc. management that a worker who was pregnant would be sent home to China, and therefore unable to pay the debt incurred for the recruiting fee, if she did not terminate her pregnancy.”

3.) HAAHA!! You call slavery in America oppurtunity? Seriously, go fuck yourself. That is just too pathetic to be taken seriously.

Source #2: "The women are verbally abused, spat on, and beaten." That sounds like real oppurtunity.

Go to hell.

4.) I never exaggerated about the forced prostitution.

"The ABC undercover reports on this identified one 14 year-old girl who was forced to dance nude on stage and perform sex acts."
"There is evidence that some of the women are forced to participate in sex rings."

Three, one of the things that makes these sweatshops possible are American and Chinese protectionist tariffs. Recall that in your source, Saipan's main appeal is that there are no huge tariffs against them, which is why Wal-Mart likes to buy from them. Take away the tariffs, and there would be no appeal to buy from them.

Except for the fact that Wal-Mart can get free labor, and can put "made in USA" on the clothing labels.

Four, this article is very old. The first source updates it and illustrates how working condiditons have since improved.

Nice try.

"Unfortunately, it is difficult to discover much about the practices in Wal-mart factories because Wal-mart refuses to disclose the names and locations of their sweatshops"
"A number of U.S.-owned companies import goods from Saipan including The Gap, Wal-Mart, J C Penney, and Sears Roebuck & Co."

Wal-Mart is constantly mentioned.

Nice Try.

[bradford1]

At 4/12/06 11:03 AM, MoralLibertarian wrote:

At 4/12/06 10:42 AM, RedScorpion wrote:

At 4/12/06 10:37 AM, MoralLibertarian wrote: That's what professional researchers do,

Psst. This is Newgrounds. I think anything 'professional' would be better spent on say... university papers and whatnot. =)

I'm holding him to this standard because he wants to publish this tripe.

Hahahah.... you mean that you want to maintain a psuedo-facist establishment?

It isn't supposed to be professional, this is a rough copy. I only posted it so that we could talk about the issue, not so you could use the fact that is a rough copy as the last refuge of your debate.