FairTrade is bad for Child Slaves

[Frenzy]

Fair trade is making things worse for childslaves, because the other companies have to lower their prices so that people will still buy them, and the child slaves are getting paid less as a result.

And if they don't work, then they won't be supporting their families, then their families will die.
Also, they can't be paid more, because then there's less money to go around. So, if you want
them to be paid more, then you should buy things that aren't fair trade.

[Makaio]

At 6/15/07 07:25 PM, Frenzy wrote:
And if they don't work, then they won't be supporting their families,

A large amount of child labour is children that have been sold traded or paid to the sweatshops so they aren't supporting anything. Not to mention the whole point of programs like fair trade is to stop child labour, ending child labour cant really be used as a negative like your trying to do.

[JakeHero]

I like sweatshops that hire children workers. It benefits them in many ways, plus all of us consumers here.

[Frenzy]

At 6/15/07 07:31 PM, Makaio wrote: A large amount of child labour is children that have been sold traded or paid to the sweatshops so they aren't supporting anything. Not to mention the whole point of programs like fair trade is to stop child labour, ending child labour cant really be used as a negative like your trying to do.

It's not a negative idea, but think of it this way: if they don't work, they won't havea ny money so their families will die. Would you rather they worked or their families died?

[MortifiedPenguins]

You do realize that there not slaves if there getting paid.

Right?

[TheloniousMONK]

Any interference with the market is bad for everyone.

[Frenzy]

At 6/15/07 09:29 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: You do realize that there not slaves if there getting paid.

Right?

They're getting paid very little (i.e. 1 cent an hour)... and it's not going to them it's going to their families...

[dodo-man-1]

At 6/15/07 09:23 PM, JakeHero wrote: I like sweatshops that hire children workers. It benefits them in many ways, plus all of us consumers here.

Um... no.

[HackJack]

Fair trade is supposed to buy local products at prices close to the ones they set to sell the stuff in the rich countries. That way a kid that sells 1kg of cocoa gets 1$ and not 5 cents. If the side-effects produce a backfire effect then this system is used ONLY for its backfire effect since there are no more fair powerful people. I say we use the Scout rifle on 'em! It's got style!

[HighlyIllogical]

Globalization is the wave of the future.

Just look at what foreign corporations did to south korea (for the better)!!!

[AapoJoki]

At 6/15/07 09:23 PM, JakeHero wrote: I like sweatshops that hire children workers. It benefits them in many ways, plus all of us consumers here.

Those children need to go to school for fuck's sake. If they can't get education, people in countries like that will continue to live in extreme poverty for decades to come.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 6/15/07 09:25 PM, Frenzy wrote:

At 6/15/07 07:31 PM, Makaio wrote: A large amount of child labour is children that have been sold traded or paid to the sweatshops so they aren't supporting anything. Not to mention the whole point of programs like fair trade is to stop child labour, ending child labour cant really be used as a negative like your trying to do.

It's not a negative idea, but think of it this way: if they don't work, they won't havea ny money so their families will die. Would you rather they worked or their families died?

Why can the child work but the parent cant?

I already know your going to start listing the vague extenuating circumstances.

Child labor is just ASKING for another decade of human mistreatment

[JakeHero]

At 6/16/07 10:37 AM, dodo-man-1 wrote: Um... no.

Um.... yes.

At 6/16/07 01:00 PM, AapoJoki wrote: Those children need to go to school for fuck's sake. If they can't get education, people in countries like that will continue to live in extreme poverty for decades to come.

Well, Aapo, the problem here is you're judging different cultures monolithically. To them, it doesn't matter if they gain an education or not, lavishness or poverty. Not every nation's goal is to acquire vast wealth. On top of that, sweatshops help the economies of the nations they're in because they keep employment up, and plus those jobs pay more than the alternative jobs in the reason.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 6/16/07 01:00 PM, AapoJoki wrote:

At 6/15/07 09:23 PM, JakeHero wrote:

Those children need to go to school for fuck's sake. If they can't get education, people in countries like that will continue to live in extreme poverty for decades to come.

Well, since thats not going to happen anytime soon in many countries that have sweatshops, at least there actually working and recieving a wage.

[AapoJoki]

At 6/16/07 05:44 PM, JakeHero wrote: Well, Aapo, the problem here is you're judging different cultures monolithically. To them, it doesn't matter if they gain an education or not, lavishness or poverty.

What the fuck! In what culture would people not mind poverty, starvation and 14-20h working days? That's a pathetic excuse. Cultures may vary, but there are some things that are common to all human beings: people need a little free time and children need a lot of sleep, playing and education. Even if you don't feel sorry for the grown ups working in these places, it's a heinous crime to deny children the pleasure of being children.

If anything, the children in 3rd world countries are even more enthusiastic about learning, because it's such a rare privilege. They are literally crying on the days they can't go to school, because they couldn't afford it. It's fucked up that children will have to work to pay for school. When do they play like normal children? How long do they sleep a night?

On top of that, sweatshops help the economies of the nations they're in because they keep employment up

Because in general, countries with lower education have better economy? Do you realize that that argument could be, and probably was, used about slavery? "But it helps our economy! Besides, look how happy they are working on the cotton fields, it's in their nature. They would be far worse off if we had left them in Africa to live in a tribe, without all the modern conveniences. They're not meant to be free!"

and plus those jobs pay more than the alternative jobs in the reason.

And you don't think there's anything wrong with that?

[JakeHero]

At 6/17/07 04:23 PM, AapoJoki wrote: What the fuck! In what culture would people not mind poverty, starvation and 14-20h working days?

Ask them which they're concerned most with A) An easy life B) Education or C) Ensuring them and their familes don't starve to death.

That's a pathetic excuse.

It's pretty pathetic to pretend you give two shits about kids you really don't.

Cultures may vary,

No no no, cultures DO vary.

but there are some things that are common to all human beings: people need a little free time and children need a lot of sleep, playing and education.

Well you obviously have had your conception of human needs so diluted by socialist idiocy that you forget history. About a few hundred years ago humans had no education, they worked six days a week, 12-15 hours a day, and had virtually no free time. These people never complained about it and they were content and even happy with the lives they had.

Even if you don't feel sorry for the grown ups working in these places, it's a heinous crime to deny children the pleasure of being children.

Or you rather those kids become prostitutes or die in the streets of starvation? They aren't working because they want to, they're working because they have to. No one's forcing them to be a sweatshop employee. It's bad, but contrast it to any other occupation they could have in a thirdworld country.

If anything, the children in 3rd world countries are even more enthusiastic about learning, because it's such a rare privilege.

Can't deny that. Socialist ideology has turned us westerner into mal-content swine.

They are literally crying on the days they can't go to school, because they couldn't afford it.

Really, I don't see many factory workers crying because they can't do homework.

It's fucked up that children will have to work to pay for school. When do they play like normal children? How long do they sleep a night?

Not any longer than people used to in our nations over a hundred years ago. This kind of thing isn't new, Aapo. You know what happened? The people worked and worked and worked until they nearly dropped dead to ensure the success and prosperity we enjoy now. They never menstrated about having to work all the time, and eventually their perserverance paid off.

Because in general, countries with lower education have better economy? Do you realize that that argument could be, and probably was, used about slavery?

Considering slaves weren't considered people or payed they wouldn't fall into the category of employed.

"But it helps our economy! Besides, look how happy they are working on the cotton fields, it's in their nature. They would be far worse off if we had left them in Africa to live in a tribe, without all the modern conveniences. They're not meant to be free!"

I'm not arguing in favor of cotton fields, I'm defending sweatshops because not only do they pay better than any other job in their home country, but they're less extrenuous.

and plus those jobs pay more than the alternative jobs in the reason.

And you don't think there's anything wrong with that?

I don't think you understood what I said; I said the sweatshop jobs pay more than any other kind of job they could get.

[fli]

At 6/15/07 09:23 PM, JakeHero wrote: I like sweatshops that hire children workers. It benefits them in many ways, plus all of us consumers here.

*eye rollie*

That is so stupid-- you're just justifying child slavery by saying, "Well... if they aint working, then they starving."

Child labor DOESN'T protect children. It disadvantages them by giving limited skills so that when they grow up and have their own children (probably when they're still children)-- they are forced to sell their children to make money. Because they didn't have school or any pratical teaching. And those children will continue that cycle.

I dislike sweatshops. I make sure my clothe purchases are humaine to people. They maybe more costly and not as fashionable... but I wear them at least knowing that I tried my best to select clothes that doesn't support and MAKE GROW the need for forced enslavement.

[JakeHero]

At 6/17/07 04:46 PM, fli wrote: *eye rollie*

That is so stupid-- you're just justifying child slavery by saying, "Well... if they aint working, then they starving."

It would be child slavery if they were considered property, weren't paid, and forced to work. So I don't think the word "slavery" is applicable here.

Child labor DOESN'T protect children. It disadvantages them by giving limited skills so that when they grow up and have their own children (probably when they're still children)-- they are forced to sell their children to make money. Because they didn't have school or any pratical teaching. And those children will continue that cycle.

You know what? YOU'RE RIGHT! Who the fuck needs to eat, anyways? Food isn't crucial for life, afterall! Food is second to education because you can't live without an education, but you can rough it by an education alone!

I dislike sweatshops. I make sure my clothe purchases are humaine to people. They maybe more costly and not as fashionable... but I wear them at least knowing that I tried my best to select clothes that doesn't support and MAKE GROW the need for forced enslavement.

Whether you know it or not, you're harming those kids by buying from different business, but w/e. You can feel like you made a difference if you like.

[AapoJoki]

At 6/17/07 04:41 PM, JakeHero wrote: Ask them which they're concerned most with A) An easy life B) Education or C) Ensuring them and their familes don't starve to death.

Well, isn't it outrageous that they have to make such a choice?

It's pretty pathetic to pretend you give two shits about kids you really don't.

I do care. But thank you for admitting that you don't. Helps me understand the logic behind each of your argument.

but there are some things that are common to all human beings: people need a little free time and children need a lot of sleep, playing and education.

Well you obviously have had your conception of human needs so diluted by socialist idiocy that you forget history. About a few hundred years ago humans had no education, they worked six days a week, 12-15 hours a day, and had virtually no free time. These people never complained about it and they were content and even happy with the lives they had.

Are you sure they didn't complain? Then why did we establish laws about child labour and working hours? Why did Marx gather a huge support? Why did workers form trade unions and revolt all over Europe in the early 20th century?

Or you rather those kids become prostitutes or die in the streets of starvation? They aren't working because they want to, they're working because they have to.

That's exactly what's wrong. They shouldn't have to work at all.

No one's forcing them to be a sweatshop employee.

Except their parents, who can't afford to support the family by themselves, let alone their kids' eduction.

It's fucked up that children will have to work to pay for school. When do they play like normal children? How long do they sleep a night?

Not any longer than people used to in our nations over a hundred years ago. This kind of thing isn't new, Aapo. You know what happened? The people worked and worked and worked until they nearly dropped dead to ensure the success and prosperity we enjoy now. They never menstrated about having to work all the time, and eventually their perserverance paid off.

You wish. Workers have prospered and gained more rights and privileges, because they organized. The working class has always been the highest in numbers, and through uniting, they have been able to demand what they deserve. Threatening with strikes and revolutions, the workers forced their employers and legislators to make compromises. Otherwise, the bottom class workers in the developed countries might still live almost as miserably as they used to.

and plus those jobs pay more than the alternative jobs in the reason.

And you don't think there's anything wrong with that?

I don't think you understood what I said; I said the sweatshop jobs pay more than any other kind of job they could get.

I understood what you said, but you missed my point. It's appalling that the conditions and salaries in sweatshops are the best that's available for these people.

[fli]

JackHero... I have zero idea where you get this notion that child slavery is helpful but I come from an impoverished family and I grew up in a poor neighborhood with Vietnamese families... many of whom grew up in child slavery workshops after the war and, through serendipity, got out of it.

It's slavery.
Albiet slavery with some sort of wage (if you call 5 cents a day a wage...)-- which is neither negotiable and barely sustaining for a single child (and much less for a whole family.)

Stop pretending that child slavery is benefical to them-- it's a monsterous thing that grows when the use of a child is all but used. And to turn the tables and to think that they use that money for food?

Yeah fucking right.

If you actually talk to these people, you will know that these children make often buys drugs which, often times, are used to cope with hunger.

No--
You're the victimizer of those children. What have you done that is pratical for the well being? Because buying their clothes does jack shit. Children should be able to grow, play and learn. This is why I don't buy clothes that perpetuates the need to grow this industry. If you really have a heart, then you will make sure what you were doesn't victimize children because in that industry-- they will dispense those children just like how most of us will once our clothes become faded and old.

Donate directly too those kids through Christian foundations (which are truly Godsent people, BTW-- people who I fully support when it comes to this things...)

sponser a child... you've seen those commercials at night.

Adopt one of them... or share their story of their plight as I'm doing now. Because that does a bigger difference than you're willing to credit. Paying more for things that will pay fairly on the people on the "chain" (growers, laborers, transporters, vendors, etc.) is the best way to ensure that these people eat.

Those capri pants you're wearing that's from Thailand-- you may think that the five cents of that goes to that child will dent their hunger. Well, you're thinking wrong and seriously lack any knowlege from the real world. Esecially when you're talking about economics! Because there really isn't anything being done to a country's economics when this industry is underground and the money not being reported.

[SmilezRoyale]

Liberalism prooved usefull by Getting rid of child labor, Child labor ruins job opportunities for adult workers, who are usually NOT hired because childeren can be payed less.

[Proteas]

... am I the only one here who sees the humour in this topic? I mean, really. He's advocating that we disallow fair trade practices in order for child slaves to go on being child slaves working in shitty conditions. Doesn't that seem just a WEE BIT inspired by Swift, anyone?

[JakeHero]

At 6/17/07 05:08 PM, AapoJoki wrote: Well, isn't it outrageous that they have to make such a choice?

It is, but I'd rather them work, feed their families then bitch about it and letting them starve to death.

I do care.

You obviously don't. If you did you wouldn't bitch about sweatshops because it's helping them, but the problem for you is it is also benefitting corporations, and this is a big no no.

But thank you for admitting that you don't. Helps me understand the logic behind each of your argument.

I never said I didn't give a shit about them. I said you don't, which is the impression I get since you'd push your ideology at the expense of these kids.

but there are some things that are common to all human beings: people need a little free time and children need a lot of sleep, playing and education.

Are you sure they didn't complain?

Yes, because if they did they would of been killed or laid off.

Then why did we establish laws about child labour and working hours?

Because child labor was no longer necessary. The economy evolved to the point it no longer required as many unskilled workers like kids, thus employers complied and no longer practiced child employment.

Why did Marx gather a huge support?

Really? Marx isn't that big anymore, is he?

Why did workers form trade unions and revolt all over Europe in the early 20th century?

Because of lies and propaganda perpetuated by the reds. Why did the nazis, Castro, Chavez, etc gain so much support in their home countries? Same reason.

That's exactly what's wrong. They shouldn't have to work at all.

And the problem is you aren't thinking logically. They aren't living occident where the little idiots we pump out don't have to work. Where they live they HAVE TO or they starve. They don't have democratic governments like we do. We can't just magically turn a thirdworld shithole into an industrial nation, can we? They're going to have to climb out of this hole on their own.

Except their parents, who can't afford to support the family by themselves, let alone their kids' eduction.

Um, no. The children ultimately choose to work in these. Now you're just pulling stuff out of your ass, infact, most of these kids are orphans.

You wish.

I don't wish, I know.

Workers have prospered and gained more rights and privileges, because they organized.

Right, because economic implosion is really considered prospering.

The working class has always been the highest in numbers, and through uniting, they have been able to demand what they deserve. Threatening with strikes and revolutions, the workers forced their employers and legislators to make compromises.

As I said, the economy evolved to the point more skilled labor was required. The people no longer needed to only work on farms and assembly lines, more industries opened up after the Industrial Revolution. The effect the trade unions had wasn't as significant as you'd like to believe.

Otherwise, the bottom class workers in the developed countries might still live almost as miserably as they used to.

And I disagree.

I understood what you said, but you missed my point. It's appalling that the conditions and salaries in sweatshops are the best that's available for these people.

I agree; so I'm thankful to sweatshops for benefitting these people.

[dodo-man-1]

At 6/16/07 05:44 PM, JakeHero wrote:

At 6/16/07 10:37 AM, dodo-man-1 wrote: Um... no.

Um.... yes.

Um... shut up.

[HighlyIllogical]

Child slavery is bad.

Sweatshops, not necessarily.

It all depends. For example, the wages paid by multinationals are typically quite high compared to the typical wage in that nation.

Here's a great article:

Two Cheers for Sweatshops!!!!

[AapoJoki]

At 6/18/07 12:45 AM, JakeHero wrote: You obviously don't. If you did you wouldn't bitch about sweatshops because it's helping them, but the problem for you is it is also benefitting corporations, and this is a big no no.

Why would I hate corporations for the sake of hating corporations? Maybe I'm against some corporate practices because they're hurting so many people. I'm not against a corporation if it isn't abusing or oppressing people.

I said you don't, which is the impression I get since you'd push your ideology at the expense of these kids.

What would be the logic in doing that?

Are you sure they didn't complain?

Yes, because if they did they would of been killed or laid off.

That only proves my point. They were being oppressed.

Because child labor was no longer necessary. The economy evolved to the point it no longer required as many unskilled workers like kids

Then why are companies still moving their jobs to countries where child labour and sweatshop working are practiced? Surely not to escape the stricter laws about working health and salaries in the developed countries?

thus employers complied and no longer practiced child employment.

"Employers complied"? On their own initiative? Was there no one who demanded that these practices be put to an end? They just suddenly figured, "Oh, we'll just hire some grown up people from now on, who work less and cost us more."

Why did Marx gather a huge support?

Really? Marx isn't that big anymore, is he?

Oh yes, he's very big. In 2003, he was chosen the by German people to be the 3rd Greatest German ever. Even though he doesn't have such a personality cult among European socialists anymore, his legacy lives on in the European socialists parties, which form the second largest group in the European Parliament. I think his achievements and contributions to theoretical politics and philosophy should even be recognized by those who don't agree with his views.

Furthermore, it's understandable that his popularity fell. So many of his goals have now been achieved and his demands been put in place in the developed nations that there isn't so much need to follow his ideology much further. The situation is different in the third world, however.

Why did workers form trade unions and revolt all over Europe in the early 20th century?

Because of lies and propaganda perpetuated by the reds. Why did the nazis, Castro, Chavez, etc gain so much support in their home countries? Same reason.

If these people had had their rights, if they had been freed from poverty and oppression before, they would never have fallen to such propaganda. These people were promised what they didn't have, but what they were entitled to, so of course they followed these leaders.

You don't want to see the same thing happen in the third world, in a much larger scale? Then how about supporting these people's rights before they revolt? If Venezuela's previous leaders hadn't left its people in poverty, Chavez would never have got into power. Same thing with Cuba.

They don't have democratic governments like we do.

But education is the key to both democracy and economic prosperity. Their ignorance of their rights and their ineptitude to practice more skilled work could be fixed with that. But if they're not allowed to learn, they will only continue the cycle. When they grow up will never be in a position to support for themselves or their children's school.

We can't just magically turn a thirdworld shithole into an industrial nation, can we?

By promoting education, democracy and fair trade, we can.

They're going to have to climb out of this hole on their own.

So while they do that, we can just shamelessly take advantage of their poverty just to keep the prices of our goods low?

[JakeHero]

At 6/18/07 04:05 PM, AapoJoki wrote: Why would I hate corporations for the sake of hating corporations?

They're people that do because it is contrary to their belief in big government. That the government should be in control of the economy, not large, private businesses.

Maybe I'm against some corporate practices because they're hurting so many people. I'm not against a corporation if it isn't abusing or oppressing people.

True, but sweatshops aren't one of them. As I said, they're bad, but compared to what?

What would be the logic in doing that?

Logic leaves the buildings when emotion enters.

That only proves my point. They were being oppressed.

Keyword "Were" and being fired for complaining is nothing new. If I went to my labelling job and started bitching about how hot it is in the attic of the factory I work at, most likely I would be reprimanted by my supervisor and if continued, then fired.

Then why are companies still moving their jobs to countries where child labour and sweatshop working are practiced?

Because it's cheaper to hire these unskilled workers then the unskilled workers in their home countries.

Surely not to escape the stricter laws about working health and salaries in the developed countries?

That too, but it only proves an earlier point of mine.

"Employers complied"? On their own initiative?

First, I don't think I phrased it like they were the only factor.

Was there no one who demanded that these practices be put to an end? They just suddenly figured, "Oh, we'll just hire some grown up people from now on, who work less and cost us more."

I'm not going to deny unions put pressure on companies, but ultimately it was up to these companies and government if they would keep child labor. I guarantee you if they were actually fighting tooth and nail to keep child labor then it would.

Oh yes, he's very big. In 2003, he was chosen the by German people to be the 3rd Greatest German ever.

I really give two shits about that.

If these people had had their rights, if they had been freed from poverty and oppression before, they would never have fallen to such propaganda. These people were promised what they didn't have, but what they were entitled to, so of course they followed these leaders.

They're always problems in every nation. Do you believe germans were oppressed by jews after WW2 as Hitler stated? Interestingly, you'll find alot of these revolutions are propaganda perpetuated by union fatcats from isolated or rare instances of genuine "oppression."

You don't want to see the same thing happen in the third world, in a much larger scale? Then how about supporting these people's rights before they revolt? If Venezuela's previous leaders hadn't left its people in poverty, Chavez would never have got into power. Same thing with Cuba.

I take back what I said about Venezuela. Hugo Chavez is actually unpopular there and won the elections by cheating.

But education is the key to both democracy and economic prosperity.

Actually, hardwork and capitalism are. Education is a luxury alotted afterwards.

Their ignorance of their rights and their ineptitude to practice more skilled work could be fixed with that.

Naturally I believe they have to do it for themselves as every other nation has before. If we do interfere much in their domestic affairs they could become reliant upon foreign aide and never make the transition into an autonomous state.

But if they're not allowed to learn, they will only continue the cycle.

I'm not sure of hearing about how sweatshops discourage education, but I will say the samething I've been saying; one hundred years ago must people were not educated or even literate.

When they grow up will never be in a position to support for themselves or their children's school.

They do and still do.

By promoting education, democracy and fair trade, we can.

Sort of like Bush is doing in Iraq? And what the hell is "fair trade" is that a euphemism for "controlled economy" or socialism? If so, fuck no. Those regions are economically unstable as it is without socialism. Hell, I take back the previous statement; most of the thirdworld countries are socialist/communist in nature.

So while they do that, we can just shamelessly take advantage of their poverty just to keep the prices of our goods low?

Yes. Especially since it benefits them with more prosperous and lucrative jobs.

[Slizor]

I take back what I said about Venezuela. Hugo Chavez is actually unpopular there and won the elections by cheating.

HAHAHAHAHA.

Florida.

End.

[Kev-o]

At 6/16/07 12:23 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Globalization is the wave of the future.

Just look at what foreign corporations did to south korea (for the better)!!!

The People don't seem to think so...

[JakeHero]

At 6/18/07 07:02 PM, Slizor wrote: HAHAHAHAHA.

Florida.

End.

Really? Because Bush didn't give a bunch of foreigners stateship so they'd vote in his favor.