The debate over evolution should've been history a century ago.
When a segment of the population refuses to accept scientific evidence, how is more of such evidence going to convince them?
Why should it have been over a century ago. We now know that conceptually Darwin was right, but much of what he said, at least what is called Darwinism is no longer accepted by mainstream evolutionary scientists. It has been the discovery of DNA that has really led to leaps in evolutionary science. That tool was not available to Darwin, just like modern quantum theory wasn't available to Bohr.
If the massive load of evidence collected since Darwin wasn't enough (with ERVs being the clincher, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI), it will never be enough because people just shut it out.
Religion is there because it makes you feel good (if you have the ability to fall for it). However baseless, that is a tremendously powerful force in a shitty world. So, as long as people don't want to have their illusion challenged, they'll oppose it with all the denial they can muster.
Bert As some guy said once: You can have your own opinion, but you can't have your own facts
Actually, modern DNA analysis is showing a lot of what Darwin had categorized is incorrect. But the massive amount of modern evidence for evolution is overwhelming. You should also remember that not all religions are opposed to evolution. The Catholic Church, for one, accepts it. It's important to remember that just as there are a number of evolutionary theories, there are a number of theologies, too. It wouldn't be correct to lump each group into one.
Why does this happen? We will never know. Science cannot answer that question. Science can answer how it happens and what happens, but as for why, other than the mechanism involved, which is really the how, that answer is outside the realm of science and is left to philosophers and theologians. That it happens is a given. How it happens will be come more and more clear as time goes on. Why it happens. Nobody knows and it is unprovable regardless of one's position.
Just because the chips in question were fabricated in China does not mean the Chinese put a backdoor into the chips. One should look to actually designed the chip to determine who is behind this.
Ah, you have made up your mind and don't read. What I was talking about was in no way about the Olympics looking presentable for me, as I was obviously there before demolition for the village took place. And I did see some of the areas outside the cities. Have you ever seen the poverty in the US? Or are you comparing your city US experience with work in areas needing relief in China?
Let's see, in the US, I've work in the Deep South, in Apalachia, in LA, Harlem, East St. Louis and half a dozen other areas. If you studied sociology, you probably used the textbook that I co-authored and no, I am not a liberal.
The big one is that there's essentially no profit motive. In a well-functioning federal agency, all of the staff are encouraged to "do the right thing" for the people they serve, rather than maximize profit.
You've touched on something that I discuss with my socialist friends on a regular basis. They fail to recognize that there's always a profit motive. In government jobs its not a corporate motive, it's a personal motive. I'd argue that personal profit motives are much worse than corporate profit motives, because corporate motives are typically enabled by groups of people that are effectively hindered by their disagreements. In individual profit motives, there is no such limitation. Also others are not likely to call them out on their behavior due to fears of confrontation, and because they receive little or no incentive to ever raise their voice. Most of the time, they just don't want to be noticed, and calling out someone else is a great way to get the wrong kind of attention.
In a nutshell, an overwhelming number of government employees "do the right thing" for the people they serve, true enough. You just have to remember that they consider themselves as the #1 person they serve.
But don't the same personal profit motives exist whether in a government position or a private position? If so, they really don't factor into the equation as they more of a constant.
You are the one that brought up the China condition and used a slavery analogy. Yes, I realize your comment was a non sequitur, but you are about 4 posts late for calling yourself out on that.
Sticks and stones.
China is related to the actual article.
The slavery comment was related to the poster stating they should be happy to have jobs, or something to that effect.
The non-sequitur had to deal with copyright infringement which has nothing to do with any of this.
Yes, I just returned two years ago from running a large relief agency there. What you saw for the Olympics was China doing its best to make things presentable. The more remote parts of the country, and China is a beutiful country, makes anything in the US look fantastic.
China is an agricultural economy, and they are transforming it into a manufacturing economy. The factory workers are paid _more_ than prevailing wages in the area. Do you think people will travel over a thousand miles just to get a worse paying job?
But Americans seem to believe everyone needs a 2.2 kids + dog + 2 cars + 4 rooms + garage + air conditioning.
Not everyone lives like that. Nor does everyone want to live like that.
You also seem to think all 1.5 billion people live in one place. People travel over 1000 miles - that means the supply of labor locally is *NOT ENOUGH*
On top of that, to bring back to the original question that the article started - Apple pays top dollars based on the links, and is probably one of the biggest factors for improvements in the area, in terms of child labor, worker safety, etc. And my point was - an iPad factory worker makes more $$ than a pilot or programmer, how the hell is that considered lousy? For a non-degreed worker...
Well, I stand corrected, I misunderstood your pilot or programmer comment. Although just to point something out. China only allows 1 child per couple, dogs are a food source and the majority of the population lives in what would best be described as shacks. Girls, if unlucky enough to be born are outcasts and usually do not get to be educated. While China is huge, it is like describing the US as a single place, it does not have the infrastructure to make long travel easy, nor do most of its population even have the means to travel. Like in the US, if there are jobs in Atlanta, but you live in Detroit, it's not a simple matter of packing up and moving. The US tried that during the dust bowl as people in the midwest tried to move into the western states and were cutoff from that by local authorities.
I do not want to belabor the point any longer, I apologize for misunderstanding your comment, but after returning a couple of years ago from a 10 year stint in running a relief agency in Southeast Asia, I can testify, it is not as livable as people so desperately want to believe.
Exploitation is exploitation, regardless if one can find some good to come from it or not.
Exploitation is exploitation. Slavery may be exploitation, but exploitation isn't slavery. Copyright infringement isn't theft. So stop using the wrong word deliberately to lie in an attempt to generate an emotional response.
My comments were in reference to those in power lording it over those who have no power.
Your comments have nothing to do with the well being of the poor and downtrodden, rather with the protection of the wealthy in the US.
Actually, you are the one who interpreted my comments that way. In reality, there are many ways that those in power lord it over those with no power. It can be through economics, religion, armed conflict, and the list goes on. The fact that you associated the wealthy in the US with this abuse of power, speaks volumes.
Maybe we should just throw out capitalism and democracy and embrace socialism and communism like the Chinese. Is that what you are proposing?
Someone talking about having a grasp on reality and saying the Chinese are communist in the same breath, now that's ironic.
Oh, I forgot, China is a Republic. But when said Republic is a one party state run by the Communist Party of China, what form of government would you say China has? Last I checked, communism is a form of government. Socialism is an economic structure. Communism relies on socialism, but you can have socialism without Communism. Capitalism and socialism both reflect types of economic structures democracy and communism both reflect type of governmental structures. Even the United States is not an actual democracy, although many people think it is. It is a representative republic which is a different type of governmental structure which again has nothing to do with its economic structure. Or, did I misunderstand your post?
In China, with a population of what 1.5 billion people, how many pilots and programmers do they have?
More than the US?
Maybe you should change the channel to something other than Fox news or better yet, actually go travel abroad and see what the rest of the world is really like.
I've been to China, and the professional workers I talked to has a lifestyle similar to someone in the west with the same job. Sure, I own 4 cars in a household of 3 drivers, and they had one car per house, regardless of the number of drivers, but they at least all had cars (for those that it made sense for, like most people I know in Boston, DC, or NYC don't have cars, and San Fran is random based on living and work location).
The difference is that in the US, when you go away from the city where there are professional workers, say Kansas, Nebraska, the Dakotas, etc, people still have water, electricity, schools, and the like. That is not the case in China.
So, because the wages are rising in Asia, and now US companies are moving their manufacturing back to Central America where wages are low, will benefit who? Obviously, the workers in Central America, but not US workers.
Ah so now we get to the crux of your comments on slavery. Its not for the "slaves" but the American workers you are concerned. I think that speaks for itself to be honest.
When the local economies collapse because the US companies pull out, then poverty and crime skyrocket and the local governments cannot contain it and we end up with whole new kinds of problems.
Yes, I'm sure China's economy will collapse any day now. India's too.
My comments were in reference to those in power lording it over those who have no power. You obviously do not understand the crux of my comments or choose to be oblivious to the reality what goes on in the world. That is your choice. As for China's economy. If you think that theirs is the only economy on the planet that is immune from collapse, then I suggest you move there. The Soviet Union thought that. Greece and Spain thought that. The US experienced in 1929 and almost again. Maybe we should just throw out capitalism and democracy and embrace socialism and communism like the Chinese. Is that what you are proposing?
Considering the massive wealth transfer and resource accumulation of places like China, maybe you should think about just who is exploiting who. Or did you miss the whole rare earth metals thing?
Are you saying that it is okay to exploit the average Chinese worker because China has minerals that we want and don't have on our own?
Apparently in your brain, we have just went from a factory worker (and yes, there are poorly paid ones too, but I wasn't talking about those) to the entire population of China.
I guess everyone in America must be a one percenter too huh.
I guess this is the result of the wonderful education system here...
I'm just following the article and the thread. Obviously the 1% in China are doing pretty well. As a matter of fact, the 1% in China out number the 1% in the US since there are more Chinese than Americans. However, that does not mean the Chinese system is better or preferable. But when discussing the economic standard of a country, usually it does not include the esoteric occupations of pilots and programmers. It does look at the average per capita income, though, which is significantly lower than in the US. That is what makes China such a favorite of moving jobs to. Simple supply and demand. Since there are so many workers, with such low income, it is an employers market.
I don't understand why that concept is so hard to understand, nor why it is hard to understand how it makes it easy to exploit the workers in those situations.
So, because the wages are rising in Asia, and now US companies are moving their manufacturing back to Central America where wages are low, will benefit who? Obviously, the workers in Central America, but not US workers. The US corporations are just chasing the lowest wage base they can find. Ten years from now, when Central American wages start to rise, and Asian economies have declined because US companies have pulled out, they will return to Asia, because the wages will again have fallen to become the new lowest wage rate. And the cycle will repeat.
Of course one only has to look at Mexico to see what is left out of the article you point to. When the local economies collapse because the US companies pull out, then poverty and crime skyrocket and the local governments cannot contain it and we end up with whole new kinds of problems.Many economist would argue that if US companies paid a just wage in whatever country they were in and quit chasing lowest dollar wages, it would stabilize local economies and world markets. But instead, buy trying to squeeze out the last iota of profit available, they are actually destabilizing local economies, causing disruptions on world markets and ultimately disrupting their ability to generate sustainable profits in the long term.
As one economist put it "Sometimes doing the right thing means less profit now, but the prospects of steady profit tomorrow." Oh, btw, that was written just after WWII and referred to Japan's Economy and how they needed to reinvest profits to pull themselves out of their situation. Seems to have worked quite well.
Your argument is that developing nations should be stripped of access to western markets and left to languish in poverty. Not quite the moral high ground you thought you had, eh.
Not at all. My argument is that western markets should not be allowed to exploit developing nations, strip them of their resources and then leave them there to languish. Totally different and socially responsible argument.
Your argument is a bit like the slave owners who stated that their slaves were damn glad to have their job and get fed, too. Exploitation is exploitation, regardless if one can find some good to come from it or not.
But slaves had no choice at all. They were captured by force, sent to America and then were kept working there by force. If the slave-owners refrained from buying slaves, the life of the would-be slaves would improve. On the other hand, if you boycott a poor country because their labourers aren't paid much, then those people will lose their jobs and become worse off.
But, I am referring to the attitude of the slave owner, not the slave, so while all that you say is true, it does not change the attitude that people in power who feel they are doing a favor to those they exploit.
Nobody is saying to boycott a poor country. What is being called for is to pay a fair wage to the workers in that country. That is not the same wage as in the US, but it is definitely more than what most of the Asian sweatshops do pay. As long as western society demands the cheapest product while at the same time corporations demand maximum profits, people in poor countries will be exploited. This is nothing new. In the 1800s, it occurred in the garment district in major US cities, like New York.
If you want to boycott, don't boycott products from the countries that are poor. Boycott the companies that produced the products until they pay a just wage. It is still cheaper for Apple or Nike to pay $2/hour and produce in SE Asia than it is to produce in the US. The question for them, then, is do they raise prices and people buy less or do they pay less in executive salaries and dividends and keep prices down? When profits are put before people, particularly people who don't have a voice, the people lose every time. History shows that. Even in the US.
It wasn't the voice of the slave that ended slavery it was the public outcry. Likewise, unless their is a public outcry with work practices in third world countries, nothing will change.
This shit gets insightful? Slaves are... slaves. You could rape them, beat them, kill them, in fact you could do anything you damned well pleased to them. As bad as the lives of Chinese peasants are, and as bad as the lives of Chinese factory workers are (hint: it's a lot better than being a peasant), they're almost unimaginably better than the lives of actual slaves.
By the way, the argument usually advanced was that the Negro was too foolish to provide properly for himself, and that servitude allowed him to contribute to the well-being of mankind while still enjoying the benefits of Christianity and white management. And, of course, in real life there were limitations on how badly slaves could be treated. For starters, they were expensive, equivalent (last I looked) to about $100k apiece today plus the cost of feeding and housing. You don't want to mistreat your capital investment like that, any more than you would run your family-owned factory without maintenance. The great evil of slavery wasn't that the slaves were badly treated (many were, but the lives of poor whites were not much better); it was that they were slaves.
Okay, if slaves is too harsh for you, just jump to the 1940s and 50s in the US where there were no more slaves, just extremely low paid black servants who cleaned and watched the children, but weren't even allowed to use the toilet in the white people's house. Sure, they weren't "slaves" and their lives were unimaginably better than the lives of actual slaves, but their masters/employers still had the same attitude that they were something less and should be damn glad to have their job.
In China, with a population of what 1.5 billion people, how many pilots and programmers do they have? Considering in most parts of that country there isn't even potable water for the people to drink, it is pretty amazing that their standard of living is so much greater than most Americans. Maybe you should change the channel to something other than Fox news or better yet, actually go travel abroad and see what the rest of the world is really like.
The summary's grasp on ethics seems a little shakey to me. Those low paid workers in Asia are damn glad to have the job, and what they do get paid goes a lot further than in the west. This is a process of enrichment, whereby poor countries in the far east get wealthier, develop a middle class, and start demanding democracy, resulting in not only a greatly enhanced standard of living but new markets for western countries as well as fresh innovations and freedom of choice.
Capitalism. It works.
Your argument is a bit like the slave owners who stated that their slaves were damn glad to have their job and get fed, too. Exploitation is exploitation, regardless if one can find some good to come from it or not.
This has always been the issue with the "cloud." Oh, sure, it sounds great to be able to pull up documents from wherever, to collaborate, to do all sorts of things, but if that server is hosted by an outside company, then all of your trade secrets, business plans, legal documents and briefs, personnel documents, marketing plans, and whatever confidential corporate information you have is under somebody else's control. How well do you trust the host company? How well do you trust the other other companies that the host company services?
Public clouds are about as useful as facebook. Only store things there you wouldn't mind your mother or in the case of businesses, your competition seeing. Private clouds are where the real benefit is at. It's not foolproof, but it is certainly more secure than relying on somebody whose server may reside in who knows what country with who knows what legal system protecting it, or not.
The first rule in securing data is preventing access. Putting data on a public network violates the first rule of securing data.
The first run is *spoken for*... That does NOT mean they are shipped and in the wild. Unless of course you have some evidence to the contrary, so please share.
True, although the hardware is readily available and you can install the OS yourself from the kde active website. So, for all practical purposes, it is available sans the name Vivaldi on the tablet.
Slashdot Mirror
The debate over evolution should've been history a century ago.
When a segment of the population refuses to accept scientific evidence, how is more of such evidence going to convince them?
Why should it have been over a century ago. We now know that conceptually Darwin was right, but much of what he said, at least what is called Darwinism is no longer accepted by mainstream evolutionary scientists. It has been the discovery of DNA that has really led to leaps in evolutionary science. That tool was not available to Darwin, just like modern quantum theory wasn't available to Bohr.
If the massive load of evidence collected since Darwin wasn't enough (with ERVs being the clincher, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI), it will never be enough because people just shut it out.
Religion is there because it makes you feel good (if you have the ability to fall for it). However baseless, that is a tremendously powerful force in a shitty world. So, as long as people don't want to have their illusion challenged, they'll oppose it with all the denial they can muster.
Bert
As some guy said once: You can have your own opinion, but you can't have your own facts
Actually, modern DNA analysis is showing a lot of what Darwin had categorized is incorrect. But the massive amount of modern evidence for evolution is overwhelming. You should also remember that not all religions are opposed to evolution. The Catholic Church, for one, accepts it. It's important to remember that just as there are a number of evolutionary theories, there are a number of theologies, too. It wouldn't be correct to lump each group into one.
Why does this happen? We will never know. Science cannot answer that question. Science can answer how it happens and what happens, but as for why, other than the mechanism involved, which is really the how, that answer is outside the realm of science and is left to philosophers and theologians. That it happens is a given. How it happens will be come more and more clear as time goes on. Why it happens. Nobody knows and it is unprovable regardless of one's position.
Just because the chips in question were fabricated in China does not mean the Chinese put a backdoor into the chips. One should look to actually designed the chip to determine who is behind this.
Maybe there aren't more women in IT because women are too smart to work crappy hours for crappy pay, crappy job security and crappy benefits.
Ah, you have made up your mind and don't read. What I was talking about was in no way about the Olympics looking presentable for me, as I was obviously there before demolition for the village took place. And I did see some of the areas outside the cities. Have you ever seen the poverty in the US? Or are you comparing your city US experience with work in areas needing relief in China?
Let's see, in the US, I've work in the Deep South, in Apalachia, in LA, Harlem, East St. Louis and half a dozen other areas. If you studied sociology, you probably used the textbook that I co-authored and no, I am not a liberal.
You've touched on something that I discuss with my socialist friends on a regular basis. They fail to recognize that there's always a profit motive. In government jobs its not a corporate motive, it's a personal motive. I'd argue that personal profit motives are much worse than corporate profit motives, because corporate motives are typically enabled by groups of people that are effectively hindered by their disagreements. In individual profit motives, there is no such limitation. Also others are not likely to call them out on their behavior due to fears of confrontation, and because they receive little or no incentive to ever raise their voice. Most of the time, they just don't want to be noticed, and calling out someone else is a great way to get the wrong kind of attention.
In a nutshell, an overwhelming number of government employees "do the right thing" for the people they serve, true enough. You just have to remember that they consider themselves as the #1 person they serve.
But don't the same personal profit motives exist whether in a government position or a private position? If so, they really don't factor into the equation as they more of a constant.
You are the one that brought up the China condition and used a slavery analogy. Yes, I realize your comment was a non sequitur, but you are about 4 posts late for calling yourself out on that.
Sticks and stones.
China is related to the actual article.
The slavery comment was related to the poster stating they should be happy to have jobs, or something to that effect.
The non-sequitur had to deal with copyright infringement which has nothing to do with any of this.
Yes, I just returned two years ago from running a large relief agency there. What you saw for the Olympics was China doing its best to make things presentable. The more remote parts of the country, and China is a beutiful country, makes anything in the US look fantastic.
China is an agricultural economy, and they are transforming it into a manufacturing economy. The factory workers are paid _more_ than prevailing wages in the area. Do you think people will travel over a thousand miles just to get a worse paying job?
But Americans seem to believe everyone needs a 2.2 kids + dog + 2 cars + 4 rooms + garage + air conditioning.
Not everyone lives like that. Nor does everyone want to live like that.
You also seem to think all 1.5 billion people live in one place. People travel over 1000 miles - that means the supply of labor locally is *NOT ENOUGH*
On top of that, to bring back to the original question that the article started - Apple pays top dollars based on the links, and is probably one of the biggest factors for improvements in the area, in terms of child labor, worker safety, etc. And my point was - an iPad factory worker makes more $$ than a pilot or programmer, how the hell is that considered lousy? For a non-degreed worker...
Well, I stand corrected, I misunderstood your pilot or programmer comment. Although just to point something out. China only allows 1 child per couple, dogs are a food source and the majority of the population lives in what would best be described as shacks. Girls, if unlucky enough to be born are outcasts and usually do not get to be educated. While China is huge, it is like describing the US as a single place, it does not have the infrastructure to make long travel easy, nor do most of its population even have the means to travel. Like in the US, if there are jobs in Atlanta, but you live in Detroit, it's not a simple matter of packing up and moving. The US tried that during the dust bowl as people in the midwest tried to move into the western states and were cutoff from that by local authorities.
I do not want to belabor the point any longer, I apologize for misunderstanding your comment, but after returning a couple of years ago from a 10 year stint in running a relief agency in Southeast Asia, I can testify, it is not as livable as people so desperately want to believe.
Exploitation is exploitation, regardless if one can find some good to come from it or not.
Exploitation is exploitation. Slavery may be exploitation, but exploitation isn't slavery. Copyright infringement isn't theft. So stop using the wrong word deliberately to lie in an attempt to generate an emotional response.
Non sequitur
My comments were in reference to those in power lording it over those who have no power.
Your comments have nothing to do with the well being of the poor and downtrodden, rather with the protection of the wealthy in the US.
Actually, you are the one who interpreted my comments that way. In reality, there are many ways that those in power lord it over those with no power. It can be through economics, religion, armed conflict, and the list goes on. The fact that you associated the wealthy in the US with this abuse of power, speaks volumes.
Maybe we should just throw out capitalism and democracy and embrace socialism and communism like the Chinese. Is that what you are proposing?
Someone talking about having a grasp on reality and saying the Chinese are communist in the same breath, now that's ironic.
Oh, I forgot, China is a Republic. But when said Republic is a one party state run by the Communist Party of China, what form of government would you say China has? Last I checked, communism is a form of government. Socialism is an economic structure. Communism relies on socialism, but you can have socialism without Communism. Capitalism and socialism both reflect types of economic structures democracy and communism both reflect type of governmental structures. Even the United States is not an actual democracy, although many people think it is. It is a representative republic which is a different type of governmental structure which again has nothing to do with its economic structure. Or, did I misunderstand your post?
In China, with a population of what 1.5 billion people, how many pilots and programmers do they have?
More than the US?
Maybe you should change the channel to something other than Fox news or better yet, actually go travel abroad and see what the rest of the world is really like.
I've been to China, and the professional workers I talked to has a lifestyle similar to someone in the west with the same job. Sure, I own 4 cars in a household of 3 drivers, and they had one car per house, regardless of the number of drivers, but they at least all had cars (for those that it made sense for, like most people I know in Boston, DC, or NYC don't have cars, and San Fran is random based on living and work location).
The difference is that in the US, when you go away from the city where there are professional workers, say Kansas, Nebraska, the Dakotas, etc, people still have water, electricity, schools, and the like. That is not the case in China.
So, because the wages are rising in Asia, and now US companies are moving their manufacturing back to Central America where wages are low, will benefit who? Obviously, the workers in Central America, but not US workers.
Ah so now we get to the crux of your comments on slavery. Its not for the "slaves" but the American workers you are concerned. I think that speaks for itself to be honest.
When the local economies collapse because the US companies pull out, then poverty and crime skyrocket and the local governments cannot contain it and we end up with whole new kinds of problems.
Yes, I'm sure China's economy will collapse any day now. India's too.
My comments were in reference to those in power lording it over those who have no power. You obviously do not understand the crux of my comments or choose to be oblivious to the reality what goes on in the world. That is your choice. As for China's economy. If you think that theirs is the only economy on the planet that is immune from collapse, then I suggest you move there. The Soviet Union thought that. Greece and Spain thought that. The US experienced in 1929 and almost again. Maybe we should just throw out capitalism and democracy and embrace socialism and communism like the Chinese. Is that what you are proposing?
Considering the massive wealth transfer and resource accumulation of places like China, maybe you should think about just who is exploiting who. Or did you miss the whole rare earth metals thing?
Are you saying that it is okay to exploit the average Chinese worker because China has minerals that we want and don't have on our own?
Apparently in your brain, we have just went from a factory worker (and yes, there are poorly paid ones too, but I wasn't talking about those) to the entire population of China.
I guess everyone in America must be a one percenter too huh.
I guess this is the result of the wonderful education system here...
I'm just following the article and the thread. Obviously the 1% in China are doing pretty well. As a matter of fact, the 1% in China out number the 1% in the US since there are more Chinese than Americans. However, that does not mean the Chinese system is better or preferable. But when discussing the economic standard of a country, usually it does not include the esoteric occupations of pilots and programmers. It does look at the average per capita income, though, which is significantly lower than in the US. That is what makes China such a favorite of moving jobs to. Simple supply and demand. Since there are so many workers, with such low income, it is an employers market.
I don't understand why that concept is so hard to understand, nor why it is hard to understand how it makes it easy to exploit the workers in those situations.
I'm going to assume you're just misinformed rather than being woefully full of shit.
http://blogs.theprovince.com/2012/03/05/andres-oppenheimer-rising-wages-in-china-will-benefit-workers-in-the-americas/
So, because the wages are rising in Asia, and now US companies are moving their manufacturing back to Central America where wages are low, will benefit who? Obviously, the workers in Central America, but not US workers. The US corporations are just chasing the lowest wage base they can find. Ten years from now, when Central American wages start to rise, and Asian economies have declined because US companies have pulled out, they will return to Asia, because the wages will again have fallen to become the new lowest wage rate. And the cycle will repeat.
Of course one only has to look at Mexico to see what is left out of the article you point to. When the local economies collapse because the US companies pull out, then poverty and crime skyrocket and the local governments cannot contain it and we end up with whole new kinds of problems.Many economist would argue that if US companies paid a just wage in whatever country they were in and quit chasing lowest dollar wages, it would stabilize local economies and world markets. But instead, buy trying to squeeze out the last iota of profit available, they are actually destabilizing local economies, causing disruptions on world markets and ultimately disrupting their ability to generate sustainable profits in the long term.
As one economist put it "Sometimes doing the right thing means less profit now, but the prospects of steady profit tomorrow." Oh, btw, that was written just after WWII and referred to Japan's Economy and how they needed to reinvest profits to pull themselves out of their situation. Seems to have worked quite well.
Your argument is that developing nations should be stripped of access to western markets and left to languish in poverty. Not quite the moral high ground you thought you had, eh.
Not at all. My argument is that western markets should not be allowed to exploit developing nations, strip them of their resources and then leave them there to languish. Totally different and socially responsible argument.
Your argument is a bit like the slave owners who stated that their slaves were damn glad to have their job and get fed, too. Exploitation is exploitation, regardless if one can find some good to come from it or not.
But slaves had no choice at all. They were captured by force, sent to America and then were kept working there by force.
If the slave-owners refrained from buying slaves, the life of the would-be slaves would improve.
On the other hand, if you boycott a poor country because their labourers aren't paid much,
then those people will lose their jobs and become worse off.
But, I am referring to the attitude of the slave owner, not the slave, so while all that you say is true, it does not change the attitude that people in power who feel they are doing a favor to those they exploit.
Nobody is saying to boycott a poor country. What is being called for is to pay a fair wage to the workers in that country. That is not the same wage as in the US, but it is definitely more than what most of the Asian sweatshops do pay. As long as western society demands the cheapest product while at the same time corporations demand maximum profits, people in poor countries will be exploited. This is nothing new. In the 1800s, it occurred in the garment district in major US cities, like New York.
If you want to boycott, don't boycott products from the countries that are poor. Boycott the companies that produced the products until they pay a just wage. It is still cheaper for Apple or Nike to pay $2/hour and produce in SE Asia than it is to produce in the US. The question for them, then, is do they raise prices and people buy less or do they pay less in executive salaries and dividends and keep prices down? When profits are put before people, particularly people who don't have a voice, the people lose every time. History shows that. Even in the US.
It wasn't the voice of the slave that ended slavery it was the public outcry. Likewise, unless their is a public outcry with work practices in third world countries, nothing will change.
This shit gets insightful? Slaves are... slaves. You could rape them, beat them, kill them, in fact you could do anything you damned well pleased to them. As bad as the lives of Chinese peasants are, and as bad as the lives of Chinese factory workers are (hint: it's a lot better than being a peasant), they're almost unimaginably better than the lives of actual slaves.
By the way, the argument usually advanced was that the Negro was too foolish to provide properly for himself, and that servitude allowed him to contribute to the well-being of mankind while still enjoying the benefits of Christianity and white management. And, of course, in real life there were limitations on how badly slaves could be treated. For starters, they were expensive, equivalent (last I looked) to about $100k apiece today plus the cost of feeding and housing. You don't want to mistreat your capital investment like that, any more than you would run your family-owned factory without maintenance. The great evil of slavery wasn't that the slaves were badly treated (many were, but the lives of poor whites were not much better); it was that they were slaves.
Okay, if slaves is too harsh for you, just jump to the 1940s and 50s in the US where there were no more slaves, just extremely low paid black servants who cleaned and watched the children, but weren't even allowed to use the toilet in the white people's house. Sure, they weren't "slaves" and their lives were unimaginably better than the lives of actual slaves, but their masters/employers still had the same attitude that they were something less and should be damn glad to have their job.
Again, exploitation is exploitation.
In China, with a population of what 1.5 billion people, how many pilots and programmers do they have? Considering in most parts of that country there isn't even potable water for the people to drink, it is pretty amazing that their standard of living is so much greater than most Americans. Maybe you should change the channel to something other than Fox news or better yet, actually go travel abroad and see what the rest of the world is really like.
The summary's grasp on ethics seems a little shakey to me. Those low paid workers in Asia are damn glad to have the job, and what they do get paid goes a lot further than in the west. This is a process of enrichment, whereby poor countries in the far east get wealthier, develop a middle class, and start demanding democracy, resulting in not only a greatly enhanced standard of living but new markets for western countries as well as fresh innovations and freedom of choice.
Capitalism. It works.
Your argument is a bit like the slave owners who stated that their slaves were damn glad to have their job and get fed, too. Exploitation is exploitation, regardless if one can find some good to come from it or not.
Why limit the question? The same could be asked about clothing and most household and business items, too.
This has always been the issue with the "cloud." Oh, sure, it sounds great to be able to pull up documents from wherever, to collaborate, to do all sorts of things, but if that server is hosted by an outside company, then all of your trade secrets, business plans, legal documents and briefs, personnel documents, marketing plans, and whatever confidential corporate information you have is under somebody else's control. How well do you trust the host company? How well do you trust the other other companies that the host company services?
Public clouds are about as useful as facebook. Only store things there you wouldn't mind your mother or in the case of businesses, your competition seeing. Private clouds are where the real benefit is at. It's not foolproof, but it is certainly more secure than relying on somebody whose server may reside in who knows what country with who knows what legal system protecting it, or not.
The first rule in securing data is preventing access. Putting data on a public network violates the first rule of securing data.
The first run is *spoken for*... That does NOT mean they are shipped and in the wild. Unless of course you have some evidence to the contrary, so please share.
True, although the hardware is readily available and you can install the OS yourself from the kde active website. So, for all practical purposes, it is available sans the name Vivaldi on the tablet.