This may be a simplistic view, but as long as you have US-style corporations (who legally must continually increase their growth rate by any legal means), and easy movement across of corporations across soverign borders, you will end up with wages / living conditions / labor standards going down to the lowest possible levels, and staying there forever.
I would not call it simplistic. The line of reasoning you suggest is often refered to as race to the bottom, with which you seem quite familiar, and which is essentially both coherent and analytically persuasive.
I think it is wrong, however, and heres two reasons why:
First: the number of competent people available from overseas to fill up positions, and the ease whith which employers can transfer production overseas is probably vastly exaggerated. Remember that it is in the interests of both employers, to use as levereage to resist regulation locally, and unions, to secure jobs which factor conditions no longer favor local production from overseas competition, to exaggerate this threat.
Secondly: only the companies whose business models depend on screwing the worker, or the environment for that matter, would find it profitable to move production overseas as a result of stricter regulation.
This will potentially free up labor and other resources for companies whose businessmodels do not depend on such practices, while increased competition for labor in developing nations eventually decreases the costs of labor standards there, which as I argue in my original post, is the way it is meant to work.
In truth, I have no idea what you're talking about. I never even mentioned labour standards.
I did not mean to suggest that business should be completely unimpeded by governments, if that's what you took it as. I have no objection to reasonable laws regarding such things. I meant that impediments to international trade should be removed.
You did not mention labor standards, but RMS did (minimum wage of Philipino workers, and corporations holding nations hostage etc...) You refering to what Naomi Klein is saying about the issues as BS, and then saying:
It's particularly interesting that he's radically libertarian about things like software, but disapproves of companies from different counties doing business unimpeded by governments.
led me to read that you suggested that business should be completely unimpeded by governments, for example by government legislating and enforcing stricter labor standards. I am sorry for misinterpreting you, but perhaps you could clarify your position?
My response to you, ment to argue that removing impediments to trade does not necissarily mean that we have to accept less regulation, for example of labor standards, and that linking the two in such a way is a fallacy.
It's particularly interesting that he's radically libertarian about things like software, but disapproves of companies from different counties doing business unimpeded by governments.
What is interesting is that RMS, Klein and you seem to conflagrate unrestricted trade and the enforcement of labor standards.
Enforcement of high labor standards in rich countries is a good thing. It imposes higher costs on employers, prompting them to move jobs that become unsustainable under such a regime to more permissive regulatory environments.
This increases the demand for labour in these economies and as a result decreases the substitutional value of labor standards in this new regulatory environment, prompting improved conditions of work.
The point being that when you say:
The best thing developed countries can do for under-developed countries is trade with them. Protectionism only prolongs the poverty.
you are largely correct. But unrestricted trade and enforcement of labor standards are not mutually exclusive and the notion that they have to be is fallacy on the part of Ms Klein, a lot of corporations that threaten to outsource jobs if they are not given a free reign of labor standards, and in this case, you.
Those who want the law reformed need to posit credible alternatives, alternatives that ensure that movies (and music and books etc) can still be made, before arguing that there's something inherently unjust in having to pay to have access copyrighted material
If what you mean by "Credible alternatives" are ways that ensure that the same old drivel will be produced, and distributed through the same channels in the same form then alternatives is hardly the appropriate word.
If you are really interested in why there is no reason why the generation and dissemenation of ideas, including in the form of movies and music does not have to involve draconian enforcement of legaly induced scarcity, I suggest you read:
"Less brains, more action" is the future slogan of the American Army.
Didnt you get the memo?
The new official slogan of the American Army is: "You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want or wish to have"
Everybody....Repeat after me now:
You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want or wish to have....
You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want or wish to have....
Maybe according to the "official" figures, because it's often illegal to work more than 35 hours a week, (I might be off on this, but it's what I've heard. I've also heard that working extra undocumented and unpaid (in the sense that you don't get a wage for them, but you'll quickly not be paid at all if you don't) time is quite frequent.
The message I was replying to made a statement about French labor productivity based on GDP per person (follow the Wiki-link, in the original message), which is stupid.
I do not want to get into a debate over the extent to which OECD figures actually reflect underlying labor productivity[1], but when the original poster says that French are blue because apples are more red than oranges I thought it might be informative to provide an, arguably imperfect, measurment that is ment to measure what we are discussing.
BTW, I'm neither French, American, German nor Japanese so there is no ego in which country has the most productive labor-force. I am however, a student of Industrial Relations, so I do take an academic interest...
Sorry, Frenchmen are the 21st most productive people in the world.
And you base that statement on a GDP pr. person figure?
Since the where talking about productive people the appropriate metric is usually defined as the quantity of output produced by a given quantity of labor input, in other words labor productivity.
According to the OECD numbers for 2003 French workers, where marginally more productive p.r. hour than those in the US, and quite significantly more productive than those in Japan and Germany.
If you look at total labor productivity, however US is slightly more productive, but only by working an average of 1815 hours/year, to the French 1545.
[...]but it's worse to have a system compromise where the attacker can control your system, install backdoors to use your system for every purpose he can think of and can even fry your hardware in some cases.
Not to mention that an attackers inabilaty to gain system-level privileges in most cases removes the incentive to exploit...
Sure, some people get a kick out of deleting my personal files, but a significant portion of exploit have a different purpose, making my computer a less attractive target.
No! It is how simple utility fucntions work
on
NYT on EA Games
·
· Score: 1
-snipped a lot of garble-
Now the point is this: Your skills, your hard work and your knowledge are NOT what constitutes your value.
Thanks for the lesson in value theory....
Now for a discussion of labor economics:
The common assumption to make is that your MARKET-VALUE (lets get the terms straight shall we?) as a worker is determined by the *percieved* opportunity cost foregone by hiring you.
Remember the percieved part, cause I will get back to it.
Mandating that EA treats employees better will have marginally better treatment (though in the long run, manipulating free economics almost always backfires), people will see that you can get into games programming (which they already love) AND be treated well, the supply will go up again, demand is (relatively) stable, and there will just be a bunch of unemployed games programmers.
Again you are pretty incoherent, but I think you are trying to reach the natural conclusion of your tautology; everything is the way it is because otherwise it would be different, and lets not bother with it because if different was good then it already would be... Right?
When we assume that the employers/employeees have only a limited ability to **percieve** the potential opportunity cost foregone by entering a contract, we can imagine scenarios where they enter contracts where either one or both parties would have been better off without.
If this doesnt ring a bell then I suggest you RTF original A....you know, the part about lying to prospective employees about the job.
and I havent even touched upon the whole issue of agency problems, and the fact that all of these decisions are made by managers...
Not quite so simple, really..
on
NYT on EA Games
·
· Score: 1
So why the US don't follow Canada's steps with specific rules for high-tech industry so ppl don't get to be fscked over by large companies?
Simple question, simple answer. The reason is that in America we don't pretend that we are actually running the show instead of companies. If we followed your lead and made it harder for large companies to screw over the IT crowd in the U.S.A., then those companies would say "damn, North America now costs us more, lets just move all our operations over to India or China where we can rape their local IT people any way we want."
Two reasons why this does not matter:
First: only the companies whose business models depend on "screwing over the IT crowd", would find it profitable to move production overseas as a result of stricter regulation. In all honesty; good riddance!
This could potentially free up labor and other resources for companies whose businessmodels do not depend on "screwing the IT crowd"
Secondly: the number of competent people available from overseas to fill up these positions is probably vastly exaggerated, remember that it is in the interests of employers to exaggerate this threat. The long term effect would most likely be limited to a reconfiguration of the domestic power relationship between workers and employers, probably manifested by a larger share of EA's profits allocated to employes (in the form of: more pay, shorter hours, or better benifits).
EA is there to make money, not take care of people.
True
If they are treating their employees poorly who cares? If the game is good I'll buy it, if it's not
I won't.
If your budget only allows you to purchase a finite number of games chances are that,
given the choice between game A, produced by workers who are treated humanly and Game B produced by starving Bangladeshi children chained to their computers,
you would choose, et Ceteris Paribus, product A.
Assuming limmited budget among the game consumer(1), we can start to imagine scenarios where you do not buy the game eventhough it is good, because you buy one that is just as good, but produced by under humane conditions.
Let the employees and their employer deal with it as they should.
What your rather rudimentary analysis of capitalism fail to grasp is that shareholders usually appoint managers to make decisions on their behalf, and these decisions are taken with the managers interests in mind. These are not necessarily equal to those of the shareholders, nor the wider society of which both you and I are part. Which is why those of us who think things through are up in arms (more or less).
Slashdot Mirror
I would not call it simplistic. The line of reasoning you suggest is often refered to as race to the bottom, with which you seem quite familiar, and which is essentially both coherent and analytically persuasive.
I think it is wrong, however, and heres two reasons why:
First: the number of competent people available from overseas to fill up positions, and the ease whith which employers can transfer production overseas is probably vastly exaggerated. Remember that it is in the interests of both employers, to use as levereage to resist regulation locally, and unions, to secure jobs which factor conditions no longer favor local production from overseas competition, to exaggerate this threat.
Secondly: only the companies whose business models depend on screwing the worker, or the environment for that matter, would find it profitable to move production overseas as a result of stricter regulation.
This will potentially free up labor and other resources for companies whose businessmodels do not depend on such practices, while increased competition for labor in developing nations eventually decreases the costs of labor standards there, which as I argue in my original post, is the way it is meant to work.
You did not mention labor standards, but RMS did (minimum wage of Philipino workers, and corporations holding nations hostage etc...) You refering to what Naomi Klein is saying about the issues as BS, and then saying:
led me to read that you suggested that business should be completely unimpeded by governments, for example by government legislating and enforcing stricter labor standards. I am sorry for misinterpreting you, but perhaps you could clarify your position?
My response to you, ment to argue that removing impediments to trade does not necissarily mean that we have to accept less regulation, for example of labor standards, and that linking the two in such a way is a fallacy.
Enforcement of high labor standards in rich countries is a good thing. It imposes higher costs on employers, prompting them to move jobs that become unsustainable under such a regime to more permissive regulatory environments. This increases the demand for labour in these economies and as a result decreases the substitutional value of labor standards in this new regulatory environment, prompting improved conditions of work.
The point being that when you say:
you are largely correct. But unrestricted trade and enforcement of labor standards are not mutually exclusive and the notion that they have to be is fallacy on the part of Ms Klein, a lot of corporations that threaten to outsource jobs if they are not given a free reign of labor standards, and in this case, you.
If what you mean by "Credible alternatives" are ways that ensure that the same old drivel will be produced, and distributed through the same channels in the same form then alternatives is hardly the appropriate word.
If you are really interested in why there is no reason why the generation and dissemenation of ideas, including in the form of movies and music does not have to involve draconian enforcement of legaly induced scarcity, I suggest you read:
http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/pci23.pdf
for starters....
Didnt you get the memo?
The new official slogan of the American Army is:
"You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want or wish to have"
Everybody....Repeat after me now:
You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want or wish to have....
You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want or wish to have....
I do not want to get into a debate over the extent to which OECD figures actually reflect underlying labor productivity[1], but when the original poster says that French are blue because apples are more red than oranges I thought it might be informative to provide an, arguably imperfect, measurment that is ment to measure what we are discussing.
BTW, I'm neither French, American, German nor Japanese so there is no ego in which country has the most productive labor-force. I am however, a student of Industrial Relations, so I do take an academic interest...
[1]not here and now, at least
And you base that statement on a GDP pr. person figure?
Since the where talking about productive people the appropriate metric is usually defined as the quantity of output produced by a given quantity of labor input, in other words labor productivity.
According to the OECD numbers for 2003 French workers, where marginally more productive p.r. hour than those in the US, and quite significantly more productive than those in Japan and Germany.
If you look at total labor productivity, however US is slightly more productive, but only by working an average of 1815 hours/year, to the French 1545.
Not to mention that an attackers inabilaty to gain system-level privileges in most cases removes the incentive to exploit...
Sure, some people get a kick out of deleting my personal files, but a significant portion of exploit have a different purpose, making my computer a less attractive target.
Now for a discussion of labor economics:
The common assumption to make is that your MARKET-VALUE (lets get the terms straight shall we?) as a worker is determined by the *percieved* opportunity cost foregone by hiring you.
Remember the percieved part, cause I will get back to it.
Again you are pretty incoherent, but I think you are trying to reach the natural conclusion of your tautology; everything is the way it is because otherwise it would be different, and lets not bother with it because if different was good then it already would be... Right?
When we assume that the employers/employeees have only a limited ability to **percieve** the potential opportunity cost foregone by entering a contract, we can imagine scenarios where they enter contracts where either one or both parties would have been better off without.
If this doesnt ring a bell then I suggest you RTF original A....you know, the part about lying to prospective employees about the job.
and I havent even touched upon the whole issue of agency problems, and the fact that all of these decisions are made by managers...
First: only the companies whose business models depend on "screwing over the IT crowd", would find it profitable to move production overseas as a result of stricter regulation. In all honesty; good riddance!
This could potentially free up labor and other resources for companies whose businessmodels do not depend on "screwing the IT crowd"
Secondly: the number of competent people available from overseas to fill up these positions is probably vastly exaggerated, remember that it is in the interests of employers to exaggerate this threat. The long term effect would most likely be limited to a reconfiguration of the domestic power relationship between workers and employers, probably manifested by a larger share of EA's profits allocated to employes (in the form of: more pay, shorter hours, or better benifits).
True
If your budget only allows you to purchase a finite number of games chances are that,
given the choice between game A, produced by workers who are treated humanly and Game B produced by starving Bangladeshi children chained to their computers,
you would choose, et Ceteris Paribus, product A.
Assuming limmited budget among the game consumer(1), we can start to imagine scenarios where you do not buy the game eventhough it is good, because you buy one that is just as good, but produced by under humane conditions.
What your rather rudimentary analysis of capitalism fail to grasp is that shareholders usually appoint managers to make decisions on their behalf, and these decisions are taken with the managers interests in mind. These are not necessarily equal to those of the shareholders, nor the wider society of which both you and I are part. Which is why those of us who think things through are up in arms (more or less).
(1) A reasonable assumption in most cases