Simple Sweatshop Economics

[RedCeltic]

Alot of people fail to understand just how individuals who work in export prossessing zones in Latin America are being opressed by the capitalist system.

So here's some simple economics to help all of you out who just don't get why working in a sweatshop for 60 cents an hour in Latin America is opression.

*Information from http://www.nlcnet.org *


Here is a Case study of the "DOALL" plant in El Salvador.

There are 225 maquilas (EPZ) in El Salvador which employ 68000 workers. These 68000 workers produce 1.2 billion garments at an avrage wage of $4.79 a day.

Working conditions in Doall and Maquiladoras:

Mandatory pregnacy tests
Forced overtime 12 - 15 1/2 hour shifts six days a week

Enormous pressure to meet excessively high daily production quotas;

Monitored and limited access to bathrooms and no clean drinking water;

Excessive heat and dust;

routine denial of access to Social Security health care (which the workers pay for);

base salary of 60 cents an hour, below subsistance, which meet less than one third of the cost of living of the avrage sized family;

All- pervasive fear -- the fear that you could be arbitrarily fired if;
1) you wre even seen "grouping together" or meeting since the company suspected you were up to no good.

2) You were seen with fired workers

3) you didn't stay for overtime or had to take a sick day.

4) you couldn't reach the production quota

5) they even suspected you might organize a union.

Production and Profits in Doall -- Liz Claiborn Jackets
* note data is in US Dollars *

Data:

Per every 60 Workers --> 600 jackets are produced in 8 hours

Avrage hourly wage = $0.92 an hour

Market price of liz claiborn Jackets is $ 194

This means.... Market Value of Daily Output = $116, 400

Doall daily wage bill ( total cost of labor for company) = $441.60 per 60 people working only 8 hours.

Perportion of market value of daily output that labor costs represent : 3%

Perportion of final value of a single jacket represented by labor costs: .0037


Now those statistics were assuming workers made 92 cents an hour, worked only 8 hour shifts, and there were only 60 workers.

These numbers don't lie. The corperations could easily double the wages of their employees, and they would be living above the poverty line... and the wages will still only cut into the total profit earnings by a very small precentage.

[el_profe]

Yes, srew the maquiladoras, let the people starve to death, listen these are the only chance of income most of these people have, In guatemala a whole bunch of maquiladoras left, increasing unemployment alot, so WTF do you want?

In fact maquiladora workers started protesting because the gov. tax increases was makign the maquiladoras leave guatemala.

So those stupid organizations that want to "protect" people only leave people with out jobs, they kill people by starving them to death instead of helping death. I have 2 words for thos stupid organizations: FUCK OFF!

People are oppressed because of there own ignorance and because of the fucking horrible corrupt gov. that people put in power.
Also maquiladora workers usually cant find any other work, is the work har, yes, but they prefer to have job that pays them the average than no job at all.
So what do you want,? for the maquiladoras to leave and to make these people die of starvation because they cant find a job?

p.s. Some maquiladoras do treat workers very badly but not many, most of the ones that treat people bad are owned by koreans, taiwan or chinneses people that open up maquilas in latin america. Not huge companies.

Capitalism has really hurt Chile right? they have the best economy in latin america.

[RedCeltic]

You mention Chile, yet that’s the one and only place where they have worked. The rest have done more harm than good for the countries.

The thing is that countries have all the risk in setting up and operating maquiladoras yet none of the benefits of it. A meager unemployment raise may be seen, yet only among young women and boys. The WTO/ World Bank make these maquiladoras seem as if they will be a large boost to the economy of the nation, yet in truth these maquiladoras are not a secure investment, they can and will leave (like you mentioned in Guatamala) for even cheaper labor, less environmental and labor restrictions and social tension. The “race to the bottom” approach that you propose whereby nations compete for this sort of investment in providing the most cost effective location for transnational corporations, is what is spelling disaster for workers worldwide.
Like many of the aspects of globalization, what people will tell you about import processing zones depends greatly on which side of the fence they are on and what their perspective is. Corporations, governments, and politicians that work hand and glove with these corporations have a very different perspective, and say something very different from social activists, trade unions, and the workers themselves.

In the perspective of corporations and governments, export possessing zones help to promote development for the country. They attract overseas investors that would otherwise not seek to invest in a country with a faltering economy. They believe that building these export possessing zones will create jobs, earn foreign exchange, boost the export sector, transfer of skills and technology, human resource development and help to “develop backwards regions.”

The Export Possessing zone provides a special area within a country where investors can find congenial investment climate free from cumbersome procedures. The country provides the infrastructure, building the zone, providing telephone and electric services at a special rate, and building roads, rail and harbors. To make them even more attractive to investors, countries will also liberalize laws within the zone, and not collect import or export tax, and often liberalize labor laws such as lower minimum wage with in the zone, or like in Bangladesh, make trade unions illegal within the export possessing zones.

Employees who typically work in these maquiladoras are young (17 – 25) year old females, with poor education. The high quotas corporations place on these employees create a fast paced stressful work environment, that’s already dangerous due to toxic exposure, industrial accidents, and trauma disorders. When countries incorporate export possessing zones they loosen trade restrictions for foreign products, and their local markets are flooded with cheep products that devastate local industry and agriculture. Prices for these imported products are much less than local companies can sell them for and still turn a profit. So while new jobs are created in the export possessing zones, unemployment goes up rather than down because of the impact they have on local trade.

While employment opportunities for males in local industry drops, women, children and the elderly find themselves part of a informal labor force that is subjected to lack of benefits, low wages, risk of loss of job due to injury, union organization, or complaint of sexual harassment. Trade unions are weakened or smashed, and as the local economy recesses, social services are cut back or eliminated.

Answers to economic problems such as this are never easy. However I feel that investment in the nations own economic stability is far superior to investment in transnational corperations that contribute little, and have a bad habit of leaving.

[Y2A]

This is why I purpose fair trade policies and restrictions on what corporations could ask from workers. Getting the corporations out and causing massive unemployment will do nothing to help this problem, it'll just make it worse.

[synthesis]

I don't think anyone here advocates governmental restrictions on corporations. I believe most of us advocate economic nationalism; i.e. governmental seizure of corporate property.

Simple enough.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 06:02 PM
Yes, srew the maquiladoras, let the people starve to death, listen these are the only chance of income most of these people have, In guatemala a whole bunch of maquiladoras left, increasing unemployment alot, so WTF do you want?
Wasn't it that in capitalism, if you don't like your boss or workplace you could switch to another work??? Hmmm...what a contradiction. Who are you going to blame?? The government?? (which trites to attract them to create incomes in their countries)


In fact maquiladora workers started protesting because the gov. tax increases was makign the maquiladoras leave guatemala.

Always the same bullshit. For you it's always the taxing not the bad pay. 100% of the blame falls on the taxes, 0% on the capitalist exploiter.


So those stupid organizations that want to "protect" people only leave people with out jobs, they kill people by starving them to death instead of helping death. I have 2 words for thos stupid organizations: FUCK OFF!

Well those who want to "protect" people prefer politics that create employment, even at the risk of inflation.


People are oppressed because of there own ignorance and because of the fucking horrible corrupt gov. that people put in power.

Always the same. So the poor is ignorant by genetical conditions (a subjective thing because you probably compare them to those whose daddys paid their universities), the rich is intelligent and brilliant in everything (?) and the government is the only exploiter. It's never the state for you cappies, it's the government. So the only way to implement your policies is hiring some fascist mercenary like Pinochet to impose your economical bullshit.


Also maquiladora workers usually cant find any other work, is the work har, yes, but they prefer to have job that pays them the average than no job at all.
So what do you want,? for the maquiladoras to leave and to make these people die of starvation because they cant find a job?

Excuse me, but $0.92 an hour is starvation. I'm surprised that they don't die. Maybe it's the government who gives them cheap healthcare??


p.s. Some maquiladoras do treat workers very badly but not many, most of the ones that treat people bad are owned by koreans, taiwan or chinneses people that open up maquilas in latin america. Not huge companies.

Oh, very interesting! After all, nazis and fascist go around complaining about those chinese and taiwanese, but if you ask them about the japanese, they reply "Noooo, they are different, they are noble" or some bullshit like that. So it's never the yankees fault, it's never the fault of the "civilized", it's always better to blame the "orientals", right? Stop making yourself look like an idiot by blaming those on the other side of the planet.


Capitalism has really hurt Chile right? they have the best economy in latin america.

Even with the fascist old idiot there were a lot of interventions because of different economical problems capitalism had. . And capitalists like you defend the Pinochet dictatorship admitting that they changed lives for TVs. And we shouldn't forget all the capitalist countries which are in poverty. Stop the argument of the "it's not capitalist they are poor because they are socialist" because that's bullshit. In Chile there was also great poverty during the fascist dictatorship and the following governments.

[RedCeltic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 09:40 PM
I don't think anyone here advocates governmental restrictions on corporations. I believe most of us advocate economic nationalism; i.e. governmental seizure of corporate property.

Simple enough.
Exactly! With nationally owned industry, the government is investing in it's own economics. companies owned by the state are making money for the state, and it's people... not for some rich Americans, Korians, etc.. and the best part.... they have noplace to go!

EL Profe seems to have forgotten that this is not a board of liberal pussies that would want to keep free trade capitalism in place but only install labor and enviromental restrictions.

Both sides ... "free trade" and "fair trade" exemplify the problems of capitalism.. one ignores that capitalism has problems at all, the other tries to patch the problems up.. with signifcant falure I might add.

The benifits of a socialist system can be seen quite clearly as far superior to capitalism. Jobs that will not dissapere... a standard of living far superior than the present one, reinvestment of nations economy into themselves, and profit earnings going back to benifit the workers directly with social services.

[Y2A]

Exactly! With nationally owned industry, the government is investing in it's own economics.


So you want the state to own everything and then expect there not to be corruption??? What is the difference between giving all property to the state and giving everything to a huge corporation??? That is the problem with Marxism, is that you credulously assume that the state will work in the best interest of the people.

"The so-called "abolition of private property" which took place in the middle years of the century meant, in effect, the concentration of property in far fewer hands than before: but with this difference, that the new owners were a group instead of a mass of individuals. Individually, no member of the party owns anything, except petty personal belongings. Collectively, the Party owns everything in Oceania, because it controls everything and disposes of the products it sees fit. In the years following the Revolution it was able to step into his commanding position almost unopposed, because the whole process was represented as an act of collectivization. It had always been assumed that if the capitalist class were expropriated, Socialism must follow; and unquestionably the capitalists had been expropriated. Factories, mines, land, houses, transport-everything had been taken away from them: and since these things were no longer private property, it followed that they must be public property. Ingsoc, which grew out of the earlier Socialist movement and inherited its phraseology, had in fact carried out the main item in the socialist program, with the result, foreseen and intended beforehand, that economic inequality has been made permanent"- George Orwell 1984

[STI]

So you want the state to own everything and then expect there not to be corruption??? What is the difference between giving all property to the state and giving everything to a huge corporation??? That is the problem with Marxism, is that you credulously assume that the state will work in the best interest of the people.


When I look at the way governments operate, and the way corporations operate, I see just as much, if not more corruption in the private sector.

Also, the government wouldn't be working with personal gain as a bottom line, while corporations do. The government would have to be accountable to the people, but that's no different than in any other system which would work to do away with corruption.

[Y2A]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 09:46 PM

So you want the state to own everything and then expect there not to be corruption??? What is the difference between giving all property to the state and giving everything to a huge corporation??? That is the problem with Marxism, is that you credulously assume that the state will work in the best interest of the people.


When I look at the way governments operate, and the way corporations operate, I see just as much, if not more corruption in the private sector.

Also, the government wouldn't be working with personal gain as a bottom line, while corporations do. The government would have to be accountable to the people, but that's no different than in any other system which would work to do away with corruption.
USSR, agricultrual collectivization. Read up on it. The idea that marxists have that collectivization will work in the people's interest is ridiculous and has proven to be so throughout history.

[STI]

Originally posted by Y2A+Feb 24 2004, 10:11 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Y2A @ Feb 24 2004, 10:11 PM)
[email protected] 24 2004, 09:46 PM

So you want the state to own everything and then expect there not to be corruption??? What is the difference between giving all property to the state and giving everything to a huge corporation??? That is the problem with Marxism, is that you credulously assume that the state will work in the best interest of the people.


When I look at the way governments operate, and the way corporations operate, I see just as much, if not more corruption in the private sector.

Also, the government wouldn&#39;t be working with personal gain as a bottom line, while corporations do. The government would have to be accountable to the people, but that&#39;s no different than in any other system which would work to do away with corruption.
USSR, agricultrual collectivization. Read up on it. The idea that marxists have that collectivization will work in the people&#39;s interest is ridiculous and has proven to be so throughout history. [/b]
*Wipes sweat off brow.


Good thing the USSR wasn&#39;t actually Marxist, otherwise, you might have had a good argument there. That was a close one.

EDIT: Another thing, if it was actually collective, it wouldn&#39;t be government- run. You&#39;re just bringing that up out of nowhere. Looks like I&#39;ll be having red herring for dinner tonight.

[Y2A]

Originally posted by socialist_tiger+Feb 24 2004, 10:31 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (socialist_tiger @ Feb 24 2004, 10:31 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 10:11 PM

[email protected] 24 2004, 09:46 PM

So you want the state to own everything and then expect there not to be corruption??? What is the difference between giving all property to the state and giving everything to a huge corporation??? That is the problem with Marxism, is that you credulously assume that the state will work in the best interest of the people.


When I look at the way governments operate, and the way corporations operate, I see just as much, if not more corruption in the private sector.

Also, the government wouldn&#39;t be working with personal gain as a bottom line, while corporations do. The government would have to be accountable to the people, but that&#39;s no different than in any other system which would work to do away with corruption.
USSR, agricultrual collectivization. Read up on it. The idea that marxists have that collectivization will work in the people&#39;s interest is ridiculous and has proven to be so throughout history.
*Wipes sweat off brow.


Good thing the USSR wasn&#39;t actually Marxist, otherwise, you might have had a good argument there. That was a close one.

EDIT: Another thing, if it was actually collective, it wouldn&#39;t be government- run. You&#39;re just bringing that up out of nowhere. Looks like I&#39;ll be having red herring for dinner tonight. [/b]
Totalitarianism came as a result of marxism and centralization. That is what Orwell is trying to say, seems you do not understand that.

[RedCeltic]

Totaliterianism came as a result of "democratic centralism" which is a leninist theory, not a Marxist theory.

The USSR may have had national industry, yet it was hardly a true worker&#39;s state.

[STI]

Originally posted by Y2A+Feb 24 2004, 05:45 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Y2A @ Feb 24 2004, 05:45 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 10:31 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 10:11 PM

[email protected] 24 2004, 09:46 PM

So you want the state to own everything and then expect there not to be corruption??? What is the difference between giving all property to the state and giving everything to a huge corporation??? That is the problem with Marxism, is that you credulously assume that the state will work in the best interest of the people.


When I look at the way governments operate, and the way corporations operate, I see just as much, if not more corruption in the private sector.

Also, the government wouldn&#39;t be working with personal gain as a bottom line, while corporations do. The government would have to be accountable to the people, but that&#39;s no different than in any other system which would work to do away with corruption.
USSR, agricultrual collectivization. Read up on it. The idea that marxists have that collectivization will work in the people&#39;s interest is ridiculous and has proven to be so throughout history.
*Wipes sweat off brow.


Good thing the USSR wasn&#39;t actually Marxist, otherwise, you might have had a good argument there. That was a close one.

EDIT: Another thing, if it was actually collective, it wouldn&#39;t be government- run. You&#39;re just bringing that up out of nowhere. Looks like I&#39;ll be having red herring for dinner tonight.
Totalitarianism came as a result of marxism and centralization. That is what Orwell is trying to say, seems you do not understand that. [/b]
Thumbs up for the slippery slope argument (a logical fallacy, by the way). George Orwell was not against socialism, by the way, and 1984 wasn&#39;t a shot against Marxism. It was a look at thought control, and people would be much more frightened of socialism than, say, Amerikan &#39;democracy&#39;, because of, you guessed it, mind control.

[synthesis]

Thumbs up for the slippery slope argument (a logical fallacy, by the way).

How was it a &#39;slippery slope&#39; in any way?

My logic dictionary defines slippery slope as such:


The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form:


Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.

We have learned enough from history to know that Leninism leads to totalitarianism. Our logic is rather simple: every Leninist regime in history was totalitarian. It&#39;s not very hard.

Besides, shouldn&#39;t you be trying to argue the opposite - that our own views would lead to &#39;totalitarianism&#39; as well, rather than that views contrary to ours do not lead to such a state?

[el_profe]

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)do+Feb 24 2004, 03:56 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (El Infiltr(A)do @ Feb 24 2004, 03:56 AM)
[email protected] 23 2004, 06:02 PM
Yes, srew the maquiladoras, let the people starve to death, listen these are the only chance of income most of these people have, In guatemala a whole bunch of maquiladoras left, increasing unemployment alot, so WTF do you want?
Wasn&#39;t it that in capitalism, if you don&#39;t like your boss or workplace you could switch to another work??? Hmmm...what a contradiction. Who are you going to blame?? The government?? (which trites to attract them to create incomes in their countries)

[/b]
First of All there is something here no one understands. IN LATIN AMERICA THE COST OF LIVING IS MUCH CHEAPER WHEN YOU COMPARE IT TO THE USA, SO YOU CANT POSSIBLY COMPARE A SALARY OF &#036;1000 DOLLARS IN THE USA AND A SALARY OF 1000&#036; A MONTH IN A COUNTRY IN LATIN AMERICA.
iF YOURE EARNING 1000&#036; A MONTH IN LATIN AMERICA YOURE MIDDLE CLASS, IN THE STATES, YOURE FUCKED WITH THAT SALARY, SO PLEASE THINK(ALTHOUGH I KNOW ITS HARD FOR MOST OF OU TO DO THAT) FOR A MOMENT THAT 1&#036; AND HOUR IS ACTUALLY ABOVE MINIMUM WAGE. in GUATEMALA IT WOULD BE 2 QUETZALES(the currency) ABOVE MINIMUM WAGE. aND MINIMUM WAGE WAS INCREASED 3 TIMES IN THE LAST YEAR.

El Infiltrado:
Yes they can leave there job if they want, but the goverment taxes and restrictions and other reason have created alot of unemployment leaving many with no real option, of course the only way to change this is trying to get more companies to create more jobs in the country.



In fact maquiladora workers started protesting because the gov. tax increases was makign the maquiladoras leave guatemala.

Always the same bullshit. For you it&#39;s always the taxing not the bad pay. 100% of the blame falls on the taxes, 0% on the capitalist exploiter.
Why do you think they are able to pay lower wages in those countries? cause the demand for that type of job is highers than the supply. Yes it falls on taxes and on stupid goverment policies.



So those stupid organizations that want to "protect" people only leave people with out jobs, they kill people by starving them to death instead of helping death. I have 2 words for thos stupid organizations: FUCK OFF&#33;

Well those who want to "protect" people prefer politics that create employment, even at the risk of inflation.
yes and how exactly is a historically corrupt gov. going to create jobs? where will they get the money to do that? oh wait, just print money so it looses its value.



People are oppressed because of there own ignorance and because of the fucking horrible corrupt gov. that people put in power.

Always the same. So the poor is ignorant by genetical conditions (a subjective thing because you probably compare them to those whose daddys paid their universities), the rich is intelligent and brilliant in everything (?) and the government is the only exploiter. It&#39;s never the state for you cappies, it&#39;s the government. So the only way to implement your policies is hiring some fascist mercenary like Pinochet to impose your economical bullshit.
What? who the hell hired Pinochet? Are you a retard?, havent you seen how corrupt gov. in latin america have been? no , because of that crappy education you received in the states you probably couldnt name all the countries in America, mush less find them on a map so why the hell should i expect you to know a little bit about the history of their corupt gov&#39;s.
First of all most of the poor dont even vote, but yes, people who vote for that gov. deserve that gov. because they voted for him.




Also maquiladora workers usually cant find any other work, is the work har, yes, but they prefer to have job that pays them the average than no job at all.
So what do you want,? for the maquiladoras to leave and to make these people die of starvation because they cant find a job?

Excuse me, but &#036;0.92 an hour is starvation. I&#39;m surprised that they don&#39;t die. Maybe it&#39;s the government who gives them cheap healthcare??
No, the gov. healthcare is a piece of crap and only cover worker, not poor farmers or street vendors, they go to a more crappy hospital than the workers do (if thats possible since the Healthcare for workers also sucks). Also in Guatemala they just had this big scandal where more than Q100 million (its like 20 million dollars) went into the pockets of the people running the healthcare.
Also .92 an hour is over the minimum wage which was raised 3 times in 4 years. And dont compare USA wages with 3rd world country wages, its not possible. &#036;1000, buys much more in a 3rd world country than in the USA.





p.s. Some maquiladoras do treat workers very badly but not many, most of the ones that treat people bad are owned by koreans, taiwan or chinneses people that open up maquilas in latin america. Not huge companies.

Oh, very interesting&#33; After all, nazis and fascist go around complaining about those chinese and taiwanese, but if you ask them about the japanese, they reply "Noooo, they are different, they are noble" or some bullshit like that. So it&#39;s never the yankees fault, it&#39;s never the fault of the "civilized", it&#39;s always better to blame the "orientals", right? Stop making yourself look like an idiot by blaming those on the other side of the planet.
What? I bet you didnt even know that, have you ever been to latin America or even live there.
Many individuals own the maquilas but they have contracts with clothing companies from the USA and other places, its not that hard to figure it out, you just need to think a little.



Capitalism has really hurt Chile right? they have the best economy in latin america.

Even with the fascist old idiot there were a lot of interventions because of different economical problems capitalism had. . And capitalists like you defend the Pinochet dictatorship admitting that they changed lives for TVs. And we shouldn&#39;t forget all the capitalist countries which are in poverty. Stop the argument of the "it&#39;s not capitalist they are poor because they are socialist" because that&#39;s bullshit. In Chile there was also great poverty during the fascist dictatorship and the following governments.
Yes there was/is still intervention, if there was much less intervension they would be much better off.
Also i unlike you dont support a dictator, capitalist dont support the actions of Pinochet, unlike everyone here who loves stalin and mao and castro...

When Pinochet realized after a couple of years that he was ruining the economy he decided he was going to leave the economy in charge of the "Chicago boys". They took some drstic measures at first the country suffered but in the long run it benefited a lot from that.

[RedCeltic]

IN LATIN AMERICA THE COST OF LIVING IS MUCH CHEAPER WHEN YOU COMPARE IT TO THE USA, SO YOU CANT POSSIBLY COMPARE A SALARY OF &#036;1000 DOLLARS IN THE USA AND A SALARY OF 1000&#036; A MONTH IN A COUNTRY IN LATIN AMERICA.

I find it interesting that a person who claims to live in Latin America has no compassion for the people there, and no grasp on economics.

As the case study I posted said... as well as most data that we recive from studies of these plants and their impact on the local population.... the base salery of the people is around 60 cents an hour, which is less than one third of the cost of living. Just for survival, the workers there require the wages of three individuals working full time.. 15 hour shifts 6 days a week.

This is not a desirable existance, and the problem is obvious... there is no way out&#33; Future generations will be subjected to the same life since they will be required to quit school early so they can help with the family.

El Profe Should be ashamed of himself&#33;

[STI]

QUOTE
Thumbs up for the slippery slope argument (a logical fallacy, by the way).


How was it a &#39;slippery slope&#39; in any way?

My logic dictionary defines slippery slope as such:

QUOTE
The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form:


Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.



Y2A was saying that, if X (Nationalization of the economy) occured, Y (totalitarianism) would follow.

I&#39;m not sure what you&#39;re trying to say here:


We have learned enough from history to know that Leninism leads to totalitarianism. Our logic is rather simple: every Leninist regime in history was totalitarian. It&#39;s not very hard.

Besides, shouldn&#39;t you be trying to argue the opposite - that our own views would lead to &#39;totalitarianism&#39; as well, rather than that views contrary to ours do not lead to such a state?

All I can gather is that you think I&#39;m a Leninist or a capitalist of some sort. If I&#39;m wrong, correct me. I&#39;m not, for the record, a Leninist or capitalist. I&#39;m saying that Marxism wouldn&#39;t lead to totalitarianism.

[el_profe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 12:53 PM

IN LATIN AMERICA THE COST OF LIVING IS MUCH CHEAPER WHEN YOU COMPARE IT TO THE USA, SO YOU CANT POSSIBLY COMPARE A SALARY OF &#036;1000 DOLLARS IN THE USA AND A SALARY OF 1000&#036; A MONTH IN A COUNTRY IN LATIN AMERICA.

I find it interesting that a person who claims to live in Latin America has no compassion for the people there, and no grasp on economics.

As the case study I posted said... as well as most data that we recive from studies of these plants and their impact on the local population.... the base salery of the people is around 60 cents an hour, which is less than one third of the cost of living. Just for survival, the workers there require the wages of three individuals working full time.. 15 hour shifts 6 days a week.

This is not a desirable existance, and the problem is obvious... there is no way out&#33; Future generations will be subjected to the same life since they will be required to quit school early so they can help with the family.

El Profe Should be ashamed of himself&#33;
What? , are you retarded, dont you see that 2 dollar and hour salary in Guatemala is above average?

I ask you this, Those salaries are bs. I know for a fact that they earn more than the minimum wage. .60 would be below minimum wage. So youre data is fcked up.

I ask you again? these are the only job people can get because there is very few jobs being created, so why do you want to take that job away from them, and since your such a fucking genious, tell how the hell are new jobs goig to be created? who is going to create them? a corrupt and fcked up gov? no they cant.

[synthesis]

God damn it. I&#39;m sorry, socialist-tiger - I thought you were Y2A because I mixed up your avatars. I apologize for the mix-up.

Wow, I feel like an idiot.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 06:21 AM


In fact maquiladora workers started protesting because the gov. tax increases was makign the maquiladoras leave guatemala.

Always the same bullshit. For you it&#39;s always the taxing not the bad pay. 100% of the blame falls on the taxes, 0% on the capitalist exploiter.

First of All there is something here no one understands. IN LATIN AMERICA THE COST OF LIVING IS MUCH CHEAPER WHEN YOU COMPARE IT TO THE USA, SO YOU CANT POSSIBLY COMPARE A SALARY OF &#036;1000 DOLLARS IN THE USA AND A SALARY OF 1000&#036; A MONTH IN A COUNTRY IN LATIN AMERICA.
iF YOURE EARNING 1000&#036; A MONTH IN LATIN AMERICA YOURE MIDDLE CLASS, IN THE STATES, YOURE FUCKED WITH THAT SALARY, SO PLEASE THINK(ALTHOUGH I KNOW ITS HARD FOR MOST OF OU TO DO THAT) FOR A MOMENT THAT 1&#036; AND HOUR IS ACTUALLY ABOVE MINIMUM WAGE. in GUATEMALA IT WOULD BE 2 QUETZALES(the currency) ABOVE MINIMUM WAGE. aND MINIMUM WAGE WAS INCREASED 3 TIMES IN THE LAST YEAR.

Yeah the cost of living is cheaper but in yankeeland they pay you more. At least that&#39;s what a friend who lives there told me.

[/quote]El Infiltrado:
Yes they can leave there job if they want, but the goverment taxes and restrictions and other reason have created alot of unemployment leaving many with no real option, of course the only way to change this is trying to get more companies to create more jobs in the country.[/quote]

And companies leave them in poverty when they see a cheaper place.


Why do you think they are able to pay lower wages in those countries? cause the demand for that type of job is highers than the supply. Yes it falls on taxes and on stupid goverment policies.

They will never be rich by "working hard" anyway.


yes and how exactly is a historically corrupt gov. going to create jobs? where will they get the money to do that? oh wait, just print money so it looses its value.

Why are you asking me? It&#39;s going to be the same anyway. The whole supply and demand system is already flawed, and it prooves that money is useless, and doesnt even have value, which is a better reason to delete it.


What? who the hell hired Pinochet? Are you a retard?, havent you seen how corrupt gov. in latin america have been? no , because of that crappy education you received in the states you probably couldnt name all the countries in America, mush less find them on a map so why the hell should i expect you to know a little bit about the history of their corupt gov&#39;s.
First of all most of the poor dont even vote, but yes, people who vote for that gov. deserve that gov. because they voted for him.

Excuse me, are you talking to me or are you just giving examples? Because I already told you before, I told it many times, that I am in Sudacamerica and I was born here. I will take that as an insult to discredit my points of view.


No, the gov. healthcare is a piece of crap and only cover worker, not poor farmers or street vendors, they go to a more crappy hospital than the workers do (if thats possible since the Healthcare for workers also sucks). Also in Guatemala they just had this big scandal where more than Q100 million (its like 20 million dollars) went into the pockets of the people running the healthcare.
Also .92 an hour is over the minimum wage which was raised 3 times in 4 years. And dont compare USA wages with 3rd world country wages, its not possible. &#036;1000, buys much more in a 3rd world country than in the USA.

But the value remains the same. U&#036;S 1 here = U&#036;S 1 in any other Latin American country = U&#036;S 1 in the U&#036;.


What? I bet you didnt even know that, have you ever been to latin America or even live there.
Many individuals own the maquilas but they have contracts with clothing companies from the USA and other places, its not that hard to figure it out, you just need to think a little.

Around here we don&#39;t have those damn maquiladoras


Yes there was/is still intervention, if there was much less intervension they would be much better off.
Also i unlike you dont support a dictator, capitalist dont support the actions of Pinochet, unlike everyone here who loves stalin and mao and castro...

When Pinochet realized after a couple of years that he was ruining the economy he decided he was going to leave the economy in charge of the "Chicago boys". They took some drstic measures at first the country suffered but in the long run it benefited a lot from that.

In fact those here who love Stalin are a minority, those who love Mao are not many, and those who love Castro don&#39;t really "love" him and many criticize him. And all capitalists I ever heard talking about Chile suggest that Pinochet&#39;s dictatorship "was necessary", and it saved Chile from "Communism" and made Chileans very rich (however it&#39;s obvious that those who benefitted were 1% of the people), at the cost of course of thousands of lives ("deregulation"???"), "senators for life" and we can&#39;t forget that people took him out when they had the chance.

[RedCeltic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 04:49 PM
What? , are you retarded, dont you see that 2 dollar and hour salary in Guatemala is above average?

I ask you this, Those salaries are bs. I know for a fact that they earn more than the minimum wage. .60 would be below minimum wage. So youre data is fcked up.

I ask you again? these are the only job people can get because there is very few jobs being created, so why do you want to take that job away from them, and since your such a fucking genious, tell how the hell are new jobs goig to be created? who is going to create them? a corrupt and fcked up gov? no they cant.
Personal attacks are no way to win an argument. I&#39;m not retarded, and there is no call for you to say that. You disagree with me... that&#39;s fine, but don&#39;t take it out on me just because your grasp of economics are screwy.

&#036;2 an hour in Guatemala may be above the poverty line... yet I wasn&#39;t talking about Guatemala I was talking about El Salvador, and I wasn&#39;t talking about workers earning &#036;2 an hour.

To expect economic progress in a capitalist system you need the general population to be earning more money than what will just get them by at or below the poverty line.

I serously doubt that the data collected at the Do All Plant is "Fucked up" but I would honestly trust the economics experts that did the study before I would trust you. No hard fealing there mate.

Realy the point I wanted to make was that even if wages in the Do All plant, or any other Maquiladora was to be doubled. Wages would still represent less than 1% of the total cost of the product.

only 12% of the price of one product.. (Jackets in the case of "Do All" ) goes to manufacturing

of that 12%----&#62;8% goes for material----&#62;0.4% for labor.
(there&#39;s no further overhead in this sector, because it&#39;s provided by the govt.)

5% of total cost goes to shipping
33% goes to ads...
and that leaves 50% as profit for the company.

[el_profe]

Originally posted by RedCeltic+Feb 26 2004, 04:00 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RedCeltic @ Feb 26 2004, 04:00 AM)
[email protected] 25 2004, 04:49 PM
What? , are you retarded, dont you see that 2 dollar and hour salary in Guatemala is above average?

I ask you this, Those salaries are bs. I know for a fact that they earn more than the minimum wage. .60 would be below minimum wage. So youre data is fcked up.

I ask you again? these are the only job people can get because there is very few jobs being created, so why do you want to take that job away from them, and since your such a fucking genious, tell how the hell are new jobs goig to be created? who is going to create them? a corrupt and fcked up gov? no they cant.
Personal attacks are no way to win an argument. I&#39;m not retarded, and there is no call for you to say that. You disagree with me... that&#39;s fine, but don&#39;t take it out on me just because your grasp of economics are screwy.

&#036;2 an hour in Guatemala may be above the poverty line... yet I wasn&#39;t talking about Guatemala I was talking about El Salvador, and I wasn&#39;t talking about workers earning &#036;2 an hour.

To expect economic progress in a capitalist system you need the general population to be earning more money than what will just get them by at or below the poverty line.

I serously doubt that the data collected at the Do All Plant is "Fucked up" but I would honestly trust the economics experts that did the study before I would trust you. No hard fealing there mate.

Realy the point I wanted to make was that even if wages in the Do All plant, or any other Maquiladora was to be doubled. Wages would still represent less than 1% of the total cost of the product.

only 12% of the price of one product.. (Jackets in the case of "Do All" ) goes to manufacturing

of that 12%----&#62;8% goes for material----&#62;0.4% for labor.
(there&#39;s no further overhead in this sector, because it&#39;s provided by the govt.)

5% of total cost goes to shipping
33% goes to ads...
and that leaves 50% as profit for the company. [/b]
Actually el salvador right now is better off than Guatemala economically I think it had the best gdp in latin ameica the last 2 years.

[el_profe]

El Infiltrado- You see how many people support Pinochet in Chile? about 50% maybe more, so obviously not only 1% benefited from the growing economy.

[STI]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 09:50 PM
God damn it. I&#39;m sorry, socialist-tiger - I thought you were Y2A because I mixed up your avatars. I apologize for the mix-up.

Wow, I feel like an idiot.
Heh, no worries. He has a coloured avatar now anyway, so it&#39;s not likely to happen again. You can make it up to me by using your mystical Mod powers to pass a law at Che Lives allowing me and me alone to have a black- and- white avatar :P

[RedCeltic]

Socialist Tiger

Hey, I&#39;ll have you know I think you have one of the best avatars on the board man. I always loved that image. :)

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 04:26 PM
El Infiltrado- You see how many people support Pinochet in Chile? about 50% maybe more, so obviously not only 1% benefited from the growing economy.
Yeah and they seem old stupid mid class women

That doesn&#39;t prove anything, you don&#39;t need to become rich with some president to support him, for them being capitalists was enough to support the dictator.

[STI]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 08:13 PM
Socialist Tiger

Hey, I&#39;ll have you know I think you have one of the best avatars on the board man. I always loved that image. :)
Thanks :)

I came upon it by pure chance one time when I was google image searching for &#39;Hammer and Sickle&#39;. The rest, as they say, is histroy.