Renegade

PR, this is hardly a relevant issue. When we or our ancestors immigrated to Canada our perspective was whether it was best for ourselves. Now that we are here we are looking at it from the perspective of if it is beneficial to Canada. Further, times change. Because immigration was good once, doesn't make it good always. To suggest that people should be for immigration because they or their ancestors were once immigrants, is akin to suggesting that anyone who was once a smoker should be an advocate for smoking.

No I'm certainly proposing an anti-Christian agenda. What I am saying is that we live in a secular society and can't base our policies upon a literal intertration of the Bible, Koran, or any other religious book. Your point is taken and I agree that there is a certain segment of the population who will never be responsible enough to look after their own long term self interest. The question becomes what do we as a society do about it. One part of me says that if they do save less than they should (say 5% and they really need 10%) they should suffer the consequences of their own neglect. (ie poverty in their old age). Another part of me says that if we really feel there will be a segment of the population who won't, of their own accord, do the right thing, then maybe they should be "forced" to do the right thing via legislation. What do I mean by this? Right now RRSPs are voluntary. If we really think they are necessary for retirement, make them mandatory, and make the minimium percentage contribution whatever we think is required to sustain a person upon retirement (say 10%). Many other countries do this so it is not without precident. (Its usually called a provedent fund). And no, I am not giving an argument for economic good times. A person will be productive in the workforce for roughly 40 years. They will see both economic good times and economic bad times. If they are contributing a percentage of income, that amount will be greater in good times and less in bad times, but overall should be sufficient to sustain them through retirement. Can you please explain how you come by this number? Yes, that is an accurate assessment of my position. So how is it that the optimum population size is determined? Is it 60M? Is that true for any country? If so are you suggesting that countries >60M should encourage their citizens to decrease their birthrate? Your argument here is that children are an "investment" that will pay long term dividends, and parents won't make that investment because they only are looking short term. This argument means that we keep overtaxing our kids and future generations as a way to get a suitable return on our investment. This is something I am admantly opposed to. Further there is no gurantee of any return on investment at all. Kids can get educated and leave the country or even be a drain on social systems rather than a contributor to the costs. In any case even a "stable" population (ie no growth) means that there is sufficient working people to maintain current services. (As long as we fix the Ponzi schemes I described above). Actually I disagree that the behaviour is irrational. In fact I think it is perfectly rational. The effect on population size is quite predictable and not random at all. Actuarial science studies this. The government, insurance companies, etc, employ actuaries to help them predict population growth and lifetime trends. If population growth and declines are predictable, it is also quite possible to adjust our policies to accomodate long term population growth and declines. What I'm saying here is that in my view they government should do is react to long term population growth or decline patterns, and not try and manipulate the trend by introducing incentives. A subsidy is most likely to entice a low income parent to have a child. These are also the people least likely to be able to afford a child. So why should we want to do that? That depends. Unchecked immigration will bring down wages because it will flood the labour pool. Targeted immigration will reduce inflation by preventing spikes in wages in areas of employment shortages. Yes, in some ways Canada does not do a very good job in immigration, however those are the issues to address and we should not paint all immigration negatively simply because we have failed to address those issues.

I guess by the out come of the 2004 elections, we're willing to take our chances with George W. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No doubt you are right. If I was an American citizen in 2004 I may have done the same and voted for GW. I doubt I'd do the same today. I wonder if the American people would make the same choice today as they would in 2004.

from...http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/libra...51217-voa01.htm A slippery slope indeed, for when rights and freedoms are curtailed in the name of rights and freedoms, you lose a bit of what you are fighting for. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm repeatedly disgusted by the extent the Bush administration goes to in undermining individual freedoms and rights all in the name of national security. I never supported the Patriot Act but these actions go even further. It seems that the US has become a place where "National Security" gives anyone free pass to violate constitutionally protected rights. The worst part is I think that Bush actually believes he is on the side of right. He is one dangerous man, probably more dangerous to the American People than any terrorist. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> How, precisely, is freedom being underminded by eavesdropping on communications? Besides which, you don't appear to have read about this issue to the extent that this sort of thing has been happening in the US (and indeed, throughout the developed world) since the dawn of electronic communications, and is fully Constitutional. If you sincerely believe that Bush is more dangerous than, say, Timothy McVeigh, I am truly sad for you. The world must be a very scary place. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Privacy is an important right. Does a peeping tom infringe on his victim's right? Yes the world is a scary place. Bush is more dangerous because of scope. Bush's actions affect many more people than McVeigh or bin Laden ever could. The Constitution sought to limit the state's powers and protect individual rights by forcing the state to resort to processes (eg a warrant) in order to infringe on individual rights. Since 9/11 the trend seems to be to take away any obstacles to infringing individual rights. This is very scary indeed because I certainly don't trust the government to respect my rights.

from...http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/libra...51217-voa01.htm A slippery slope indeed, for when rights and freedoms are curtailed in the name of rights and freedoms, you lose a bit of what you are fighting for. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm repeatedly disgusted by the extent the Bush administration goes to in undermining individual freedoms and rights all in the name of national security. I never supported the Patriot Act but these actions go even further. It seems that the US has become a place where "National Security" gives anyone free pass to violate constitutionally protected rights. The worst part is I think that Bush actually believes he is on the side of right. He is one dangerous man, probably more dangerous to the American People than any terrorist.

On the other hand, workers earning more more would have more money to spend and demand would rise. This would be true if these workers actually consumed what they produce but as a practical matter virtually all of what is produced by the factories we are discussing are soley directed at external markets Some decades ago Taiwan and south Korea were in exactly the same situation as many of the countries we are now discussing. They were consider low wage juristictions and considered "exploited" labour. The investment in these areas propelled their economies forward to such an extent it raised their standard of living, their ability to educate and train the population and the increasingly better the wages of its population. This didn't take a year or two, it took decades. Today each are powerhouses in its own right. In my view, countries who want to get to the level where its population has a great standard of living, has to evolve to that state. It cannot be imposed on them. That means that for example with a minimium wage, they need to start with a low barrier to investment, and increase it only as the education and economy of that community allow. External imposition of minimimium wage standards will not work and are bound to cause economic disaster. ( Want to guess what would happen if we suddenly somehow forced China to adopt a $7/hour min wage?) August said it correctly that the conditions are brought about by lack of choices by the population. Forcing companies to pull out or cease production do not produce more choice for the population; it produces less. Until their local environment and economy changes to allow the population more choice, companies who invest in factories in these low wage areas, are doing nothing more than taking advantage of these conditions to lower costs. In my view this is not immoral.

eureka, I guess we will just need to wait and see where Walmart ends up. You are trying to apply the same standards to the Third World that are applicable in the West. It took us almost 200 years to get where we are today. In my view the countries in which these low wage jobs exist, need to go through as similar evolution. Forcing it upon them simply will not work.

It seems that you do not believe in morality at all, just legality, even though you say this; . Or, it seems that you think that 'the scales of justice' only measure when coinage is placed on them. theloniusfleabag, I don't think enterprises are the same as individuals. Enterprises don't have a conscience, individuals do. Enterprises are driven by a mandate ("Maximize profit") and are subject to the rules set down by government for their behaviour. The rules as they stand today do not permit the use of illegal immigrants, child labour, or the use of unpaid hours. In my view, the "rules of the game" as they stand today are fair and are applicable to all enterprises. Walmart has just proved more adept than others to maximize their benefit. (Note I'm not talking here about illegal behaviour, just the legal but apparently "immoral" actions) Actually, some companies have been fined, and in at least one case a factory manager was sentenced to 10 years for 'slaving' (I couldn't find a link, but I believe the factory was affiliated with JC Penny, located in SE Asia.) Great. If Walmart or other companies have been prosecuted, fined, or jailed, then they have recieved just retribution for their actions. This is as it should be for this behaviour. Is the suggestion that Walmart be boycotted, one which we should punish them again, or is it that we didn't think the punishment was severe enough. I must plead ignorance as to local conditions in Asia, though they must have done something before multinational corporations took over their resources and land. Perhaps if they unionized, some might make $40,000/yr, and others could start up service businesses, such as daycares, restaurants and the like. Oh, wait. That would mean that they would have to use their military or coerce our government to enslave us, and move all the head offices over there. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I must confess that I'm still trying to understand your reply here. I have been to many of the places where these factories exist, and have visited some of them. Many of the people they employ, in previous generations worked the land. That option is less viable because of overpopulation and pollution. Still others relied on begging or prostitution.

I don't dispute that this is WalMart's strategy with suppliers, but this is not illegal. It is also not immoral. Walmart owes the supplier nothing and vice versa. If a supplier has a good which was in short supply it would no doubt raise the price. Why do you expect that the buyer should be any less ruthless in its tactics. In my view both buyers and suppliers can be rutheless. You should expect it and you won't be disappointed. It's not a question of morality, it is just business. Many of the practices you have outlined above ("willing use of child labour, the willing use of illegal immigrants, forcing employees to work unpaid hours") are not just immoral they are illegal in our society. I am aware that Walmart has directly used illegal immigrants in the US. Where Walmart has acted illegally they should be proseuted and remedies applied as specifed by law. I'm in full agreement here. But where they have acted legally there is nothing immoral about what they have done.

If not a business relationship, then what is it? Since the agressive policy Walmart persues with suppliers is not illegal and you believe it is the role of government to set the "rules" of the game, why fault Walmart. Fault the government. Walmart is playing by the rules set down. By your analogy it is immoral for someone trying to avoid taxes to use a legal tax loophole. While I'd be happy to discuss the cause of protectionism and the Depression, that would considerbly divert this thread. If you want to do so, let's do it another thread. Ok so what. That in itself is not immoral. There have been many other waves of innovation, such as technology, which have put people out of work, that doesn't make the innovation immoral. Walmart has not just introduced cost efficiencies by moving production to China and demanding lower prices from suppliers. They have created an excellent distribution system and monitoring system, further they demand a work ethic from their employees that few companies can rival. It is true that other companies have copied Walmart, but they do so because it is a more cost-effective system than the one they employed, and to not change would mean they should go out of business. When Henry Ford introduced an assembly line to create cars, it was an efficiency and innovation and others had to copy the model or go out of business. If they have been forced out of business because they cannot match the cost efficiences required, then they deserve to be out of business. Business reality can be a harsh teacher, and in fact our society is better off if only the most efficient survive. Yes, though i was tempted, I did not address your previous post, however I will do so now. You say that the "Safety Net" is a subsidy to Walmart. Your right it is. But it is an equal subsidy to other enterprises operating in the same market. As you have seen in other threads, I have advocated for a reduction of these "subsidies". If what your are suggesting is that we can level the playing field by eliminating those subsidies which comprise the "Saftey Net" I'm fine to go along with that suggestion. It is really up to the Thirld World societies and governments to decide the rules by which they want foreign investment. If they have decided that it is advantageous for them to allow low-wage labour, I don't see that it is immoral for an enterprise to play by THEIR rules. We have set our own rules here in terms of working conditions and minimium wage, and others are able to set their own.

Normally, I try to not fall into the 'false dichotomy' trap, but it appears that you are endorsing slavery. This is a position of amorality, and while I agree that it exists (as the base of rights-theory), I think it is something we all are capable of being above. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No I'm really not endorsing slavery. Yes, you really are. And rape, torture, ethnic cleansing and mass murder. But hey, so long as the toaster coasts a few bucks less that's okay, right? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Slavery no. Free market yes. Think what you will, but consumers vote with their wallet, and until they decide what they want is more than the lowest cost toaster, companies like Walmart with thrive.

They would mechanize in a second if it were more profitable. And they will if the cost of labour makes it economical to mechanize. Slavery isn't 'gainful employment', because there isn't any 'gain' at all for the slave. I would suspect that they could do the very same jobs, with better conditions and higher pay, as long as 'slavery' gets outlawed, so the companies can't simply move somewhere else. There is lots of unemployment in the US, some of it amongst blacks in poorer neighbourhoods. Perhaps you can suggest bringing back slavery as a means to 'gainful employment'? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm not talking about Slavery. Slavery by your the definitions you have quoted is forced labour (eg prison camps, or people being forced to work camps), and yes I agree that isn't gainful employment. I am referring to situations where people are paid very low wages but economic conditions cause them to voluntarily accept those positions. From your very source which I quoted to Sparhawk, there exisits the real possibility that instead of doing the same jobs with better conditions and higher pay, they could be without jobs. So please answer the question. What do you expect the workers to do then?

Argus, Actually I read both of your references, and I reread them to make sure. Neither of them say that Wal-Mart is alone in persuit of low cost suppliers from China. The fact is, we would be awash in Chinese made goods even if Wal-Mart didn't exist. Wal-Mart accelerated the process with their agressive strategy. I will concede to you that Wal-Mart was the leader and the largest retailer to ever persue reducing costs in this way. My point remains, that enterprises who follow Wal-Mart's lead are no more or less culpable than Wal-mart itself. The fact is any supplier has a choice. Deal with Walmart on its terms or not deal with Walmart at all. If it were a more viable option for its survival, many suppliers would choose the latter option, but the fact that they don't mean they have chosen the better option for them. The relationship between enterprise and supplier is simply a business one. The enterprise can choose what it values from the supplier. It may be that an enterprise may value its relationship with the supplier more than the specific cost of items supplied, but it may equally decide that the cost of the supplied item is paramount. Walmart has chosen the latter option as is its perogative. There is nothing moral or immoral about that decision, it is simply a business choice.

Since there is would still be a demand for the goods in question then there would likely be workers in other locations or countries that would find new jobs that they did not have before. So the jobs argument is a red herring. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sparhawk, Actually its not. Demand is elastic and if prices rise (because of increased production costs) demand will fall, so your assumption that there will be the same number of other workers in other countries who will find jobs is not valid. Further, much of production is done by hand simply because it costs less to do so then to produce the same by mechanization. If that cost of labour changes, so may that balance of cost efficiency. Simply put, it may be cheaper for producers to mechanize. So the question remains, what do you expect those people to do? Many of you cry at the top of your lungs condenming low-wage labour, without fully understanding the problem or providing constructive solutions. From the source which theloniusfleabag previously posted: Sweatshops and Globalization

theloniusfleabag, Let's say you were successful in your boycott of certain brands of products and the manufacturers of those products decided to either close the factories or to mechanize so as to not employ anyone in "sweat shops" What exactly do you expect those formerly employed to do for gainful employment?

Certainly not all Wally-World goods are made by slaves. Some are though, and some celebrities with their own lines of clothing have been accused (and some caught) using sweat-shop/slave labour. There are certain brands of products that I have not bought for decades because of this. Perhaps Wal-Mart should not be held accountable for only selling a few products made from 'stolen labour', but the consumer is ultimately the fuel which enables slavery to continue. Wal-Mart seems to have no qualms about profiting from slavery. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> theloniusfleabag, Can you specify what products, what brands? Also can you be more specific about what you classify as sweat shop/slave labour? Certainly I'm not interested in buying products produced illegally.

I saw an article about WalMart the other day. They did $338 billion in revenues last year and their costs were $327 billion, i.e., they made $11 billion gross profit on $338 billion. They operate on very thin margins; they make it up on the mega-volume they sell. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It proves my point doesn't it? We so often condemn companies who 'gouge' the consumer to bolster profits. It isn't often we find an enterprise who's business model is predicated upon agressively passing on savings to the customer. Walmart estimates that in the US alone they save consumers $100 billion/year, or $1250 per family/year. ( see Remarks of Lee Scott ) Regardless of if you believe this number or not, it is clear that there are substantial savings passed on to the consumer who has become richer because of it. If you want to read a divergent opinion of someone who DOES NOT believe it ethical to shop at WalMart see :Is It Ethical to Shop at Wal-Mart?

Normally, I try to not fall into the 'false dichotomy' trap, but it appears that you are endorsing slavery. This is a position of amorality, and while I agree that it exists (as the base of rights-theory), I think it is something we all are capable of being above. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No I'm really not endorsing slavery. The very idea is abhorent. I believe in the rights of freedom both for individuals and enterprises. For WalMart as far as I am aware, they have obtained the cost efficiencies through completely legal means, and my statement above applies on that presumption. The US has tortured prisoners in Iraq and Guantanamo. Is it moral to buy US goods, or to visit the US? The analogy is the same.

You forgot to add: Libertarianism Benevolent Dictatorship Anarchy or even a catch-all "Other" category. How do you define best? Is it most efficient? Is it the people are most happy? Is it the people are most well off?

Given that virtually all retailers sell goods which are made in China, why single out one retailer? If it is moral to shop at any retailer who sells goods made in China, then it is just as moral to shop at Wal-Mart. My view is that Wal-Mart is an agressive cost-cutter who persues savings with ruthless efficiency. It then passes much of those savings to the customer. In my view that is not only moral, it is commendable and other retailers can only envy WalMart's position.

err, if people have voluntarily accepted a job, then people are being paid EXACTLY what they are worth. The free market of wage scales determines what a person is worth, and it varies according to supply and demand.

Between the two choices presented, I would have to agree that the perferable solutions is one that lets parents control the funds. But the best solution of all would be to just not tax people (both parents and non-parents) so highly and let them decide what to do with their money without government subsidies or interference. Unfortunately none of the parties has the courage enough to propose such a policy, and all parties busy figuring out how to best spend to buy votes. My point was not to discriminate based upon the employment status of the parent. The point was that any of the childcare schemes discrimminate against those without children and those who's children are beyond childcare age, as they have already borne the burden of childcare expenses. I couldn't agree more. I'm a parent myself so if the government wants to give me back of the money it forcibly took from me, I'll take it, but I would much prefer a solution where it didn't take the money to begin with.

What absolute nonsense!!! The parent paying child support (presumably the dad) does not get to deduct child support payments unless they separated prior to 1997 and have a court ordered support payment. So for everyone who separated after 1997, for the reciepient, the child support payment is not even reported as income. As far as parents who separated before 1997, how many do you think have kids who are young enough to qualify for childcare? Do the math.

FTA, I agree. Let's lower taxes and let people spend THEIR money on whatever the hell they want to, or have as many kids as they want to support. To be fair, did you not make the decision to have kids knowing full well you were being taxed at 40%? And didn't you decide to have kids anyway?

I would say definately not. If parents think find it too expensive to have kids why then do they opt to have kids? The choice to have kids is theirs alone so the fiscal responsibility should be theirs alone. This is true regardless if parents are rich or poor.