CitizenX Posted August 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 (edited) Your assumptions for days/hours worked is extreme, by your own admission above. Wages are going up, not down. Find a better sob story for "slave labour". In Bangladesh women and children are forced to work about 14 hours a day, often seven days a week for wages as low as around 13 cents an hour. remember how this started? Please...Please stop trying to defend this. If you believe in god your soul may be on the line here. So please stop. Edited August 30, 2011 by CitizenX Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenX Posted August 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 Q) What is the difference between a corporation and a union? A) Nothing. Both represent groups of people and seek to make a profit for their members. Both are indepedent legal entities which gives them a form of "personhood" under the law. There is nothing nefarious about this and it is necessary for them to serve their purpose. One group commits terrible acts and the other group pays them to do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 One group commits terrible acts and the other group pays them to do it.That is a gross generalization. The fact that some corporations act badly does not mean the concept of corporation bad. Just like the concept of a union is not flawed because some unions are bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 remember how this started? Please...Please stop trying to defend this. If you believe in god your soul may be on the line here. So please stop. I don't believe in your "god", so get a grip. If the prevailing wage for garment workers in Bangladesh is $43 - $140 per month, then that is what the market will pay to willing workers. Go rescue some "white slavery" victims in Vancouver instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 The Wage Board on garments in Bangladesh nearly doubled minimum wages on July 29, 2010. The minimum wage at the entry level will be raised to Tk 3,000 a month (or about $43) from Tk 1,662.50 ($24). The new pay structure, proposed to be effective from November 1, maintains the existing seven grades with the highest pay fixed at Tk 9,300 ($140) per month. OT but here goes. This is interesting b_c. Given the dearth and affordability of clothing made in Canada I have been seeking out clothing made in Bangladesh which I have found to be of very good quality; I'm glad to see that the workers are reaping benefits from their output. I have tried to avoid goods made in China as a matter of principle but when I order by catalogue from a major retailer once or twice a year, 90% of the stuff I receive is made there. I must also plug clothes made in India which I find are increasing in quality. Carry on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 .... I must also plug clothes made in India which I find are increasing in quality. Agreed....I seek out 100% pima cotton garments from the same countries, and in many cases, the cotton comes from the USA. I love a story with a happy ending. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 (edited) Good = Empathy and Compassion You are starting from a flawed definition of "good". Who says good is empathy and compassion? Those are what you value as good. Others may see good in other things... technological and economic progress, material wealth and comfort, safety and security of their person and property, a superior education for their kids, individual freedom and liberties, etc. People may also hold religious views on what is good, or they may be most concerned with what is good for a particular person that they love (a child or spouse for example). The Corporations only concern is to create profits for shareholders, resulting in profits over people. They are required by law to place the financial interests of their owners above competing interests. In fact, the corporation is legally bound to put its bottom line ahead of everything else, even the public good. Profits before people. Why do you have no empathy or compassion for the many seniors trying to live on their fixed income which consists of dividends from these corporations? Are you an evil psychopath? According to Lord Chancellor Haldane, ...”a corporation is an abstraction. It has no mind of its own any more than it has a body of its own; its active and directing will must consequently be sought in the person of somebody who is really the directing mind and will of the corporation, the very ego and centre of the personality of the corporation”. That's right, the only entity which can be defined as "good" or "evil" is a human being, not an abstraction like a corporation. Herein Lies the Problem, and part of the reason that Corporation do evil. A CEO’s job is to create profits by any means, if he/she fails they are replaced. No, a CEO's job is to create profits by any legal means. If it is legal to do "evil", then it is the framework of laws that is flawed, not the people and corporations working under those laws. Also, the CEO is usually additionally restricted to operating within the general business plan or framework of the given corporation. This creates a evolutionary system where the most ethically delinquent, narcissistic, morally corrupt persons rise to the top. You assume that delinquency, narcissism, and corruption leads to profits? They may in some cases, but what leads to the greatest profits is developing a product that people like and delivering it with quality and excellence. Just look at Steve Jobs for example, widely considered one of the best CEOs of modern times. How did he boost Apple's profits? Was it by being evil? Or did he just have some good ideas and was able to guide the company in executing them well? None of whom will take any legal responsibility for the actions of the Corporation. A corporation can be responsible for murder, but because this entity has no actual body it cannot be imprisoned. It is only required to pay a fine. If a fine is less than the costs of doing the right thing like cleaning up a oil spill, they will pay the fine every time. A corporation can be fined out of existence, it can be banned from doing business in a jurisdiction, have its business license revoked, etc. These are all effectively death penalties for a corporation. Edited August 30, 2011 by Bonam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 The Corporations only concern is to create profits for shareholders, resulting in profits over people.Hey, wait a second.Shareholders are "people" too, no? Profits? Positive profits simply mean that you sell something of greater value than what it costs. (Negative profits mean you go broke and disappear until you figure out a better way.) ---- CitizenX, what is your problem with an institution that creates value for individuals, or disappears if it doesn't? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenX Posted August 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 CitizenX, what is your problem with an institution that creates value for individuals, or disappears if it doesn't? At what price. Was the use of slave labour in America acceptable because it reduced the cost of producing cotton there by creating value. It's a moral Question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 Hey, wait a second. Shareholders are "people" too, no? Profits? Positive profits simply mean that you sell something of greater value than what it costs. (Negative profits mean you go broke and disappear until you figure out a better way.) ---- CitizenX, what is your problem with an institution that creates value for individuals, or disappears if it doesn't? The issue potentially is scope creep, and that some of these institutions will get so large and powerful they are effectively above the law. The exact same dynamic that makes publically traded corporations so effective at creating and delivering so many products and services could also turn them into our masters potentially. As far as corporate personhood what worries me is judicial scopecreep and political activism. Theres some good reasons why corporations are treated as people. It stems from the concept of a "juristic person" or artificial person which has been around since the 16th century in British Commonlaw. Some of it makes sense... Corps need the right to contract, sue, be sued, be taxed, etc. I would keep it at that though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenX Posted August 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 (edited) You are starting from a flawed definition of "good". Who says good is empathy and compassion? Those are what you value as good. Others may see good in other things... technological and economic progress, material wealth and comfort, safety and security of their person and property, a superior education for their kids, individual freedom and liberties, etc. People may also hold religious views on what is good, or they may be most concerned with what is good for a particular person that they love (a child or spouse for example). So your idea of being a good person is what? You are a good person If you own a ipod, are rich, are comfortable, safe and secure, you kids are smart, ect. Being a good person has nothing to do with how you treat other people??? You can do what ever you want to other people as long as you treat your child or spouse with love? Interesting philosophy That's right, the only entity which can be defined as "good" or "evil" is a human being, not an abstraction like a corporation. According to who? I think the Nazi's were evil (a group of people) No, a CEO's job is to create profits by any legal means. If it is legal to do "evil", then it is the framework of laws that is flawed, not the people and corporations working under those laws. Also, the CEO is usually additionally restricted to operating within the general business plan or framework of the given corporation. And who has the over powering political power to effect these laws? A corporation can be fined out of existence, it can be banned from doing business in a jurisdiction, have its business license revoked, etc. These are all effectively death penalties for a corporation. See above Edited August 30, 2011 by CitizenX Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenX Posted August 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 (edited) As far as corporate personhood what worries me is judicial scopecreep and political activism. Theres some good reasons why corporations are treated as people. It stems from the concept of a "juristic person" or artificial person which has been around since the 16th century in British Commonlaw. Some of it makes sense... Corps need the right to contract, sue, be sued, be taxed, etc. I would keep it at that though. Originally, corporations were set up to serve the public good. Corporations were originally associations of people who were chartered to perform some particular function. Like a group of people want to build a bridge over a River, or a railroad, ect. Edited August 30, 2011 by CitizenX Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 (edited) A.t what price. Was the use of slave labour in America acceptable because it reduced the cost of producing cotton there by creating value. It's a moral Question.At the time, the State allowed slave labour - don't blame corporations for this practice. Firms are simply a way to organize people.When firms/corporations produce profits, they survive. If the profits are negative, the firms/corporations disappear. I cannot imagine a better, more democratic measure than a market price. In Canada, the Eaton family no longer exists. In America, no one talks of Woolworth. ----- CitizenX, what's your point? Governments exploit people? Edited August 30, 2011 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 (edited) So your idea of being a good person is what? You are a good person If you own a ipod, are rich, are comfortable, safe and secure, you kids are smart, ect. Being a good person has nothing to do with how you treat other people??? You can do what ever you want to other people as long as you treat your child or spouse with love? Interesting philosophy Unlike some, I don't see to impose my idea of what a "good person" is on others. Who would I consider a good person? Someone whose virtues I would find attractive and would want as a friend or companion. Someone intelligent, independent-minded, rational, active, energetic, dependable, joyful, happy, humorous. I would not automatically consider a demagogue who tries to pull at people's guilt strings to coerce them to donate to some "compassionate" cause a "good person". I would not automatically consider someone who hands a beggar a $20 a good person. They may well be, but their "compassion" alone does not prove them so to me. But, they are free to do so, and you are free to consider them a good person if you wish. What all this has to do with corporations I can't say. According to who? According to you, or the "Lord Chancellor" you quoted anyway. And who has the over powering political power to effect these laws? Politicians and the people who vote them in. And often even more so, judges on the supreme court. I notice you didn't address the point about seniors (and others) who depend on the dividend payouts from corporations that earn profits to be able to stay financially afloat through their retirement. Why do you have no compassion and empathy for these individuals? Edited August 30, 2011 by Bonam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenX Posted August 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 At the time, the State allowed slave labour - don't blame corporations for this practice. Firms are simply a way to organize people. this example has nothing to do with corporations. It's about where and how value is created, and the ethical way in which people profit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 this example has nothing to do with corporations. It's about where and how value is created, and the ethical way in which people profit.The State, governments, enforced slavery.Corporations are based on voluntary relations. If you don't believe me, look it up on wikipedia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 this example has nothing to do with corporations. It's about where and how value is created, and the ethical way in which people profit. People operate within the framework of the society around them and notions of morality change from generation to generation. Slavery was a common and generally accepted practice for thousands of years. Trying to judge people many generations ago by today's standards is a fool's exercise. Almost no one will measure up and you will be forced to conclude that almost everyone that lived prior to the current few generations was morally depraved. That would be the wrong conclusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenX Posted August 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 Unlike some, I don't see to impose my idea of what a "good person" is on others. Who would I consider a good person? Someone whose virtues I would find attractive and would want as a friend or companion. Someone intelligent, independent-minded, rational, active, energetic, dependable, joyful, happy, humorous. OK, It's alright to have a different definition of what a good person is. I am not imposing my idea of what a "good person" is on others. I was just defining my definition for the question. If you don't consider how someone treats another as being either good or bad that's fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 OK, It's alright to have a different definition of what a good person is. I am not imposing my idea of what a "good person" is on others. I was just defining my definition for the question. If you don't consider how someone treats another as being either good or bad that's fine. Ok, then you realize that your fundamental premise, your definition of good, whose antipathy you use to define corporations as "evil", is highly subjective. Furthermore, while corporations are recognized as legal persons for the purpose of some laws, that does not mean that corporations are humans and can be ascribed the same psychological or moral characteristics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenX Posted August 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 People operate within the framework of the society around them and notions of morality change from generation to generation. Slavery was a common and generally accepted practice for thousands of years. Trying to judge people many generations ago by today's standards is a fool's exercise. Almost no one will measure up and you will be forced to conclude that almost everyone that lived prior to the current few generations was morally depraved. That would be the wrong conclusion. Well believe it or not slavery is alive and well, and it's evidence can be viewed in any local Wal Mart (Made in China). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 (edited) Well believe it or not slavery is alive and well, and it's evidence can be viewed in any local Wal Mart (Made in China). The fact that you call someone working for a wage a slave does not make it so. Slaves were the property of their masters, chattel. A master could do essentially whatever he or she wanted to his or her slave. Employees are not the property of their bosses, and what an employer may ask their employee to do is strictly limited by law and by the employment contract. Furthermore, unlike a slave, a Walmart employee can unilaterally discontinue his or her employment at any time. As for working conditions in China, I agree, they can be poor, and I would not be surprised if there are cases of involuntary labour that could be described as slavery. Clearly, we would now judge this to be immoral. Your point? Do you have proof that Walmart utilizes slave labour throughout its operations in China? Edited August 30, 2011 by Bonam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenX Posted August 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 (edited) Ok, then you realize that your fundamental premise, your definition of good, whose antipathy you use to define corporations as "evil", is highly subjective. Furthermore, while corporations are recognized as legal persons for the purpose of some laws, that does not mean that corporations are humans and can be ascribed the same psychological or moral characteristics. No not really. although I respect you right to your own definition of what a good person is. I believe the mass majority would probably agree with me and my definition. I can see how can come to the conclusion that Corporations are not evil and I respect your opinion. Edited August 30, 2011 by CitizenX Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 (edited) Well believe it or not slavery is alive and well, and it's evidence can be viewed in any local Wal Mart (Made in China).Supposedly enforced by the State, government.---- In fact, I think that individuals in China are smarter than the government. Edited August 30, 2011 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenX Posted August 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 The fact that you call someone working for a wage a slave does not make it so. Slaves were the property of their masters, chattel. A master could do essentially whatever he or she wanted to his or her slave. Employees are not the property of their bosses, and what an employer may ask their employee to do is strictly limited by law and by the employment contract. Furthermore, unlike a slave, a Walmart employee can unilaterally discontinue his or her employment at any time. As for working conditions in China, I agree, they can be poor, and I would not be surprised if there are cases of involuntary labour that could be described as slavery. Clearly, we would now judge this to be immoral. Your point? Do you have proof that Walmart utilizes slave labour throughout its operations in China? I'm not talking about the wal mart worker. I'm talking about the 14 year old girl working 14 hours a day, 7 days a week for 20 cents an hour. And if you don't think that they work for people that treat them like chattel you are sadly mistaken. All for some crappy T-shirt you buy for $9.99. The proof is out there for you to find. I realize that no matter how much proof I show you, You will dispute it, because you just don't want to find the truth. You like the world the way it is, and you don't want to know where the products you buy come from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 I'm not talking about the wal mart worker. I'm talking about the 14 year old girl working 14 hours a day, 7 days a week for 20 cents an hour. And if you don't think that they work for people that treat them like chattel you are sadly mistaken. All for some crappy T-shirt you buy for $9.99.CitizenX, let me consider your numbers. 14 hours a day, 7 days a week, 20 cents an hour. 14x7x0.20 = $196.00.20 cents an hour? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.