Russell Brand Revolution

[carepov]

How much do you think a $30 pair of jeans would cost if the cotton were not grown and harvested and final product not assembled in places like China or Bangladesh by workers who make 50 cents an hour or less, but instead these workers made $8/hour US (California's minimum wage) with a few benefits and what Canadians would consider humane working conditions?

$30

I am still waiting for evidence that: "Our standard of living is rising on the backs of the world's poor."

[TimG]

How much do you think a $30 pair of jeans would cost if the cotton were not grown and harvested and final product not assembled in places like China or Bangladesh by workers who make 50 cents an hour or less, but instead these workers made $8/hour US (California's minimum wage) with a few benefits and what Canadians would consider humane working conditions?

The fact is the middle class life style in rich countries requires 1000s of man hours of labour to sustain. If it was necessary to pay middle class wages for those 1000s of hours then then the lifestyle would be unaffordable. This is why I have little patience for people complaining about 'income disparity' because people only care about when it is inside an arbitrary line on a map. Edited November 7, 2013 by TimG

[Moonlight Graham]

$30

How is that possible? Explain your answer.

[Moonlight Graham]

The fact is the middle class life style in rich countries requires 1000s of man hours of labour to sustain. If it was necessary to pay middle class wages for those 1000s of hours then then the lifestyle would be unaffordable. This is why I have little patience for people complaining about 'income disparity' because people only care about when it is inside an arbitrary line on a map.

Exactly.

[Moonlight Graham]

The factory workers send money home to the non-industrial zones to help their families who are still subsistence farming.

Yes, factory work is very often better than subsistence farming. There's nothing much less productive than working on a small plot of land just to be able to eat and producing little to no surplus profit. However, just because some of these workers send money home doesn't mean that money is enough to afford very much at all. Once China begins having its people consuming the products it produces, its standard of living will explode (in a good way).

[kimmy]

I often see this brought up, but there's one problem: Somalia isn't capitalist or libertarian, it's a failed state where anarchy reigns supreme. Even the staunchest sane libertarians, conservatives, objectivists, etc, will tell you that government has a role, and that that role is to uphold law and order, to protect the right to private property, etc. In Somalia, that does not exist.

So what you're saying is that libertarians support rights and government functions that work to their advantage?

ITAR [...] DOE [...] DOD [...] NASA [...]

I'm not sure if it's occurred to you, Bonam, but you're just not like the rest of us. You could wake up some morning with Xenia Onatopp straddling your chest demanding you give her "ze blueprints".

Now matter how much or how little regulation there is in other businesses, you're always going to face a high level of paperwork because The Man is worried what could happen if you decided to snowden off to North Korea and give Kim Jong Un the technology to build a weather-controlling satellite.

-k

[carepov]

How is that possible? Explain your answer.

A $30 pair of jeans will cost $30.

The main point is: who cares? How does your question about jeans support your claim that "Our standard of living is rising on the backs of the world's poor."?

Are you saying that our standard of living is improving in the West because imported goods are getting cheaper? Are the world's poor increasing as a percentage of the population? Are the poor getting poorer?

Edited November 7, 2013 by carepov

[GostHacked]

How much do you think a $30 pair of jeans would cost if the cotton were not grown and harvested and final product not assembled in places like China or Bangladesh by workers who make 50 cents an hour or less, but instead these workers made $8/hour US (California's minimum wage) with a few benefits and what Canadians would consider humane working conditions?

People in the retail store make more than the people overseas making the product. The garment worker gets a buck a day (probably overestimating here), the person selling the stuff in a retail shop in North America gets at least minimum wage. A wage of magnitudes more than the garment worker.

The jeans are 30 bucks. The person selling the jeans makes lets say 8 CND an hour. The garment worker got less than a dollar a day. Guess who is making money off the backs of the poor? Corporations. It is how Walmart became so successful.

Yes the poor are getting poorer.

[carepov]

Yes the poor are getting poorer.

If you can, please provide evidence to support this claim.

[Bonam]

So what you're saying is that libertarians support rights and government functions that work to their advantage?

They support government functions that allow a society to exist in an orderly manner, and no more.

I'm not sure if it's occurred to you, Bonam, but you're just not like the rest of us. You could wake up some morning with Xenia Onatopp straddling your chest demanding you give her "ze blueprints".

That'd be hot!

Now matter how much or how little regulation there is in other businesses, you're always going to face a high level of paperwork because The Man is worried what could happen if you decided to snowden off to North Korea and give Kim Jong Un the technology to build a weather-controlling satellite.

Funny thing is, none of the regulations do anything at all to prevent that. The US has no laws which prevent people from leaving, with all the knowledge that is in their heads. What keeps (and brings) people here is the way of life and the opportunities that the US offers. Best thing the US can do for security is to make sure people like Snowden have nothing to complain about in the first place and are proud to keep working for the US, rather than pissing such people off.

[bleeding heart]

Funny thing is, none of the regulations do anything at all to prevent that. The US has no laws which prevent people from leaving, with all the knowledge that is in their heads. What keeps (and brings) people here is the way of life and the opportunities that the US offers. Best thing the US can do for security is to make sure people like Snowden have nothing to complain about in the first place and are proud to keep working for the US, rather than pissing such people off.

Not sure if you mean they should ease up on the extensiveness of their spying programs, or if you're talking about material comfort. If the latter, Snowdon actually gave up a more-than-usually lucrative career in order to blow the whistle. He was doing very well indeed, particularly for a man of his age.

[Bonam]

Not sure if you mean they should ease up on the extensiveness of their spying programs, or if you're talking about material comfort. If the latter, Snowdon actually gave up a more-than-usually lucrative career in order to blow the whistle. He was doing very well indeed, particularly for a man of his age.

Both really. People should be materially comfortable (which Snowden was) but should also feel that the work they are doing does not stand in contradiction with their own principles. When people start to think that their government is the bad guy, they are more likely to act against it. Solution isn't to crack down on security, but to stop being the bad guy.

[bleeding heart]

Both really. People should be materially comfortable (which Snowden was) but should also feel that the work they are doing does not stand in contradiction with their own principles. When people start to think that their government is the bad guy, they are more likely to act against it. Solution isn't to crack down on security, but to stop being the bad guy.

Oh, sure, I agree.

[Shady]

This Brand dude is turning out to be a real fruit loop!

It's easy to attack me, I'm a right twerp, I'm a junkie and a cheeky monkey.

This disparity has always been, in cultures since expired, a warning sign of end of days.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/05/russell-brand-democratic-system-newsnight?CMP=twt_gu

Apparently he doesn't hate rich people. Che Guevara was rich, and he likes Che Guevara. Anyways, down with capitalism! But don't forget to buy tickets to his next show, and go buy his latest movie on DVD, it's fantastic!

Edited November 7, 2013 by Shady

[bleeding heart]

Apparently he doesn't hate rich people. Che Guevara was rich, and he likes Che Guevara. Anyways, down with capitalism! But don't forget to buy tickets to his next show, and go buy his latest movie on DVD, it's fantastic!

He remarked that when he was poor, such remarks were met with "You're bitter and envious." Now, he's a "hypocrite."

In other words, criticism itself is illegitimate.

[Shady]

He remarked that when he was poor, such remarks were met with "You're bitter and envious." Now, he's a "hypocrite."

In other words, criticism itself is illegitimate.

No, he remarked it recently. Who would've known what he said when he was poor? Anyways, It's not so much being a hypccrite as much as just being kinda nuts now.

[kimmy]

No, he remarked it recently. Who would've known what he said when he was poor? Anyways, It's not so much being a hypccrite as much as just being kinda nuts now.

You misread what bleeding heart wrote.

To paraphrase: "when he was poor they said he was jealous, but now that he is rich they say he is a hypocrite, but either way the criticism is apparently not legitimate".

As for what Brand is saying in the quotes you linked: when Brand says "end of days" you can be sure he doesn't mean it in the same sense that Michele Bachmann does, as is clear from the context (where he mentions the fall of Rome, Egypt, and Easter Island, not Revelation and the Tribulation.)

-k

[kimmy]

They support government functions that allow a society to exist in an orderly manner, and no more.

I don't think that's especially controversial, I think we all just have different ideas of what constitutes "orderly". Some of your brethren don't think education is a necessary part of an "orderly" society, for example.

They support government functions that allow a society to exist in an orderly manner, and no more.

Funny thing is, none of the regulations do anything at all to prevent that. The US has no laws which prevent people from leaving, with all the knowledge that is in their heads. What keeps (and brings) people here is the way of life and the opportunities that the US offers. Best thing the US can do for security is to make sure people like Snowden have nothing to complain about in the first place and are proud to keep working for the US, rather than pissing such people off.

Well, sure, but bottom line The Man isn't going to let your start-up just sell ion-drives and laser canons to whoever you feel like. For the same reason that my soldier of fortune business is drowning in red tape.

-k

[Moonlight Graham]

A $30 pair of jeans will cost $30.

The main point is: who cares? How does your question about jeans support your claim that "Our standard of living is rising on the backs of the world's poor."?

Are you saying that our standard of living is improving in the West because imported goods are getting cheaper? Are the world's poor increasing as a percentage of the population? Are the poor getting poorer?

My point is that a pair of jeans, or anything other product, will cost more if it is made by workers making $10 an hour or more (plus benefits and 1st-world working conditions) than if it is made by workers making 50 cents an hour, or less, with little or no benefits and in cheap, deplorable working conditions.

Therefore, if we paid all workers who made our products what Westerners would consider humane wages (let's say $8 US an hour) and had these workers working within humane working conditions (ie: factories that weren't sh*t-holes), many if not most of the products Canadians and other Westerners buy would cost more therefore we could afford to buy fewer and/or poorer quality products. This means that our standard of living would go down.

An example of this is the whole "fair trade" movement. Much or the reason why "fair trade" products cost significantly more than non-fair trade is because the workers who make/harvest the "fair-trade" products (ie: coffee, chocolate bars, clothing etc. etc.) are paid higher for their labour, not to mentioned better (or more "fair") money for their export resources as well.

Edited November 8, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

[bleeding heart]

For the same reason that my soldier of fortune business is drowning in red tape.

-k

You should ask Lockheed-Martin how they manage it.

[bleeding heart]

No, he remarked it recently. Who would've known what he said when he was poor?

Oh yes, I know. See what Kimmy said.

Edited November 8, 2013 by bleeding heart

[carepov]

My point is that a pair of jeans, or anything other product, will cost more if it is made by workers making $10 an hour or more (plus benefits and 1st-world working conditions) than if it is made by workers making 50 cents an hour, or less, with little or no benefits and in cheap, deplorable working conditions.

Therefore, if we paid all workers who made our products what Westerners would consider humane wages (let's say $8 US an hour) and had these workers working within humane working conditions (ie: factories that weren't sh*t-holes), many if not most of the products Canadians and other Westerners buy would cost more therefore we could afford to buy fewer and/or poorer quality products. This means that our standard of living would go down.

An example of this is the whole "fair trade" movement. Much or the reason why "fair trade" products cost significantly more than non-fair trade is because the workers who make/harvest the "fair-trade" products (ie: coffee, chocolate bars, clothing etc. etc.) are paid higher for their labour, not to mentioned better (or more "fair") money for their export resources as well.

OK, let's play your game and say that clothing prices double because wages go up to ~$8/h. How would this impact Candian standard of living?

Canadian households spent an average of $53,016 on all types of goods and services in 2010. Of this total, shelter accounted for 28.3% of spending, transportation for 20.7%, and food, 14.0%. Spending on clothing [and accessories] represented 6.5% of the total, health care, 4.1%, and communications, 3.3%.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/120425/dq120425a-eng.htm

If we assume that all clothing purchased in Canda is today imported from sweat shops, and if Canadians baught the same amount of clothing then the average household would spend an ectra 6.5% or $3445 per year on clothing.

However, Candians surely would buy fewer clothes and buy more used clothes. IMO the impact on our standard of living would be negligable.

[Shady]

You misread what bleeding heart wrote.

To paraphrase: "when he was poor they said he was jealous, but now that he is rich they say he is a hypocrite, but either way the criticism is apparently not legitimate".

As for what Brand is saying in the quotes you linked: when Brand says "end of days" you can be sure he doesn't mean it in the same sense that Michele Bachmann does, as is clear from the context (where he mentions the fall of Rome, Egypt, and Easter Island, not Revelation and the Tribulation.)

-k

I really don't know what he means by it. He's a wacko bird.

[eyeball]

When people start to think that their government is the bad guy, they are more likely to act against it. Solution isn't to crack down on security, but to stop being the bad guy.

You seem to get the point it's just that the line the government has to cross to get your goat is a lot farther down the road than most of your peers. All you seem to saying is I'm all right Jack, so why rock the boat?

[Moonlight Graham]

OK, let's play your game and say that clothing prices double because wages go up to ~$8/h. How would this impact Candian standard of living?

I'm not just talking about clothing. A huge proportion of all products we buy are made/grown/harvested by workers in developing countries who make very low wages, wages that Canadians would consider inhumane if any of us made the same wages.

I'm saying, what would happen to our standard of living if ALL products we buy were made/grown/harvested by people making Canadian minimum wage or anywhere close to it? Our standard of living would drop. Our standard of living significantly depends on poor people in developing countries making/growing/harvesting the products we consume for next-to-nothing wages. Again, this is not to mention the natural resources we buy from 3rd world exporters for dirt cheap prices.