Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SWEATSHOP – I can´t take any more

aftenposten.no

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 232 posts

Re: SWEATSHOP – I can´t take any more

#71

Post by johnchristopher »

perdunov wrote: post #50
bruna597 wrote: post #44

Something that bothers me is the fact that even though they have cried on the show and said that they were going to do something to help, if you search for them on the internet, its clear that they aren't doing anything about it! Even the girl who has a fashion blog, she is still writing about the trademarks that use this kind of abusive job to make their clothes...

This is probably the normal animal/human reaction: to react only when something is hurting you right now. If you take the pain away, the motivation vapors. This is one of the design flaws of the human mind inherited from animals that causes procrastination and lack of willpower.

Do you think nothing long lasting can be taken away from such `experience`?

How could that `experience` be redesigned to have longer lasting effects ?

Re: SWEATSHOP – I can´t take any more

#72

Post by pizza234 »

vetler wrote: post #52
chippy wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the link, I was wrong on the legal point, but it's not all bullshit. From that thread: "They don't get punished for not maximizing shareholder value. But it is true that maximizing value needs to be their goal and they may not be negligent in the pursuit of that goal." It also confirms that a corporation must in general make an effort to maximise profits, if that is what the shareholders want. So, we shoul…

It doesn't have to be the shareholders responsibility to tell directors that, the directors can even just assume that - as they should. Big companies don't all set out to ruin the world just to make money, and I'm not saying that is your opinion, but I get the feeling that this is sometimes implied when discussing how to maximize profits. Companies even donate money to charity, without any concern for short term prof…

> Companies even donate money to charity, without any concern for short term profits.

"Donating money" is not an indicator of "morality" at all, because it has tax and PR advantages.

It's not about doing or not doing it, but they fact that business are complex, and this specific choice doesn't tell anything in general.

Even a, let's say, a fictional company "Momsanto", which corrupts politicians and violently silences researchers and farmers, surely would have a (again, fictional) foundation for "making difference in someone else's life" [any resemblance to real companies is purely coincidental].

Re: SWEATSHOP – I can´t take any more

#73

Post by alextgordon »

jsprogrammer wrote: post #55
alextgordon wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue the Germans have the best solution. Employees must be involved in running the company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-determination

What if companies were scheduled to deliver all shares to the employees and customers over a period of time which was fixed at the time of incorporation?

I'm not opposed to it, but the brilliance of the German solution is to notice that full worker control is unnecessary.

The workers don't need communism or full cooperatives. You can still have private owners and a profit motive. But the workers have to be equal to the owners, not subordinate.

Re: SWEATSHOP – I can´t take any more

#74

Post by gwys »

jsprogrammer wrote: post #55
alextgordon wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue the Germans have the best solution. Employees must be involved in running the company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-determination

What if companies were scheduled to deliver all shares to the employees and customers over a period of time which was fixed at the time of incorporation?

There actually was this kind of system in Sweden in the 80s. Of course it was very unpopular with the right and was abolished as soon as they got into power. Since then, like in most of the western world, the productivity gains has to a large extent favored owners rather than employees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_funds

Re: SWEATSHOP – I can´t take any more

#75

Post by runeks »

sjtrny wrote: post #18
colmvp wrote: post #12

So, I remember seeing this on Reddit a few weeks back. Some commenters mentioned that sweatshops are a necessary evil for developing nations. It's better to have a shitty job than to have the alternative of being jobless and resorting to theft/prostitution for sustenance. How true is such an argument?

It is definitely not a neccesary evil. Minimum wage in those countries could be increased (or one created and enforced) so that there is a dramatic improvement on the workers lives without much of an impact on the end consumer. Consider how cheap a t-shirt is in the U.S. However politicians are scared since they think it will drive business out of their country. Or they are corrupt.

> Minimum wage in those countries could be increased (or one created and enforced) so that there is a dramatic improvement on the workers lives without much of an impact on the end consumer.

I think it makes sense to ask ourselves: why did a Western company move production from the West to this country in the first place? Probably because of lower wages.

Increasing the minimum wage is not a solution if the reason these workers have a job in the first place is that their labor is cheap.

Re: SWEATSHOP – I can´t take any more

#76

Post by angeNoble »

niklasni1 wrote: post #20
Kenji wrote: post #16

I wonder, how can we in the first world change our behaviour here to stop things like that? Does the very way we live cause this or are the causes local?

Local labour laws allow this. Who's to say if it's internal or external pressures that keep them like they are -- there are certainly locals who are also making money off this. As for what you can do, you can sew your own clothes.

And where exactly do you think the fabric would come from?

Re: SWEATSHOP – I can´t take any more

#77

Post by mcv »

bruna597 wrote: post #44

Something that bothers me is the fact that even though they have cried on the show and said that they were going to do something to help, if you search for them on the internet, its clear that they aren't doing anything about it! Even the girl who has a fashion blog, she is still writing about the trademarks that use this kind of abusive job to make their clothes...

Honestly, I don't think we should leave it to the occasional individual to do something about it. If we want to stop this, we should ban the import of products that do not meet our own labour standards.

We have reasonable work weeks and healthy working conditions because we fought against that exploitation. But instead of stopping it, we ended up merely exporting it; we don't make our stuff here anymore, but it's made in other countries where the conditions we had in the 19th century are still legal.

If we demand the same humane conditions from imported products as we do for locally manufactured goods, then either they get better working conditions, or we get some of those lost jobs back. Probably a bit of both. Either way, everybody wins. (Except that stuff gets a bit more expensive, but that's unavoidable when you start paying a fair price.)

Re: SWEATSHOP – I can´t take any more

#78

Post by pingswept »

Cederfjard wrote: post #63
fmdud wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never been a big fan of the "it would be OK if they all just went away" line of thinking.

I'm sorry, can you explain to me how your statement relates to your parent comment? That's a genuine question, I'm frustrated because I'm confused about what you mean. Where did s/he say anything that can be construed as "it would be OK if they all just went away", and what does that even mean in this context? Excuse me if I'm being dumb right now.

Referring to this part, I suspect: "population will have to drop to pre-industrialisation levels"

Re: SWEATSHOP – I can´t take any more

#79

Post by TeMPOraL »

johnchristopher wrote: post #22
CmonDev wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no guaranteed minimum income even in developed nations (not even with those huge debts). Most likely thing to happen is that those sweatshops will become automated and the population will have to drop to pre-industrialisation levels.

There seems to exist a tendency to move sweatshops to countries with less effective work(er) protection laws rather than automating jobs (eg: from China to Vietnam and so on).

That's because people are still cheaper than robots. This won't last forever if current trends continue.

Re: SWEATSHOP – I can´t take any more

#80

Post by roel_v »

jsprogrammer wrote: post #55
alextgordon wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue the Germans have the best solution. Employees must be involved in running the company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-determination

What if companies were scheduled to deliver all shares to the employees and customers over a period of time which was fixed at the time of incorporation?

Then what incentive would there be to start one, or to design a business model that will outlive said fixed time? Moreover, why don't the workers then just start the company in the first place?
Post reply on HN