91–100 of 127 posts
Google Translate: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=vi&tl=en&u=ht... English article from "The Hindu": http://www.thehindu.com/business/Industry/workers-building-s...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah yes, the wonderful world of libertarian thought. Where sweatshops to make cheap shit for rich countries is a win-win.
> Hell, even Paul Krugman doesn't label the issue as black and white. As if Paul Krugman is the pinnacle of radical thought on the issue? He is a Keynesian -- which I guess counts for something like "far left" in the US.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wars and a nanny-state. Probably before that hits, automation for most of the product. Eventually we will need very few people to produce any part of the product. We will automate resource extraction. Automate resource delivery. Automate resource refinement. Etc. So this leaves us with a large population that has little point in the current economic system. So we'll get higher unemployment globally. Historically this…
" Historically this has lead to wars, either internal or external. " War is always a safe prediction, but do you have a specific historical precedent for large-scale, long-term, structural unemployment? I cannot think of one. (Subsistence agriculture is not unemployment.)
As far as outward wars: WWII. Massive economic for German. War helped create jobs.
Edited to add German example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>help the worst off in the economy The problem with this is, the "factory owners" of the world run a political machine which they use to prevent that from happening, claiming it prevents them from building more factories. They use the same political machine to establish the moral goodness of continued factory building as axiomatic. This makes everything rather complicated.
Yes, government intervention does make things rather complicated.
But I agree with you that "factory owners" and "government" are basically the same people. That's what I was referring to by the political machine I mentioned above, although it extends far beyond government.
Hope this doesn't push the release date forward. (edit: Irony, people. Irony.)
Avoid Irony/Sarcasm on the internet.
I guess some things will never change, unfortunately.
I hope someone gives these poor workers the decent wages and decent lives they deserve, and soon.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How often do you purposefully buy a more expensive product solely because it's better for the people making it?
That's not a fair question. A fair question is "how often do you purposefully buy a more expensive product when the marginal expense product exceeds the marginal benefit you derive?". Nothing exists in a vacuum.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not good publicity either way...
No, not at all. Like the other article linked by nodata, companies are moving from China to Vietnam because its cheaper. Seems a little greedy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nah, I'm sure ten square feet of delicate electronics crammed with millions of transistors costs pennies to manufacture....
This seems to be a post implying that price fixing in the electronics industry is unthinkable because electronics are complex to manufacture. The actual history of the industry would indicate that price fixing is common: the LCD[1], RAM[2], optical drives[3][4], GPU[5] and CPU[6] markets have all faced massive scandals involving price fixing or other anti competitive collusion, often resulting in huge fines. [1] http…
Price fixing in electronics seems entirely possible, and I don't doubt that it happens. But if it was happening in the world of TVs, surely TVs would cost more than they do now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surely it must be possible to have economic development in poor countries without sweatshop-level exploitation.
Probably not, all of the developed countries went through a sweatshop phase at some point in their past.
As an industry, the technology sector prides itself on innovative thinking and using new approaches to solve old problems in a better way. It doesn't seem like economic development should be a path-dependent process.
It saddens me to see people shrugging off human misery as though it's required by some ironclad law of economics. Instead, we should devote serious effort to figuring out how to get from "poor, subsistence farming" to "developed economy" without the "child labor and sweatshops" step.
Rawanda is already trying to make that leap: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-11/04/paul-kagame-e...