For Nighttrain and FJ

[Kathianne]

Thought about putting it in debate, but others might like to discuss.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7iRcuLhrAs

[Gunny]

Thought about putting it in debate, but others might like to discuss.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7iRcuLhrAs

I thought you were going to tell them to get a room.:laugh2:

[NightTrain]

My argument is simply that children and hapless peasants should not be exploited to save money while those jobs were shipped there. Then utilizing NAFTA and pay nothing on the import is silly.

There are rules that our trading partners need to adhere to, especially when those jobs were once American.

I watched the video, but the iPhone in particular - hey, it's cheaper! Cheaper good! Sucks to be that 8 year old girl, right? Ah well. Cheaper is good and to hell with all the kids building them.

I noticed that they neglected to mention that Apple is suddenly very interested in building them here, though.

[pete311]

My argument is simply that children and hapless peasants should not be exploited to save money while those jobs were shipped there. Then utilizing NAFTA and pay nothing on the import is silly.

There are rules that our trading partners need to adhere to, especially when those jobs were once American.

I watched the video, but the iPhone in particular - hey, it's cheaper! Cheaper good! Sucks to be that 8 year old girl, right? Ah well. Cheaper is good and to hell with all the kids building them.

I noticed that they neglected to mention that Apple is suddenly very interested in building them here, though.



Children making iPhones. In 2014 Apple conducted 633 audits covering 1.6 million workers and discovered 16 cases of underage labor in six facilities, a child-labor rate of 0.001%. No audit is foolproof, of course. but you can't say Apple isn't trying.
http://fortune.com/2015/09/28/apple-sorkin-children-factcheck/

[NightTrain]

Children making iPhones. In 2014 Apple conducted 633 audits covering 1.6 million workers and discovered 16 cases of underage labor in six facilities, a child-labor rate of 0.001%. No audit is foolproof, of course. but you can't say Apple isn't trying.
http://fortune.com/2015/09/28/apple-sorkin-children-factcheck/



Apple did the audit?

Huh.


I used Apple / iPhone as an example. It's common knowledge that child labor from poor countries is rampant. Nike is another offender off the top of my head.

[fj1200]

Thought about putting it in debate, but others might like to discuss.

It's hard to argue with anything that Stossel puts forth.


My argument is simply that children and hapless peasants should not be exploited to save money while those jobs were shipped there. Then utilizing NAFTA and pay nothing on the import is silly.

There are rules that our trading partners need to adhere to, especially when those jobs were once American.

I watched the video, but the iPhone in particular - hey, it's cheaper! Cheaper good! Sucks to be that 8 year old girl, right? Ah well. Cheaper is good and to hell with all the kids building them.

I noticed that they neglected to mention that Apple is suddenly very interested in building them here, though.

I haven't heard trump talk about child labor. I've only heard repeated myths as demonstrated in the video. The whole argument to me smacks of the "fair trade" argument where it all sounds good but is mostly protectionism in disguise.

But there are ways to deal with the reality rather than the myth. There are laws against importing items utilizing slavery and laws can be made against child labor without hamhandedly throwing out all of the good for a little of the bad.

[Gunny]

Children making iPhones. In 2014 Apple conducted 633 audits covering 1.6 million workers and discovered 16 cases of underage labor in six facilities, a child-labor rate of 0.001%. No audit is foolproof, of course. but you can't say Apple isn't trying.
http://fortune.com/2015/09/28/apple-sorkin-children-factcheck/



Try going there. That percentage you posted is BS. Southeast Asia is one big sweatshop. So is Mexico. Numbers can lie to say anything. The eyeballs don't lie. They see what is there.

[fj1200]

And honestly it doesn't concern me that much. Every country goes through phases of development and to high mindedly demand that everyone immediately rise to our level of enlightenment is presumptuous IMO.

[Abbey Marie]

And honestly it doesn't concern me that much. Every country goes through phases of development and to high mindedly demand that everyone immediately rise to our level of enlightenment is presumptuous IMO.

Thought-provoking, FJ.

[Gunny]

And honestly it doesn't concern me that much. Every country goes through phases of development and to high mindedly demand that everyone immediately rise to our level of enlightenment is presumptuous IMO.

I addressed your numbers, not your ideology. Asian culture from the Arabian Sea to the Pacific is just stupid. But those people have to live how they have to live. We sit over here in our LaZBoys judging, when most people here have ZERO idea what they have to do just to survive. "High-minded" is a good term.

To defeat your enemy you have to understand him. They have no Judeo-Christian mindset. We apparently can't get past THAT. They don't think like us and don't live like us. When we start addressing tings for what they are we might get somewhere.

I don't agree with the exploitation. At the same time, most of them have no choice. Be exploited or starve. You choose. WE, not them have created this overseas sweatshop situation just to make a buck, Some Judeo_Christian humanity, huh?

[NightTrain]

And honestly it doesn't concern me that much. Every country goes through phases of development and to high mindedly demand that everyone immediately rise to our level of enlightenment is presumptuous IMO.

Complete misrepresentation.

Everyone knows that there are kids being utilized in the manufacture of goods all over the world, and it's up to those countries to implement those changes.

My point is that American companies outsourcing American jobs to this practice needs to be completely and fully stopped. What they do internally with their own manufacturing in those countries is their business and they will evolve eventually.

[fj1200]

Thought-provoking, FJ.

I try. :)


I addressed your numbers, not your ideology. Asian culture from the Arabian Sea to the Pacific is just stupid. But those people have to live how they have to live. We sit over here in our LaZBoys judging, when most people here have ZERO idea what they have to do just to survive. "High-minded" is a good term.

To defeat your enemy you have to understand him. They have no Judeo-Christian mindset. We apparently can't get past THAT. They don't think like us and don't live like us. When we start addressing tings for what they are we might get somewhere.

I don't agree with the exploitation. At the same time, most of them have no choice. Be exploited or starve. You choose. WE, not them have created this overseas sweatshop situation just to make a buck, Some Judeo_Christian humanity, huh?

I'm not completely sure what you're saying; trade is not an enemy scenario and the liberalization of trade over recent decades has raised billions? out of poverty whether or not we agree with their particular values.


Complete misrepresentation.

Everyone knows that there are kids being utilized in the manufacture of goods all over the world, and it's up to those countries to implement those changes.

My point is that American companies outsourcing American jobs to this practice needs to be completely and fully stopped. What they do internally with their own manufacturing in those countries is their business and they will evolve eventually.

Is it? And who did I misrepresent?

I don't agree that they need to be completely and fully stopped. One person wants child labor rules, the next wants environmental rules, the next wants fill-in-the-blank rules. The end result is the same and it's misguided protectionism. Nevertheless there are better ways to enact change, if that's what we want, than tariffs to "protect American jobs" like laws against products made with slave labor (as we have) and rules against child labor like was negotiated in TPP.

[Gunny]

I try. :)



I'm not completely sure what you're saying; trade is not an enemy scenario and the liberalization of trade over recent decades has raised billions? out of poverty whether or not we agree with their particular values.



Is it? And who did I misrepresent?

I don't agree that they need to be completely and fully stopped. One person wants child labor rules, the next wants environmental rules, the next wants fill-in-the-blank rules. The end result is the same and it's misguided protectionism. Nevertheless there are better ways to enact change, if that's what we want, than tariffs to "protect American jobs" like laws against products made with slave labor (as we have) and rules against child labor like was negotiated in TPP.

The governments over there ARE our enemy. DO rey and recall I am a retired Marine? I wasn't over there on Princess cruises.

Secondly, are those billions worth the exploitation of those people? Because that is what it boils down to. 16 hour days making sneakers so you can have some Nike's. That $3 a day must buy lots of food.

Here's a plan ... we get some common sense labor laws that don't include a false sense of entitlement? But that would mean people would have to go to work and we KNOW what the lefties think of THAT plan.

[fj1200]

The governments over there ARE our enemy. DO rey and recall I am a retired Marine? I wasn't over there on Princess cruises.

Secondly, are those billions worth the exploitation of those people? Because that is what it boils down to. 16 hour days making sneakers so you can have some Nike's. That $3 a day must buy lots of food.

Here's a plan ... we get some common sense labor laws that don't include a false sense of entitlement? But that would mean people would have to go to work and we KNOW what the lefties think of THAT plan.

To a hammer, everything is a ... :poke:

I don't think anyone is saying that those countries are nice but whether there should be trade and how free it is.

[Gunny]

To a hammer, everything is a ... :poke:

I don't think anyone is saying that those countries are nice but whether there should be trade and how free it is.

Odd, I thought is about exporting jobs. On one hand we cry about human rights violation and on the other we are creating the situation so someone can make buck. Fact is, we don't need any other country but our own. We have more natural resources than any other. We ave one of the largest manpower pools. Our choosing to use their resources rather than our own is just a shell game.

I'm all for capitalism. But it should come with a conscience and a line in the sand.

[fj1200]

Odd, I thought is about exporting jobs. On one hand we cry about human rights violation and on the other we are creating the situation so someone can make buck. Fact is, we don't need any other country but our own. We have more natural resources than any other. We ave one of the largest manpower pools. Our choosing to use their resources rather than our own is just a shell game.

I'm all for capitalism. But it should come with a conscience and a line in the sand.

No, it's about trade. It's one thing to be concerned about human rights violations but protectionism is its own violation where we are not part of the world and only in it for ourselves. Besides, free trade leads to better outcomes all around so the static pie argument is folly (Thanks Abbey).

[Russ]

I understand that if some other country can produce some product better and cheaper than any other country can, then everybody wins if we just let that country produce all of it. [I, for one, think it is best if we let Scotland produce all of the world's Scotch]

That being said, though, there is still some value in buying products that are made in your own country. It increases the spending "multiplier" factor that economists are always talking about, because the dollar you spent on on something made by an American manufacturer are now in the hands of someone else in America, who will then spend it again in the country and keep revving the American economy.

So while I agree that generally free trade is good for our economy, totally free trade is not the best thing. It ignores the multiplier. The best situation is somewhere between protectionism and total free trade. Maybe 90% towards free trade, but not 100%.

[fj1200]

I understand that if some other country can produce some product better and cheaper than any other country can, then everybody wins if we just let that country produce all of it. [I, for one, think it is best if we let Scotland produce all of the world's Scotch]

That being said, though, there is still some value in buying products that are made in your own country. It increases the spending "multiplier" factor that economists are always talking about, because the dollar you spent on on something made by an American manufacturer are now in the hands of someone else in America, who will then spend it again in the country and keep revving the American economy.

So while I agree that generally free trade is good for our economy, totally free trade is not the best thing. It ignores the multiplier. The best situation is somewhere between protectionism and total free trade. Maybe 90% towards free trade, but not 100%.

It doesn't ignore the multiplier. Each country has advantages and each country has access to the other's markets. If Ford or GM can't make small cars profitably then eventually it doesn't make them at all; there goes the multiplier. But economists also talk about free trade and usually it's that free trade is good. ;)

[Gunny]

No, it's about trade. It's one thing to be concerned about human rights violations but protectionism is its own violation where we are not part of the world and only in it for ourselves. Besides, free trade leads to better outcomes all around so the static pie argument is folly (Thanks @Abbey (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=11)).

I said nothing about static. I'm speaking to responsibility. We think we're so smart and so damned good, but don't live up to it by even half. Actions have consequences. Our consequences is selling our souls to make a buck when we could have kept everything right here. There's nothing static about cleaning your own house first. There IS a time to circle the wagons.

The unscrupulous behavior of these people doing the trading is a separate yet enjoined topic. You say trade is good and I say we don't need it Big difference between need and greed.

[fj1200]

I said nothing about static. I'm speaking to responsibility. We think we're so smart and so damned good, but don't live up to it by even half. Actions have consequences. Our consequences is selling our souls to make a buck when we could have kept everything right here. There's nothing static about cleaning your own house first. There IS a time to circle the wagons.

The unscrupulous behavior of these people doing the trading is a separate yet enjoined topic. You say trade is good and I say we don't need it Big difference between need and greed.

It is good and it isn't anything about greed. The world is better off because of capitalism, growth, and trade. Isolationism should have been killed off in the 30's.

[Gunny]

It is good and it isn't anything about greed. The world is better off because of capitalism, growth, and trade. Isolationism should have been killed off in the 30's.

You keep saying isolationism and that is not what I am saying at all. But how much do you rack up on your credit card before you are the one getting screwed? I have nothing against "trade"; however. let's keep in mind what the word means. A swapping of goods beneficial to BOTH sides.

[NightTrain]

You keep saying isolationism and that is not what I am saying at all. But how much do you rack up on your credit card before you are the one getting screwed? I have nothing against "trade"; however. let's keep in mind what the word means. A swapping of goods beneficial to BOTH sides.

It seems abundantly clear that FJ believes that any sort of intervention in trade with the rest of the world means a 100% slamming the door on all trade, everywhere.

That seems rather alarmist to me, but I'm not here to judge. well, maybe a little bit.

[fj1200]

You keep saying isolationism and that is not what I am saying at all. But how much do you rack up on your credit card before you are the one getting screwed? I have nothing against "trade"; however. let's keep in mind what the word means. A swapping of goods beneficial to BOTH sides.

I keep saying isolationism because the words you use sound like isolationist talk. Nevertheless we do swap goods beneficially for both sides.


It seems abundantly clear that FJ believes that any sort of intervention in trade with the rest of the world means a 100% slamming the door on all trade, everywhere.

That seems rather alarmist to me, but I'm not here to judge. well, maybe a little bit.

Not really, it seems you'd rather just like to jump to your own conclusions.

[Abbey Marie]

I understand that if some other country can produce some product better and cheaper than any other country can, then everybody wins if we just let that country produce all of it. [I, for one, think it is best if we let Scotland produce all of the world's Scotch]
...


I'm shocked, I tell you. Shocked. :laugh2:

[Gunny]

I keep saying isolationism because the words you use sound like isolationist talk. Nevertheless we do swap goods beneficially for both sides.



Not really, it seems you'd rather just like to jump to your own conclusions.

Incorrect. Our trade is based on corporate greed. If calling putting a lid on over-reach is "isolationisn" so be it. However, it misconstrues my point. There's a difference between exploitation and trade.

[Drummond]

I'm shocked, I tell you. Shocked. :laugh2:

Strangely enough, I'm not !!!:rolleyes::laugh2:

[fj1200]

Incorrect. Our trade is based on corporate greed. If calling putting a lid on over-reach is "isolationisn" so be it. However, it misconstrues my point. There's a difference between exploitation and trade.

I didn't disagree with the latter. I strongly disagree with the former. If trade is based on corporate greed then so is any innovation that results in job losses according to your argument. Online commerce, automation, productivity improvements, etc. all lead to job losses. Creative destruction is an important part of capitalism and leads to better outcomes.

[Gunny]

I didn't disagree with the latter. I strongly disagree with the former. If trade is based on corporate greed then so is any innovation that results in job losses according to your argument. Online commerce, automation, productivity improvements, etc. all lead to job losses. Creative destruction is an important part of capitalism and leads to better outcomes.

Shipping jobs overseas leads to job loss. Stupid laws lead to job loss. Not getting off your ass leads to job loss. Being unable to work leads to job loss. I'd LOVE to be at work. I'm going batshit crazy sitting around. Not to mention my trade pays well.

Point is, what is our trade deficit? Seems to one would not want to come out on the sh*t end of the stick. Rather than being isolationist, I'n for a level playing field. Trade means trade ... not deficit.

I'm not isolationist at all. I the same time, I don't believe in trying to save the world. We can't save ourselves from ourselves. You get your own own house in order first.

[fj1200]

Shipping jobs overseas leads to job loss. Stupid laws lead to job loss. Not getting off your ass leads to job loss. Being unable to work leads to job loss. I'd LOVE to be at work. I'm going batshit crazy sitting around. Not to mention my trade pays well.

Point is, what is our trade deficit? Seems to one would not want to come out on the sh*t end of the stick. Rather than being isolationist, I'n for a level playing field. Trade means trade ... not deficit.

I'm not isolationist at all. I the same time, I don't believe in trying to save the world. We can't save ourselves from ourselves. You get your own own house in order first.

That's what the protectionists and isolationists say when trying to sound like they're not isolationists and protectionists.

Stuff you won't read.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429510/donald-trump-trade-deficits-china-what-he-doesnt-get

[Kathianne]

That's what the protectionists and isolationists say when trying to sound like they're not isolationists and protectionists.

Stuff you won't read.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429510/donald-trump-trade-deficits-china-what-he-doesnt-get

Yep. I think I posted the same months ago. We'll never be able to 'compete' for jobs that the 3rd world will do for next to nothing. Heck even our illegals wouldn't-they'd be better off in Mexico.

All 1st and 2rd countries went through the same, though different versions. When the oppressed workers made enough to do more than barely exist, they forced change. So will these people, if given a chance to.

Now it's not only the left that wants to impose their version of social justice, it's protectionists that are claiming that somehow these people in a hellhole, will be better off without the job that's exploiting them. Oh, it's to return manufacturing to the 1st world, where robotics will do the job that was feeding others not so long before. Call it, doing your Christian duty.

There's plenty of manufacturing here, it just doesn't take many workers. Granted those that are employed make many times more than some kid or adult in the 3rd world, but they are few. They are specialized and do have training to do what's needed, including dealing with the technology that makes their positions possible.

Look at what just the 'push' for a $15 minimum wage has brought forth, hello techno fast food. The market will only pay what they have to, if workers become too expensive, they'll find another way.