Communism!

[The Industriallist]

The big disagreement is that you judge the effectivness of the system from how much money it generates while I think that the way people gets treated under that system is more important.

Well, I would say amount of value generated...money is generated by governments, not business or labor. But that aside, I don't actually think that value created has total priority over distribution of wealth. I think I give it a little more, but my real point is that I think that an exchange benefiting both parties involved can't be considered harm to either party, even if you might think that the deal is unfair. That doesn't make it the optimal arrangement, but if there aren't bad externalities I don't see why any such exchange should be blocked (I'm very much for 'freedom of contract/choice')

Outsourcing and similar things isn't a favor for the third world, even if it may give them more western currency to buy things with. It is disgusting for large corporations to avoid paying minimum salary by moving their production lines to countries where the population is too poor to have a minimum wage. As soon as a third world country starts making demands, like laws about minimum wages, the Western companies pull out and leave them with a hell of a lot of unemployed people instead...people that will have a hard time to survive since they gave up their life on the countryside with simple agriculture in exhange for working in the industry.

Some of that is addressed above...and would you rather have the money going to first-worlders who have welfare and minimum wages? That would to a lot less for the global distribution of wealth. If you want the companies to just out of the goodness of their hearts overpay...get real. No significant agencies do things out of the goodness of their hearts.

Wouldn't it be rather unethincal for a country to lure in foreign business by promising certain conditions and then try to force the company to stay when they change them?
And if you're going to do it, at least do it right...wait until they can't afford to abandon their investments

In most sweat shops the workers doesn't even have the rights to form unions, and there have been many cases where the working conditions are so poor and the stress so high that the workers die.

To me that is not a good system regardless of how well it works on a strictly economical basis.

Anti-union measures are definitely wrong. Parent countries ought to prevent their companies from doing things like that overseas (after all, those things are massively illegal in developed countries). This is a case of clear abuse by the businesses, and it's certainly accurate. I wouldn't say that it's inherent in the system, but so long as the only ones who care (much) are in the weak countries, it probably won't be stopped.

Poor working conditions are another matter. The working conditions legitiametly ought to be whatever the market (or negotiations) work out between the businesses and the workers. Unfortunately labor markets are very imperfect, so with unions banned the businesses can take some unfair advantage. But do recall the freedom of choice bit...if someone 'wants' to take a job that will work them to death, I don't think anyone shoiuld be able to deny them the option.

Side note: Certain permitted practices used by labor unions (in the US at least) certainly ought to be massively illegal also...there's overadjustment in developed countries.

The right-wing label is because it is typically right-wing to have such a belief in totally free markets without regulations...probably because it is the left-wing parties that during the history has fought hard for all the things we have nowdays, like minimum wage, the right to form unions etc.
(Basically all the things that keep Western world workers from having the same hell as third world workers have...)

I don't believe in totally free markets...externalities call for some intervention. Also, if by 'without regulation' you mean without laws preventing certain extra-market actions (threats, discrimination on any basis[associations included], outright cheats of various types) you've misunderstood me badly. I think if you can (adjusting for externalities) create the purest attainable free market, it will work well for all concerned.

I don't agree with the assorted idiots who think 'free market' means free to lie, steal, and pollute. Those aren't part a functioning market...pollution isn't involved in markets at all.

You see...that is the way it has worked so far in modern history.
The left-wing parties fight hard as hell to drive through changes that makes it easier for "workers" to live...things the right-wing parties think is unnecessary or too expensive. When the left-wing parties succeed and people are happy the right-wing parties go along with it and incorporate it in their own politics. Then the left-wing party goes to the next stage, fighting to make it a little bit better...and so it goes on.
Health care, wages, education and almost all things that makes life in our part of the world good was originally driven through by left-wing parties.
(As I write this I'm starting to doubt why I don't vote further out on the left scale than I do...in Swedish standards I'm pretty much in the middle politically. Then of course, even our most right-wing parties would end up far to the left from all American options...and that left-wing tradition in Sweden is what keeps us high up in all list regarding education, working conditions etc. in international studies.)

See, diverting wealth toward a more even distribution is good in my view. Ignoring issues of possible breakdown of motivation, which isn't a major problem globally, I like various evening mechanisms...though I think more of them ought to be a matter of negotiation rather than law in some countries. but...I don't think that even distribution of wealth is a responsibility of business, or should be. Businesses answer to their owners, as is proper. If you aren't one of them why are you saying that they should be diverting their money to strangers? Adjusting ther balance is a job for organizations that encompass and represent both sides of the balancing...in international business, that would mean...no one, really, since we don't have any effective international institutions that represent people.

Point of Curiosity: where does Sweden get it's income? How is the balance of payment?

You seem pretty well informed on the matter, so I assume you at least know the basics of how the average sweatshop worker has it...

Yes...very bad, and I could enumerate basic charictaristics. Some of them are out of line (anti-union activity, abusively corrupt low-level managers). Most of it is part of the deal...if the pay isn't worth the (acknowledged) work and conditions, don't take it, please. If it is...freedom of choice again. Something chosen with full knowledge must be the best available option, inherently.

[Pirog]

That doesn't make it the optimal arrangement, but if there aren't bad externalities I don't see why any such exchange should be blocked.

But it can have bad effects, like holding back a more "moral" development in local businesses, since they see how the big international companies work.
And it is also unfair for, for example, western workers who get's unemployed because the companies are too cheap to pay minimum wage.
And even with the cheap production the items sold are usually expensive as hell, since they are popular brands...so I don't really see what the good side is, except that the corporate owners grow richer.

and would you rather have the money going to first-worlders who have welfare and minimum wages?

I just don't like companies standing above the law...using people just because they want a profit. Even though the workers aren't forced into the sweatshops most of them would have a happier life in the agricultural countryside towns...they usually aren't educated enough to understand how disgusting the working conditions are. Hell, most western world citizens doesn't have a clue, so who can blame them.

Wouldn't it be rather unethincal for a country to lure in foreign business by promising certain conditions and then try to force the company to stay when they change them?

Yes, but usually the companies get a deal, like avoiding to pay tax for the first X years. Sure, it's naive from the governments to believe that the companies won't move on when the free time is up, but they are desperate enough to gamble.

Anti-union measures are definitely wrong. Parent countries ought to prevent their companies from doing things like that overseas (after all, those things are massively illegal in developed countries).

Yes, they should...but they don't.
The sick thing is that nowdays so many companies misbehave and abuse their workers that it is virtually impossible to strictly buy from ethical companies...so most people chose to just put a blind eye to it. I do it to...I buy Nike clothes and sneakers, and they are one of the worst companies...because it takes too much time keeping track on what companies I can trust. And that isn't a good development.

if someone 'wants' to take a job that will work them to death, I don't think anyone shoiuld be able to deny them the option.

On that I can agree...but giving someone such a lousy option can be very bad even if it should be a legal alternative.
There will always be ethical questions involved in questions like these. I think child labor is horrible, but I don't want them starving to death either...so the solution won't be solved by dealing with one issue at the time. The whole situation needs to be changed, and in that change the exploitation of the third would must cease.

Point of Curiosity: where does Sweden get it's income? How is the balance of payment?

Much of the high living standard is payed for by very high taxes...but I'm really not interested enough in economy to know exactly how the budgets gets balanced.

Something chosen with full knowledge must be the best available option, inherently.

Yes...but I doubt someone will ever have full knowledge about anything...

[Pirog]

I'm sorry if I have missed to respond to some things or written strangely...it's very late and I'm tired.

[Meh]

I'm on the redistirbution of wealth side of this even though it impacts me. Someone doing my job in India gets paid about $25,000 USD or about 20,000 EUR (euros) a year. That is very much less then I get paid to do the same thing and below the poverty level here. However it is a good wage there. So in that case the redistirbution of wealth works at the expense of people like me. In time I will have to accept a more humble wage. The problem with this redistirbution is it takes from me and not the ones who are wealther than me. They actually make more money off the arrangement.

But the sweatshop thing is something that needs to be noted as well. Most of my kids toys are made in China. China is where Santa's elves live. I would hate to thing that Santa's elves are working in a sweatshop. One could only hope that there is someone working to prevent that.

[Revanael]

Ah! It's Meh, back from the dead!

[Pirog]

Perhaps the third world has more sinister plans.
When every western factory has been outsourced they could start a war against us and we wouldn't be able to produce any war material at all