NYT Expose On Chinese Working Conditions In Apple Factories - Microeconomic Help Please

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onlyrp

hey, did you find that communist country that'll give him or you a roof and food yet?

---

True enough - for a country to be truly communist, or socialist (in deed, not meaningless labels), the government would have to have a track record of taking from one class and giving food, clothing, shelter and money to able-bodied adults of another class. That might be China, but the redistribution there is skewed, as the productive classes only subsidize the ruling party elites (less than 10% of China's population are members of the Communist Party). I think there are probably better examples of wannabe communism or socialism out there. Somewhere in the world. If we looked hard enough. Like China, it might be a case of mislabeling. A lot of that going around.

The real problem lies with the Chinese government and its monetary policy.

If they stop practically pegging their currency to the US Dollar by buying our debt, their currency would rise and the Chinese people purchasing power would increase.

When their purchasing power increase, they could buy more stuff and their standard of living would rise. When that happens, they wouldn't work in shitty conditions because they're comfortable and companies would have to reinvest their profit to make better working conditions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onlyrp

If he's a slave, he's one by choice, because like you said, he has options, he just enjoys what he's doing.
I meant he can move back home and stop working, for which he'll only require a room and food, no transportation, your parents would pay less and he'd spend less.
You are right, that his industry is high risk and everybody starts low, he nonetheless chose it, so that's the price you pay for choosing one job over the other.

hey, did you find that communist country that'll give him or you a roof and food yet?

---

I'm not an expert in communist countries, I was just stating in theory you get the basics provided for you. Actually most of the "communist" countries have converted to a capitalist system and actually have less rules and regulations than we do. In today's modern world, the U.S. is the communist country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tttppp

I'm not an expert in communist countries, I was just stating in theory you get the basics provided for you. Actually most of the "communist" countries have converted to a capitalist system and actually have less rules and regulations than we do. In today's modern world, the U.S. is the communist country.

---

Wait, so you start by complaining that you can't afford more than basics with your salary, then I made you admit you can save 20% of your salary.
You then gave me an example of your brother, who lives in Los Angeles by himself, making half as much as you did, and gets by with some help.
You start by complaining this country might as well be communist because you're working like a slave, ignoring all the choices you were given and allowed to make, but now you admit you are not a communist expert and can't give me EVEN ONE EXAMPLE of a country which can give you the basics without work.

So, now is the time to admit, there is no law in nature or by man, that says one must be given the basics at ANY amount of labor, that's what the market is for. If you don't like how much you need to work to make ends meet, feel free to move to a country that's better. I don't doubt we can be much more free than we are, but we are far from communist and if there's a country which as better quality of life for less work I'd consider moving there, unless there's something else that I find valuable where I live, in which case, that's what I am paying for.

You are starting to sound like you're never going to be happy unless you get everything you want and then some.
Why should you save 80% of your salary? Why not 100%? Why not have basics given to you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onlyrp

Wait, so you start by complaining that you can't afford more than basics with your salary, then I made you admit you can save 20% of your salary.
You then gave me an example of your brother, who lives in Los Angeles by himself, making half as much as you did, and gets by with some help.
You start by complaining this country might as well be communist because you're working like a slave, ignoring all the choices you were given and allowed to make, but now you admit you are not a communist expert and can't give me EVEN ONE EXAMPLE of a country which can give you the basics without work.

So, now is the time to admit, there is no law in nature or by man, that says one must be given the basics at ANY amount of labor, that's what the market is for. If you don't like how much you need to work to make ends meet, feel free to move to a country that's better. I don't doubt we can be much more free than we are, but we are far from communist and if there's a country which as better quality of life for less work I'd consider moving there, unless there's something else that I find valuable where I live, in which case, that's what I am paying for.

You are starting to sound like you're never going to be happy unless you get everything you want and then some.
Why should you save 80% of your salary? Why not 100%? Why not have basics given to you?

---

I don't need to find an example of a better country to prove this country isn't run right. If this country was run correctly, our standard of living should be significantly higher than 1912. Based our discussion, it seems that 1912 is actually quite comparable to 2012. This shouldn't be the case. If this were a true market, the standard of living should be far and away better than 1912. Industries such as cars, planes, education, health care, etc are all shit. Imagine how much better things would be if the government got out of the way. Thats the point I'm getting at. I'm surprised someone who is apparently a Ron Paul supporter would be defending the status quo the way you are. Honestly you sound like an Obama supporter (no offense), everything is shitty but there's nothing you can do about it. It this failed philosophy that gets us in trouble. Everyone just accepts that everything has to be shitty, and nobody demands results from the government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tttppp

I don't need to find an example of a better country to prove this country isn't run right.

---

You DO need an example of a communist country if you're going to say "we might as well be communist because at least they give me this".

Quote:

---

If this country was run correctly, our standard of living should be significantly higher than 1912.

---

And I say it is, I don't agree with your method of measuring it.

Quote:

---

Based our discussion, it seems that 1912 is actually quite comparable to 2012. This shouldn't be the case.

---

If you compare the fact that humans still need food and water to survive, we've still not found a way to travel at the speed of light, then yes.
If you insist on ignoring that you are allowed to take out student loans to work in the entertainment industry, talk on a phone while driving, and watch more films and listen to more music sitting outdoors than you could ever in a year back in 1912, then yes, it's comparable.

Quote:

---

If this were a true market, the standard of living should be far and away better than 1912. Industries such as cars, planes, education, health care, etc are all shit.

---

Ok, this is where you get into utopialand....what do you mean SHOULD? How are you so sure it will be what you expect?

Quote:

---

Imagine how much better things would be if the government got out of the way. Thats the point I'm getting at. I'm surprised someone who is apparently a Ron Paul supporter would be defending the status quo the way you are.

---

Just because I don't sympathize with your complaints doesn't mean I defend the status quo.

Quote:

---

Honestly you sound like an Obama supporter (no offense), everything is shitty but there's nothing you can do about it. It this failed philosophy that gets us in trouble. Everyone just accepts that everything has to be shitty, and nobody demands results from the government.

---

No, far from it. Obama supporters WANT change, and WANT it handed to them. I advocate BE the change or move away, or shut up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onlyrp

You DO need an example of a communist country if you're going to say "we might as well be communist because at least they give me this".



And I say it is, I don't agree with your method of measuring it.



If you compare the fact that humans still need food and water to survive, we've still not found a way to travel at the speed of light, then yes.
If you insist on ignoring that you are allowed to take out student loans to work in the entertainment industry, talk on a phone while driving, and watch more films and listen to more music sitting outdoors than you could ever in a year back in 1912, then yes, it's comparable.



Ok, this is where you get into utopialand....what do you mean SHOULD? How are you so sure it will be what you expect?



Just because I don't sympathize with your complaints doesn't mean I defend the status quo.



No, far from it. Obama supporters WANT change, and WANT it handed to them. I advocate BE the change or move away, or shut up.

---

How can you be a Ron Paul supporter and be completely ignorant of free market principles? When the free market is allowed to operate costs go down and quality of product or service goes up. This is basic economics. Well I can't quite say that. Obama has invented new economic principles that ignore common sense. Maybe thats what you are following. In the U.S., the car industry, plane industry, education industry, health care industry, etc all have rising costs and poor service. You have to be blind not to notice that. This is the case simply because the government regulates all of these industries. If you don't recognize these industries need fixing then you might as well be a supporter of the status quo and vote for Obama or Romney.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tttppp

How can you be a Ron Paul supporter and be completely ignorant of free market principles? When the free market is allowed to operate costs go down and quality of product or service goes up. This is basic economics. Well I can't quite say that. Obama has invented new economic principles that ignore common sense. Maybe thats what you are following. In the U.S., the car industry, plane industry, education industry, health care industry, etc all have rising costs and poor service. You have to be blind not to notice that. This is the case simply because the government regulates all of these industries. If you don't recognize these industries need fixing then you might as well be a supporter of the status quo and vote for Obama or Romney.

---

As if quality of service and costs have no limits to how much it can change...I never said the industries don't need fixing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onlyrp

As if quality of service and costs have no limits to how much it can change...I never said the industries don't need fixing.

---

Then if you agree with me, why are you arguing with me?

Do these industries need fixing, or are they already at maximum efficiency? Make up your mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tttppp

Then if you agree with me, why are you arguing with me?

Do these industries need fixing, or are they already at maximum efficiency? Make up your mind.

---

They need fixing and are not necessarily at their maximum efficiency, but it doesn't mean they "Should be" by now. The fact they may need fixing in terms of financial and regulatory efficiency, is independent of whether cars can travel at the speed of light or whether medicine can cure AIDS.

As for why I argue with you, look back at your own posts. You claim one thing, then when I correct you, you change what you say.
You ask me how we're better than 1912, then you say you didn't say we're not better. You say we might as well be communist, then you admit you don't know what communist country fits your dream. You call our current state slavery, but you can't tell me what country is better. You say I must agree with you if I'm a Ron Paul supporter, otherwise I must be, or might as well be an Obama supporter...that's why I argue with you, I don't take nicely people cheapshooting.