A1 WBarfieldsr on 22 Oct 2003 suggested:

>
>
>
> "Douglas S. Ladden" > wrote in message
> 9.17...
>> A1 WBarfieldsr on 22 Oct 2003 suggested:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > "Frogleg" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >
>> >> Are you for real? Who do you think "chooses" poverty over wealth?
>> >> I must have missed sending in the form that says "if you'd rather
>> >> live in San Francisco with an income of $150,000 than in rural
>> >> Nicaragua with $3,000, please check this box."
>> >
>> > My point exactly, NOBODY. What I'm getting, is scorn for
>> > proposing that the workers in the factories should not live in
>> > poverty. I'm the hated one for wishing for a better life for the
>> > workers in these countries that exploit the people, by keeping
>> > them in poverty through low wages.
>>
>> No, you're getting scorn for making statements that don't fit
>> reality, making ignorant comments about people's living conditions
>> about which they may not have any control over, and suggesting that
>> the people who are spending all their time to keep their families
>> alive now threaten their own limited economic viability by rebelling
>> and perhaps lowering their income to ZERO.
>>
>> > NOBODY should have to work for $5.00 dollars per DAY and
>> > 48 hours per week. I think if my math is right that comes to about
>> > $45.00 per WEEK.
>>
>> Perhaps in that reality that you live in, there are NINE days in
>> the week, but there aren't in mine. And actually, there would have
>> to be TEN days in the week, because workers are entitled to a day of
>> rest.
>>
>> --Douglas
> That kind of talk was shouted when they formed the first unions, but
> look at what the Unions have attained for the workers. Not only
> better and safer working conditions, higher wages, but a say in how
> they are to be treated by those Rich factory owners. When those first
> unions were formed, not only were there comfort sacrifices made,
> there were heads busted on both sides. This didn't stop the workers
> from getting what they were entitled to. It didn't then and it
> doesn't now, and it shouldn't stop the workers in other countries
> from getting a fair deal for their labor..

There was a big difference between then and now. Then, the
factory owners couldn't easily move to another part of the country, much
less the world, like China, where the labor is even cheaper. Today they
can. And you've seen it in the U.S., that when labor demands get
"excessive" they simply shut the factory down, build one where labor is
cheap, and hire the cheap labor. It's a completely different world.
Oh, there are many unions in Mexico, and it's a rare industry that
doesn't have labor represented by one, and they clearly recognize that
reality.

--Douglas