|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
JeffersonClay posted:It means "emancipate the slaves, get out of the way and let their potency and agency lead them to a better life" was a real dumb idea then and it still is now. It's a libertarian fantasy. So basically, yes, you're saying we should have kept slavery if we couldn't get a plan together to deal with the aftermath. Sorry but we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Some things are so bad that they must be ended at all costs, regardless of the consequences. quote:What you're proposing won't protect undocumented workers one iota. The only thing that will is legal status. That's what you regressive leftists never get. While I agree that we should grant legal status to the undocumented I feel it's important to understand that we would be doing so out of moral motivations, rather than pragmatic ones. The distinction is important because large segments of the left have this fantasy that immigration is always good in every way regardless how much we are dealing with or of any complicating circumstances, which just isn't true. In fact I can easily see a sweeping amnesty bill turning into a huge clusterfuck. Yes, immigration in general is good but it comes with some heavy drawbacks. Immigrants (particularly the illegal kind) directly compete with native workers for jobs and in doing so drive down wages. Legalizing several million undocumented workers would effectively make this competition permanent. Plus there is truth to the idea that this would signal to the world that if you break into the country and wait you'll get citizenship eventually, which would likely lead to another immigration crisis down the road. Then on top of this the average American worker doesn't really benefit from this in any way that's easy to see (though the wealthy sure do). In fact for most who work in industries that compete with immigrants for jobs amnesty would be seen as a direct attack, which in turn could potentially lead to another fascist wave down the road the way NAFTA effectively gave us Trump. And none of this begins to touch on the fact that many of the immigrants will quit their lovely agriculture jobs once they gain citizenship since they'll no longer forced to work them under threat of deportation. This will lead to increased competition in many other sectors of the economy, which in turn will accelerate the decline of the middle class and could spread discontent and racism to new and unexpected parts of American culture. Things could get really ugly really fast is what I'm saying. Again, I'm for legalization, but pushing it as a perfect solution is dangerously naive. Particularly the haphazard way free-trade neoliberal ghouls like JC tend to push it.
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 03:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 06:23 |
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:There's a symmetry between the argument "help undocumented immigrants by stopping people from hiring them " and "help third world sweatshop workers by stopping people from trading for their products". Capitalist exploitation is bad, therefore ending capitalist exploitation is good. No, because people might rationally prefer capitalist exploitation to unemployment. Closing sweatshops or excluding undocumented workers from the labor market does not make those workers better off. Not unless the plan can somehow create less exploitative jobs for these workers as well, which they never do. It's a really lovely hill to die on. Try to imagine, "I WILL DIE BEFORE ABANDONING SWEATSHOPS AND EXPLOITING UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS" as a political slogan. Does not make for a good hashtag. Reminds me of the bank bailouts actually. You can make the argument that it saved the economy, but no one was happy in that mess. It was an ugly solution to an immediate issue that pushed the real problem down the line and created a ton of resentment.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 03:17
|
|
|
The problem with granting amnesty to illegals is that the corporations that hired them would immediately fire them and then hire more illegals to replace them. It doesn't solve the issue.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 03:29
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:The problem with granting amnesty to illegals is that the corporations that hired them would immediately fire them and then hire more illegals to replace them. It doesn't solve the issue. It solves it if you also put in place strict enforcement measures to prevent another immigration crisis from forming. This would mean actually deporting people though, which I'm not sure liberals have the stomach for. EDIT: Failure to do this is why Reagan's amnesty didn't solve the illegal immigration problem BTW. There was supposed to be increased enforcement afterwords but it never materialized because Reagan was a conman and a liar and his donors liked cheap labor. readingatwork fucked around with this message at 04:08 on May 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 04:04
|
|
|
Real talk: If you want people on the left to give your crackpot ideas the time of day you need to stop framing them with the language of the right. They're not illegals they're undocumented people. readingatwork posted:So basically, yes, you're saying we should have kept slavery if we couldn't get a plan together to deal with the aftermath. Sorry but we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Some things are so bad that they must be ended at all costs, regardless of the consequences. quote:While I agree that we should grant legal status to the undocumented I feel it's important to understand that we would be doing so out of moral motivations, rather than pragmatic ones. The distinction is important because large segments of the left have this fantasy that immigration is always good in every way regardless how much we are dealing with or of any complicating circumstances, which just isn't true. In fact I can easily see a sweeping amnesty bill turning into a huge clusterfuck. Arguments about pragmatism are so much more interesting than ones about moral correctness. It's interesting that you're able to stomach pragmatic arguments that imply throwing brown people under the bus, but obstinately refuse to consider ones that might imply compromise on issues affecting the white poor. I'm open to compromise if that's what we need to do to win, but at least I'm open to all of them and not just the ones that won't hurt white people. JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 04:14 on May 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 04:09
|
|
|
Mister Facetious posted:Didn't Malcolm X say something to the effect of, "If we don't take action ourselves (protest/riots/disobedience/etc.), the whites will just keep saying, 'Be patient, it takes time,' forever- and never actually do anything?" Actually pretty much all minority activists say that Hmmm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMqZ2PPOLik
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 04:10
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Neither sweatshop workers nor undocumented immigrants are actually slaves, though. jc: debt bondage??? whats that???
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 04:12
|
|
|
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that leftists in a rush to dunk on neoliberalism will minimize actual historical slavery with wage slavery. Those white kids "enslaved" by college debt are really just like black slaves.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 04:16
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:jc: debt bondage??? whats that??? I'm not saying there are literally zero slaves in the world, I'm saying that they don't constitute a significant proportion of sweatshop workers abroad or undocumented immigrants in the US. People held in debt bondage should be freed. People who aren't held in debt bondage but work in exploitative conditions anyway won't necessarily benefit from losing their job.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 04:16
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Everyone here is so adamant about proving JC wrong you're ignoring that while overt slavery stopped under emancipation, we still had poo poo like sharecroppers which was, for all intents and purposes, slavery. Okay we didn't lynch or beat African Americans as much, but they were let down by the American governemnt, and the rifts caused back then still haunt us today.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 04:20
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:It solves it if you also put in place strict enforcement measures to prevent another immigration crisis from forming. This would mean actually deporting people though, which I'm not sure liberals have the stomach for. The easiest way to curb immigration is to dry up the jobs available to immigrants which means you have to seriously crack down on companies. Actually following through on threats to throw CEOs in jail if they hire illegals and severely punish them in other ways. You have to impose laws where no company is going to risk hiring them and poof no more jobs for immigrants. This will allow us to focus our attention on addressing income inequality issues and such.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 04:21
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:I don't think anyone disagrees with that, what we disagree with is JC's assertion that it would have been better to wait on emancipation until the government and society were "ready". That's some loving ice cold poo poo right there and frankly he ought to be permabanned for it. He's really managed to top himself with this exchange, and that's saying a lot. Quote me making this assertion because I think you're bad at reading.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 04:22
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Real talk: If you want people on the left to give your crackpot ideas the time of day you need to stop framing them with the language of the right. They're not illegals they're undocumented people. They are illegal workers, JC.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 04:23
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Of course providing people with something better has a cost, you're just incensed that I won't participate in your collective hallucination where we can improve people's lives for free. Like, are you one of these people who think that forced labor and chattel slavery and all that other poo poo are actually really loving awesome from a purely economic perspective, but it's just the human cost that makes it a terrible thing? Because, oh man, have I got some news for you: turns out dehumanizing masses of people and leaving them to twist in the wind at the mercy of their masters or the sweatshops or whatever else - is a really loving boneheaded way to run an economy. Turns out that people have more to contribute to the world than doing backbreaking labor for 18 hours a day on pain of death, and that allowing them the chance actually grows the economy and is better for everyone. So, tossing aside the moral and ethical considerations for a moment, ending slavery and other brutal and dehumanizing labor practices is a thing we can do because it makes us all better off. It's sort of the same reason we want more diversity in the workplace: it's not just some favor white men are doing for everyone else - it actually gives better results. Maybe you should quit playing so much Civ you unbelievable piece of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 04:32
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Real talk: If you want people on the left to give your crackpot ideas the time of day you need to stop framing them with the language of the right. They're not illegals they're undocumented people. They immigrated illegally. Therefore they are illegal immigrants. The term is perfectly valid and far more accurate than the more polite, but somewhat Orwellian term "undocumented". quote:We had a plan to deal with the aftermath and then Lincoln got shot. Neither sweatshop workers nor undocumented immigrants are actually slaves, though. They volunteer for the work they do because the alternatives are all worse. This was not true of chattel slaves in the antebellum US. There's no underground railroad leading out of the US so undocumented immigrants can leave without being caught. If I had to choose between two lovely options, I'd choose to end slavery without a plan for integration rather than perpetuate it, and that's because I trust the actual slaves who were trying to escape had a good grasp of the situation. But undocumented immigrants aren't trying to escape-- if they want to leave it's likely that they can. If you asked a panel of undocumented immigrants, "do you want to get fired and sent back to where you came from," I doubt very many would answer yes. So i don't assume that they're all idiots who don't appreciate how much less they're going to be exploited if they get fired. Raskolnikov38 posted:jc: debt bondage??? whats that??? quote:Arguments about pragmatism are so much more interesting than ones about moral correctness. It's interesting that you're able to stomach pragmatic arguments that imply throwing brown people under the bus, but obstinately refuse to consider ones that might imply compromise on issues affecting the white poor. I'm open to compromise if that's what we need to do to win, but at least I'm open to all of them and not just the ones that won't hurt white people. I notice that you're not saying any of my statements on the negative effects of immigration are wrong. Interesting. That asside I'm not sure where you're getting these conclusions. Again, I'm FOR amnesty. If the situation had suddenly sprung up six months ago I'd have no qualms with being in the "deport them all" camp. However the situation has gone on for decades now and as a result the situation is much more complicated than it otherwise would be. We have a large community which was spent years and years integrating with American society to the point where there are college kids who have literally never seen their countries of birth. Just throwing them back at this point would be exceptionally cruel, which means that we need to find a way to make amnesty work even if it has some negative consequences for natives. This means that the white poor will need to make compromises. I just also want people to be aware that they ARE kind of getting screwed, and that they will need additional policies put in place to deal with the increased economic burdens.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 04:32
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Quote me making this assertion because I think you're bad at reading. Kilroy posted:Note that buried in JC's reasoning is an assumption that if you emancipate slaves without giving them something else to do, they'll just wither away and die. He grants them neither agency nor potency. It probably never even crossed his mind that, while it's not really ideal, people are better off being left alone to find their own way than they are being made into loving slaves. So it's a pretty short hop from that to "you need to support slavery and slavers unless you're willing and able to create an entire alternative economic engine out of whole cloth and overnight".
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 04:36
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:They immigrated illegally. Therefore they are illegal immigrants. The term is perfectly valid and far more accurate than the more polite, but somewhat Orwellian term "undocumented". referring to people as people is the dreaded "idpol" and we can't have that trump 2020
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 04:38
|
|
|
JC I don't doubt that with the benefit of 150 years of hindsight and temporal distance you condemn American chattel slavery for the monstrosity it was. However, I also have no doubt that if you had existed back then, your contemporaneous opinion would have been "well, slavery is bad, but ending it has real costs and gee the entire southern economy would crash and people would have to pay more for goods! Are you abolitionists really prepared to deal with the aftermath?" It is also pretty hilarious how you see the overseas sweatshop situation through a somewhat modernized version of the white man's burden. "Oh gee, if we displaced or regulated the overseas sweatshop industry, those clueless foreigners would just die on the street like dogs and the price of goods will rise. Are you leftists really prepared to deal with those child-like workers dying of starvation or having to pay more for goods?" You assume, as you always do, that the system in place is the best there is, as imperfect as it might be, and couldn't envision a situation where these people take back control of their own local economies from exploitative multinationals?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 04:40
|
|
|
"nuh uh you love slavery" great job thread, 2018 looking great
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 04:41
|
|
|
Polygynous posted:"nuh uh you love slavery" This thread is a mess. This thread is a waste.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 04:49
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:But that still doesn't solve the issue, again granting amnesty doesn't work because once illegal workers have rights, companies won't want to hire them. There are also infrastructure issues to consider. Illegals come here to work and are willing to accept low pay, use little to no social services and unsafe working conditions that undermine American workplace standards and not to mention our economy. If you follow through with immigration enforcement, give employers better tools to screen employees, and crack down on offending employers then eventually they'll be forced to raise wages and improve working conditions to where native citizens will take the jobs. It's just a matter of making them do it really. Or they'll find ways to automate instead. But that was going to happen eventually anyways.  The increased use of govt services is a real issue I'll admit. I suggest we pay for it by taxing the companies that we fine for hiring illegal workers. quote:The easiest way to curb immigration is to dry up the jobs available to immigrants which means you have to seriously crack down on companies. Actually following through on threats to throw CEOs in jail if they hire illegals and severely punish them in other ways. You have to impose laws where no company is going to risk hiring them and poof no more jobs for immigrants. I agree actually. I just think this can be combined with an amnesty program. Though I admit the tricky part will be getting pols to follow through with the jailing CEOs part.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 04:59
|
|
|
Referring to undocumented workers as "illegals" is hosed up FYI. readingatwork hasn't done that ITT (but Confounding Factor has). "Illegal immigrants" is a different thing and not as clearly pejorative, coming basically from "illegal immigration" and I'm not sure what else you're supposed to call that. "Undocumented worker" is better though. But yeah, "illegals" is clearly pejorative knock that poo poo off.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 05:05
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I'm not saying there are literally zero slaves in the world, I'm saying that they don't constitute a significant proportion of sweatshop workers abroad or undocumented immigrants in the US. People held in debt bondage should be freed. People who aren't held in debt bondage but work in exploitative conditions anyway won't necessarily benefit from losing their job. i would like a citation that indentured servitude and other forms of slavery do not make a significant proportion of sweatshop labor. thanks please try not to quote heritage foundation or the mises institute Condiv fucked around with this message at 05:54 on May 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 05:47
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:If you follow through with immigration enforcement, give employers better tools to screen employees, and crack down on offending employers then eventually they'll be forced to raise wages and improve working conditions to where native citizens will take the jobs. It's just a matter of making them do it really. Or they'll find ways to automate instead. But that was going to happen eventually anyways. Well I think we should deny them citizenship, but let explain the crux of the matter. Illegal immigration is simply a social policy that merely supports the exploitation for higher corporate profits. It doesn't help illegal laborers in the long run and it doesn't address the cause of immigration. Obviously it doesn't help the American economy either especially suppressing wages of American workers. Also it does nothing to address the problems in countries where they export workers who really force immigration in the first place. The rich powerful oligarchs in nations like Mexico use immigration as a means to prevent real reform and worker protection. It's a safety valve that allows the rich in those nations to continually exploit the poor with impunity. And once you shut off the valve of immigration, Mexico would be forced to face a sharp increase in social pressure to move into a more egalitarian society. Here we can end illegal immigration as I said by holding these CEOs criminally responsible which helps end the exploitation of workers not only here but also in the nations they came from. When the jobs dry up for illegal workers, we can give them guns (preferably taken from conservative gun nuts) and maybe a copy of the Federalist because what Mexico and other countries need are genuine worker rights and democracy. To expand on the infrastructure problem. I'd argue that each nation seems to be setup and develop along with the education level and other cultural mores of the people who live there. So in America we have a particular infrastructure that has developed to accommodate a certain level of eduction, language and so on. The infrastructure can't handle an influx of millions of people who lack the educational level, language and other skills. What would happen is it would dismantle our infrastructure without raising that of other non-industrialized nations. What we could do is leverage our productivity to help raise the educational and skill levels in those parts of the world. That's something I've longed to see America do again, supporting democratic movements globally. The problem with getting Democrats opposed to illegal immigration is because they buy into those dumb talking points about Americans not wanting to do certain work. As I say if you offered me $200/hr to pick peaches in Georgia I will be on the next flight out there and I'm sure there would be tons of applicants. Americans will do the work in exchange for high wages. (As an aside I'm aware this would increase the cost of goods, but we should be paying the real cost which is the going wage not the cheap cost cause of exploited immigrant labor). I think Dems could probably be convinced of a better policy whereas Republicans never will because they want to keep wages low. quote:I agree actually. I just think this can be combined with an amnesty program. Though I admit the tricky part will be getting pols to follow through with the jailing CEOs part. "Pols"? Sorry that must be SA jargon I don't know. Kilroy posted:Referring to undocumented workers as "illegals" is hosed up FYI. readingatwork hasn't done that ITT (but Confounding Factor has). "Illegal immigrants" is a different thing and not as clearly pejorative, coming basically from "illegal immigration" and I'm not sure what else you're supposed to call that. "Undocumented worker" is better though. It's not a pejorative. That's what they are: illegal. You're trying to find racism where it doesn't exist. Confounding Factor fucked around with this message at 05:58 on May 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 05:54
|
|
|
Polygynous posted:"nuh uh you love slavery" do sweatshop lovers not love slavery? cause sweatshops and slavery are kinda a thing
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 05:56
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Real talk: If you want people on the left to give your crackpot ideas the time of day you need to stop framing them with the language of the right. They're not illegals they're undocumented people. They are not people who just happen to have a tiny little documentation problem. They are trespassers who decided they want to jump the line. Illegal immigrant is the correct term, because they are criminals. Sure, their lives in their home countries may suck in some cases, but I see no reason why the US taxpayer should foot the bill because Mexico or another South American/Central American country can't get their poo poo together adequately. The US has no responsibility to subsidize everyone with a pulse who makes it across the border at the expense of it's own citizens.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 06:00
|
|
|
sure they risked being murdered in the country where they were born, but technically they broke the law and that's all that matters
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 06:02
|
|
|
Polygynous posted:sure they risked being murdered in the country where they were born, but technically they broke the law and that's all that matters i mean, we could just give them legal status, but dems are against that for some reason. that's why they did absolutely nothing about that in the last 8 years and just deported peeps as fast as possible. at least hitting the business owners is way better for illegal laborers than deportation.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 06:08
|
|
|
Yes, I'm sure every single one of the 11 million illegal immigrants in the country is here because they would have been murdered if they hadn't come here.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 06:09
|
|
|
ISIS CURES TROONS posted:They are not people who just happen to have a tiny little documentation problem. They are trespassers who decided they want to jump the line. Illegal immigrant is the correct term, because they are criminals. I've heard it argued by both Democrats and Republicans that farmers wouldn't be able to make ends meet if they didn't have illegal workers too exploit, but that means the rest of us taxpayers share the burdens and costs of illegal workers which is fairly substantial, all the while the farmers can get to sell cheap fruits/veggies while reaping more profits.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 06:10
|
|
|
imo, us punishing business owners hiring illegal laborers would mean we wouldn't need the ridiculous border security we have, and people could just come in without having to risk their lives. they just couldn't work here this is a clearly immoral position though because i'm not for the status quo where big business owners exploit the hell out of an illegal workforce
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 06:12
|
|
|
Condiv posted:imo, us punishing business owners hiring illegal laborers would mean we wouldn't need the ridiculous border security we have, and people could just come in without having to risk their lives. they just couldn't work here I'm glad we agree. Now we just need to get Democrats on board with recognizing that nations south of us need real democracy and worker rights too. Fleeing from countries run by oligarchs never solves the issues they have.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 06:14
|
|
|
Torpor posted:It is a bit of stretch to equate what is going on with 'survival'. Right, but the moral thing to do isn't to leave them without any opportunity to work and survive. They came across the border in the first place for good reasons, ie: their ability to survive south of the border was even worse than it is up here. It's a good idea to crack down on employers who exploit undocumented workers, but we should have a better plan in place for those workers besides "deport them," because that's not exactly humane. Majorian fucked around with this message at 07:22 on May 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 07:19
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:It's not a pejorative. That's what they are: illegal. You're trying to find racism where it doesn't exist.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 07:25
|
|
|
"This thing is racist because I've decided it is" - Kilroy, 2017 Seeing you accusing other people of racism is especially funny given your documented history of anti-semitism.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 08:45
|
|
|
Yeah, I can see the argument that we should really try to improve the situation for people in Mexico/Central America but once they are here, especially since many of them have been living here for years, the only really sane choice is amnesty and eventually citizenship. It is clear that immigration does drive down wages, but you can't rip apart society in order to wind back the clock. I think the ultimate solution is to stabilize Mexico and Central America.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 08:55
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Real talk: If you want people on the left to give your crackpot ideas the time of day you need to stop framing them with the language of the right. Tell us more about the "regressive left", why don't you? JeffersonClay posted:I'm not saying there are literally zero slaves in the world, I'm saying that they don't constitute a significant proportion of sweatshop workers abroad or undocumented immigrants in the US. People held in debt bondage should be freed. People who aren't held in debt bondage but work in exploitative conditions anyway won't necessarily benefit from losing their job. Look at this loving poo poo. First you spend pages upon pages arguing that we can't try to improve working conditions because sweatshop workers will starve if they're fired, and now you're trying to pretend like the very same workers who can't lose their job because they'll literally starve have a meaningful choice in the matter. Get to gently caress, you ghoulish libertarian in woke clothing.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 09:27
|
|
|
How about y'all motherfuckers actually engage with his argument instead of trying to find who owns a plantation or a chinese sweatshop? Suppose we close down all sweatshops tomorrow. Now what? quote="Mister Facetious" post="472287493"] I'm being serious. Civil Rights never would have happened in the sixties without blacks stirring up poo poo and scaring Kennedy's Democrats, who weren't about to do gently caress all without outside intervention. That said, got a link/page number so I can read it? I'm sure I've read it, but I don't remember it. [/quote] Ze Pollack posted:"who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will." Malcom X also said this and Eleanor Roosevelt dedicated a letter to the same rhetoric.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 09:43
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Yeah, I can see the argument that we should really try to improve the situation for people in Mexico/Central America but once they are here, especially since many of them have been living here for years, the only really sane choice is amnesty and eventually citizenship. the best way to do that is to gently caress off. we're the reason mexico and central america is all hosed up. we also should replace nafta with a trade deal that doesn't wipe out mexico's agribusiness
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 09:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 06:23 |
|
|
SSNeoman posted:How about y'all motherfuckers actually engage with his argument instead of trying to find who owns a plantation or a chinese sweatshop? Suppose we close down all sweatshops tomorrow. Now what? that's the first step towards those countries moving out of the "third world"
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 09:47
|
|