|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Find a way to give educators good pay, tenure and benefits and they will flock to your country to work and live there
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 12:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 03:38 |
|
|
Ardennes posted:Yeah, they do, otherwise, they will have an obvious brain drain (which they do already) as their best and brightest just stay where-ever and try every trick they can to not move back to where they came from. It doesn't work. Having "Western advisors" come in may be necessary for getting industries up and running, but these countries should take their industrial expertise and use it for their own needs. The lack of prospects is a major part of the brain drain though. If you had a program where they're guaranteed a well paying job on return you'd limit brain drain with that alone. There would also be other things you could do like agreements with the host country to not allow members of the program to stay, etc. Though I guess my main point would be not so much that the problems are easy to solve or that I have the solutions. The point is that if there was a will to change the problems we'd be seeing different approaches, different attempts at actually fixing the problem. That throwing up hands and saying "well there's no solution here" is not something that can be said without exploring a lot more options than have been explored. The current evidence points more to a desire against African countries succeeding than for an actual failure to succeed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 13:46
|
|
|
Futuresight posted:The lack of prospects is a major part of the brain drain though. If you had a program where they're guaranteed a well paying job on return you'd limit brain drain with that alone. There would also be other things you could do like agreements with the host country to not allow members of the program to stay, etc. Though I guess my main point would be not so much that the problems are easy to solve or that I have the solutions. The point is that if there was a will to change the problems we'd be seeing different approaches, different attempts at actually fixing the problem. That throwing up hands and saying "well there's no solution here" is not something that can be said without exploring a lot more options than have been explored. The current evidence points more to a desire against African countries succeeding than for an actual failure to succeed. Thats the thing, things are changing in Africa but for the most part, it is the intervention of China and a turn towards protectionism that seems to be at the root of it. In the end, Africa needs more than a quick fix, but an entirely different economic model. Africa as a whole isn't going to go anywhere if they accept the same free market holdups on trade and rely on foreign aid (except for extraordinary famines). There obvious issues with China's intervention, but the fact that major railways are linking African cities is changing the continent. What Africa needs is manufactured exports and infrastructure development, anything else is going to either continue to make them dependent on the West and/or leave them stagnant and starving. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 17:36 on Jul 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 14:01
|
|
|
Yeah that's fair, I was being a bit west-centric in my posts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 14:54
|
|
|
rudatron posted:You justified sweatshops on the grounds of a false dichotomy between it and mass unemployment/starvation, but short-term protectionism (to develop local industry until such point that it is able to compete internationally), is exactly the kind of policy that can deliver real progress, without subjecting workers to brutal working conditions. Domestic consumers will pay more for textiles, but that money stays in the local economy and is used to provide for local livelihoods. So you think Rwandan textile factories will not subject workers to the brutal conditions faced by, say, Chinese workers? Because I'm highly confident conditions in these Rwandan factories will be similar or worse. That's the comparison here. https://qz.com/661463/a-chinese-garment-factory-is-helping-rwanda-wean-itself-from-western-hand-me-downs/ quote:To stop relying on Western hand-me-downs, African countries are importing Chinese textile companies So about those exploitative foreign multinationals setting up shop in impoverished areas to take advantage of destitution...
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
ThisIsWhyTrumpWon posted:Is there any kind of textile mill that isn't a "sweatshop?" Not since NAFTA.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 16:24
|
|
|
Mister Facetious posted:Not since NAFTA. lmao yes prior to nafta textile shops were fantastic and paragons of labor rights (fyi dumbass most textiles to the us come not from the nafta region you stupid idiot but from china, vietnam, bangladesh, and indonesia domestic textiles make up less than 3% of market share)
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
certainly in the us historical textile shops were always cool and good which is why a labor union was never formed cough triangle shirtwaist fire cough ilgwu hack hack acwa cough twua cough
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
^^^ You're correct that Mister Facetious's post was dumb to the point of being downright amusing, but is there any reason why you don't also attempt to argue against JC's bizarre defense of the exploitation currently occurring in sweatshops? Like, that seems like a much more inherently harmful line of reasoning (since it's one shared by a lot of people who actually have power) than someone dumbly misunderstanding the reasons sweatshop labor exists.JeffersonClay posted:I still think there's a case that Rwanda should do what it's doing, but I don't think you can make that case without accepting sweatshops are sometimes better than the alternatives and the poor will be harmed in the short term by higher prices. No one was ever making this argument. When this came up in the past, people were opposed to sweatshops because there's always the option of the government mandating that domestic companies only use/contract with foreign companies that maintain reasonable labor standards (or have reasonable standards themselves if it's their own factories). While this could cause some jobs to be lost in some places, they would just be replaced by jobs someplace else (and likely in another relatively poor country, since a living wage in many poorer countries is still significantly less than minimum wage in the US, when translated to dollars). edit: I think what's particularly disgusting about this whole line of argument is that the people making it always put this big focus on how the poor in other countries would be harmed by regulating sweatshop labor (never mind if that's even true), but completely ignore the fact that the vast, overwhelming majority of the world's wealth is condensed among a tiny percent of its population. Like, if your concern was really for the poor, your priorities in arguments like this would be very different. (Is this what's considered "concern trolling"? I've always been unclear on the meaning of that term.) VitalSigns posted:JC hates all those things tho, that's why he wants multinational corporations running the sweatshops and threatening the government into sending out the army to crack skulls any time there's a whisper of unionization or agitation for health and safety not to mention fair pay. You know, I'm not even sure if he actively wants stuff like this. I think that he's only making these arguments to be contrarian against what leftists are saying (with the logic presumably being "if they believe Thing, then Thing must not be true"). Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 17:11 on Jul 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 16:45
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:^^^ You're correct that Mister Facetious's post was dumb to the point of being downright amusing, but is there any reason why you don't also attempt to argue against JC's bizarre defense of the exploitation currently occurring in sweatshops? Like, that seems like a much more inherently harmful line of reasoning (since it's one shared by a lot of people who actually have power) than someone dumbly misunderstanding the reasons sweatshop labor exists. It's because stone cold is an unreconstructed Clintonista, like JC.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
And yet the same people who think it's disgusting to suggest sweatshops are sometimes the best available alternative for a developing economy are defending government policy that will create Chinese-style textile sweatshops in Rwanda. Sweatshops that are explicitly designed to export goods to the west. Should the US ban imports of Rwandan textiles until their labor standards are up to par?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 17:19
|
|
|
stone cold posted:lmao yes prior to nafta textile shops were fantastic and paragons of labor rights Sorry you can't read between the lines, but I was referring to textile factories that existed in North America. You know, the ones that used to have worker rights and building/fire code regulations. Better luck next time, bro. JeffersonClay posted:Should the US ban imports of Rwandan textiles until their labor standards are up to par? The shrimp industry tried this in the 90s because their prices were being undercut significantly (the EPA joined in, because turtle/bycatch deaths), and the WTO overruled them. Mister Facetious fucked around with this message at 17:28 on Jul 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 17:19
|
|
|
The point was sweatshops aren't the best available alternative, and you use of 'well it's better than starving' was creating a false choice to retroactively justify the exploitation seen in sweatshops. I've no special concern for Chinese multinationals, but the policy being defended was a ban on dumping second-hand textiles in the hope of developing local manufacturers, which while obviously no full communism now, is superior to both sweatshops and starvation. You're not a samaritan or a 'serious' person, you're just a running dog for multinationals.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
rudatron posted:The point was sweatshops aren't the best available alternative, and you use of 'well it's better than starving' was creating a false choice to retroactively justify the exploitation seen in sweatshops. I've no special concern for Chinese multinationals, but the policy being defended was a ban on dumping second-hand textiles in the hope of developing local manufacturers, which while obviously no full communism now, is superior to both sweatshops and starvation. Were you unaware that foreign investment is a method by which local manufacturing capacity is built when you were defending Rwandan sweatshops?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 17:38
|
|
|
banana republic: it's just a place people got clothing right
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
I don't necessarily think Chinese multi-nations are better than Western ones, but the fact that at least some type of industrialization is happening there is a big improvement compared to literally being on the bottom of the trade totem pole. Unfortunately, Rwanda is in such a position in the first place but ultimately they have no other choice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/NewDay/status/884729428638617600 https://twitter.com/SenJeffMerkley/status/884811348697387008
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:So about those exploitative foreign multinationals setting up shop in impoverished areas to take advantage of destitution... Ma is going to take all the money, at the end of the day Rwanda will have tons of foreign-owned factories, a tiny amount of native Rwanadan management working side-by-side with the foreign managers (who will overwhelmingly hold all the higher echelon salary and status positions), and a huge amount of barely paid Rwandan workers who are vulnerable to injury and paid at a subsistence level. How is this going to solve their problems? You say "this is how local manufacturing is built" but in fact this example is EXPLICITLY foreign-owned investment setting up their private factories to take advantage of low taxes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
so let the workers unionize or just let the government nationalize the poo poo factories once they've become too much of a problem to tolerate?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
Pittsburgh Lambic posted:so let the workers unionize or just let the government nationalize the poo poo factories once they've become too much of a problem to tolerate? I'm sure the multinationals will roll over and let their investment get seized.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:I'm sure the multinationals will roll over and let their investment get seized. well what in the gently caress are they going to do about it; it's a landlocked country with no money
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
Pittsburgh Lambic posted:well what in the gently caress are they going to do about it; it's a landlocked country with no money Bribes to the right people, I would imagine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Bribes to the right people, I would imagine. yeah, stirring up a spectacular civil war is exactly the kind of thing foreign multinationals do+are known to do when their assets are seized on account of their fuckery; you've got me there
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
Arbitrarily nationalizing foreign assets sounds like a splendid way to kill foreign investment in a country. How are these countries supposed to make money anyways? Y'all hate the idea of both local industry and foreign investment. Perhaps they should grow organic free-range coffee and enter the ~app industry~?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
ISIS CURES TROONS posted:Y'all hate the idea of local industry no?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
ISIS CURES TROONS posted:Arbitrarily nationalizing foreign assets sounds like a splendid way to kill foreign investment in a country. yeah, alternatives are to adjust labor laws and other poo poo to make it increasingly difficult for foreign companies to abuse your citizens, which would also discourage foreign investment but maybe not outright extinguish it
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
Wait are people seriously running with "well sweatshop wages are better than nothing, they should be thankful" in 2017?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Ma is going to take all the money, at the end of the day Rwanda will have tons of foreign-owned factories, a tiny amount of native Rwanadan management working side-by-side with the foreign managers (who will overwhelmingly hold all the higher echelon salary and status positions), and a huge amount of barely paid Rwandan workers who are vulnerable to injury and paid at a subsistence level. How could anything but this happen? They're not running out of people or poison land in China, the reason they're coming to Rwanda is because they're cheaper than Chinese.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
call to action posted:How could anything but this happen?  i mean there are ways to obtain rights for workers; even if the government won't explicitly enact laws to that order, collective bargaining is A Thing unless someone persuades the government to outlaw collective bargaining, then things get hosed in a hurry Pittsburgh Lambic fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Jul 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
i guess what it comes down to is that while it's a good thing that places like rwanda are taking steps to get out of the third world, a lot of bad poo poo can happen along the way if they try to un-third-world themselves via foreign capitalist investment, they need to be aware that capitalism running amok will exploit and destroy everything it touches unless it's regulated and controlled properly by the government and even then capitalism might just exploit and destroy everything a bit more slowly instead, but that's another matter
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
Why the gently caress wouldn't the Chinese have a bunch of Rwandan Pinkertons roughing up labor organizers and burning their poo poo down?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
Pittsburgh Lambic posted:i guess what it comes down to is that while it's a good thing that places like rwanda are taking steps to get out of the third world, a lot of bad poo poo can happen along the way I would say the issue is that countries like Rwanda have traditionally been completely ignored (beyond a few hollywood films) and have been fighting to keep their a head above water for decades. The only shot they have at this point is exploitative, it shouldn't be but it is the sad state of much of the third world. I think the only hope to in all honesty is to build up enough of a manufacturing base they can start dictating new terms that or try to find a benefactor that isn't cynically explotive (yeah...). That said Rwanda's only way out one way or another is industrialization and the status quo is unacceptable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
call to action posted:Why the gently caress wouldn't the Chinese have a bunch of Rwandan Pinkertons roughing up labor organizers and burning their poo poo down? i imagine the rwandan government would get involved even faster if a foreign company was paying its citizens to beat the poo poo out of each other
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
Mister Facetious posted:Sorry you can't read between the lines, but I was referring to textile factories that existed in North America. don't call me bro also, your implication was that prior to nafta there were never exploitative or harmful practices in the us which is untrue hence why i brought up american garment unions dumbass like, newflash, have you heard of runaway shops in the south or the fly by night shops in la (hint: those existed before nafta, maybe you should consider that the problem is american capitalism, and not just nafta, thinking it's just nafta provides a really broad cover for people to handwave away what are in fact systematic problems)
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
stone cold posted:don't call me bro uh, "not since NAFTA passed, no", while being silly and flippant, pretty clearly means "there hasn't been good textile factories since this happened", and not "there was never bad textile factories before this"
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
call to action posted:Why the gently caress wouldn't the Chinese have a bunch of Rwandan Pinkertons roughing up labor organizers and burning their poo poo down? Pittsburgh Lambic posted:i imagine the rwandan government would get involved even faster if a foreign company was paying its citizens to beat the poo poo out of each other You're assuming that the Rwandan government won't be susceptible through either straight bribery or just promises of further "job creating" investments to look the other way, which is sadly what often happens when you're dealing with young nation states that have already been screwed in the past by foreign powers. And the Chinese are not above threatening to pull out if things don't go their way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:uh, "not since NAFTA passed, no", while being silly and flippant, pretty clearly means "there hasn't been good textile factories since this happened", and not "there was never bad textile factories before this" sorry that you and him are bad at using words then  not a fan of giving cover to exploitation personally but whatever floats your boat
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:You're assuming that the Rwandan government won't be susceptible through either straight bribery or just promises of further "job creating" investments to look the other way, which is sadly what often happens when you're dealing with young nation states that have already been screwed in the past by foreign powers. it's a hell of an assumption to say that a government is going to put its people's best interests before the officials' own wallets, yeah  Brony Car posted:And the Chinese are not above threatening to pull out if things don't go their way. to go down this road a bit, though: what would happen if a foreign multinational did pull out of capital investment in a third-world african nation? i imagine that at the very least, the public infrastructure needed to support the industry would stay behind, and the country would remain capable of producing and exporting goods that the foreign multinational's customers were interested in buying Pittsburgh Lambic fucked around with this message at 21:39 on Jul 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
stone cold posted:sorry that you and him are bad at using words then the only thing I've said in this discussion is that you've misread what he typed, and that multinational corporations will protect their investments. relax.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 03:38 |
|
|
To be fair, I was being deliberately reductive, when I could've easily been more nuanced in my facetiousness.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 22:01
|
|