Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog
right but if those poor people have jobs, and they work 15 hours a day they cannot exactly hold two jobs.
if we create more sweatshops, more jobs are created.
if we get enough jobs so that everyone is working, placement goes down.
if replacement goes down, incentives go up.
|
Oh, so you're saying the U.S.A. (because I assume you're talking mainly the U.S.A.) could double as a global policeman and banker?
That argument was a perfect example of an anti-Socialist millionaire.
Even if one were to go along with your sick, demented plan to create thousands of sweatshops in third world countries to allow them to barely survive (not to mention this would also make the U.S.A. a global employer of impoverished peoples, like a card player holding the whole deck of cards and saying, "I'm winning, you're f
ucked") how long would this process take?
As America consistently increased supply for goods with additional sweatshops, the majority of these goods would be imported into America, and American residents would eventually lessen their demand.
This, of course, would hinder funds on more sweatshops, because the sweatshops producing goods would already be too much for the budget of these patronizing American saints.
The overall effect would be protest of increased outsourcing (because you would eventually delve into more skilled craft, not just work for impoverished residents of other nations) and America would be seen as a trickster that put a dollar bill on the hot pavement, only to pull it back from a recipient (for 15 hours a day, mind you).
Horrible plan; if you had taken the time to read some other statements by All_Nite_Dinah you might have possibly understood a little more.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe, from that, and other posts you've made in the past, that you are one of the "in the box" individuals who was spoon fed on Capitalist theory and can't efficiently think any differently.