[coldcode]

Unlike people who read articles I like to talk with the working folks when I am on a cruise. Yes they work long hours for often 7-9 month contracts. But the pay they get is better than anything they could ever get in their home country. A lot of them get to spend several months at home for every contract but are always eager to go out again. It's isn't an easy life but looking at it from a rich country it seems like slavery. But most of them find the work acceptable for the pay compared to their home. Some cruise lines are much nicer to their employees than others and most of them know who.

I bet that nice piece of fruit you are eating was picked by someone from a poor country who is likely working illegally because the money at that farm is pretty good where they came from. Yes it might seem exploitative to us but their own country is much worse. Something we might not be willing to do for any money other people are happy to do it for any wage.

[netcan]

Another big element is the fact that it comes with room, board, few opportunities to spend your wages & fewer demands on your disposable income. $150-$200 p/w is an opportunity to save a few thousand a year, close to impossible in most alternative cases.

[e12e]

So, your argument is that since the mechanism of globalization works on such a, well, global scale, cruise owners taking advantage by purchasing labour at slave prices in order to sell cruises cheaply to those near the top of the global pyramid (if not on the summit) means it's not exploitation any more?

> Something we might not be willing to do for any money other people are happy to do it for any wage.

Define "happy". Happy to do it rather than starve, or happy to do it rather than live in the abundance a fair share of the global output would entitle them to (for almost any definition of "fair share" - other than "handed down by previous and current war profiteers").

> ... it seems like slavery ... Some cruise lines are much nicer to their employees than others

Right. And I'm sure if it was slavery, some slave masters would be nicer to their slaves than others.

(I think I'm coming off more harshly against coldcode than I really intend to here.

I am trying to make the point that precisely because we live in a world that is unfair, defending unfairness when it is obvious will not help improve things. That is, assuming we would like to see things become more fair.

I do agree that too many people will react to obvious unfairness, and then ignore all the not so obvious wrongs we tend to contribute to everyday -- and which is almost impossible to simply "opt out" of (eg: trying to do good by recycling electronics, only to find that circuit boards are melted over open flames by children in China, destroying lives and ground water tables)).

[icebraining]

I am trying to make the point that precisely because we live in a world that is unfair, defending unfairness when it is obvious will not help improve things.

Playing Devil's advocate: it wasn't the cruise companies who created the unfairness; they are just performing arbitrage. Eliminating it won't eliminate the unfairness; in fact, it might make it worse.

[JulianMorrison]

So you regulate it. A good way to do that would be to have labor rights preconditions for docking or doing business.

[icebraining]

And if you up the regulations enough to make it anywhere near non-exploitative, the cruise companies will just stop hiring foreign workers and leave them unemployed, furthering the inequality between developed and developing countries.

[jellicle]

There's no evidence for that. Aren't we told repeatedly that companies will simply pass cost increases on to their customers? Can't have it both ways. Is it really the case that a ship full of millionaires can't charge enough to pay people $7.25/hour?

[icebraining]

You misunderstood my point. I didn't saying that they'd go bankrupt, I said they "will just stop hiring foreign workers", the keyword being foreign.

If you force them to pay a decent wage, then the workers from developing countries will lose their competitive advantage, losing the jobs to local workers. This means the money remains concentrated in developed countries, instead of raising the wages in developing countries (as it's been happening in e.g. China).

[twoodfin]

Which "millionaire-class" cruise lines are paying such low rates? I thought we were discussing Carnival, Royal Caribbean and such.

Regardless, demand for cruises is not extremely elastic. Make them more expensive and there will be fewer of them as people make alternative vacation plans. Thus fewer opportunities for poor workers. Not to mention, those workers' competitive advantage is their willingness to work for the lower rates. Take that away, and the lines will start hiring closer to home.

[jacalata]

Companies will pass required cost increased like a higher sales tax on to their customers (in general, I'm sure there are some exceptions). However it is obvious that they sometimes simply avoid paying a cost increase if possible - if it were not the case, you would never hear of a cost cutting measure implemented by a business.

[deelowe]

Millionaires on royal caribbean? What are you talking about?

[e12e]

I don't know you can say for sure that the primary stake holders in the companies did not help advance the situation. Certainly they are backed by significant capital investment, that capital came from something. I doubt it traces back to gifts from faery god mothers.

Then there are such questions as where did they get the ships built? At what rates? What type of paint is used? Where does the metal come from?

But even saying that some cruise liner magically appeared from some virgin source of capital - it is somewhat disingenuous to imply that choosing to employ people at what could be considered slave wages is anything but exploitation? It might be called arbitrage if the differences in wages where slight -- but they're not, are they?

[icebraining]

I don't know you can say for sure that the primary stake holders in the companies did not help advance the situation. Certainly they are backed by significant capital investment, that capital came from something. I doubt it traces back to gifts from faery god mothers.

I'm sure they got the money from obscenely well paid bankers. What's your point?

But even saying that some cruise liner magically appeared from some virgin source of capital - it is somewhat disingenuous to imply that choosing to employ people at what could be considered slave wages is anything but exploitation? It might be called arbitrage if the differences in wages where slight -- but they're not, are they?

Being arbitrage doesn't prevent it from being exploitative. Bu my point is that this aesthetic approach to public policy is terrible, because it tries to treat the ugly symptom, while making the underlying problem worse.

Yes, they are making a lot of money by exploiting the wage difference. But prohibiting that doesn't solve the problem, which is that some people are poor enough to accept such low wages. If you forbid it, the poor will remain poor just as well.

Now if you take the capitalist approach, the system is working: by performing the arbitrage, the poor people will have employment, more money to spend, etc (e.g. wage rises in China).

If you take, say, a marxist approach, the problem is the core of the system, and small adjustments won't solve it; you need a revolution which will bring real change.

In any case, my point is that these patches are trying to solve the wrong problem, and are not only ineffective but actively harmful to those who we're trying to help.

[greghinch]

> I am trying to make the point that precisely because we live in a world that is unfair, defending unfairness when it is obvious will not help improve things.

When, at any point in human history, has the world ever approached anything resembling "fair". The reduction in poverty and increase in quality of life in western countries has all come at the exploitation and subjegation of people in poorer countries. Certainly we've shifted the massive inequality from local to global, but just because you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Put another way, until we find some infinite, inexpensive source of energy and material resources, no one will live in relative comfort without many more being exploited. That is the way of the world

[e12e]

Wow, I thought I was bitter. I suppose giving up is a valid choice -- but I certainly don't believe infinite expansion is the only model we can carve for ourselves.

[greghinch]

I don't think giving up is the right choice. I just don't think it's a short-term solvable problem. As in, during the lifetime of the people being exploited or us. This is going to take generations to solve. And I feel like the solution is partially already beginning. As we shift more and more menial work to being accomplished through technology, fewer and fewer people will be needed for these jobs. Optimizations through software, robotics, and 3d printing will all but eliminate the need for humans in manufacturing and many other industries.

However, in our current state, we're seeing the repercussions of this type of shift in western countries: vast unemployment. To me this means we just have way too many people alive now. Clearly that isn't a quickly solvable problem (unless you are a genocidal maniac or something...), and so greatly reducing the birthing rates over coming generations (which hasn't really even been approached yet) is the only solution.

A much smaller global population, with largely technologically optimized labor, is the only solution that really would allow most of that population to live comfortable lives in relative luxury.

So you can see how I would view any argument about what needs to be done in the short term as moot, as in my mind it would just be a waste of effort

[maccam94]

> A much smaller global population... is the only solution

If we can overcome resource and energy scarcity, I don't see why we couldn't support an arbitrarily large population comfortably. Unemployment is not a reason to downsize the population, it just means we're outgrowing or current economic system.

[greghinch]

I guess I just don't hold out much hope for that, at least without massive environmental destruction

[dublinben]

I don't think anyone is advocating "giving up" as the responsible reaction to this situation.

[johnvschmitt]

You are both true & making good points. It sounds like another "offshoring" idea then.

The bigger problem from my POV is that the old folks they serve are being treated as "steady state", when in fact their conditions are often deteriorating. And, when Grandma dies, will her family have to wait 1-2 weeks for her ship to return to port for a proper family gathering & funeral? Stinky...

[1337Coder]

Well would you believe that it is not uncommon for one or two people to die on a cruise? I went on a 10 day cruise a few years ago and three people died on it. They chucked 'em in the fridge and carried on the trip like it was normal.

[nknighthb]

Yeah, that makes sense. The US annual death rate is 8.39 per 1000[1]. The newest ship in Carnival's inventory holds up to 3,690 passengers[2]. I can't find crew capacity, but some googling suggests there ought to be more than 1000 crew on a loaded cruise that size.

So if you're floating around with 4690+ people, naïvely, about 39 people should die on it every year, or one every 9.28 days.

On a 10-day cruise of that size, somebody is going to die. I bet once you control for the unusually high average age of the passengers and maybe other factors (how many drunken idiots fall over the side and drown every year?), 3 people in 10 days would be pretty normal.

[1]https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/...

[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnival_Breeze

[desas]

The drunken idiots falling over the side and drowning don't usually get found. As far as I remember, the odds of being found after falling off a cruise ship are really low.

[Fishkins]

I've heard cruise ships all have morgues for this reason.