[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.