🚀 go-pugleaf

On 24 Nov 2004 18:42:30 -0800, infer...@my-deja.com (inferno2000)
wrote:

>It ends up many industry paying minimum wages to their employees
>(which is not what everyone wants), the oversea trade market has died
>off because they can hardly afford the products, and therefore, the
>production is mainly for domestic consumption and maybe trading with
>nations like European countries and Japan. As for the poorer Third
>World, they form their own little economic circle and strives on Linux
>instead of Windows. Microsoft increases software price to offset the
>reduction in demand. Sames goes with many other industries which
>derives part of their income from export. Many rich people are upset
>because they have to pay more to their employees and has a smaller
>market than before. Many goods increase in price because the labor
>cost has increased.

I call BS on your entire argument (except the rich people being mad,
part.  F*** the rich people.)  To start with (simply because its the
easist part), pretty much no-one outside of the US, Canada and parts
of Europe is buying Microsoft products anyway.  What little software
is sold in South America, Africa and Asia is pretty much 100% pirated.
When you're making $300 per year, $100+ for a copy of XP just isn't
going to happen.  Microsoft isn't going to lose any sales.  If
anything, the additional money being paid to the people who are
currently being paid slave wages, will create an additional market for
MS's (and other company's) products.

Now, the, addressing different parts seperately...

>It ends up many industry paying minimum wages to their employees
>(which is not what everyone wants)
Who exactly doesn't want this?  Oh, you mean the company owners who
are forcing 10 year olds to work 12 hour shifts making shoes for
barely enough money to avoid starving to death?  Yeah, I suppose they
probably wouldn't be terribly happy about it.  Fuck 'em.  Hope they
die.

Other than that, though, I suspect most people would be pretty happy
to earn enough to survive.

>the oversea trade market has died
>off because they can hardly afford the products
Partially, true, I suppose, though only because we didn't do this
already 20 years ago.  Better late than never, though:  things aren't
going to get any better as long as we continue to ship all our
high-paying jobs overseas so Walmart can make another percentage point
of profit.

Unless you're talking about the overseas markets not being able to
afford US products?  Its hard to say - you're not being particularly
clear.  If that is what you mean, what exactly makes you think that
they can afford US products already?  Again, you're not going to be
buying a copy of Windows XP for $100 when you're barely making enough
to buy rice.  If anything, raising wages overseas will create a new
market for US products.

>and therefore, the
>production is mainly for domestic consumption and maybe trading with
>nations like European countries and Japan.
Ok, then...  You ARE talking about US-produced goods?  Maybe?  If so,
then it doesn't matter:  Japan and Europe are, for the most part,
already making US-minimum wage, and won't be affected in any
meaningful way.  

>Many goods increase in price because the labor
>cost has increased.
So what you're arguing is that slavery and starvation wages are good,
as long as it leads to cheap shoes?