On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 14:08:18 -0700, "Hawke"
wrote:


without unions there will be no strong middle
class,http://www.unionworld.us

Must be a U.S. phenomena as there is a strong middle class in many
Asian countries with either no unions or Government controlled
unions.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

You got figures on how many middle class there are as a percentage of
the population, versus the western world?? - must be a GREAT place
to
work, why else would the western world offshore its manufacturing
there? - maybe, no unions to put a brake on the excesses of
capitalism.

Andrew VK3BFA.


The largest middle class in the world..is in India. By several orders
of magnitude

From _Business Week_, one year ago:

"The next two groups-seekers, earning between 200,000 and 500,000
rupees
($4,376- $10,941), and strivers, with incomes of between 500,000 and 1
million rupees ($10,941-$21,882)-will become India's huge new middle
class.
While their incomes would place them below the poverty line in the
United
States, things are much cheaper in India. When the local cost of living
is
taken into account, the income of the seekers and strivers looks more
like
$23,000 to $118,000, which is middle class by most developed-country
standards. Seekers range from young college graduates to mid-level
government officials, traders and business people...
"...The middle class currently numbers some 50 million people, but by
2025
will have expanded dramatically to 583 million people-some 41 percent
of
the
population. These households will see their incomes balloon to 51.5
trillion
rupees ($1.1 billion)-11 times the level of today and 58 percent of
total
Indian income."

So India's middle class is growing rapidly, but it is still about half
the
size of the US middle class. Definitions of middle class vary all over
the
place but the median definition puts America's middle class at around
45%
of
households -- well over 100 million people.

The original post stated, or implied, that the unions were responsible
for the develop of the middle class. I replied that it must be a U.S.
phenomena as in Asia a middle class was developing without a union.

The middle classes in Asia have traditionally been bureaucrats, military,
professionals, and entrepreneurs, Bruce. That was true in most of the
world
before the late Industrial Revolution. It's also true that the middle
classes in most of the world are a fraction of the percentage of the
population that they make up in the US. The US was the first country in
which ordinary workers can legitimately be counted as middle class. How
large do you count the middle classes in Asia?

Now you are getting into semantics. What constitutes a "middle class".

You are correct that as beginners in progress in most Asian countries
the "middle class" is largely made up, as you say, of "bureaucrats,
military, professionals, and entrepreneurs", but that wasn't the
subject of the original conversation. It was the statement that
"without unions there will be no strong middle class". That was what I
was responding to.

But really, in the context of the O.P. what/who makes up the middle
class is immaterial. the important fact is that it is there and it
does have, at least,some political influence.


I'm shore that developing countries have a smaller middle class then
developed countries. In Thailand, for example, approximately 60% of
the population still make their living by agriculture and to a great
extent by subsistence farming.

But still, since the early 60's a middle class has developed and
without the aid of a union.

The middle class developed without a union in most places. And the middle
class thus developed was always small. The phenomenon of the mass middle
class, made up largely of workers, is one that parallels the development
of
large unions.

I can only comment that the original post credited unions with
creating the middle class... which is quite simply false.


That's true. Because what really created the middle class was the US
government. It did this by putting people to work in WWII, paying them high
wages, and making it legal for unions and collective bargaining to work.
Without that most Americans would still be in the working class or working
poor class.

Hawke


Actually, according to most US sociologists you are wrong as they use
as many as six categories to explain the US standard of living with
the majority in the skilled worker and clerical categories.


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 14:08:18 -0700, "Hawke"
wrote:

That's true. Because what really created the middle class was the US
government. It did this by putting people to work in WWII, paying them
high
wages, and making it legal for unions and collective bargaining to work.
Without that most Americans would still be in the working class or working
poor class.

Hawke


Actually, according to most US sociologists you are wrong as they use
as many as six categories to explain the US standard of living with
the majority in the skilled worker and clerical categories.

Hell, they'd use 20 if you gave them a chance. g Why don't you decide if
there's anything to argue about regarding the middle class and unions, or if
there's no such thing as a middle class at all? That would duck the issue
pretty effectively.

--
Ed Huntress

Jack Handey wrote:

wrote:


without unions there will be no strong middle class


If you get invited to your first orgy, don't just show up nude. That's a
common mistake. You have to let nudity "happen."

- Jack -


The fisrt good piece of advice in this whole thread.

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 13:55:11 -0700, "Hawke"
wrote:



without unions there will be no strong middle
class,http://www.unionworld.us

Must be a U.S. phenomena as there is a strong middle class in many
Asian countries with either no unions or Government controlled
unions.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

You got figures on how many middle class there are as a percentage
of
the population, versus the western world?? - must be a GREAT place
to
work, why else would the western world offshore its manufacturing
there? - maybe, no unions to put a brake on the excesses of
capitalism.

Andrew VK3BFA.

The largest middle class in the world..is in India. By several orders
of magnitude

Yes, I know that - the same for China, Indonesia, and a few others -
they could buy and sell us all out of petty cash, so numerous are
they. (And if China stops propping up the US, your well and truly
stuffed - its unlikely, they are holding so many USD that would turn
in Pesos if they did - a bad deal for both partys. Thank heavens their
pragmatic and not run by the Wingers in their government))

BUT - are they 1%, 20 % = what? - never mind the numbers, (millions?)
- do they have a middle class large enough to control the government
to have at least the semblance of self determination, or is it the
traditional 5% who control 95% of the wealth who still run things?

Pointless, but I persist, in between pruning my roses....

Andrew VK3BFA.


In 1992 the military government led by General Suchinda fell as a
result of street demonstrations led by Chamlong, a retired general and
ex governor of Bangkok.

If you were watching television you would have seen the crowds of
people in the street wearing white shirts, dark trousers and shoes.
These were the middle class and their protests, and the responding
actions of the Army were the cause of the coup collapsing.


Why don't you tell us what the net worth is of the average middle class
Thai? I'm guessing that it doesn't amount to jack ****.

Hawke


In what currency? In US dollars? Or in terms of the cost of living?
Quality of life?

If I quote in US dollars what do you compare it to? US prices? Asian
prices?

If you are really interested in a valid comparison then you first have
to state the criteria.

Try the World Bank's "international dollars" basis for PPP. That's the
standard. On that basis, the US mean income is $45,850. Thailand is $7,880.
Those are 2007 figures.

Starting with that, you can arrive at a factor. It's 0.172 for Thailand.
That means that Thailand's middle-class income, using the developed-country
criterion that Business Week cites (and that's widely used), the Thai
middle-class income is the equivalent of USD of approximately $4,812 -
$20,296. At current exchange rates of 1 Thai baht = 0.0299 US dollar, a
middle-class Thai is making between 936,000 and 3,946,000 baht. That is, on
the international-comparison basis.

--
Ed Huntress

I like onions.
Having spent the better portion of my career working on commission in small
shops, I look at unions as the refuge of the mediocre. I do concede to their
historical significance, and think they are needed with large employers but
they aren't doing much to stop job exportation.

--
Stupendous Man,
Defender of Freedom, Advocate of Liberty

without unions there will be no strong middle class,
http://www.unionworld.us


Must be a U.S. phenomena as there is a strong middle class in many
Asian countries with either no unions or Government controlled unions.


Do Asian countries lack businesses that exploit workers too? Because if
you
know anything about the history of business in the US it's replete with
business exploitation of labor. Unions are not necessary where business
owners are fair with the workers. Our bosses have a history like our
slave
owners, which is to pay the absolute minimum for labor, create workplace
environments that are dangerous and dirty, and take all the profits for
the
themselves. That is why we have unions. I guess it's a workers paradise
in
Asia. Like for all those children rolling cigarettes or breaking down
ships
in India. They don't need a union or child labor laws, right?

Hawke


I think you first have to define "exploit workers". If you use the
usual touchy feelie statement "Oh! My God! they only pay them $1.50 an
hour, Oh! Oh!" then probably they are exploited, but if you use the
explanation "they are paid more money then they ever made before in
their lives", then I'd say no.

So define "exploited" first.


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)


Here's the thing, if you take third world people who have never had a job in
their lives except to live in a village or a nomadic life but were self
sustaining, and destroy their traditional life and make them find work in
towns and cities you are already doing them a disservice. Then when you pay
them slave wages, which happens to be more than they ever got before, but
then they never go any wages before, you are taking advantage of them.
American businesses exploit Mexicans who work in factories on the US Mexican
border. The workers live in slums and work in modern factories but aren't
paid a fair wage. That is what I mean by exploitation. When you pay children
to roll cigarettes 12 hours a day for a few dollars but make lots of money
for the business owner, that's exploitation. I'm sure you understand the
difference between what people are paid for the same work in different
countries. A carpenter in the US gets a lot more than a Mexican one. But
it's a lot cheaper to live in Mexico. That's relative, but when the business
owner takes the lion's share of a business' profits and leaves the workers
in squalor and poverty, that's exploitation. It still goes on in the US so
I'm sure it's even worse in Asia.

Hawke

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 21:05:45 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 13:55:11 -0700, "Hawke"
wrote:



without unions there will be no strong middle
class,http://www.unionworld.us

Must be a U.S. phenomena as there is a strong middle class in many
Asian countries with either no unions or Government controlled
unions.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

You got figures on how many middle class there are as a percentage
of
the population, versus the western world?? - must be a GREAT place
to
work, why else would the western world offshore its manufacturing
there? - maybe, no unions to put a brake on the excesses of
capitalism.

Andrew VK3BFA.

The largest middle class in the world..is in India. By several orders
of magnitude

Yes, I know that - the same for China, Indonesia, and a few others -
they could buy and sell us all out of petty cash, so numerous are
they. (And if China stops propping up the US, your well and truly
stuffed - its unlikely, they are holding so many USD that would turn
in Pesos if they did - a bad deal for both partys. Thank heavens their
pragmatic and not run by the Wingers in their government))

BUT - are they 1%, 20 % = what? - never mind the numbers, (millions?)
- do they have a middle class large enough to control the government
to have at least the semblance of self determination, or is it the
traditional 5% who control 95% of the wealth who still run things?

Pointless, but I persist, in between pruning my roses....

Andrew VK3BFA.


In 1992 the military government led by General Suchinda fell as a
result of street demonstrations led by Chamlong, a retired general and
ex governor of Bangkok.

If you were watching television you would have seen the crowds of
people in the street wearing white shirts, dark trousers and shoes.
These were the middle class and their protests, and the responding
actions of the Army were the cause of the coup collapsing.


Why don't you tell us what the net worth is of the average middle class
Thai? I'm guessing that it doesn't amount to jack ****.

Hawke


In what currency? In US dollars? Or in terms of the cost of living?
Quality of life?

If I quote in US dollars what do you compare it to? US prices? Asian
prices?

If you are really interested in a valid comparison then you first have
to state the criteria.

Try the World Bank's "international dollars" basis for PPP. That's the
standard. On that basis, the US mean income is $45,850. Thailand is $7,880.
Those are 2007 figures.

Starting with that, you can arrive at a factor. It's 0.172 for Thailand.
That means that Thailand's middle-class income, using the developed-country
criterion that Business Week cites (and that's widely used), the Thai
middle-class income is the equivalent of USD of approximately $4,812 -
$20,296. At current exchange rates of 1 Thai baht = 0.0299 US dollar, a
middle-class Thai is making between 936,000 and 3,946,000 baht. That is, on
the international-comparison basis.


I'm not sure what you're saying here. You say the meanThai salary is
$7,880 (approximately baht 21,013/month).

But further you say a middle class Thai is making 936,000 - 3,946,000
baht??? From 78,000 to 119,575 baht.month???

I think that you meant something different.

The point that you ignore is cost of living. Costs of living are much,
much cheaper outside the fully developed nations.

A rather radical but valid example:

I know a retired expat who's wife told my wife that she fed herself,
her husband and one child on 60 baht a day; about US$ 1.81. My wife
reckoned she could do it, assuming that the husband ate only Thai food
and they did not eat first grade rice.

How does that compare with your cost of food?

Land and building outside large metropolitan areas are extremely cheap
compared with US costs.

I could go on but I believe that you realize that simply quoting a
foreign salary and comparing it with US salaries is not the complete
picture.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 20:47:18 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 14:08:18 -0700, "Hawke"
wrote:

That's true. Because what really created the middle class was the US
government. It did this by putting people to work in WWII, paying them
high
wages, and making it legal for unions and collective bargaining to work.
Without that most Americans would still be in the working class or working
poor class.

Hawke


Actually, according to most US sociologists you are wrong as they use
as many as six categories to explain the US standard of living with
the majority in the skilled worker and clerical categories.

Hell, they'd use 20 if you gave them a chance. g Why don't you decide if
there's anything to argue about regarding the middle class and unions, or if
there's no such thing as a middle class at all? That would duck the issue
pretty effectively.


O.K. I'll give up. You are correct.

But I just can't figure how I can live so well here on my miserable
retirement while if I lived in the States I'd be damned penniless.


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

"Stupendous Man" wrote in message
...
I like onions.
Having spent the better portion of my career working on commission in
small
shops, I look at unions as the refuge of the mediocre. I do concede to
their
historical significance, and think they are needed with large employers
but
they aren't doing much to stop job exportation.


How exactly would unions be able to prevent employers from going overseas
and starting businesses there? If you have the capital you can go where ever
you want and no union can stop you, so it's not within the power of unions
to stop job exportation. Of course, if it was like the old days some union
guys could go to the boss' house, put a dead horse's head in his bed, and
tell him to change his mind about moving the business. Ah, for the good old
days.

Hawke

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 22:36:38 -0700, "Hawke"
wrote:


without unions there will be no strong middle class,
http://www.unionworld.us


Must be a U.S. phenomena as there is a strong middle class in many
Asian countries with either no unions or Government controlled unions.


Do Asian countries lack businesses that exploit workers too? Because if
you
know anything about the history of business in the US it's replete with
business exploitation of labor. Unions are not necessary where business
owners are fair with the workers. Our bosses have a history like our
slave
owners, which is to pay the absolute minimum for labor, create workplace
environments that are dangerous and dirty, and take all the profits for
the
themselves. That is why we have unions. I guess it's a workers paradise
in
Asia. Like for all those children rolling cigarettes or breaking down
ships
in India. They don't need a union or child labor laws, right?

Hawke


I think you first have to define "exploit workers". If you use the
usual touchy feelie statement "Oh! My God! they only pay them $1.50 an
hour, Oh! Oh!" then probably they are exploited, but if you use the
explanation "they are paid more money then they ever made before in
their lives", then I'd say no.

So define "exploited" first.


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)


Here's the thing, if you take third world people who have never had a job in
their lives except to live in a village or a nomadic life but were self
sustaining, and destroy their traditional life and make them find work in
towns and cities you are already doing them a disservice. Then when you pay
them slave wages, which happens to be more than they ever got before, but
then they never go any wages before, you are taking advantage of them.
American businesses exploit Mexicans who work in factories on the US Mexican
border. The workers live in slums and work in modern factories but aren't
paid a fair wage. That is what I mean by exploitation. When you pay children
to roll cigarettes 12 hours a day for a few dollars but make lots of money
for the business owner, that's exploitation. I'm sure you understand the
difference between what people are paid for the same work in different
countries. A carpenter in the US gets a lot more than a Mexican one. But
it's a lot cheaper to live in Mexico. That's relative, but when the business
owner takes the lion's share of a business' profits and leaves the workers
in squalor and poverty, that's exploitation. It still goes on in the US so
I'm sure it's even worse in Asia.

Hawke


I don't know where you are coming from but certainly in S.E.A. nobody
"destroy their traditional life" nor did anyone do that to my
grandfather when he moved off the family farm, up in New Hampshire, to
work in the woolen mill.

What actually happens is that someone throws up a factory and lo!
Hordes of farmers are there the next day panting and hollering, "Give
Me a Job". And, they are frantic!

Ah! Says the Western tree hugging liberal, those poor people!. See
there, they are being exploited by the filthy plutocrat that owns the
factory. But, if you were to speak those poor benighted people's
language well enough to talk with them and you asked them about this
exploitation they would look at you kind of funny and walk away
muttering "stupid foreigner". They think that they are lucky.

Now, obviously these people are too stupid to know they are being
exploited. Hell, the factory makes them work 10 hours a day - not like
back on the farm where they worked 12 - 14 hours a day. Good Lord!
They only get paid $10 a day - not like back on the farm where the
average family might have as much as $10 cash a week, if they are
lucky.

They have to live in those "slums" not like back on the farm where the
rain comes through the roof and the mosquitos came through the walls.

The farm is still there. They can go back any time they want. But do
they? Hell NO! It is better in the factory.

I'll tell you a story that is fairly prevalent in Bangkok.

A family up-country is working at a factory. The whole family, kids
and all. Along comes a Western Liberal and sees the kids working. Ho!
Exploiting children, I shall tell everyone, which he does. When he
returns to his country he organizes protests, writes to newspapers and
generally raises such a stink that the company that is buying the
Asian factory's goods send off a letter. "Stop using child labor or we
will cancel our order!" So the factory fires all the kids working
there, and the daughter of our little family has to go off the Bangkok
and become a prostitute on Soi Cowboy (where the westerners come and
the big money is) so that the family can have enough money to live.

Is this a true story? Of course not, it is an exaggeration, but it is
told to illustrate that the average Western liberal doesn't know
enough about the problems that exist outside his/her own country to
make recommendations.

And what about the bloated plutocrat that owns the factory? Well, if
the baht appreciates any more he is going to lose his orders anyway
because Walmart can get the goods cheaper in China or India.






Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

I think you first have to define "exploit workers". If you use the
usual touchy feelie statement "Oh! My God! they only pay them $1.50 an
hour, Oh! Oh!" then probably they are exploited, but if you use the
explanation "they are paid more money then they ever made before in
their lives", then I'd say no.

So define "exploited" first.


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)


Here's the thing, if you take third world people who have never had a job
in
their lives except to live in a village or a nomadic life but were self
sustaining, and destroy their traditional life and make them find work in
towns and cities you are already doing them a disservice. Then when you
pay
them slave wages, which happens to be more than they ever got before, but
then they never go any wages before, you are taking advantage of them.
American businesses exploit Mexicans who work in factories on the US
Mexican
border. The workers live in slums and work in modern factories but aren't
paid a fair wage. That is what I mean by exploitation. When you pay
children
to roll cigarettes 12 hours a day for a few dollars but make lots of
money
for the business owner, that's exploitation. I'm sure you understand the
difference between what people are paid for the same work in different
countries. A carpenter in the US gets a lot more than a Mexican one. But
it's a lot cheaper to live in Mexico. That's relative, but when the
business
owner takes the lion's share of a business' profits and leaves the
workers
in squalor and poverty, that's exploitation. It still goes on in the US
so
I'm sure it's even worse in Asia.

Hawke


I don't know where you are coming from but certainly in S.E.A. nobody
"destroy their traditional life" nor did anyone do that to my
grandfather when he moved off the family farm, up in New Hampshire, to
work in the woolen mill.

What actually happens is that someone throws up a factory and lo!
Hordes of farmers are there the next day panting and hollering, "Give
Me a Job". And, they are frantic!

Ah! Says the Western tree hugging liberal, those poor people!. See
there, they are being exploited by the filthy plutocrat that owns the
factory. But, if you were to speak those poor benighted people's
language well enough to talk with them and you asked them about this
exploitation they would look at you kind of funny and walk away
muttering "stupid foreigner". They think that they are lucky.

Now, obviously these people are too stupid to know they are being
exploited. Hell, the factory makes them work 10 hours a day - not like
back on the farm where they worked 12 - 14 hours a day. Good Lord!
They only get paid $10 a day - not like back on the farm where the
average family might have as much as $10 cash a week, if they are
lucky.

They have to live in those "slums" not like back on the farm where the
rain comes through the roof and the mosquitos came through the walls.

The farm is still there. They can go back any time they want. But do
they? Hell NO! It is better in the factory.

I'll tell you a story that is fairly prevalent in Bangkok.

A family up-country is working at a factory. The whole family, kids
and all. Along comes a Western Liberal and sees the kids working. Ho!
Exploiting children, I shall tell everyone, which he does. When he
returns to his country he organizes protests, writes to newspapers and
generally raises such a stink that the company that is buying the
Asian factory's goods send off a letter. "Stop using child labor or we
will cancel our order!" So the factory fires all the kids working
there, and the daughter of our little family has to go off the Bangkok
and become a prostitute on Soi Cowboy (where the westerners come and
the big money is) so that the family can have enough money to live.

Is this a true story? Of course not, it is an exaggeration, but it is
told to illustrate that the average Western liberal doesn't know
enough about the problems that exist outside his/her own country to
make recommendations.

And what about the bloated plutocrat that owns the factory? Well, if
the baht appreciates any more he is going to lose his orders anyway
because Walmart can get the goods cheaper in China or India.


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

First off, you can't go by what the locals say a lot of the time. They don't
know enough to understand what is happening to them. In Mexico they thought
that when American companies opened factories along the border that it would
bring them much better lives. They too would have preferred a well paying
factory worker's life to their traditional one. But now that time has passed
they see their lives are not better. They made it possible for the company
to make more profit due to cheaper labor and environmental costs, but the
workers are still living in shanty towns and in poverty. Life in Asia has
always been **** if you want my opinion. Take China for instance, until just
recently most Chinese lived in poverty in little villages and lived that way
for centuries. Sure, they would like a better life. But moving to the city
and getting a factory job or mining coal isn't really any better. If you
want a historical example look at England during he Industrial Revolution.
People who had farmed and lived traditional lives moved to the cities and
got work in factories. Americans visiting England at the time commented that
the slaves in America had better lives than the workers in England.

If you want a good example of how exploitation is changed to equality look
at pro basketball in the US. In the beginning and for quite a while the
players were the property of the teams and all the money went to the owners.
Player's salaries were low and the owners made all the profits. Now look at
it today when the players have a union and get half of the profits made from
their labor. They're all multimillionaires. When you have the profits shared
by the workers on an equitable basis you have fairness. When the owners get
it all it's exploitation. My view is that most people in the world are
exploited. Why? Because they are too weak to negotiate a fair deal for
themselves when dealing with employers. When they can they get a piece of
the pie. When they can't they get the shaft. Since most people in the world
are weak and desperately poor how can it be that most of them are not
exploited by their smarter, richer, and more experienced employers?

Hawke

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 13:43:21 -0700, "Hawke"
wrote:


I think you first have to define "exploit workers". If you use the
usual touchy feelie statement "Oh! My God! they only pay them $1.50 an
hour, Oh! Oh!" then probably they are exploited, but if you use the
explanation "they are paid more money then they ever made before in
their lives", then I'd say no.

So define "exploited" first.


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)


Here's the thing, if you take third world people who have never had a job
in
their lives except to live in a village or a nomadic life but were self
sustaining, and destroy their traditional life and make them find work in
towns and cities you are already doing them a disservice. Then when you
pay
them slave wages, which happens to be more than they ever got before, but
then they never go any wages before, you are taking advantage of them.
American businesses exploit Mexicans who work in factories on the US
Mexican
border. The workers live in slums and work in modern factories but aren't
paid a fair wage. That is what I mean by exploitation. When you pay
children
to roll cigarettes 12 hours a day for a few dollars but make lots of
money
for the business owner, that's exploitation. I'm sure you understand the
difference between what people are paid for the same work in different
countries. A carpenter in the US gets a lot more than a Mexican one. But
it's a lot cheaper to live in Mexico. That's relative, but when the
business
owner takes the lion's share of a business' profits and leaves the
workers
in squalor and poverty, that's exploitation. It still goes on in the US
so
I'm sure it's even worse in Asia.

Hawke


I don't know where you are coming from but certainly in S.E.A. nobody
"destroy their traditional life" nor did anyone do that to my
grandfather when he moved off the family farm, up in New Hampshire, to
work in the woolen mill.

What actually happens is that someone throws up a factory and lo!
Hordes of farmers are there the next day panting and hollering, "Give
Me a Job". And, they are frantic!

Ah! Says the Western tree hugging liberal, those poor people!. See
there, they are being exploited by the filthy plutocrat that owns the
factory. But, if you were to speak those poor benighted people's
language well enough to talk with them and you asked them about this
exploitation they would look at you kind of funny and walk away
muttering "stupid foreigner". They think that they are lucky.

Now, obviously these people are too stupid to know they are being
exploited. Hell, the factory makes them work 10 hours a day - not like
back on the farm where they worked 12 - 14 hours a day. Good Lord!
They only get paid $10 a day - not like back on the farm where the
average family might have as much as $10 cash a week, if they are
lucky.

They have to live in those "slums" not like back on the farm where the
rain comes through the roof and the mosquitos came through the walls.

The farm is still there. They can go back any time they want. But do
they? Hell NO! It is better in the factory.

I'll tell you a story that is fairly prevalent in Bangkok.

A family up-country is working at a factory. The whole family, kids
and all. Along comes a Western Liberal and sees the kids working. Ho!
Exploiting children, I shall tell everyone, which he does. When he
returns to his country he organizes protests, writes to newspapers and
generally raises such a stink that the company that is buying the
Asian factory's goods send off a letter. "Stop using child labor or we
will cancel our order!" So the factory fires all the kids working
there, and the daughter of our little family has to go off the Bangkok
and become a prostitute on Soi Cowboy (where the westerners come and
the big money is) so that the family can have enough money to live.

Is this a true story? Of course not, it is an exaggeration, but it is
told to illustrate that the average Western liberal doesn't know
enough about the problems that exist outside his/her own country to
make recommendations.

And what about the bloated plutocrat that owns the factory? Well, if
the baht appreciates any more he is going to lose his orders anyway
because Walmart can get the goods cheaper in China or India.


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

First off, you can't go by what the locals say a lot of the time. They don't
know enough to understand what is happening to them. In Mexico they thought
that when American companies opened factories along the border that it would
bring them much better lives. They too would have preferred a well paying
factory worker's life to their traditional one. But now that time has passed
they see their lives are not better. They made it possible for the company
to make more profit due to cheaper labor and environmental costs, but the
workers are still living in shanty towns and in poverty. Life in Asia has
always been **** if you want my opinion. Take China for instance, until just
recently most Chinese lived in poverty in little villages and lived that way
for centuries. Sure, they would like a better life. But moving to the city
and getting a factory job or mining coal isn't really any better. If you
want a historical example look at England during he Industrial Revolution.
People who had farmed and lived traditional lives moved to the cities and
got work in factories. Americans visiting England at the time commented that
the slaves in America had better lives than the workers in England.


If you want a good example of how exploitation is changed to equality look
at pro basketball in the US. In the beginning and for quite a while the
players were the property of the teams and all the money went to the owners.
Player's salaries were low and the owners made all the profits. Now look at
it today when the players have a union and get half of the profits made from
their labor. They're all multimillionaires. When you have the profits shared
by the workers on an equitable basis you have fairness. When the owners get
it all it's exploitation. My view is that most people in the world are
exploited. Why? Because they are too weak to negotiate a fair deal for
themselves when dealing with employers. When they can they get a piece of
the pie. When they can't they get the shaft. Since most people in the world
are weak and desperately poor how can it be that most of them are not
exploited by their smarter, richer, and more experienced employers?

Hawke


Hawke, you sit there in America, not knowing a thing about history
except what some liberal do-gooder wrote in a book and blather on
about real life. I'm sitting here in Thailand watching it happen and
it just ain't the way you tell it.

You talk about England as though the same conditions exist in Asia.
Wrong. Most, if not all of the Thai factory workers still have
families living in the villages but still prefer to work in factories.
Why? Simply because they feel that they are living a better life then
they were back in the home village. They CAN go back any time they
want to.

In fact, you don't need to travel the world to see this. It happened
in the U.S. As I mentioned, my grandfather gave up the family farm and
moved to town to work in a mill and contrary to your idea that he
became some sort of wage slave the family was far better off then when
living on the farm.

While on the farm my father attended a one room school, grades 1 - 8
in the same room. When they moved to town he was able to attend a much
larger "public school" and my grandfather, who now had a cash income
had sufficient excess funds to send him to collage. Something that
would never have happened back on the farm

They could have gone back to the farm but they didn't.

Your discussion of ball players is not really germane as these are
people with very limited skills, i.e., they only know how to do one
thing, thus are to some extent at the mercy of the people who employee
them.

As an example: Back in the 1970's Boeing Seattle ran into hard times
and laid off nearly their entire work force. There were heart rending
stories in the magazines and newspapers about Joe Blow, a right hand
landing gear door engineer who is now driving a taxi, but none about
Jack Smith, the skilled welder, who moved to San Francisco and went to
work for a company there, welding ships, at a higher salary then
Boeing paid.

You keep saying "exploited" but I wonder how much you really know
about the facts of life? You keep reciting this communist propaganda
about the downtrodden masses as though it is the Holy Writ but what I
see going on every day here in Asia is a totally different story.

Another example: I recently had my boat painted. Both the contractor
and the workers are not from this part of Thailand (Phuket). The
population of Phuket Island is probably 100 times the size it was 25
years ago and nearly all of the newcomers are from N.E. Thailand, a
very poor farming area.

Now, you have to understand that most of the work in painting a boat
is unskilled manual labor - sandpaper operators, in other words. In
talking to both the contractor and the workers (who aren't
downtrodden, by the way) I learned that (1) all of them have family in
Isarn (N.E. Thailand), (2) all of them plan on going back home when
they "retire", (3) all of them are making more money then they ever
did in their lives.

So much for your theory of down trodden masses. The great influx of
workers into Phuket is from the poor farming areas of Thailand; all of
the migration was voluntary; most of the migrants plan on going back
home, later; all of them feel that they are better off here then they
were there.

In short Hawke, you don't know what you are talking about.


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)