Oh no.  What kind of proof do you need?? You need to actually see it for yourself I'm sure.  Do you think there are no "children" working in China to produce the goods for the US, A GIANT SHOPPING MALL??  Do you think it is not happening because ABC news isn't pounding it in your head every night??  Net energy per capita of the world has been dropping since 1978.  It is necessary due to declining net energy to export these jobs to people who consume MUCH less energy to maintain their lifestyles than Americans do.  Is it slavery if you at least pay them a dollar a day??  Do you think a corporate owned media will give you the real "skinny" my friend??http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/47530.php

Activists claim McDonald's toys made with child labor

Hong Kong labor rights activists say these photos show a sweatshop across the border in China, bottom, and teenagers who work 16 to 20 hours a day making toys    

September 6, 2000
Web posted at: 8:24 a.m. HKT (0024 GMT
http://tinyurl.com/cpdgc

Nike Just Doesn't Do It  
by Carl Mayer
 http://tinyurl.com/9rovj

In one of its most highly charged cases, the Supreme Court will soon rule on whether the First Amendment to the United States Constitution - the one that protects the free speech of living, breathing humans - allows multinational sneaker giant Nike corporation to deceive customers about working conditions in the company's global factories. These factories allegedly employ children under the age of sixteen, impose twelve-hour workdays, pay illegal poverty wages and expose workers to life-threatening environmental toxins.

The man who brought the lawsuit, Mark Kasky, is a runner who used to lace on Nike sneakers. But when Kasky found out that Nike - contrary to its own PR campaign - produces sneakers in factories that resemble 19th century London sweatshops depicted by Charles Dickens, he got mad. Kasky sued Nike under a California consumer protection law that requires companies to truthfully disclose how products are made.

http://tinyurl.com/a2ymb

Multinational Corporations Reap Profits from Child Labor in India's Cottonseed Farms  
by Suhasini

NEW DELHI - A new report says an estimated 12,375 children continue to work under terrible conditions on cottonseed farms in the southern Indian state of Andhra Pradesh which supply their produce to multinational corporations (MNCs) like Bayer and Monsanto, in defiance of last year's promises to eradicate child labor.

ABC News? Really? Sorry, slick. Haven't been there in, oh 15 years or so.

I have a major facility in China. We don't emlpoy child labor. If the Chinese government chooses to enslave their own population, yes, that is a problem. As it is in NK.

But what are the labor laws in China? Can you tell me? Does China allow what we in the West would consider children (<16) to work?

And thanks for those "Major News Source" links. All from the same site. Not buying it.


But what are the labor laws in China? Can you tell me? Does China allow what we in the West would consider children (<16) to work?

Great argument.  Ya there are countries where it is legal to sleep with 12 year old children too.  Does that mean its ok in your book?  Should you do it because that opportunity is available??  "Well the law says I can work a 14 year old child 40+ hours a week for 2$US an hour".  Then it's OK?  Why not open "Your major facility" in the US??  It's much cheaper i.e. PROFITABLE to pay people that eat a bowl of rice a day and peddle a bike to work.  You are part of the problem...

==AC

BTW

I think you missed the point about the CORPORATE OWNED media outlets....

I think we're 'two ships passing in the night' communication wise here.

Nice sleight of hand there. I have a factory in a foreign country so of course we all sleep with 12 year olds. Come on. Is that the best you have? If so, it's sad.

We have major facilities in the US. It costs us a lot of money to keep these facilities open. But our quality control is phenomenal. And we have yet to recreate that overseas (yes, we are trying).

The China facility is a joint venture. And it is paying off handsomely for both parties. Unfortunately child labor doesn't quite meet our standards. It is the same with a large chunk of Chinese labor. Yes there is a lot of it. A lot of it skilled, no. And that's what I need.

Ah, the bowl of rice argument. See that one a lot. Ok Mr. AC (easier to type). If the prevailing wage in timbuktustan is $1 a day and Mr. Evil corporate guy comes in and pays $5 a day, tell me how that is wrong. Please.

At our facilities in Africa, there are near riots when someone is either fired or a new position becomes available. Why? We pay way above standard wages. Y'all anti-corporatists have forced us into it. It causes huge problems in those countries.

Whoever works for us is considered rich (seriously). And it is true.

As an analogy, median (family) income in the US is roughly $40K. Now imagine Mr. Evil capitalist comes to the US and opens a factory. And he is paying $200k for basic labor. What would happen in this country if that happened? Gold rush? Damn straight. That is the reality of the global marketplace.

"Nice sleight of hand there. I have a factory in a foreign country so of course we all sleep with 12 year olds."

Touché .  You know that wasn't the crux of my argument.

"The China facility is a joint venture. And it is paying off handsomely for both parties. Unfortunately child labor doesn't quite meet our standards. It is the same with a large chunk of Chinese labor."

You are you kidding when you say "Unfortunately", right?

"Ah, the bowl of rice argument. See that one a lot. Ok Mr. AC (easier to type). If the prevailing wage in timbuktustan is $1 a day and Mr. Evil corporate guy comes in and pays $5 a day, tell me how that is wrong. Please."

No I guess it's great for the poverty stricken worker in timbuktustan.  But what does that mean for the US?  What is to become of the US when all the manufacturing and production jobs or shipped away?   It's not you MO, it's the system.  The US is going to be timbuktustan soon enough the way we are being dismantled.  If there is profit to be made after the US becomes a "timbuktustan", GREAT.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR THE US??

I'm sorry I stirred up TOD.  I'll cease and desist..

==AC

What does it mean to the US? That's a damn good question. I'm involved in a global market for my machinery. I constantly crush my low priced foreign competitors with my higher priced equipment. Why? Quality. We actually provide what we sold. Our world competitors can say they can build something. And say they can do it cheaper than I can. They can do it cheaper than I can, but they cannot do it right. It only takes one major screw up for my competition to be blacklisted for years at a time. We're talking oil and gas production projects here. You fail to deliver; you set a three-year production plan back 6 months because you failed to deliver? Them's some big friggin' dollars lost. Let's use Shah Deniz as an example. A major BP project in the Caspian. Initial (predrilled) production set at 250-500,000 barrels a day. At $60 a barrel.

And my competitors set the project back 6 months because they were in under the heads? You're getting in to the hundreds of millions of dollars lost. Over a million dollars worth of equipment.

That's why I will always have a base of US manufacturing. Despite the efforts of the EPA (that's a story for another day)

 

I think there's a litmus test here.

I'm going to assume you have kids.  I don't have any basis for that assumption, it just feels right.  

Here's the litmus test: Would you allow your child to work in your factory?  

No?

Then screw you.

Such language! Screw Me!

Skilled labor Descolada. Not a lot of 12 year old machinists out there. Or foundry workers. Or engineers. Jeez.

Litmus test? I've worked since I was 10. Since I did it by choice, I guess I exploited myself for child labor. And my kids will work. Best way to learn about the real world is to enter it.

Descalada, don't you think that was at least a bit too harsh?

Do you have children? Do you want them to grow up into irrational hot heads? No? Then Screw You! </joke>

In the posts leading up to this (and thus you should have read them before posting this (I won't use posts elsewhere in different threads, as I can't claim that you have to have read all comments in all stories before you're allowed to comment, but ettiquete demands that you have read the posts in the history of the conversation you are jumping into)), madoilman has said that he hires skilled labor, and it sounds like he pays above average wages (and exacts above average prices for the great product). It sounds in no way like he's looking to make a horrible work/slave environment.

Even more to the point, you don't even seem to give him any credit, there's no, "If not, then..." it's just that you assume that he wouldn't, and then tell him to screw himself. He's been polite in trying to continue this part of the thread while he could have just walked away.

<fighting_words> Last time I looked, this wasn't slashdot. </fighting_words>

Madoilman, you have my apologies for the treatment you're received for trying to contribute here.

Thanks Coffee17.

I'm a big boy. And they are only words. From someone anonymous at that. My email address is part of my profile. As well as a boring and rarley posted to website. I don't have anything to hide.

And my views will necessarily clash with some members of this forum. It's to be expected on a topic that elicits such, er, passions.

I assumed that you could handle your own from your non-passionate responses. However, a community shapes itself, and if no one speaks against hot headedness it tends to grow (first they came for the jews and thoughts along that line). Additionally, you have a unique perspective (at least so far ;) which I think would be useful.
Let me clarify:  Your adult child.
> No I guess it's great for the poverty stricken worker in timbuktustan.  But what does that mean for the US?  What is to become of the US when all the manufacturing and production jobs or shipped away?  

From a general moral standpoint it is reasonable to assume that one human life is worth the same regardless if it is a Timbuktistani or an American.

So if runaway global capitalism makes a lot of Timbuktistani happier and able to live longer lives and fewer Americans unhappier and more short lived the world do overall become a better place.

But people do not work that way, faily, close friends, distant friends, local community, country is more important then distant people. (I care more about close friends then distant people. )

I think globalism or whatever you call it are making the fortunes more evenly distributed around the world. Distributed is the wrong word since it is not a fixed ammount of production capacity etc. It grows and gives among other things the imminent peak oil threath and a toolbox of capacities that can be used to mitigate that problem or used to make it worse.

The news items are not all from the same site. You obviously haven't clicked on any of the links. Please educate yourself before opening your mouth.
It is not true that net energy per capita of the world has been dropping since 1978. I checked the BP energy statistics and world population statistics and got the result that the world energy consumption per capita has risen about 8% since the '70s. And it is still rising. The consumption per capita dropped a while during the oil crises but resumed after that.

This is an important viewpoint and I might return to that later. I have as far reached the conclusion that the energy efficiency has not improved as much as has been commonly believed. And much of the improvement is just been a result of energy-intensive investments, not primarily of technology.

"It is not true that net energy per capita of the world has been dropping since 1978. I checked the BP energy statistics and world population statistics and got the result that the world energy consumption per capita has risen about 8% since the '70s. And it is still rising. The consumption per capita dropped a while during the oil crises but resumed after that.
This is an important viewpoint and I might return to that later. I have as far reached the conclusion that the energy efficiency has not improved as much as has been commonly believed. And much of the improvement is just been a result of energy-intensive investments, not primarily of technology"

Duncan points out below energy per capita has increased at an average rate of 1.34%year from 1979 to 1999 but the population increased faster than the increase in energy per capita.  So per capita, net energy has been declining for some time.   Is Duncan incorrect or am I reading it wrong?  The poor have just been getting poorer; those with the largest military budgets get richer.

==AC

http://tinyurl.com/dw3jb
"Bottom Line: Although world energy production (E) from 1979 to 1999 increased at an average rate of 1.34%/year, world population (Pop) grew even faster. Thus world energy production per capita (ê) declined at an average rate of 0.33%/year during these same 20 years (Figure 3). See White's Law, top of this section.

Acknowledgments: As far as I know, credit goes to Robert Romer (1985) for being first to publish the peak-period data for world energy production per capita (ê) from 1900 to 1983. He put the peak (correctly!) in 1979, followed by a sharp decline through 1983, the last year of his data. Credit is also due to John Gibbons, et al. (1989) for publishing a graph of ê from 1950 to 1985. Gibbons, et al. put the peak in 1973. But curiously, neither of the above studies made any mention whatever about the importance of the peak and decline of world energy production per capita.

The 1979 peak and decline of world energy production per capita (ê) is shown on page 40 of BP Amoco (2000), www.bpamoco.com/worldenergy. Have a look."

Yeah. See. The problem here, and with a lot of the "translated for the layperson" technical writing is that it often confuses the "function" with the "derivative." Let me see if I can break it down into steps for you.

(1) The amount of energy produced every year increased.

(2) The growth RATE (the derivative) of the amount of energy produced is positive. If it declined, the rate would be negative.

(3) Population has increased every year.

(4) Per capita means per person, so you literally divide a number by the population to make it "per capita."

(5) So, divide the energy production rate of increase by the population at each year to get your energy production rate per capita.

(6) As you can see, the energy production rate of increase per capita has decreased over time.

This happens whenever the rate of energy production increase is less than the rate of population increase. Even if the growth rate of energy production were constant, IE peak oil never happens, the per capita production increase would decrease over time if the population grew at a faster rate.

Does that make sense? Did I even answer the question I thought you were asking?

So TI is incorrect.

==AC

Uhhh, what was TI asserting?
TI's assertion that:

"It is not true that net energy per capita of the world has been dropping since 1978. I checked the BP energy statistics and world population statistics and got the result that the world energy consumption per capita has risen about 8% since the '70s."

Which if he is correct would in essence disprove the Olduvai Theory...

==AC

Okay. I'm looking at the BP Energy statistics and I can tell you right now that things are, what I like to call, twitchy. I'll dig into the numbers a bit and see if I can ferret out how TI came up with his numbers (unless he wants to volunteer said calcs) and I'll try to put together a reason for why things are twitchy, as well. FYI, it's not because I think BP is lying, I just think that you need to be really careful with the conclusions you draw from this data. I'm also very skeptical of the Olduvai Theory or whatever it is, so if I were you, I wouldn't refer to it as evidence. Hard numbers are always better.
Richard Duncan's Olduvai theory is going to be run in the winter edition of The Social Contract.  If you can disprove his data you essentially disproved his theory.  I have checked the number before and he is correct.  Unless BP has edited their historical data since last year.  The Olduvai Theory is SOLID...

http://www.oilcrisis.com/duncan/olduvai2000.htm
http://www.oilcrisis.com/duncan/Olduvai.htm

If you can disprove his thesis I would be amazed!!

==AC
Figure 3. World Energy Production per Capita: 1920-1999
Notes: (1) World average energy production per capita (ê) grew significantly from 1920 to its all-time peak in 1979. (2) Then from its peak in 1979 to 1999, ê declined at an average rate of 0.33%year. This downward trend is the "Olduvai slope", discussed later. (3) The tiny cartoons emphasize that the delivery of electricity to end-users is the sin quo non of the 'modern way of life'. Not hydrocarbons.
Observe the variability of ê in Figure 3. In detail: From 1920 to 1945 ê grew moderately at an average of 0.69%/year. Then from 1945 to 1973 it grew at the torrid pace of 3.45%/year. Next, from 1973 to the all-time peak in 1979, growth slowed to 0.64%/year. But then suddenly - and for the first time in history - ê began a long-term decline extending from 1979 to 1999. This 20-year period is named the "Olduvai slope," the first of the three downside intervals in the "Olduvai schema."
Bottom Line: Although world energy production (E) from 1979 to 1999 increased at an average rate of 1.34%/year, world population (Pop) grew even faster. Thus world energy production per capita (ê) declined at an average rate of 0.33%/year during these same 20 years (Figure 3). See White's Law, top of this section.
Acknowledgments: As far as I know, credit goes to Robert Romer (1985) for being first to publish the peak-period data for world energy production per capita (ê) from 1900 to 1983. He put the peak (correctly!) in 1979, followed by a sharp decline through 1983, the last year of his data. Credit is also due to John Gibbons, et al. (1989) for publishing a graph of ê from 1950 to 1985. Gibbons, et al. put the peak in 1973. But curiously, neither of the above studies made any mention whatever about the importance of the peak and decline of world energy production per capita.
The 1979 peak and decline of world energy production per capita (ê) is shown on page 40 of BP Amoco (2000), www.bpamoco.com/worldenergy
. Have a look.
....
Although all primary sources of energy are important, the Olduvai theory postulates that electricity is the quintessence of Industrial Civilization. World energy production per capita increased strongly from 1945 to its all-time peak in 1979. Then from 1979 to 1999 - for the first time in history - it decreased from 1979 to 1999 at a rate of 0.33%/year (the Olduvai 'slope', Figure 4). Next from 2000 to 2011, according to the Olduvai schema, world energy production per capita will decrease by about 0.70%/year (the 'slide'). Then around year 2012 there will be a rash of permanent electrical blackouts - worldwide. These blackouts, along with other factors, will cause energy production per capita by 2030 to fall to 3.32 b/year, the same value it had in 1930. The rate of decline from 2012 to 2030 is 5.44%/year (the Olduvai 'cliff'). Thus, by definition, the duration of Industrial Civilization is less than or equal to 100 years.

Hey, I'm going to post my reply as a general comment to the thread, so look for it at the bottom.
Man this forum structure is such a hassle to navigate!!  TOD needs a face lift...

==AC

Okay. To answer that question, I would have to look at TI's calculations. Until then, he is neither correct nor incorrect.
White's Law states that, other factors remaining constant, culture evolves as the amount of energy harnessed per capita per year is increased, or as the efficiency of the instrumental means of putting the energy to work is increased. (Leslie White, 1949.)

Combine decreasing net energy with White's Law and you can see were we are headed.  We can only slow it down for the US by exporting production jobs and stealing resources militarily....

==AC

Two factors have worked together to improve Western culture.

  1. Energy being cheap to drive machines.
  2. People being valuable to control machines.

But recently, these factors have been splitting apart: we've had more machines, but they've been increasingly automated.

Do Enlightenment values come from the first factor, or the second? I suspect it's the second. (What did the cotton gin do for Enlightenment values in the U.S. South? It made agricultural labor valuable...)

In which case, regardless of peak oil, the rapid improvement in computers may be taking culture in a direction we won't like.