CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
We must admit that many global companies or multinational companies of the U.S. and Europe operating in the developing countries are using many local workers under very inhuman conditions like low-wages,long-labor hours and very few holidays.
They are severly exploited by the capitalists and managers. Forming labour unions is not admmited. Therefore, they are compelled to obey orders and instructions presented by the Big Capital. Their main objective is to maximize profit by reducing labor cost as much as possible. This is the one reason which global companies should be blamed. My arguments to be continued to the next section.
I interpret your point as being that commercial enterprises which involves employing people should not exist in any shape or form whatsoever.
All organised business ventures, as we can observe for instance, in China and the U.S.A, should be abolished.
I feel that such a novel concept should be accompanied with a detailed and comprehensive explanation as to how societies should be organised and from where the tax revenue would be generated to provide vital public utilities such as health services, social housing, unemployment benefits, education, defense and infrastructure development.
Your experience and astuteness should enable you to recognise that it is not acceptable to simply criticise the status-quo without illustrating how your brave new world would be organised.
The thrust of the thread was the implied guilt of multi-national corporations violating the human right(s) of their employees through poor working conditions and low wages.
This is the only logical conclusion anyone could arrive at as clean and safe working environments combined with high wages and humane conditions such as generous paid holiday entitlement along with sick leave could not be interpreted by any normal person as ''violating human rights''.
'THE VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS' PORTION OF THE THREAD WAS INTRINSICALLY LINKED WITH MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATIONS ''HIRING''/EMPLOYING AND TREATMENT OF PEOPLE.
It would be a misrepresentation, if not an uncharacteristic cheap move to try to isolate the ''human right(s)'' part of the argument from the ''multi-national companies'', as they were both included in the same short, nine word heading.
If you re-read AlofRI's post, you will see that he is saying it is as wrong for a multi-national company to violate human rights as it is for a local company to do the same. Not that all companies should be abolished.
Of course I read AlortI's reply and was fully aware that he included non-multinational companies in his apparent condemnation of all employers.
This, HOWEVER INCLUDES ''MULTINATIONALS'' AND WITH THE ADDED INCLUSION OF DOMESTIC COMPANIES HE HAS DENOUNCED THE ENTIRE INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BASE OF THE COUNTRY
I ask again, how are we going to provide employment, relative wealth for the peoples of America and pay for all our legally binding social considerations if we condemn and expel every one of the nation's employers?
Anyone can criticise, but it takes a wise man to back up his criticisms with practical and workable alternatives.
I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY YET, AND I KNOW IT'S MOST UNLIKELY I EVER WILL.
Of course I read AlortI's reply and was fully aware that he included non-multinational companies in his apparent condemnation of all employers.
Every employer, regardless of whether they are national or international, uses people as a commodity. A commodity which they extract profit from just like juice is squeezed from a grapefruit. Your idea that the grapefruit is the winner is of course absurd and the only reason people are docile about it is because they are educated from day one to believe there is nothing wrong with it.
This is the only logical conclusion anyone could arrive at as clean and safe working environments combined with high wages and humane conditions such as generous paid holiday entitlement along with sick leave could not be interpreted by any normal person as ''violating human rights''
This is a classic example of a no true Scotsman fallacy. Disagree with me? Disagree with my interpretation of "high wages" and/or "safe working environments"? Oh, then it must be because you're not normal.
Frankly, your shit is mind-boggling to even read. I can barely get through 3 or 4 lines before I start laughing.
This is my second argument of the debate. The important fact is that multinational companies are exerting outrageous influence in local economy and society without listening to not only the demands of workers but to the request of local governments.
Their power is stronger than that of local governments. The important thing ia that Big Capital bribes local political leaders to conduct their business smoothly not to be interrupted by the anti-company movements committed by local people and community leaders. Mitigating an illegal act by Big Capital is urgently required.
I believe that U.S. Alien Tort Claims Act contributes to reducing the heinous act by the Big Business. Arguments to be continued.
Giving employment to the world's endless herds of sheepeople who would otherwise starve to death or die from disease as they do in their 10s of 1000s every day in Africa?
Are you accusing the Multi-nationals of teaching the great unwashed masses new skills and disciplines which increases their market value in this highly competitive world?
Are you suggesting that the multi-nationals should consolidate their activities to their countries of origin and only export their goods to nations without providing any benefits?
Are you unable to convert your vague assertion into a more tangible, unemotional argument?
I don't know what cleanspace means, but here are some possibilities:
Preventing child labor
Preventing forced labor
Allowing labor organizing
Environmental regulations
Some might also include: worker-safety, maximum hours, minimum pay, etc., but, to me, those are more about fair trade than violating human rights, per se.
How long ago is it since these globalist politicians created the system which exploits workers?
Why do you feel that the populations of countries such as the U.S.A., the U.K., most European nations and Asian countries do not benefit from the existence of multi-national corporations on their soil?
What is your alternative suggestion(s) how people should be employed.
If for just one instance we removed foreign investment by multi-national corporations in the U.K., such as the Japanese motor manufacturing industry, unemployment and widespread poverty would be the inevitable outcome.
What are your suggestions to avoid this human tragedy and the ensuing civil unrest such a scenario would spawn?
But they are proposals worth consideration after their inherent weaknesses are eliminated.
Who would implement your proposals?
Can you see yourself being involved in their implementation or would you duck out and leave it to others to complete the much needed task of fine tuning your rather vaguely outlined proposals and introducing them onto the world stage?
Can you really envisage China agreeing to a universal minimum wage combined with fair trade agreements?
Why should they?, they're beating us hands down at most things.
By reducing their Co2 emissions China's industrial output would shrink into oblivion.
From where would nations like South Africa and Zimbabwe find the money to meet an international basic income?
Would rogue nations such as North Korea, Iran and Syria agree to cooperate within this 'big happy family of nations.
I mean, do you really?
Is it not better for the work-forces of some backward nations to be exploited and work for for buttons on the basis that ''half a loaf is better than no bread''?
You have made a thoughtful and gallant attempt at addressing a number of issues here but I'm afraid they'd have a long way, a very long way to go before they could become a global reality.
Either proposal will certainly be difficult to implement, but difficult does not mean impossible or unworthy.
Both would be enforceable in a similar fashion as current international trade rules, a la the WTO - through fines, sanctions, bans on trade, etc.
If countries want access to a large and affluent customer base, they agree to abide by and enforce certain restrictions.
Otherwise, there will be a race to the bottom for who can exploit their labor and environment the most, and no incentive to consider externalities (like pollution) or future generations.
To allow poorer countries to compete, there would need to be a ramping up of restrictions based on time/GDP, etc.
Throughout history, a middle-class has been an aberration rather than the norm and has generally been achieved through restricting labor:
An ever-growing population and leaps in automation will make maintaining a middle-class even more tenuous;
we will either need to drastically increase labor restrictions - shorter work weeks, higher minimum wages, fair-trade treaties, etc. etc., or radically up-end traditional economics - e.g. a universal income.
The status quo will likely become untenable - making a solution, even a difficult one, better than the alternative.
But in life it's not what we think or say that's important, it's only what we actually DO that counts.
I ran my own business for many years with a workforce of over 130.
On a number of occasions during this time I had various well meaning employees approach me with their proposals on how to improve the company's profitability ranging from the introduction of cost saving measures to the opening of additional depots in parts of the country in which we did not operate.
When offered the opportunity to carry out these proposals they always backed off saying that whilst it was their idea they felt there were others better qualified to execute their projects.
The buck was always passed on to others.
However, at least you have had the guts to present your reasonable proposals in a businesslike and persuasive manner and I can see substantial merit in what you have said.
I ran my own business for many years with a workforce of over 130
And of course this explains your ridiculously out of touch ideas about people and society. You are (or at least were) a parasite who profited from exploiting the labour of other people. Their hard work paid for your luxuries. It is little wonder then that you see these people as being beneath you.
There are a few ways for common people to avoid passing the buck:
- advocating for those opinions,
- supporting representatives that would secure those policies,
- voting with their wallet; buying products that agree with their values (requires sufficient information and income to make enlightened choices), boycotts, buycotts, donations, etc.
Well, your next step is to make representation to those politicians you feel would take your proposals on board and try to fine tune them into viable political objectives.
Have you made the effort to research who these supportive politicians are, or would likely to be?
It's not good enough just to sit in the 'comfort zone' of your computer room and fire out obscure ideologies and expect them to come to fruition without a lot of sweat, hard work, sleepless nights, money and dogged determination.
You can 'self-judge' your own ability at getting things done.
Give me a shout in 6 months time and let me know how you are progressing.
The politicians already know about the positions, now it is basically in the building public support phase.
Universal Basic Income has been supported across the political spectrum (ref) - from Milton Friedman to Martin Luther King, Jr., and while everyone knew he had little chance of becoming the nominee, it was good to see Andrew Yang on the national stage making the case.
During the current pandemic, some Republicans have supported the idea of sending everyone checks (ref), and we will already need to rethink tax policy to deal with what will likely end up being $10 trillion in covid stimulus.
When it comes to fair trade, most Dems already support it, and some Republicans like some elements (like patent/copyright protections) and have defended it to support the machinations of Trump (who has no coherent policy.) As to whether he will still be around 6 months from now, we shall see...
Joe Rogan is annoying. He's got a little bit of intelligence in comparison to a lot of Americans, but because he's living in the American bubble reality he doesn't seem to understand that this still qualifies him as stupid to much of the rest of the world. His reasoning is compromised by the multitude of fallacies and biases present in American culture because of the public relations campaign which has been going on there since the 1930s.
A good example is the internet. He's a decade behind. He still thinks the internet is a good place to source information. Up until about 2008-2009 it was. That's how long it took power to get a handle on it and fill it with the plethora of far right, corporate sponsored propaganda which now soils its every corner. Until then it was the home of actual social revolutionaries and the various organisations and individuals dedicated to protecting the anonymity of its users.
Western propaganda is so complex and highly developed that it is frequently more convincing than the truth.
The video wasn't posted as an endorsement of Rogan over and above the fact that it provided a platform for Yang to succinctly advocate his position on UBI.
Rogan's position on the internet is irrelevant gibberish
On the contrary, it influences who he has on his podcast and the information (or misinformation) he publicizes on his podcast, which are the two most important factors about your irrelevant video, you utterly mad banshee.
And yet, you don't cite anything he got wrong in said video
I didn't claim the video was wrong you mentally ill halfwit. I didn't even watch it. I just gave you my opinion on the podcaster, for the third fucking time.
Right - your post is admittedly based on complete ignorance, yet you think your ad hominem about Rogan is somehow relevant in a discussion other people were having about UBI - it isn't.
I ran my own business for many years with a workforce of over 130
You were a low-tier pimp who arranged sexual encounters between IT professionals and vulnerable young women struggling to recover from drug and alcohol addictions.
Why do you feel that the populations of countries such as the U.S.A., the U.K., most European nations and Asian countries do not benefit from the existence of multi-national corporations on their soil?
They do benefit. They are also hurt by it, so there's a payoff vs. a loss. The loss is greater than the payoff. The loss was exemplified when medicine the West needed during the pandemic was held and hoarded by the very nations the West had pushed manufacturing to for cheap labor and costs.
Well, I would argue that in the absence of a viable alternative the benefits/trade-offs of having multi-nationals greatly outweighs the downside.
The days of the DARK SATANIC MILLS have gone and been replaced with clean and safe working environments with strict 'Health & Safety regulations along with minimum wages in all western nations.
Unfortunately the same cannot be said for most of the Asian manufacturing corporations who copied our manufacturing and marketing techniques and whose pay scales are just marginally above the slave labour line.
This then highlights the ''flaw in the threads heading'' which omitted to highlight that any downsides in multi-national employment terms & conditions exists mainly, if not exclusively in communist nations such as China.
On the other side of the coin we must accept the lion's share of blame for the humiliating treatment of human beings by buying the cheap products made in these totalitarian states.
If, for instance the self-righteous western consumers aggressively sought out products and goods with the Made in America, preferably by an American company, the level of 'worker exploitation' would diminish enormously.
Well, I would argue that in the absence of a viable alternative the benefits/trade-offs of having multi-nationals greatly outweighs the downside
Well, I would argue that's because you're a mentally unbalanced corporate neo-fascist who seems to believe using bizarrely pompous language and thick black letters is a good excuse for saying really stupid stuff over and over again.
DARK SATANIC MILLS
Just wtf? It's like you literally think you're in some kind of Shakespearean play.