dondrei: A claim that you agreed to in the last thread. So what am I on about? How about the fact that you continually make an argument which conflicts with both history and theory but you have yet to back it up with any concrete evidence. So let's try a different approach: formal logic. (Now, it's been decades since if taken any logic courses and I could have totally screwed up my argument below. Please feel free to correct me if that is the case.) :undecided: Statement: If we do not have minimum wage laws then we will have sweatshops. Logical Argument: If not P then Q, where "P" = Minimum wage laws, and where "Q" = Sweatshops. Logical deductions from such a statement: 1). If not P, must be Q 2). If not Q, must be P 3). If P, may or may not be Q 4). If Q, may or may not be P - The most applicable deduction to look at in this case is #2. That translates into "If sweatshops do not exist, then minimum wage laws must be in place." But that is not the case; therefore, your statement is not logically sound. Remember the old adage: "Ask a stupid question expect a stupid answer." Did these documentaries say that that was the case? More than likely, the speaker just compared their wages to those of the workers in the United States or other developed countries. Again, a comparison that is totally meaningless by itself. - Another thought on this subject. There are few, if any, jobs in any manufacturing plant that do not require the company to spend a significant amount of time and money on training new employees. This is especially the case in cultures where the bulk of the new workers have no previous experience working in an industrial based economy. I remember reading an article back in college that went into great detail about how difficult it was for people who had only known farming to adapt to factory work. Farm work is geared around the seasons rather than a clock. Many transplanted workers had some difficulty in making the transition. The cost of training new workers because the old ones are either sick or dying far outweighs the cost of paying experienced workers at least a subsistence wage. Even if there is not a moral reason to pay workers enough for them to survive, there is an economic one that would ensure that it would happen. I agree. However, the situations where the concepts supporting the Free Market do not work are in the minority. Therefore, the onus is NOT on the people who advocate using a Free Market solution for a problem to prove their case; the onus in on those that advocate that another approach would result in a better solution. When the Market fails, the majority of times it is do to one party wielding monopolistic powers. A major problem with solutions that do not rely on the Market is that the alternative solution usually involves governmental involvement and most times it involves outright governmental control. The biggest monopoly in any country IS the government; therefore, the alternative solutions are themselves subject to the same inequities caused by monopolistic control. I was hoping for a certain level of intellectual honesty and sophistication from you when I linked to those two sites. The intellectual honesty I expected was that you would not exclude one entire article's viewpoint completely and cherry pick the one phrase that supports your view from the other. I also thought that your intellectual sophistication would allow you to realize that I had intentionally linked to those two articles because they had the opposite opinions on why certain economic events happened. While these opinions were in dispute, the facts supporting them were not. Both of them agreed that these so-called sweatshops used to be in places like Taiwan, Hong Kong, and South Korea during the 1980's. I also assumed that you were knowledgeable enough to realize that these places currently have some of the highest standards of living in that entire geographic area. So what do we know for certain? (1). The locations of these so-called sweatshops throughout the world changes over time with the majority of them following low priced labor. (2). In the 1980's the sweatshops were located primarily in places like Taiwan, Hong Kong, and South Korea. (3). These sweatshops no longer exist in those places and; in addition, those places have among the highest standards of living in the entire region. Now, let's look at our conclusions. You said that sweatshops never have to increase their wages because they have an infinite number of people available who are willing to work at the existing wage. The logical deduction that one can derive from that statement is that the standard of living in that area will never improve. No manner how many companies are started no one will have to pay anything more than the first one did. If the country raises its minimum wage to try to force the sweatshops to pay their workers more, the article says that the company will just move the sweatshop someplace else. Even if they don't move, minimum wage laws do not create wealth; they just re-allocate it. While a minimum wage increase may very well help one individualâ€™s standard of living, it does so at the expense of someone else's, be that another worker or boss. I argued that the standard law of supply and demand that supports all economic pricing applies to workers' wages as well as it does to any other product or service. The more people who want a product or service, the higher the price for that service or product. Wages must go up as long as new companies come into existence that require more labor. Based on this fundamental conclusion, the standard of living in a country must go up if the demands for its labor goes up. So which of our conclusions fits the facts? The assumption you have to make here is that the term "low" refers to a comparison to the pay at a comparable job in a developed country. If the sweatshop came into an area and only offered wages that were considered low in that area, they wouldn't be able to fill their positions.