Nike, today, is one of the companies at the fore front of supporting human rights in its factories. A response it had to take from being exposed by activists. Oxfam continues to report companies which dismiss employees who form voluntary groups to debate pay and bare minimum working conditions.
Being paid 1 cent an hour or more than the local rate is all stuff we know. What you get paid is not the issue and is NOT exploitation.
Lack of governmental protection over local individuals is and has been a big opportunity for some companies. Exploitation takes place when people are tricked into slogans such as "we pay you more", whereby they abandon sustainable lands that they inhabit and learn that when they are working they can only shop at the company cafeteria which has horrendous prices and they must pay huge rents as part of their contract. So their actual quality of life can be reduced. "oh but they pay more" is not always a trumping answer.

My sister-in-law, living in Bangladesh a few years ago, was (liberal that she is) incensed about the publicity that stopped seamstresses from bringing their young children to work with them. 

Previous to U.S., and other public outcries and boycotts of clothing made in Bangladesh, these mothers had their pre-school child sit under their sewing machine, where the kid learned to cut threads as the mother finished a seam. These moms were more efficient, and the kids were paid a pittance...Betsy said kids and moms liked it, saved money, kept kids safe. When "enlightened" practices were instituted, moms lost jobs or settled for dangerous work-hour situations for these very young children.

--Mindy

The Nike factory thing is fascinating.  The picture we are given bears little resemblance to the actual conditions in the Nike "sweat shops", ie, factories. And, in fact, the reforms that the protestors want would have bizarre and unfair consequences to the economies of the countries in question.

As a single data point, did you know that when Nike put up its wages after coming under pressure from the protestors, local hospitals found doctors and nurses quitting to go and work making shoes, because they could make more working for Nike than they could in the hospitals?

 "But what about the notorious $2-per-day "exploitation wages" U.S. firms pay? As Knight explains, "Nike's five Taiwanese and South Korean subcontractors in Vietnam pay an average monthly wage of about $65, more than twice what a teacher earns and considerably above the salary of a young doctor at a state-run hospital."

My point exactly Callum. Perhaps it was not clear enough.
The tables were turned from aristocracy to proletariat by the soclialists. We will see the biggest auction for stolen goods that the country has ever seen this election. The lobby groups won't have business interests but handouts interests. It will be about which government can do the most to give the nations majority favors. Its going get ugly. In fact the poor were exploited by the rich even the so called capitalists. There was no law that protected and defended workers like the rich.
Take 'Nike' in its beginnings whereby it took advantage of opportunities of cheap labor (fine in itself). It operated in a country where the rights of the individual were not protected. So in its own policy did it up hold individual rights in its ethics? No sir it didn't. It did finally, after huge pressure from activists, ceased its early childhood labor practices and its non payment for overtime.

"Poor people were exploited by the rich "because they were there" and the rich had more power."

That happened under the old aristocracy and social classes of England up until and into the Industrial Revolution, which capitalism replaced. One of the greatest achievements of modern capitalism is that it essentially uprooted the old aristocratic class, leaving them without any real power, only family heritage. In their place came the producers.

"Socialism may be dead, but its corpse is still rotting up the place." -Ayn Rand

I think that they really do struggle to grasp the concept of trade in a laissez Fair system. 'The two way win'. That each exchange doesn't imply a victim/winner but that both sides win.
The problem is that communism did not eradicate exploitation and slavery at all. It simply turned the tables. Yes rich people oppressed the proletariat long ago.
Rich people are exploited by legislature from the poor "because they can afford it"
Poor people were exploited by the rich "because they were there" and the rich had more power.

Yes, you have a point there, Kasper...how does a chap read the book and reach that conclusion unless they are a braindamaged socialist?

I suppose he comes from the school of thought which says "it didn't work because we were not socialist enough..." ha ha

http://nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/

Quite frankly I don't believe the guy read it. How does one read AS and get to the conclusion its about the rich people being mean to the poor? Rand is on about morality throughout the whole book. She speaks of some poor people with such high regard. The professor who ended up being a cook and Rearden feeling such empathy and sadness for the dieing lad from that incident.
The book is not about rich versus poor but about man as a free human being, a producer with rights that correspond to reality and endorse his existence.
Its about a society where the producers are broken from the shackles, the bondage and the mortgage of 'need' and let free to flourish and live. It points out the distinction for human relationships which was between two concepts: co-dependence (which was by force) was a killer and that inter-dependence (which was by voluntary trade) was a promoter of progress and humanity.

Poor man's transport isn't it?

However, you were exceptionally lucky to stumble upon someone who had actually read Atlas Shrugged in NZ, full stop. Regardless whether or not you thought he was poor, or had pro-socialist opinions, the guy was obviously quite clever.

I'm sure he could be well on the way to being convinced to have an intelligent debate about the book. Indeed, Objectivism needs more people like him.

The last thing on my mind is who may read this site and my posts. (Though I know Objectivism can't be bettered.) I don't think of an audience but a healthy exchange.

You do more than amuse me, don't get me wrong. Part of you wants to be appearing upwardly, the other looking backwards as to what others are thinking. I just post what I can support, unless I change my mind if I decide I'm wrong.

The handouts that 'poor people' expect are not of their creation. The market has been created and who is surprised they wanna get knocked up at 15yrs and get paid by the govt.

What a load of crap. There's also such a thing as shallow people. 

 I dislike poor people for two reasons....one, because of their indolence and stupidity for not being rich, and, two, because they expect handouts to reward them for being poor.

Oh gosh..."Bah, humbug!" ...gosh! ...I was the innocent party in this exchange...merely trying to read a jolly splendid book and it was my distinguished self who was berated by a stranger for no reason!

I was the chap who had someone expecting him to subscribe to socialist axioms! ...and it is quite disgraceful New Zealand has decended to such a level, alas...(bearing in mind the 233 bus route in Auckland is, effectively, a pleasant drive through Helen Clark's electorate! ha ha)

If you people were not so lilly livered you would be supporting me...not issuing disclaimers in case some braindamaged socialist visits the site! ....

On the subject of book reviewing....I fully intend to post a review of Sir Robert Jones latest book "Jones On Management"....probably tomorrow...and the book is excellent!

In response to those who criticise me for my contempt for poor people...yes...yes...yes...I dislike poor people.

There. I have said it. I dislike poor people for two reasons....one, because of their indolence and stupidity for not being rich, and, two, because they expect handouts to reward them for being poor.

Auckland circa. 2008 is a place where anyone with half a brain can 'make it' ....so anyone who is poor does not deserve sympathy...anymore who bothers to actually 'try' to earn a quid has more chance of doing so today than ever before in history...you have more chance of walking to the end of the street and being hit by a nuclear bomb than failing in a profitmaking undertaking..so if you are still incapable..(despite the complete absence of competition or any other barriers to success)..of 'making it' you are just...

http://nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/

You must try harder. Rich, poor, landed gentry, besuited. You wouldn't make it as a book reviewer.

One of the deservedly most influential tomes of all time and you manage to make it seem distasteful.

..and I am a 'cheerleader' for Atlas... 

 Maybe, but how do you reconcile that, with this?

 As probably the only person in New Zealand brave enough to proclaim contempt for poor people

It's not about rich and poor people, it's about moral and Immoral people. Some of the most moral people in Atlas were also among the poorest.

No, that was his view of the book...I was the one who said it was about rich people making a quid for themselves.

He then went off on all sorts of socialist tangents to reinforce his view...ha ha!

..and I am a 'cheerleader' for Atlas...in response to James Heaps-Nelson wondered how to market objectivism...the answer is simple - get people to read Atlas Shrugged

http://nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/

You shouldn't pass yourself off as a cheerleader for Atlas. It is *not* about the rich being nasty to the poor. It's time you put aside such nonsense. Please read the little primer I wrote for you. Sigh.