Eating the meat of abused animals.

Thoreau

Valued Senior Member
I'm all for eating meat, but I won't purchase it from a company that abuses the animals like this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvTlB8L2CDk


I don't understand how anyone with even the slightest amount of empathy and compassion can willingly purchase a company's meat knowing that this is where it came from.
 
An appalling video, MZ3Boy84, and sadly quite typical of the meat industry across all farmed species. In the interests of 'profit', these industries want to raise as many animals with as few resources as possible.

I am used to pigs being raised on small mixed farms, where they have larger pens both indoors and outdoors, the indoor ones cleaned and hosed daily and bedded down with fresh straw and their feed pans cleaned also to reduce the chance of illness or infection.

One time, I even raised a piglet of my own to slaughter age. The meat was very flavorful and 'Pork Chop' was a personable and tidy creature, keeping his offal in one corner of his enclosure, furthest from the feed pan.

I have also raised laying hens, five different flocks in total, each of 24 birds that had a free run coop and an outdoor yard for summer months. They were entertaining and industrious birds and for a time I supplemented my income by selling the extra eggs and never a shortage of people to buy them. I would have a flock again save the work of daily clean out and care is just a bit too much for me to take on now that I am working in town 4 days/nights a week.

The only way that change will come about is if the consumer changes their buying habits and demands meat from farms with better practices even if the meat costs more. The sad reality though, is that far too many people are unable to make ends meet now, and while they may know in conscience that these practices are wrong, they cannot afford the luxury of taking the higher moral ground when their own survival may be hanging in the balance. :(
 
The only way that change will come about is if the consumer changes their buying habits and demands meat from farms with better practices even if the meat costs more.

I'd think better government regulations would be allot better of an idea. Most of the time consumers cannot tell where the meat they buy comes from because there's no easy way to find out. People could also eat other types of foods like fish as an example.
 
I'd think better government regulations would be allot better of an idea. Most of the time consumers cannot tell where the meat they buy comes from because there's no easy way to find out. People could also eat other types of foods like fish as an example.

The government has been 'regulating' the industry forever, cosmic, and it's brought us to where we are today. Government will not act unless the people take action that will affect the bottom line of industry profits. The two are hand in glove and the food lobbyists have been battling each other for government endorsement as long as I can remember. It's the egg lobby competing with the beef and pork people and Health Canada jumps around like a cat on a hot tin roof.

First eggs are bad for you, but lean beef is good. Then we get into hormones in the milk and agriculture run-off and suddenly free-range eggs are excellent for you. It's a bloody three ring circus. Believe none of it.

As for fish, take a look at where it's coming from. Almost all fish and seafood, with the exception of some salmon, Nova Scotia scallops and kippers are being imported from Thailand, India and China by the labels in the store I work for. I've about quit eating fish unless it's halibut from Alaska on rare occasion, when it's fresh and in season. Hubby occasionally cooks some frozen cod or haddock, origin uncertain, as it is 'processed in Canada from domestic and imported ingredients.'

We call that a 'sustainable fishery', never mind the state of the waters that this seafood is being harvested from.

The 'Government' is people, and these people have their own vested interests in getting a government pension later in life. Those who rock the boat do so at the peril of their own well being.

Democracy is a wonderful ideology but quite another thing in action. Still, it remains better than some of the other options. :shrug:
 
I agree it's the people that make the change - if they are informed correctly AND give a shit. There's no need of regulation. Refuse to buy food that isn't labeled as to where it EXACTLY comes from. If a company lies, send the board to jail for a few years.
-
The problem is people just don't care. Even in Japan I notice the food source seems to be leaning towards cheap rather than quality and this is leaking into meat products. It's not quite there yet, but I can see some signs. People are at least a little fussy about quality though. I don't know if it's just because they eat lots of fish and fish is easy to tell if it sucks (I know I can tell when, say salmon, just isn't the "right" taste pretty easily). That said, if possible I go to the fishmonger and try to get it alive or just after it's been caught where the fish looks fresh.

I've given up eating most other meet TTYTT, although I do buy "free range" eggs and organic milk - which I now use to make cheese and yogurt. Not sure how the animals are raised, I guess I assumed chickens are allowed to run around outside. You know, due to the "free range" label. And I thought organic is a legal term which means the cos are free range and grass fed?
 
I agree it's the people that make the change - if they are informed correctly AND give a shit. There's no need of regulation. Refuse to buy food that isn't labeled as to where it EXACTLY comes from. If a company lies, send the board to jail for a few years.
-
The problem is people just don't care. Even in Japan I notice the food source seems to be leaning towards cheap rather than quality and this is leaking into meat products. It's not quite there yet, but I can see some signs. People are at least a little fussy about quality though. I don't know if it's just because they eat lots of fish and fish is easy to tell if it sucks (I know I can tell when, say salmon, just isn't the "right" taste pretty easily). That said, if possible I go to the fishmonger and try to get it alive or just after it's been caught where the fish looks fresh.

I've given up eating most other meet TTYTT, although I do buy "free range" eggs and organic milk - which I now use to make cheese and yogurt. Not sure how the animals are raised, I guess I assumed chickens are allowed to run around outside. You know, due to the "free range" label. And I thought organic is a legal term which means the cos are free range and grass fed?

Thats the best laugh i have had in ages, you think people living hand to mouth have the ABILITY (not the desire the ABILITY) to buy ethically? What a load of crap, look at the most obvious example, cage eggs. NOONE would say thats ethical, no one would say they WANT to buy caged eggs but when ever $ counts and spending an extra $ means losing something else no one is going to be able to aford to pay twice the price for free range and thats ignoring the egg producers who market there eggs as free range and are flat out lying (the ACCC came down on some producers for that quite recently) how is a consumer suposed to know THAT???

The idocy of the free market as god is just shear madness, its been shown over and over again to be a myth but people continue to advocate for what amounts to anarchy
 
Thats the best laugh i have had in ages, you think people living hand to mouth have the ABILITY (not the desire the ABILITY) to buy ethically? What a load of crap, look at the most obvious example, cage eggs. NOONE would say thats ethical, no one would say they WANT to buy caged eggs but when ever $ counts and spending an extra $ means losing something else no one is going to be able to aford to pay twice the price for free range and thats ignoring the egg producers who market there eggs as free range and are flat out lying (the ACCC came down on some producers for that quite recently) how is a consumer suposed to know THAT???

The idocy of the free market as god is just shear madness, its been shown over and over again to be a myth but people continue to advocate for what amounts to anarchy

In my post above, I have already addressed the fact that people cannot afford to make ethical decisions about where and how food is sourced when they are barely living hand to mouth.

Government has the jurisdiction in most of these matters and governments are nothing more than people, motivated in large part by the same self interest and survival instincts as everyone else. They are not going to work any harder than required for their piece of the pie, IMO. (There are a few exceptions, some very commendable people and efforts made.)

While I agree with much of what you point out, rather than slam the discussion, laughing and using denigrating words like 'crap', have you got something concrete to share with us? :)
 
Asguard,

I did have a long post. But, really, what's the point? IMO you simply do not know what a "market" is let alone a "free-market". You don't like "Capitalism" but have no idea what it is. You live in a fantasy land provided to you by the free market, yet, have no idea what this is. That's pretty interesting. I think you must have a very cynical, borderline hateful, attitude towards the other people in your society and this hate (maybe even fear) is used to lead you around by the nose by your politicians. If you lived in a true free-market you would not have to worry about people living hand to mouth as they would have gainful employment and a prosperous life with plenty of choice. You don't. I don't. As a matter of fact, we don't even have control over our monetary supply - which is controlled for us, but a very few people over in NY and London. So, you may want to study what a market is, what money is, how money comes into being, what's it's historic role is, before forming your world view. Or not. I know lots of people who think all sorts of bullshit.

Lastly, 99% of Australians have plenty of food. I've yet to read of any Australian dyeing of starvation. The real reason why there's little healthy food choice of high quality and low price in AU is because that NOT what most Australians want to eat. Most Australians want cheap food that taste good and they really couldn't care if it's GM or organic or covered in pesticide or whatever.
Cheap.
Tasty.
That's what they want so that's what the market provides them with. Sure, like me, they could buy organic, but, they don't.
 
Last edited:
You just have no idea at all about the free market. The ONLY reason we even have the amount of food, and the variety, is because of the somewhat free market. If we were to have a socialist market, then you'd see mass starvation.

You simply have NO IDEA what you're crapping on about. None. Zero. You don't even know what a "market" is let alone a "free-market". You don't like "Capitalism" but have no idea what it is. You live in a fantasy land provided to you by the free market.

Humanity has never had it so good. We're awash in food. As a species we've never had it better. Australians are some of the fattest humans on earth. They have plenty of choice. Any Australians that are living hand to mouth are supplied with, and eat more, food than any pure socialist society could ever hope to provide them. You'd have starved to death in your dream world social paradise long ago. AND, get this, we don't have to wonder if it's true. Simply look at ANY nation that becomes socialist. Once it's natural resources are sold off to other Capitalistic prosperous nations of people, they slowly sink into living hell and starve to death.

Lucky for you, you live in one of the most capitalistic nations on earth that also happens to have a lot of resources to trade with other capitalistic nations. If not, they you wouldn't have to worry about "hand to mouth" as those people, under your idea system, would have starved to death long ago.


Lastly, if Australians valued free range eggs to cage, or organic milk to mass produced, that's what the market would deliver to them - and cheaply. The market is driven by demand. If Australians demanded high quality cheap food, that's what they'd have. That's not what they want. They want cheap poop on a stick shit. So, that's what they get. The food in Australia is some of the lowest quality I've ever ever eaten. Much much worse than in the US and way over priced. Everything from their crappy poor excuse for bagels (except in Perth where they actually do make a good bagel) to their "Bakers' Delight" McBread crap. Ever eat a tomato there? The only decent ones you have to buy at an Italian shop. The streaks are thin, hard, over priced. NOT because Australians couldn't make quality, but they don't demand it. They don't care. They don't want it. They want cheap. So, that's what they get.


One more time, unless you missed it, you have no idea what a market is and a very cynical, borderline hateful, attitude towards the other people in your society. One wonders if the socialism that exists in AU at present isn't already dementing your society? Probably. If you had a prosperous free market you would not have to worry about people living hand to mouth as they would have gainful employment and a prosperous life with plenty of choice.

you live in a dream world, firstly you have no idea what your talking about, even world class chefs and food writers say that Australia and Melbourne in paticular has some of the best food in the world not just at the high end but across the board. Our 3 star restraunts are above the quality for a comparitable price anywhere except maybe Southeast Asia. As for "demand" the only thing the market does is drive down quality and drive down price, its as simple as that, thats what a "free market" does it forces producers to produce whatever it is as cheep as possible, however its not the consumer who controls whats being produced its Woolworths and Coles. In a lot of cases they push the price they demand to buy the products below the cost of production and unlike the US there are no goverment subsidies in food production which leaves our farmers at a disadvantage on the world market as both Eroupe and the US refuse to follow the free trade agreements THEY SIGNED. Farms are closing down all over the place and you think this is GOOD for both our food security AND quality? Free markets lead to manopoly which leads to price increases, its as simple as that. This is clearly shown in petrol prices and food prices as woolworths and coles move in next to a small retailer, slash there prices and then as soon as the small buisness closes they push the prices back up higher than they were before. That maybe great for share holders but it doesn't help farmers or consumers, not only does this lead to loss of choice so yes all we end up with is the bland tomatoes but it also leads to unethical practices as supermarkets demand that producers get lower and lower returns as there profit margins go up, and then they blame the producers when they do exactly what they need to survive. To put the blame on consumers and call them apathetic for following a system that was imposed on them and gives them no choice is insane. The problems aren't with the consumers, its with the supermarkets and the capitilist system generally and since we are stuck with it the only option we have left is regulation.
 
no one would say they WANT to buy caged eggs but when ever $ counts and spending an extra $ means losing something else no one is going to be able to aford to pay twice the price for free range and thats ignoring the egg producers who market there eggs as free range and are flat out lying (the ACCC came down on some producers for that quite recently) how is a consumer suposed to know THAT???

The idocy of the free market as god is just shear madness, its been shown over and over again to be a myth but people continue to advocate for what amounts to anarchy
Firstly, most people don't care.

Secondly, the "free market" in your example is incorrect. Here we have a producer who was caught lying. OK, if people REALLY do care (such as me) then we won't ever buy from that producer again, and they'll go bankrupt. Also, we can sue that person in court for illegally selling a product that was falsely sold as free range which wasn't.

Done.

I hope you now understand a little about how the free market really works.
 
Firstly, most people don't care.

Secondly, the "free market" in your example is incorrect. Here we have a producer who was caught lying. OK, if people REALLY do care (such as me) then we won't ever buy from that producer again, and they'll go bankrupt. Also, we can sue that person in court for illegally selling a product that was falsely sold as free range which wasn't.

Done.

I hope you now understand a little about how the free market really works.

how are you never going to buy from them again? do you know which of the 24 different supermarket brands belong to them?

You hold up "free market" the way people hold up religion and with as much blindness to reality. The "free market" fails in so many areas and its only goverment regulation which restrains it, its organisations like the ACCC and the RSPCA which prevent the gross abuse of both animals AND consumers has nothing to do with the free market. If your talking luxury items then MAYBE the free market works but with those items needed for life and interaction with society (food, healthcare, petrol) the free market fails abismally
 
you live in a dream world, firstly you have no idea what your talking about, even world class chefs and food writers say that Australia and Melbourne in paticular has some of the best food in the world not just at the high end but across the board.
There are some really good restaurants in Melbourne and Sydney. Not the ones where tourists visit, those suck, but off the beaten path.
As for "demand" the only thing the market does is drive down quality and drive down price, its as simple as that, thats what a "free market" does it forces producers to produce whatever it is as cheep as possible,
It does what the market wants it to do. It MAY drive down quality, if people don't care about quality. It increases quality IF that's what people care about.

however its not the consumer who controls whats being produced its Woolworths and Coles. In a lot of cases they push the price they demand to buy the products below the cost of production and unlike the US there are no goverment subsidies in food production which leaves our farmers at a disadvantage on the world market as both Eroupe and the US refuse to follow the free trade agreements THEY SIGNED.
See, we agree. Farm subsidies are wrong.

Farms are closing down all over the place and you think this is GOOD for both our food security AND quality?
IF Australians cared, they buy their food grown locally. They obviously don't care. I know I do. I personally go to the farmer's market to buy FROM the local farmers. I also work 50 hours a week. I find the time because I care about my food.

Free markets lead to manopoly which leads to price increases, its as simple as that. This is clearly shown in petrol prices and food prices as woolworths and coles move in next to a small retailer, slash there prices and then as soon as the small buisness closes they push the prices back up higher than they were before. That maybe great for share holders but it doesn't help farmers or consumers, not only does this lead to loss of choice so yes all we end up with is the bland tomatoes but it also leads to unethical practices as supermarkets demand that producers get lower and lower returns as there profit margins go up, and then they blame the producers when they do exactly what they need to survive.
Yes, you do have to have competition. Usually you won't get competition BECAUSE the government is on side with the big boys and will pass regulation after regulations ensuring the monopoly. It's up to SOCIETY to recognize and ensure this doesn't happen. If the people don't care, then they will be farmed.

To put the blame on consumers and call them apathetic for following a system that was imposed on them and gives them no choice is insane. The problems aren't with the consumers, its with the supermarkets and the capitilist system generally and since we are stuck with it the only option we have left is regulation.
I will agree that the socialist poor excuse for free enterprise is slowing squeezing the free OUT of the free-market and destroying society.


The entire system needs to be overhauled. From money to education to the role of government.

Right now, picking out food, would be like picking the color of deck chairs on the titanic AFTER it hit the iceberg then blaming the company that provided the deck chairs for the sinking ship!
 
yes i agree with you we do need an overhaul. Capitalisium has failed just as totalitarianisum failed and its time to try something better
 
how are you never going to buy from them again? do you know which of the 24 different supermarket brands belong to them?

You hold up "free market" the way people hold up religion and with as much blindness to reality. The "free market" fails in so many areas and its only goverment regulation which restrains it, its organisations like the ACCC and the RSPCA which prevent the gross abuse of both animals AND consumers has nothing to do with the free market. If your talking luxury items then MAYBE the free market works but with those items needed for life and interaction with society (food, healthcare, petrol) the free market fails abismally
I'm not sure where you're going with this. IF people want organic locally produced milk at a cheap price, then the market will attempt to provide them with that product.

The truth is most people simply do NOT care. They don't care about most of the things the news talks about. That's what you don't seem to understand. People just do not care. They ARE the market.

Like I said in another post, people know they shouldn't smoke, that Coke and Pepsi are like drinking pesticide, that McDonald's is disgusting - they do NOT care. IF they cared, then the producers would meet their demand.

See, that's the amazing thing about the free market. It's there to provide you with everything and anything you want. Free trade between free people is the only way to produce a prosperous society.
 
The idocy of the free market as god is just shear madness, its been shown over and over again to be a myth but people continue to advocate for what amounts to anarchy

But the alternative is *NOT* either (A) "inexpensive eggs/pork from provided by a centrally planned market" or (B) "inexpensive eggs/pork from a market that regulates away all these problems."

Neither the centrally planned market nor the highly regulated market has the inexpensive food...they only have expensive food and the only way the poor can afford them is if they are subsidized, but the subsidies then create other inefficiencies. And this is unlikely to be imposed on just the market for eggs, but over a vast number of markets, the net effect of which is that the economy as a whole is left poorer (and hence more people need the subsidies, and some need them to a greater degree). There is a negative geometric multiplier on the costs imposed by such things (akin to the Keynesian multiplier).

That's not to say that there is anything wrong with preferring to live in a society that's relatively poor, but more egalitarian, but it's not the modern west. If you change western societies, though, then those of us who want the prosperity (and are willing to live with the downsides of that) are denied our preference.

There are plenty of countries that forsake free markets, but in general not many people want to emigrate there. Those two facts are not as unrelated as they may seem.
 
yes i agree with you we do need an overhaul. Capitalisium has failed just as totalitarianisum failed and its time to try something better
Firstly, I think using the word "capitalism" is too intellectually lazy. Not only that, but we are not participating in a pure capitalistic society.

Lets think of capitalism as two free parties trading freely. You don't think that this is fine? Why? Why wouldn't you think that two people can freely make an exchange?

The system we live in is cronyism. A socialistic cronyism that uses the threat of violence to coerce people people to make limited choices. Even worse, it takes from some individuals and gives to crony friends of the government to take even more free choice from individuals.

We all know violence doesn't work. The Chinese, Vietnamese, Russians etc... all tried it, and it doesn't work.

Second, it's worth thinking about resources that are limitless and resources that finite. This information I am typing. It can be shared with as many people who want it. It's limitless. The apple on my desk on the other hand is limited. We need an efficient way of making sure that limited resources, such as apples, are distributed efficiently to the people who most want them. That's what capitalism does. It says if person A makes apples and person B, C and D want apples then the person who wants apples the most will have an apple. If demand is high, person A will make even more apples to meet demand. In an extreme version of a socialist society, everyone is given an apple regardless of whether they really wanted one or not. This seems egalitarian. Incentives are given to apply growers because some crony in government thinks society needs apples (or worse, is helping a friend who grows apples). So, now we don't have an efficient allocation of resources. The "Market" is screwed as the government incentivises apple production. When taken to the extreme, you will have such inefficient production across all sectors that people will eventually stave to death. See, right now you're complaining about the very system providing you with the excesses that give the illusion you could use incentives (such as tax, a form of violence). The only way I think you could see the truth is to go and live under a tyranny where capitalism is not used to allocate resources. Like North Korea, where 3 million well meaning humans starved to death and 5 million have growth so stunted they've actually started eating human flesh. Can you imagine such a hell? I'm sure they didn't. They started out just as well meaning as you. You are in no way superior to them. You've just had the good fortune of living in a somewhat capitalist society.

As for the kind of society we create, this will always be dependent on the PEOPLE who make up the society. If people wanted cheap locally produced organic food, then that's what we'd have. People do not want this. It's not a priority. They want cheap tasty food. That's what most people care about and so the market provides this to them. You can blame anything on people not knowing. We live in an era of knowledge. If people want to know, they can find out. The truth is they just don't care. They'd prefer to have two iPads and eat cheap nutrient poor food.
 
Last edited:
But the alternative is *NOT* either (A) "inexpensive eggs/pork from provided by a centrally planned market" or (B) "inexpensive eggs/pork from a market that regulates away all these problems."

Neither the centrally planned market nor the highly regulated market has the inexpensive food...they only have expensive food and the only way the poor can afford them is if they are subsidized, but the subsidies then create other inefficiencies. And this is unlikely to be imposed on just the market for eggs, but over a vast number of markets, the net effect of which is that the economy as a whole is left poorer (and hence more people need the subsidies, and some need them to a greater degree). There is a negative geometric multiplier on the costs imposed by such things (akin to the Keynesian multiplier).

That's not to say that there is anything wrong with preferring to live in a society that's relatively poor, but more egalitarian, but it's not the modern west. If you change western societies, though, then those of us who want the prosperity (and are willing to live with the downsides of that) are denied our preference.

There are plenty of countries that forsake free markets, but in general not many people want to emigrate there. Those two facts are not as unrelated as they may seem.

Thats because to date its been totalitarisum vs capitalisium and both are abject failures

Look at the figures for the US

The gap between the rich and poor in the United States grew at the same pace as the economic growth. Statistics show that the richest 1 percent of the US citizens own 40 percent of the total property of the country, while 80 percent of US citizens own just 16 percent.

Since the 1990s, 40 percent of the increased wealth went into the pockets of the rich minority, while only 1 percent went to the poor majority.

From 1977 to 1999, the after-tax income of the richest 20 percent of American families increased by 43 percent, while that of the poorest 20 percent decreased 9 percent, allowing for inflation. The actual income of those living on the lowest salaries was even less than 30 years ago.

An article in the February 21, 2000 issue of US News and World Report pointed out that the average income of the richest 5 percent of families in 1979 was 10 times of that of the poorest 20 percent of families. In 1999, the income gap had been enlarged to 19 times, ranking first among the developed countries, and setting a record since the Bureau of Census of the United States began studying the situation in 1947.

The income of the executives of the largest US companies in 1992 was 100 times that of ordinary workers, and 475 times higher in 2000.

According to an assessment by the US journal Business Week in August 2000, the income of chief executive officers was 84 times that of employees in 1990, 140 times in 1995, and 416 times in 1999.

A survey shows that the real income of the one-fifth richest of the families in Silicon Valley has increased 29 percent since 1992, while the real income of the one-fifth poorest of the families in the valley decreased during most of the 1990s, and the current income for the poorest has bounced back to the same level in 1992, with the employees at the lowest rank now earning 10 percent less than a decade age.

A great number of Americans suffer from poverty and hunger. According to the statistics of the US government, over 32 million citizens, or 12.7 percent of the total population of the country, live under the poverty line. The incidence of poverty is higher than in the 1970s, and higher than in most other industrialized countries.

An investigation by the US Department of Agriculture in March 2000 showed that 9.7 percent of American families did not have enough food, and at least 10 percent of families in 18 states and Washington D.C. often suffered from hunger and malnutrition.

In 1998, 37 million American families did not have enough food. In the state of New Mexico, 15.1 percent of the families were under threat of hunger.

The number of homeless Americans has continued to increase. A study in the mid-1990s showed that 12 million US citizens were or had been at some time homeless. According to a survey of 26 large cities conducted by the Conference of Mayors, the urgent demand for housing increased in two-thirds of the cities in 1999 over previous years.

A report in The New York Times of July 9, 2000, said that housing in New York was in the shortest supply of recent decades. More than 130,000 families in the city were waiting for public housing at that time, and homeless shelters sometimes had to receive 5,000 families and 7,000 individuals for a night.

Serious infringements upon worker's rights have been reported. Compared with other developed countries, the working hours of laborers in the United States are the longest, while their social security benefits and rights are the worst. According to a report in US News and World Report in March 2000, the average working time of US citizens was 1,957 hours annually, longer than in other developed countries.

In Manhattan, about 75 percent of the people with high-level education aged between 25 and 32 years old work more than 40 hours a week. In 1977, only 55 percent of the people worked the same amount of time.

A newly published book in the United States said that some female cashiers and workers on production lines have to wear protective undergarments because they are not allowed to take time to go to the toilet.


The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions submitted a report to the World Trade Organization in July of 1999, saying that the rights to organize and strike were not guaranteed in US labor laws.

When employers decide to break up or prevent the establishment of trade unions, laborers have no legal redress. Only 13 percent of US workers have joined trade unions.

More than 7 million of the 14 million functionaries in the state and local governments have no right to collective negotiation, not to mention the right to strike.

Millions of workers, including farm laborers, domestic workers, and low-level supervisors, were explicitly excluded from protection under the law guaranteeing the right of workers to organize.

In the 1950s, hundreds of workers were retaliated by employers for exercising their right for association. By the 1990s, the number climbed to 20,000.

Worker's rights and social security cannot be guaranteed for U. S. workers. A study by the US Department of Energy in 2000 showed that the incidence of cancer among workers in nuclear weapons production was much higher than workers in other industries due to exposure to harmful radiation and chemical substances.

Since the end of World War II, 22 forms of cancer have been diagnosed among the 600,000 workers in 14 nuclear plants in California, Washington and other states; this incidence rate was several times that found in ordinary factories.


The US government treads lightly on this issue until it was exposed by media in recent years. Under public pressure, the US government had to acknowledge the mistake.

About 30 million US citizens had no social security eight years ago, and the figure has increased to 46 million currently. The British newspaper Financial Times reported on October 25, 2000, that 12.3 percent of US citizens had no medical insurance 20 years ago, and the rate has increased to 15.8 percent now, or one out of every six Americans.

The education situation in the United States is surprisingly poor. According to a report in USA Today on November 29, 2000, illiteracy is still a serious problem in such a highly developed country.

One in five high school graduates cannot read his or her diploma; 85 percent of unwed mothers are illiterate; 70 percent of Americans arrested are illiterate; 21 million Americans cannot read.

According to a child protection foundation, 71 percent of fourth graders are not at the education level they ought to be. College tuition has grown faster than the increase of middle class families' income. The dropout rate among college students has risen to 37 percent.

Statistics from the US Census Bureau show that the income of middle class families increased only 10 percent from 1989 to 1999, while the college tuition increased 51 percent during the same period. The average college tuition in 1999 was 8,086 US dollars, accounting for 62 percent of the income of low-income families.

The average tuition fee of private colleges was 21,339 US dollars in 1999, up 34 percent over 1989, accounting for 162 percent of the income of poor families, but only making up for four percent of the income of rich families. More than 30 million low-income families could not afford to send their children to community colleges.

IV. Gender Discrimination & Ill-treatment of Children

Gender discrimination is widespread in almost every aspect of US society. American women have not yet enjoyed equal constitutional rights compared to men. Women in the United States not only have weak voice in politics, but also are discriminated in terms of employment, job status and wages. The labor protection standards for women are below the international norms, and sexual violence, sexual harassment and domestic violence against women are also rampant in the United States.

Reuters reported on March 22, 2000, that as many as 1,100 women have joined a class action gender discrimination lawsuit, which was initiated by five women in 1978, against the US Information Agency and Voice of America on 48 charges involving job discrimination because of gender. Following an investigation, the court discovered that the human resource departments of the defendants had purposely overlooked female candidates through deceptive means such as revising test results and selecting beforehand. It was not until 2000 that the U. S. government was forced to accept an out-of-court settlement and paid 508 million U. S. dollars in compensation after 46 out of 48 charges were upheld by the court. The breadth and depth of gender discrimination in the US can be seen from this case, which involved the highest compensation for such a case since 1964.

A report released in November 2000 by an American institute studying policy on women showed that women are paid an average of 26 percent less than their male colleagues.

The number of female prisoners has been increasing markedly in the United States, and they often are the victims of various abuses. Since 1980, the number of prisoners in the United States has tripled, while that of the female prisoners has quadrupled. A report released by the US government in December 1999 showed that accusations against jail officers of sexual abuse and other negligent behavior are widespread and criminal prosecution of prison guards for abuse of power has been on the rise.

The following major cases have been reported since December 1999:

-- Eleven guards and one officer at a county jail were accused of sexual assault and sexual harassment by 16 female inmates;

-- a jail guard in New Mexico was convicted of sexual assault;

-- a prison officer in New York was sentenced to three years imprisonment with probation for raping two female inmates;

-- a prison officer in Ohio was sentenced to four years of imprisonment for conviction of sexual assault of three female inmates;

-- Some female inmates at a prison in New York disclosed that a number of female inmates were raped and even some of them gave birth to babies in their cells.

The majority of the female prisoners who have been sexually assaulted cannot get access to adequate legal protection. The state of Michigan stipulates explicitly that prisoners are not protected by civil rights laws.


Quite a number of women and children have been smuggled to the United States who are subject to slavery and torture. According to a report released by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in November 1999, as many as 50,000 women and children are smuggled from Asia, Latin America and Eastern Europe to the United States every year. They are often forced to become prostitutes or ill-treated workers and servants, the youngest of whom are aged nine. Despite as many as 100,000 women and children were smuggled to the country in recent two years, only 250 of whom are listed as the victims of relevant cases. The New York Times reported on April 2, 2000 that in 1999, the US Immigration and Naturalization Service conducted an investigation in 26 cities and found smuggled women in 250 brothels. An article carried on the " Insight" weekly in December 2000 revealed that the human trafficking and the sexual slave trade has become the third largest illegal trade in terms of business volume in the United States, following drugs and arms smuggling. An incomplete statistics showed that criminal rings in the United States earn 7 billion U. S. dollars from human trafficking annually.

Children in the United States live under worrying conditions, and they are often the major victims of violence and as many as 5, 000 children are shot fatally annually. The percentage of gunshot victims under age 14 is 21 times that of 25 other industrialized countries. Some 1.5 million children, or two percent of the country's total, have one or both parents in prison. The United States, one of five countries that have the death penalty for juveniles, has the highest number of juveniles sentenced to death in the world. Twenty-five states of the country give death penalty to juveniles, four of which set the lowest age for the death penalty at 17 years and the other 21 states set 16 years as the bottom line or have no age limit at all. Since 1990, 14 juvenile criminals have been executed in the United States, and in the first seven months of 2000, four juvenile criminals were put to death, more than the figure of other countries combined in the past seven years. By October 2000, 83 juvenile criminals, who were under 18 when their crimes were committed were waiting to be executed. The US Department of Justice released a report on February 27, 2000, indicating that from 1985 to 1997, the inmates under age 18 in adult prisons more than doubled from 3,400 to 7, 400; and 90 percent of juvenile criminals were high school dropouts. To date, more than 100,000 children are incarcerated in juvenile detention facilities and many of them are subject to brutal treatment.

Many children in the United States are threatened by poverty. According to an investigation conducted by the UNICEF, the poverty rate of children in the United States ranks second among the 29 members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. In 1998, the poverty rate of American children hit 18. 7 percent, 2.5 percent higher than that of 1979. To date, as many as 13 million children live in poverty, three million more than the figure of 1979.

Reuters reported on January 20, 2000, that children in 15.2 percent of the families in the US are starving, and that children aged below six years in 16.3 percent of households don't have enough food. About one million immigrant children who do not hold U. S. citizenship are not covered by the medical insurance system. More than one million children in the country live on the streets, 40 percent of whom are under 5, 20 percent suffer from hunger, 20 percent are not covered by the medical insurance system, 10 percent have seen murders, shootings, rapes and violence, and 25 percent have experienced domestic violence.

In the United States, at least 290,000 children are working in factories, mines and farms where working conditions are dangerous. Children working on farms often have to work 20 hours a day and run the risk of pesticide poisoning, injury and permanent disability. They account for 8 percent of the country's total child workers, while the job-related deaths among them make up 40 percent of the country's total occupational death toll. Among these child farm laborers, merely 55 percent have graduated from high school. It is estimated that there are one million cases of human rights violations against these child farm workers in the United States every year; yet the US Labor Department listed only 104 such cases in 1998.

V. Racial Discrimination Prevails, Minorities Ill-Treated



Racial discrimination in the US has a long history and is well known throughout the world; it stands as one of the most serious social problems in the United States.

A US report on implementation of the International Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination submitted to the United Nations in September 2000 admitted that racism exists as one of the most daunting challenges facing the US

The minorities in the United States have been called the "Third World of the First World."

Racial discrimination is evident everywhere in America. The Washington Post reported on February 3, 2000, that even in large U. S. cities, few residential areas are actually racially integrated.

In the 1990s, the actual earnings of high-income families increased by 15 percent on average; however, the rich-poor gap between whites and minorities remained unchanged.


A survey made by the US Federal Reserve in March 2000 indicated that in 1998 the average net wealth of a middle-income family of Latin Americans, African Americans, or other minorities stood at 16,400 US dollars, equal to just 17.28 percent of that of a white family. The percentage was basically unchanged compared with 1992's 17.23 percent.

In 1998, 72.2 percent of the white families owned their own homes while the proportions for African American and Latin American families were only 46.4 percent and 44.9 percent respectively.

Even worse, nearly two million aboriginals were living on streets of big cities in the United States and 40 percent of them went without food for up to three days at a time. They are the poorest people in the world's richest country.

The Christian Science Monitor reported in May 2000 that immigrant families account for over one-fifth of the US poverty- stricken population and one-fourth of the total number of poor children. Among the immigrants in the US, over nine million, or 43 percent of the total, do not have medical insurance. In contrast, 12 percent of white people do not have medical insurance, according to a research report released last year by the Journal of American Medical Association.

The report also indicated that 41 percent of white youths could receive higher education while the rate for young Latin Americans was only 22 percent.

The discrimination against minorities is deeply rooted in America. The unemployment rate among African Americans is double that of whites.

An investigation made in 1996 indicated that 90 percent of the chief executives or managers of US companies have never given any black people the same status and responsibilities.

Computer giant Microsoft had a staff of over 20,000 in the US in 1999; only 557 of them were African Americans. The number accounted for 2.6 percent of the company's total employees. The company has 5,155 mid-level administrative personnel and only 82 people, or 1.6 percent, are African Americans.

A report in USA Today in 2000 said that charges of sexual harassment on immigrated workers had witnessed a fast increase, up 10 times from 1986 to 1999. About 2,200 cases were reported in the 1980s, while the figure became 15,150 in the 1990s.

Racial discrimination has also emerged as a very serious problem in the courts. A total of 98 percent of the judges in the US are white while most of the people receiving prison terms or the death sentence are blacks or other minorities.

Twelve percent of the US population are African American; nearly half of the two million prison inmates in the US are black, and another 16 percent are Latin American.

Black men are eight times more likely to be in prison than white men, with an incarceration rate of 3,408 per 100,000 black males compared to the rate of 417 per 100,000 white males. In 11 states, the incarceration rate of African American men is from 12- 26 times greater than that of white men.


The US Department of Justice estimated that 9.4 percent of all black men at the age of 25-29 years were in prison in 1999, compared to one percent of white men in the same age group.

Also in 1999, the juveniles belonging to minority groups constituted one-third of the adolescent population in the United States, but they comprised two-thirds of the young people confined in local detention and state correctional systems. One of every three young black people were confined in juvenile facilities or out on bail.

An investigation funded by the Justice Department indicated that the number of young black inmates jailed on first offenses is six times higher than that of white youths. Among the violent crime cases, the number of incarcerated black youths is nine times higher than that of the white youths.

Fifteen percent of juveniles under 18 are black; while among the confined people of the same age group, 26 percent are African American.

Among youths held in adult prison facilities, 58 percent are black. The likelihood of conviction for black youths is much higher than that for whites.

In California, children of color are 6.2 times more likely than white youths to be charged with crimes, and seven times more likely to be sentenced to prison when they are tried as adults. The proportion of black men sent to state prisons on drug charges to the state's total population is 13.4 times greater than that of white men. The number of black youths sent to correctional facilities for drug offenses is 48 times higher than that for whites.

In at least 15 states, the number of African American men sent to prison on drug charges is 20 to 57 times more often than white men. In seven states, 80 to 90 percent of all drug offenders are black men.

Although the majority of crack cocaine users are white, almost 90 percent of convicted federal drug offenders are black.

In the 200-plus years since the US was founded, a total of 18, 000 people have been sentenced to death; only 38 of them were white, accounting for 0.2 percent of the total. No white man has ever been sentenced to death for raping a black woman.

Between 1977 and 1998, African Americans comprised 10 to 12 percent of the total US population. However, out of the 5,709 people sentenced to death, 41 percent were black.

A report from the Department of Justice issued on September 12, 2000, acknowledged that in the past five years, lawyers proposed to sentence 183 offenders to death, 20 percent of them were whites, nearly half of them were blacks, around 30 percent were Latin Americans and the rest of were other minorities.

Of all death penalty sentences upheld by the US federal courts since 1995, the number of colored people accounts for 74 percent. The ratio of African American and white murder victims was almost the same; however, since 1997, 82 percent of the total number executed were African Americans who had murdered white people.

http://academic.udayton.edu/race/06hrights/georegions/northamerica/china01.htm

I could go on and on posting this because there is page after page of this stuff but I will stop there. This is your great free market at work
 
Back
Top