Yes, I noticed as well that two of the articles are the same, and one of them, the most important of all I think, is one that we read a few weeks back in "Game Theories." I found myself making incredible article connections in my head before even reading the others and I didn't know why until I noticed that I'd already read them. My article for abstract, however, is new.
"From Sweatshops to Stateside Coorporations" By James Lee
This article seemed to pack a lot of information in just two average length pages. Hopefully I can explain it without tangling it all up. We have all heard of sweatshops in Asia, most notably sweatshops that produce for clothing companies and shoe companies. Lawrence prepped us with "Game Theories," for what we now read in this article, and that is sweat shops meant specifically to farm gold, IE the virtual money we learned could be farmed and sold as see in "Game Theories" as well.
The article mentions, buyer seller, supply and demand type aspect, but touches very lightly on the buyer. Lee writes the buyer as being the gamer with money to burn. The sellers are the newfound coorporations which implement sweat shops as a means of farming the gold, so that they might turn around and launder to this group of gamers with money to burn.
The article discusses the conditions of the sweat shops. Work days run around 12 hours. And according to some sources from the sweat shops who do not give their real names, there are not Holidays. The managers of these places are said to work even longer days of around 14 hours. They also live there. Lee writes "...if you lose your job, you also lose your home." when writing about the managerial conditions at the "farming centers." Work conditions then, could be considered vigorous. However, the article does go on to imply that the conditions are not at all comparable to a sweat shop that produces clothing or shoes. I would agree, that there is a major difference between sitting in front of a computer playing a game all day, and performing manual labor producing clothing all day. If I were forced to chose one, I would take the former.
To me the information this article reveals to us enforces the idea that this virtual economy, is just that, a virtual economy. You have larger coorporations buying out smaller ones, monopolizing the trade so to speak. IGE can be comparable to stores like Walmart or Target. Also, the biggest profiters in this economy, true to form, are inherently dirty. The article mentions that CEOs of these cooporations will use the same excuses that CEOs of so many other coorporations use when confronted with the sweat shop question, saying that these people "...earn a fair salery in relation to the profession in that country."
5 comments:
My comments are pretty much the same here; this is horrible.
I do like your comparison to companies like Walmart. I also agree with you that this is just like any other part of the (dirty) economy, which is part of what makes it so sad.
To clarify, I don't believe that the economy itself is intrinsically dirty. I find buying and selling this virtual money to be completely legitimate. Like Lee said, it is gamers with money to burn which makes this economy work. It is those handfull of individuals who take it upon themselves to exploit the shortcomings and misfortunes of others (impoverished people who are willing to work for slave wages) which give this virtual economy the "dirty" tag.
As I said, buying and selling virtual money is perfecly legitimate. It is not my business whether someone finds it neccessary to spend real money on fake money or not. However, the behind the scenes actions which we have read about in these articles would lead one to raise an eye brow or two... or one, for those who have a unibrow.
However it is the issue of ethics that comes into play here. Even though someone could come up with this MMO scheme doesn't necessarily mean that they should exploit it, and definitely not the people involved. This is no better than the Nike sweatshop situation. There is really no stability for the employees though, which is what is most disconcerting to me, you lose your job you lose your house? What!?
I do have to say that I respect the cold hard economics behind it though, it's not exactly that easy to find a loophole like Smooth Criminal did, and to know what to do with it, I pay some respect.
I agree with that idea, too. The fact that it's not only wages tied into being a farmer employee, but all aspects of life and living. One minute, you have a job, a home, food, etc., the next minute, you are on the street, clothes on your back. Not only that, but with regulation and governance, we run into the same problem that led to worker's rights in Europe and America 150 years ago. More dangerous conditions can be forced on people. Kids working. Extension of hours or duties without compensation or with decreased wages. Pay them less and work them longer? Who cares. They'll do it. If they don't, they'll be out on the street by noon and I'll already have someone in their chair replacing them. Dangerous stuff. But, like I said in another post...it's not just video games holding the monopoly on sweatshops. Just cuz Nike hit the news, doesn't mean we good policing Americans went through and cleaned the whole world up.
without regulation and governance....ahh whatever
Post a Comment