The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.

[Electronics and Labor] - Everyone needs to listen to this story by This American Life

135

Posts

  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    Melkster wrote:
    Pi-r8 wrote:
    Melkster wrote:
    The Ender wrote:
    There simply isn't a market for products that will be two to four times the cost of the prices we're currently accustomed to. I mean, you say you'd be interested in a high cost iPhone equivalent that is produced sustainably - but could you even afford something like that? If you can, how many other people do you think can?

    The real question is: How much more does it really cost to make electronics ethically? You cite this two to four times more figure, but I don't know if that's really true. Why that figure and not only 30% more?

    We already know that people will buy food produced ethically, even though it costs way more. People add ethical issues into their mental calculus when buying things. Doesn't seem like a stretch to think that they'd buy ethically-made electronics too. If it's a choice between iPhone A that costs $700, but was made in a sweatshop out of conflict minerals and without any regard for the environment and iPhone B that costs $900 but was made by happy workers who are paid well, etc., I bet some people would buy iPhone B and feel good about their purchase.
    I don't think it would be possible, at any price. The environmental laws in any first-world nation would make it totally impossible to mine the necessary rare-earth metals, and dispose of the waste.

    Well we need to figure out a way to do it.

    It's not okay to say "well mining is not good for the environment here in the United States, so we're just going to get all our minerals from someplace where we don't care about the environment or the people. Like Africa!"

    So what are those people going to do if we suddenly stop buying resources from them? It's not like they have a lot of other options.

  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    We merely observed that they have nets on their buildings to prevent suicide and that working conditions are terrible. We also offered good reasons to not trust the figures about their suicide, which you left out of your quote.

    Also, could someone please give me a link or something that verifies the whole suicide net thing? It sounds absurd at face value (not that companies don't do absurd things, but). Extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence and all that.

    With Love and Courage
  • mrflippymrflippy Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote:
    No, we know that some people, mostly those in a somewhat privileged position, will buy any product you slap an organic label on. People hovering in the lower income brackets do not buy luxury groceries.

    I also find it troubling that a more-ethical choice of product is a "luxury" item.

  • adytumadytum The Inevitable Rise And FallRegistered User regular
    Pi-r8 wrote:
    adytum wrote:
    Pi-r8 wrote:
    adytum wrote:
    Up until recently the US had rare-earth mining operations. The US actually has enormous reserves of those minerals. It's just that US mining industry can't compete with Chinese firms on price.

    ...Or because mining them is crazy destructive to the environment, and despite the Republicans best efforts we still have a functioning EPA.

    Except it is possible to mine them and meet with current regulations, just not at a cost that's competitive with Chinese firms. I'm not sure why you think otherwise, but it's just not the case.

    The main problem is that, for the most part, they're not concentrated in veins, like other metals. You pretty much have to strip mine a huge amount of soil, and then leach out the rare earth metals.

    Maybe if there was some major investment by a mining consortium, they could figure out a way to do it without horribly damaging the environment. But with the technology that's available today, that doesn't seem possible.
    For now we're going to have one and only one mine, which had to close for 10 years because of its environmental damage.

    My point is, you're not going to see some sort of "local, sustainable, mom and pop smart phone" made any time soon, and it's not just a matter of cheap labor.

    I'm glad you've come around and realized it's not impossible at any price, just extremely expensive!

  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    mrflippy wrote:
    The Ender wrote:
    No, we know that some people, mostly those in a somewhat privileged position, will buy any product you slap an organic label on. People hovering in the lower income brackets do not buy luxury groceries.

    I also find it troubling that a more-ethical choice of product is a "luxury" item.

    Organic groceries are not 'more ethical'. Often they're indistinguishable from other groceries, aside from the price.

    Even when the products are farmed organically, do you have any idea how terrible that farming practice would be in comparison to standard farming practices if it was implemented on a large scale?

    The Ender on
    With Love and Courage
  • MelksterMelkster Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote:
    We merely observed that they have nets on their buildings to prevent suicide and that working conditions are terrible. We also offered good reasons to not trust the figures about their suicide, which you left out of your quote.

    Also, could someone please give me a link or something that verifies the whole suicide net thing? It sounds absurd at face value (not that companies don't do absurd things, but). Extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence and all that.

    It literally took me one Google search. =/

    http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2010/08/03/foxconn-installs-antijumping-nets-at-hebei-plants/

    And wait, this means you never listened to the podcast, which is what this entire thread is about? That might be a good choice. There's even a 15 minute fact-checking segment at the end of the story!

  • mrflippymrflippy Registered User regular
    Syrdon wrote:
    So we have defeatism, admitting to assuming the only presented evidence is lies and a general disrespect for investigative journalism to go with. All in one post. From which comes "Foxconn is a terrible, terrible company" about a company that may actually be better than all of its competition. We're supposed to believe this is a reasonable conversation?

    So Foxconn is a good company to work for? Would you enjoy working there?

    Just because a company is better than its competition doesn't make it a good company.

    Is it really that unreasonable to think that a Chinese megafactory is probably not a bastion of human and labor rights?

  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    mrflippy wrote:
    So Foxconn is a good company to work for? Would you enjoy working there?
    I guess it would depend on my other job options? Like, if the choice was working there or being sold into sexual slavery, the sweat shop is probably a better choice.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    mrflippy wrote:
    Syrdon wrote:
    So we have defeatism, admitting to assuming the only presented evidence is lies and a general disrespect for investigative journalism to go with. All in one post. From which comes "Foxconn is a terrible, terrible company" about a company that may actually be better than all of its competition. We're supposed to believe this is a reasonable conversation?

    So Foxconn is a good company to work for? Would you enjoy working there?

    Just because a company is better than its competition doesn't make it a good company.

    Is it really that unreasonable to think that a Chinese megafactory is probably not a bastion of human and labor rights?


    I for one would happily buy the products of a company that fed it's slaves three times a day if the industry standard was two.

    V1m on
  • SyrdonSyrdon Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    mrflippy wrote:
    Syrdon wrote:
    So we have defeatism, admitting to assuming the only presented evidence is lies and a general disrespect for investigative journalism to go with. All in one post. From which comes "Foxconn is a terrible, terrible company" about a company that may actually be better than all of its competition. We're supposed to believe this is a reasonable conversation?

    So Foxconn is a good company to work for? Would you enjoy working there?

    Just because a company is better than its competition doesn't make it a good company.

    Is it really that unreasonable to think that a Chinese megafactory is probably not a bastion of human and labor rights?
    No, but I also don't want to work customer service for any of the cable or satellite companies (a lot of which is in the US). Which is to say, my situation is so far removed from that of Foxconn's workers that the comparison is absurd. I'm quite glad that Foxconn exists. Working there gives people access to money (well, or something else they want. but likely money) that they would not have had otherwise. No, its not an acceptable end goal. But its a fantastic step up from subsistence farming. Its even a decent step up from their competition.

    You don't bring an entire planet up to first world living standards in one step. You don't even do that for one country. You do it by giving a huge portion of the population incrementally less shitty jobs because that is the absolute most that you can afford to do. Foxconn is helping to do exactly that.

    edit: to repost this from the bottom of the previous page:
    May 2010
    the Taiwanese electronics company Foxconn – which works with Apple, Dell and Sony – has also pledged to raise salaries by 20% and offered counselling to its 420,000 employees here
    20% is a hell of a raise. Also, Foxconn actually seems to be trying to make things better for their workers. As of about 19 months ago.

    Syrdon on
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    So Foxconn is a good company to work for? Would you enjoy working there?

    Just because a company is better than its competition doesn't make it a good company.

    Is it really that unreasonable to think that a Chinese megafactory is probably not a bastion of human and labor rights?

    As far as western standards are concerned, no, Foxconn is not a good company. As far as developing country standards are concerned, yes, Foxconn is a good company.

    That's why improving the standards in China are much more important than simply nitpicking Foxconn - but again, the kind of social uplift needed for changing the standards takes a lot of time (even on a relatively short timescale, look at what Ford Motor Company was like to work for when they first started pumping-out Model T cars vs what it's like to work for them today).

    EDIT: Syrdon put it better than I did.

    The Ender on
    With Love and Courage
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Syrdon wrote:
    edit: to repost this from the bottom of the previous page:
    the Taiwanese electronics company Foxconn – which works with Apple, Dell and Sony – has also pledged to raise salaries by 20% and offered counselling to its 420,000 employees here
    20% is a hell of a raise.

    20% of what?

  • SyrdonSyrdon Registered User regular
    Quid wrote:
    Syrdon wrote:
    edit: to repost this from the bottom of the previous page:
    the Taiwanese electronics company Foxconn – which works with Apple, Dell and Sony – has also pledged to raise salaries by 20% and offered counselling to its 420,000 employees here
    20% is a hell of a raise.
    20% of what?
    20% more than what was enough to fully staff their factory. Think that through for a moment. A company gave up a huge portion of its revenue when it was already fully staffed simply to make its employees happier. I'd be astounded if that happened in the US manufacturing industry. Hell, I'd be astounded if that happened anywhere.

    Raising wages for all employees by 20% is a huge expense and they were not being required by law to take it (Apple may have been requiring them at the time, not sure there), but they did it anyway. Why are we making them the bad guy and not their competition?

  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    Quid wrote:
    Syrdon wrote:
    edit: to repost this from the bottom of the previous page:
    the Taiwanese electronics company Foxconn – which works with Apple, Dell and Sony – has also pledged to raise salaries by 20% and offered counselling to its 420,000 employees here
    20% is a hell of a raise.

    20% of what?

    Off the top of my head, I think Foxconn's workers were making something like the equivalent of 5~ USD per day. So whatever 20% of that is.


    So I don't agree that it's 'quite a raise' (it's pitiful), but this notion that we can magically fix wages & working conditions in the developing world by boycotting Foxconn is not only ludicrous, it's counter-productive.

    With Love and Courage
  • MelksterMelkster Registered User regular
    So yeah, this debate is pretty much what I figured.

    We live in a globalized society, and some industries exploit the poor. But that exploitation might actually be better than the horrible places they come from, and it's actually temporary exploitation that will go away, eventually.

    Also, it's impossible to buy some types of products that were made ethically, too, so there's not much choice for me as a consumer. And even still, it actually might be a better moral choice to buy from a sweatshop, for the aforementioned reason that it's better than the alternative for them.

    It still sucks, though. And I do get that we live in a shitty time, in some respects. Some people have great lives and other people terrible lives and we just have to deal with that. I guess it's important, at the very least, to at least be aware of the things going on in the world. It's important to know that your iPhone was made by workers making shit for money for 12+ hours a day, and it's important to try to slowly work towards a world where no one has to go through that.

  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    It still sucks, though. And I do get that we live in a shitty time, in some respects.

    We live, globally, in one of the most prosperous and violence-free epochs that the world has ever known. It's not a 'shitty time'.

    I certainly would not trade-in my 1980s+ existence for an existence in the Cold War, the second world war, the first world war, etc.

    The Ender on
    With Love and Courage
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Syrdon wrote:
    20% more than what was enough to fully staff their factory. Think that through for a moment. A company gave up a huge portion of its revenue when it was already fully staffed simply to make its employees happier.
    How do you know it's a huge amount of their revenue? As was pointed out, 20% of about five dollars is not a huge amount.
    Raising wages for all employees by 20% is a huge expense and they were not being required by law to take it (Apple may have been requiring them at the time, not sure there), but they did it anyway. Why are we making them the bad guy and not their competition?

    Because 20% of shit is still shit and not hard to do at all. Why are you lauding them for responding to horribly negative PR?

  • MelksterMelkster Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote:
    So yeah, this debate is pretty much what I figured.

    We live in a globalized society, and some industries exploit the poor. But that exploitation might actually be better than the horrible places they come from, and it's actually temporary exploitation that will go away, eventually.

    Also, it's impossible to buy some types of products that were made ethically, too, so there's not much choice for me as a consumer. And even still, it actually might be a better moral choice to buy from a sweatshop, for the aforementioned reason that it's better than the alternative for them.

    It still sucks, though. And I do get that we live in a shitty time, in some respects. Some people have great lives and other people terrible lives and we just have to deal with that. I guess it's important, at the very least, to at least be aware of the things going on in the world. It's important to know that your iPhone was made by workers making shit for money for 12+ hours a day, and it's important to try to slowly work towards a world where no one has to go through that.

    We live, globally, in one of the most prosperous and violence-free epochs that the world has ever known. It's not a 'shitty time'.

    I certainly would not trade-in my 1980s+ existence for an existence in the Cold War, the second world war, the first world war, etc.

    I added in my full quote because it's sort of important to the context.

    I agree that we're living in a much better time than the past. When I said that we live in a shitty time, in some respects, I was thinking forward, to a future where people working in sweatshops wasn't ever preferable to alternatives. If that really is the future, then we'll look back on today's global economy and think it's pretty terrible.

    I totally get glowing optimism about the present and I'm right there with you. It doesn't mean we can turn a blind eye to the terrible things going on in our time -- not that you're doing that, of course!

  • SyrdonSyrdon Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    Assuming the $5/day is accurate, then a 20% raise costs (470,000 * 270 * 1) 126,900,000 annually for that plant. That's not a small amount [1] and I may have undercounted on days worked. Looking at it though, I suspect that the starting number (~$5/day) is high.

    Its probably more helpful (or at least more accurate) to adjust wage for cost of living in a particular area, however I can't find useful data for that. If anyone happens to come across that, I'd love to see it.

    1: I believe Foxconn reported about 1 billion in net income in 2010. That 127 million is 12.7% of that. I'm fairly certain that more than a few corporations in the US would be willing to let more than a people die for that sort of a showing on their annual reports.

    edit:
    Quid wrote:
    Syrdon wrote:
    Raising wages for all employees by 20% is a huge expense and they were not being required by law to take it (Apple may have been requiring them at the time, not sure there), but they did it anyway. Why are we making them the bad guy and not their competition?
    Why are you lauding them for responding to horribly negative PR?
    They responded in 2010. This American Life caught on to the story something like 17 months after it happened. In comparison, the other employers in the area don't seem to be doing anything while maintaining conditions that are either the same or worse and you don't seem to care about them. Certainly, you're directing your efforts towards going after the guys who are trying to fix issues (regardless of cause) instead of the guys who aren't making any changes at all.

    I'm a little confused at what your goal actually is here. It seems like you want to punish the people making changes (or, effectively, reward the people who did nothing other than not take a contract from Apple). I don't understand how that helps more people than going after the people who aren't at least keeping up with Foxconn. Care to help me understand how your plan is the better one?

    Syrdon on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote:
    We merely observed that they have nets on their buildings to prevent suicide and that working conditions are terrible. We also offered good reasons to not trust the figures about their suicide, which you left out of your quote.

    Also, could someone please give me a link or something that verifies the whole suicide net thing? It sounds absurd at face value (not that companies don't do absurd things, but). Extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence and all that.

    There's goddamn pictures of it.

    And WTF happened to skepticism? When a company claims it isn't horrible in X way, despite ample evidence they are horrible in every other way possible, why the fuck would you believe them without further proof? How gullible are you?

  • centraldogmacentraldogma Registered User regular
    Melkster wrote:
    So yeah, this debate is pretty much what I figured.

    We live in a globalized society, and some industries exploit the poor. But that exploitation might actually be better than the horrible places they come from, and it's actually temporary exploitation that will go away, eventually.

    Also, it's impossible to buy some types of products that were made ethically, too, so there's not much choice for me as a consumer. And even still, it actually might be a better moral choice to buy from a sweatshop, for the aforementioned reason that it's better than the alternative for them.

    It still sucks, though. And I do get that we live in a shitty time, in some respects. Some people have great lives and other people terrible lives and we just have to deal with that. I guess it's important, at the very least, to at least be aware of the things going on in the world. It's important to know that your iPhone was made by workers making shit for money for 12+ hours a day, and it's important to try to slowly work towards a world where no one has to go through that.

    It’s dangerous to assume that this is just a temporary situation. It’s easy to compare the situation in China and the 3rd world to the Industrial era of the United States and Europe and assume everything will happen the same way, but that’s not guaranteed. The world economy is very different from then and you have to look at things like culture, government, and geography.

    When people unite together, they become stronger than the sum of their parts.
    Don't assume bad intentions over neglect and misunderstanding.
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Syrdon wrote:
    Assuming the $5/day is accurate, then a 20% raise costs (470,000 * 270 * 1) 126,900,000 annually for that plant. That's not a small amount [1] and I may have undercounted on days worked. Looking at it though, I suspect that the starting number (~$5/day) is high.

    Its probably more helpful (or at least more accurate) to adjust wage for cost of living in a particular area, however I can't find useful data for that. If anyone happens to come across that, I'd love to see it.

    1: I believe Foxconn reported about 1 billion in net income in 2010. That 127 million is 12.7% of that. I'm fairly certain that more than a few corporations in the US would be willing to let more than a people die for that sort of a showing on their annual reports.

    They would until a horribly negative report comes out and hurts their profits more than suicidal workers do. Like with Foxconn.

  • SyrdonSyrdon Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    Quid wrote:
    Syrdon wrote:
    ...I believe Foxconn reported about 1 billion in net income in 2010. That 127 million is 12.7% of that. I'm fairly certain that more than a few corporations in the US would be willing to let more than a people die for that sort of a showing on their annual reports.
    They would until a horribly negative report comes out and hurts their profits more than suicidal workers do. Like with Foxconn.
    Please show me the horribly negative report that came out in 2010 that everyone was so upset about. The one from before May 29th (where they are quoted as making changes).

    edit: removed extraneous material

    Syrdon on
  • SaammielSaammiel Registered User regular
    It’s dangerous to assume that this is just a temporary situation. It’s easy to compare the situation in China and the 3rd world to the Industrial era of the United States and Europe and assume everything will happen the same way, but that’s not guaranteed. The world economy is very different from then and you have to look at things like culture, government, and geography.

    The closest examples culturally and geographically are South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. So really that makes the view of export led development as a path to prosperity more solid, not less. All of those countries had a large number of sweatshops in the past and now they have standards of living that are comparable to the United States.

  • MelksterMelkster Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    Saammiel wrote:
    It’s dangerous to assume that this is just a temporary situation. It’s easy to compare the situation in China and the 3rd world to the Industrial era of the United States and Europe and assume everything will happen the same way, but that’s not guaranteed. The world economy is very different from then and you have to look at things like culture, government, and geography.

    The closest examples culturally and geographically are South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. So really that makes the view of export led development as a path to prosperity more solid, not less. All of those countries had a large number of sweatshops in the past and now they have standards of living that are comparable to the United States.

    Didn't some of the car plants in South Korea have a problem with self-immolation on the line?

    Edit: As a suicide/protest, that is.

    Melkster on
  • SyrdonSyrdon Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    Melkster wrote:
    Saammiel wrote:
    It’s dangerous to assume that this is just a temporary situation. It’s easy to compare the situation in China and the 3rd world to the Industrial era of the United States and Europe and assume everything will happen the same way, but that’s not guaranteed. The world economy is very different from then and you have to look at things like culture, government, and geography.

    The closest examples culturally and geographically are South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. So really that makes the view of export led development as a path to prosperity more solid, not less. All of those countries had a large number of sweatshops in the past and now they have standards of living that are comparable to the United States.

    Didn't some of the car plants in South Korea have a problem with self-immolation on the line?

    Edit: As a suicide/protest, that is.
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/09/us-hyundai-labour-idUSTRE80804C20120109?feedType=RSS&feedName=businessNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+reuters/businessNews+(News+/+US+/+Business+News)
    The worker and union member with the surname Shin was found in flames at a Hyundai engine plant in the southeastern city of Ulsan at around noon on Sunday, and is currently in critical condition at a hospital in nearby Busan, Hyundai's union said in a statement.

    The union said in a separate statement that a factory manager had tried to "unfairly control" Shin after he reported problems with engine quality to management, citing files found on his computer.
    If doesn't appear that the single immolation was related to the standard of living.

    edit: on the subject of suicide rates: Did you know that it seems that some states are within 2-3% of China's suicide rate? One of those states beating China's rate? And we're complaining about the people making things better in D & D...

    Syrdon on
  • SaammielSaammiel Registered User regular
    Might have been conflating that case with Joen Tae-il. At any rate, conditions were god awful in the Tigers during their initial efforts at an export-led economy.

  • KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    Syrdon wrote:
    I'm a little confused at what your goal actually is here. It seems like you want to punish the people making changes (or, effectively, reward the people who did nothing other than not take a contract from Apple). I don't understand how that helps more people than going after the people who aren't at least keeping up with Foxconn. Care to help me understand how your plan is the better one?

    This is my question as well.

  • syndalissyndalis Getting Classy On the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products, Transition Team regular
    shryke wrote:
    The Ender wrote:
    We merely observed that they have nets on their buildings to prevent suicide and that working conditions are terrible. We also offered good reasons to not trust the figures about their suicide, which you left out of your quote.

    Also, could someone please give me a link or something that verifies the whole suicide net thing? It sounds absurd at face value (not that companies don't do absurd things, but). Extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence and all that.

    There's goddamn pictures of it.

    And WTF happened to skepticism? When a company claims it isn't horrible in X way, despite ample evidence they are horrible in every other way possible, why the fuck would you believe them without further proof? How gullible are you?

    Well, Foxconn's numbers for the number of people who have committed suicide isn't being questioned. At all. Everyone from the WHO to the Institute for Analytic Journalism accepts the numbers. The media is freaking out about the ten suicides in a year at one plant without comparing the number of people who work at the plant against the number of people who committed suicide, then compare it to the national average.

    What's scary? The suicide rate in America is higher than the rate at Foxconn.

    So why did they build the nets? Appeasement more than anything else, If I had to guess.

    SW-4158-3990-6116
    Let's play Mario Kart or something...
  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    Hypothetically: If my workers were jumping off the roof, I'd put up nets too.

  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    KalTorak wrote:
    Syrdon wrote:
    I'm a little confused at what your goal actually is here. It seems like you want to punish the people making changes (or, effectively, reward the people who did nothing other than not take a contract from Apple). I don't understand how that helps more people than going after the people who aren't at least keeping up with Foxconn. Care to help me understand how your plan is the better one?

    This is my question as well.

    I suppose the question is like if you want to give your money to the sugar plantation that improves its sector by only beating its slaves half to death to reward that change or just buy maple sugar, which is made without slaves.
    enc0re wrote:
    Hypothetically: If my workers were jumping off the roof, I'd put up nets too.

    Because it prevents suicides or because it moves the suicides to areas where they wouldn't go on your record?

  • KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    Bagginses wrote:
    KalTorak wrote:
    Syrdon wrote:
    I'm a little confused at what your goal actually is here. It seems like you want to punish the people making changes (or, effectively, reward the people who did nothing other than not take a contract from Apple). I don't understand how that helps more people than going after the people who aren't at least keeping up with Foxconn. Care to help me understand how your plan is the better one?

    This is my question as well.

    I suppose the question is like if you want to give your money to the sugar plantation that improves its sector by only beating its slaves half to death to reward that change or just buy maple sugar, which is made without slaves.

    The answer is obvious, but who's producing the equivalent of maple syrup in this analogy?

  • syndalissyndalis Getting Classy On the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products, Transition Team regular
    KalTorak wrote:
    Bagginses wrote:
    KalTorak wrote:
    Syrdon wrote:
    I'm a little confused at what your goal actually is here. It seems like you want to punish the people making changes (or, effectively, reward the people who did nothing other than not take a contract from Apple). I don't understand how that helps more people than going after the people who aren't at least keeping up with Foxconn. Care to help me understand how your plan is the better one?

    This is my question as well.

    I suppose the question is like if you want to give your money to the sugar plantation that improves its sector by only beating its slaves half to death to reward that change or just buy maple sugar, which is made without slaves.

    The answer is obvious, but who's producing the equivalent of maple syrup in this analogy?
    This does come to the crux of the matter.

    Find a company that is paying as much attention as Apple and HP are to the quality of life of their workforce, and the non-expoitativeness of their supply chain, who are providing services and technology on the scale that they are.

    If you find one, I will be very impressed.

    Also, Foxconn is NOT the bad guy here; they are the "less than good" guy.

    The bad guys are born of Chinese lax laws on Intellectual property and copyright coupled with their horrific human rights laws that allows shady businesses to make knockoff goods under the worst possible conditions... conditions that make Foxconn look like a luxury resort, and then sell them online or on the streets of major cities around the world. And because a major brand isn't directly involved in the operation, there is nobody to shame in the western world, so they get away with murder, literally.

    Foxconn and companies like it are a sign of a country that is slowly evolving towards a real working class.

    SW-4158-3990-6116
    Let's play Mario Kart or something...
  • SyrdonSyrdon Registered User regular
    Bagginses wrote:
    enc0re wrote:
    Hypothetically: If my workers were jumping off the roof, I'd put up nets too.
    Because it prevents suicides or because it moves the suicides to areas where they wouldn't go on your record?
    Because it prevents the trauma of walking past someone who decided to jump off a building from affecting everyone else that works at your plant? They put up the nets to prevent one suicide causing a cluster of suicides. It appears that since they put them up (17 fucking months ago) that their suicides are not coming in clusters, and that the rate has reduced. I'd be a lot more impressed with this thread if people had read the first few news articles that come up when you search for foxconn nets, because a lot of what is getting hashed out in this thread was covered in them.

    Also, since its gone a bit without getting an answer (if you're saying Foxconn isn't doing enough, or is only doing this due to negative press, you're someone I'm asking in this):
    I'm a little confused at what your goal actually is here. It seems like you want to punish the people making changes (or, effectively, reward the people who did nothing other than not take a contract from Apple). I don't understand how that helps more people than going after the people who aren't at least keeping up with Foxconn. Care to help me understand how your plan is the better one?

  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Syrdon wrote:
    Quid wrote:
    Syrdon wrote:
    ...I believe Foxconn reported about 1 billion in net income in 2010. That 127 million is 12.7% of that. I'm fairly certain that more than a few corporations in the US would be willing to let more than a people die for that sort of a showing on their annual reports.
    They would until a horribly negative report comes out and hurts their profits more than suicidal workers do. Like with Foxconn.
    Please show me the horribly negative report that came out in 2010 that everyone was so upset about. The one from before May 29th (where they are quoted as making changes).

    edit: removed extraneous material

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/10/01/us-foxconn-idUSTRE6902GD20101001
    Eleven suicides this year at the sprawling manufacturing base has brought intense scrutiny of Taiwan's Hon Hai Precision Industry Co Ltd, the owner of Foxconn...

    So again, after they were getting bad press they improved things.

    This was not out of the goodness of their hearts.

  • TofystedethTofystedeth Registered User regular
    syndalis wrote:
    KalTorak wrote:
    Bagginses wrote:
    KalTorak wrote:
    Syrdon wrote:
    I'm a little confused at what your goal actually is here. It seems like you want to punish the people making changes (or, effectively, reward the people who did nothing other than not take a contract from Apple). I don't understand how that helps more people than going after the people who aren't at least keeping up with Foxconn. Care to help me understand how your plan is the better one?

    This is my question as well.

    I suppose the question is like if you want to give your money to the sugar plantation that improves its sector by only beating its slaves half to death to reward that change or just buy maple sugar, which is made without slaves.

    The answer is obvious, but who's producing the equivalent of maple syrup in this analogy?
    This does come to the crux of the matter.

    Find a company that is paying as much attention as Apple and HP are to the quality of life of their workforce, and the non-expoitativeness of their supply chain, who are providing services and technology on the scale that they are.

    If you find one, I will be very impressed.

    Also, Foxconn is NOT the bad guy here; they are the "less than good" guy.

    The bad guys are born of Chinese lax laws on Intellectual property and copyright coupled with their horrific human rights laws that allows shady businesses to make knockoff goods under the worst possible conditions... conditions that make Foxconn look like a luxury resort, and then sell them online or on the streets of major cities around the world. And because a major brand isn't directly involved in the operation, there is nobody to shame in the western world, so they get away with murder, literally.

    Foxconn and companies like it are a sign of a country that is slowly evolving towards a real working class.
    Forget fake electronics and knockoff clothes, this is a country that has problems with people making fake eggs.

    steam_sig.png
  • mrt144mrt144 King of the Numbernames Registered User regular
    Pi-r8 wrote:
    Melkster wrote:
    Pi-r8 wrote:
    Melkster wrote:
    The Ender wrote:
    There simply isn't a market for products that will be two to four times the cost of the prices we're currently accustomed to. I mean, you say you'd be interested in a high cost iPhone equivalent that is produced sustainably - but could you even afford something like that? If you can, how many other people do you think can?

    The real question is: How much more does it really cost to make electronics ethically? You cite this two to four times more figure, but I don't know if that's really true. Why that figure and not only 30% more?

    We already know that people will buy food produced ethically, even though it costs way more. People add ethical issues into their mental calculus when buying things. Doesn't seem like a stretch to think that they'd buy ethically-made electronics too. If it's a choice between iPhone A that costs $700, but was made in a sweatshop out of conflict minerals and without any regard for the environment and iPhone B that costs $900 but was made by happy workers who are paid well, etc., I bet some people would buy iPhone B and feel good about their purchase.
    I don't think it would be possible, at any price. The environmental laws in any first-world nation would make it totally impossible to mine the necessary rare-earth metals, and dispose of the waste.

    Well we need to figure out a way to do it.

    It's not okay to say "well mining is not good for the environment here in the United States, so we're just going to get all our minerals from someplace where we don't care about the environment or the people. Like Africa!"

    So what are those people going to do if we suddenly stop buying resources from them? It's not like they have a lot of other options.

    this is like the most paternalistic capitalistic yet anti market thing ive read. People find shit to do absent external forces that incentivize absurdly detestable choices, you just gotta subordinate your paternalism for a minute.

  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    I'm not being paternalistic. Just realistic. There aren't a lot of good jobs for poor, uneducated Chinese people. It's not like they can just go to a farm and easily get a job there.

  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited January 2012
    mrt144 wrote:
    Pi-r8 wrote:
    So what are those people going to do if we suddenly stop buying resources from them? It's not like they have a lot of other options.

    this is like the most paternalistic capitalistic yet anti market thing ive read. People find shit to do absent external forces that incentivize absurdly detestable choices, you just gotta subordinate your paternalism for a minute.

    Which people? What 'shit to do?' Which external forces? What detestable choices?

    Yes, in the absence of an export market, people still find shit to do. That shit to do might include theft, begging, prostitution, or hardscrabble subsistence farming.

    The problem isn't that the "detestable choices" aren't necessarily caused by external forces. Sometimes they are. Sometimes they're not. The situation is different for different populations, which is why clumsy fair trade policies that don't take the local context into account can have really bad results.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • GenlyAiGenlyAi Registered User regular
    According to some sources I can't verify, it took 5.5 million man-hours to manufacture 146 million iPhones. If that is true (and I'm honestly not sure it passes the smell test, but Google is not my strong suit), and if all those hours were at such a sweatshop, one could pay sweatshop employees 20X as much (roughly the US minimum wage) and it would only add 25 cents to the cost of an iPhone.

    We should be willing to pay that. Hell, most of us would probably be willing to pay 25 dollars more for every iPhone, Dell, and xBox if it meant we weren't complicit in slavery. Unfortunately, only a media firestorm can communicate that to Apple and its peers, and it this type of story is far more likely to peter out.

Sign In or Register to comment.