
The Apple Boycott: People Are Spouting Nonsense about Chinese Manufacturing - falling
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/01/29/the-apple-boycott-people-are-spouting-nonsense-about-chinese-manufacturing/
======
Steko
The wikipedia article on sweatshops does a good job of covering both sides of
this.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweatshop>

The pro-sweatshop argument is encapsulized in this example:

In an article about a Nike sweatshop in Vietnam, Johan Norberg wrote, "But
when I talk to a young Vietnamese woman, Tsi-Chi, at the factory, it is not
the wages she is most happy about. Sure, she makes five times more than she
did, she earns more than her husband, and she can now afford to build an
extension to her house. But the most important thing, she says, is that she
doesn't have to work outdoors on a farm any more... Farming means 10 to 14
hours a day in the burning sun or the intensive rain... The most persistent
demand Nike hears from the workers is for an expansion of the factories so
that their relatives can be offered a job as well."

The contra argument seems dominated by appeals to emotion ala Mike Daisey:

"_____ can't even afford to buy the ipad he makes",

"_____ only makes X dollars an hour/day/week/month/year."

"X workers were injured/killed in this accident"

"workers often have to work overtime"

"workers have to stand"

I think Mike Daisey should spend some time in rural China with the relatives
of Foxconn employees who do backbreaking farm work. But who would go to see
that show without "Steve Jobs" in the title?

~~~
MartinCron
That's creating a false dichotomy, though. Just because a sweatshop may be
better than backbreaking farm work, doesn't mean we can't care about what is
happening in sweatshops.

Also, it's "Daisey".

~~~
fennecfoxen
Ultimately the main problem with sweatshops is something to the effect that
"the best kind of job these people can get is at a sweatshop". The real
solution probably isn't shutting down sweatshops, but getting these people
better opportunities. (Then the sweatshop problem goes away, since people can
simply walk away to better jobs.)

Local effort will need to be involved. Some efforts to help organize workers
into unions may exist, and will be of some benefit, but without good
alternatives to sweatshop employment the picture is incomplete. Places with
top-down command economies may also be ill-positioned to create additional
opportunity...

~~~
henrikschroder
It is important to understand that sweatshops exist because they offer BETTER
working conditions than those locally available.

They look atrocious to us in the rich western world, because they are far
worse than our worst jobs, and with that context mismatch, we react strongly.

It's important to remember that we had sweatshops too. Working conditions
during the industrial revolution were horrible compared to conditions now, but
that period was a necessary step on the path from the agricultural society to
todays society.

The way forward is to incrementally make sweatshops better, until the local
conditions approve so much that they're the worst alternative, and then they
will disappear. But that change can't happen overnight, and it won't happen if
you ban sweatshops. It tooks us hundreds of years in the west, it's going to
take decades in the third world.

~~~
clavalle
Ok. We had horrible conditions during the industrial revolution.

Why does that mean that everyone going through similar economic transformation
has to go through the same living and working conditions?

China knows what is possible. I don't think it will take decades for a society
that can build a fully functioning, very modern, highly automated factory in 6
weeks /decades/ to get their working conditions in order.

~~~
henrikschroder
There's also the sad fact that there are other countries than China. If China
would improve worker conditions in a short timeframe, the cost of employing
chinese workers would increase a lot, and that in turn would cause a lot of
foregin companies to go elsewhere for their cheap labour.

The whole _reason_ for globalization is that we in the western world improved
our own working conditions so much that the cost of labour in our own
countries increased to such levels that it became profitable for corporations
to outsource. But we're still competitive because we moved up the value chain.

So you need to move everyone up the value chain, and that means you need a way
to still perform that labour that needs to be performed, and to do that you
need to automate more, add more industrial robots, but there's a limit to what
robots can do, and there's a limit to how many robots you can produce in a
year.

But we'll get there. Cheap labour will be eliminated, the living standard and
working conditions of the entire world will rise, and I think it's better to
cheer the fact that it's happening _at all_ , and _faster_ than it did in the
western world, than to lament the fact that it's not going as fast as you
would _like_.

------
diogenescynic
>"If not to buy Apple, what’s the substitute – Samsung? Don’t you know that
Samsung’s products are from its OEM factory in Tianjin? Samsung workers’
income and benefits are even worse than those at Foxconn. If not to buy iPad –
(do you think) I will buy Android Pad? Have you ever been to the OEM factories
for Lenovo and ASUS? Quanta, Compaq … factories of other companies are all
worse than those for Apple. Not to buy iPod – (do you think) I will buy Aigo,
Meizu? Do you know that Aigo’s Shenzhen factory will not pay their workers
until the 19th of the second month? If you were to quit, fine, I’m sorry, your
salary will be withdrawn. Foxconn never dares to do such things. First, their
profit margin is higher than peers as they manufacture for Apple. Second, at
least those foreign devils will regularly audit factories. Domestic brands
will never care if workers live or die. I am not speaking for Foxconn. I am
just speaking as an insider of this industry, and telling you some disturbing
truth."

This doesn't excuse Apple or any of the other companies working with Foxconn,
but it suggests that there are many sides of this issue, and many voices yet
to be heard on it: [http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2012/01/many-
chine...](http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2012/01/many-chinese-
workers-want-those-jobs-foxconn/48101/)

------
Terretta
Isn't it an Xbox Boycott? A Dell Boycott? An HP Boycott?

It's annoying when journalists (NY Times in this case) hang their story on the
Foxconn client doing the most to keep track of working conditions, just
because Apple is a name that gets readers.

More to the point, as the article recounts, it's not clear Foxconn is China's
worst problem. It seems it's even safer to work there than in America.

"Read" this infographic:
<http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lym1w8YedI1qbv2gy.png>

~~~
SODaniel
I think it's even more odd that Apple somehow has become the medias corporate
prodigal son that can do nothing wrong.

People need to realize that Apple is no longer the upshot company trying to
survive under the boot heel of Microsoft, but actually a vastly profitable
company utilizing all the methods expected from a global industrial giant.

Stop treating Apple as if they are some form of 'do good' company!

~~~
jamesaguilar
This article is a reaction to a media feeding frenzy around Apple's supposed
abuses of Chinese workers. Your view that the media treats Apple with kid
gloves is out of date.

------
adriand
The problem that Apple is experiencing is the exposure of the tension between
its marketing and its image, and reality.

The author of the article says, "That’s what being poor means, having to work
extremely hard to make very little. Yes, that is a harsh thing to say but then
reality can indeed be harsh."

No one would deny that reality can be harsh. At the same time, you can't deny
that Apple - and, of course, the other electronics companies - does not
truthfully convey that reality to its customers. Doing so would not be in
Apple's best interest. However, if this boycott succeeds, it would demonstrate
that having this tension between reality and image is also not in Apple's best
interest.

The article also makes the standard corporatist argument that the behaviour of
corporations is outside of their control, because they are subject to market
forces.

This tact ignores the human factor. Apple is made up of humans. It is not
humanly impossible to demand that a supplier adhere to higher standards than
are prevalent in the rest of China.

Setting that aside, let's examine the issue purely from the standpoint of the
marketplace, but rather than looking at the Chinese labour marketplace, let's
look at the American consumer goods marketplace.

Humans respond to a variety of different factors when making purchasing
decisions. It is not just about price and quality, but can also be about
morality and emotion. In this instance, Apple's customers may be persuaded to
boycott Apple because of these subjective factors.

That may seem unfair to some, but isn't that just a risk of globalization?
After all, a global company must deal with market forces everywhere it
operates: both market forces affecting who makes its products, and market
forces affecting who purchases them.

Apple will be forced to balance these market forces, and when it does so, it
may result in lower profit margins but better working conditions at its
suppliers' factories.

~~~
bane
"The problem that Apple is experiencing is the exposure of the tension between
its marketing and its image, and reality."

It's funny how relevant the Eloi and the Morlocks still are today, more than
100 years after being put down in ink.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eloi>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morlock>

------
dev_jim
I am sick and tired of hearing how the suicides are no big deal because they
are less than the national average.

1) You don't know the non-jumping suicide rate. There could be plenty of
workers who take their lives privately in their dormitories.

2) Jumping off a roof of your workplace is a VERY different type of suicide
then swallowing a bunch of pills. It's making a statement about who the
employer is and what they have driven the employee to do. There would be a
national alarm if we had 18 blue-collar workers jump off the roofs of a GM
plant.

~~~
awj
> There would be a national alarm if we had 18 blue-collar workers jump off
> the roofs of a GM plant.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I did want to point out the faulty
logic at play here. It would be a _national_ alarm because this number is very
high _for our nation_. Any time you're dealing with foreign cultures it's easy
to forget about all of the things that are only true for your culture.

Eighteen suicides sounds awfully high, but if it's lower than the average it's
actually progress. I'm sure we'd all be much happier if the number was zero,
but I'll take progress toward an ideal over ineffectually trying to force it
to happen immediately.

 _note: I have no idea what the average suicide rate is in China, "as a public
statement" or otherwise. The article quotes 22/100,000/year and extrapolates
from that to say that Foxconn is "doing well." My point is that judging
foreign cultures by your own standards is a dicey game, and sometimes you just
have to be content with improvement instead of trying to mandate equality._

~~~
dev_jim
_It would be a national alarm because this number is very high for our nation_

Eighteen was just using the number in the article. A national alarm would be
sounded if 3 workers jumped to their death at a GM plant last year. GM
executives would be tripping over themselves to show remorse, there would be a
60 Minutes specials on the reason GM drove the employees to their deaths,
psychologists would be called in to help workers, etc., etc., etc.

The point is that people would be alarmed, as they should be. People wouldn't
be making excuses that suicide happens, deal with it.

 _Eighteen suicides sounds awfully high, but if it's lower than the average
it's actually progress._

Again, we don't know the suicide rate of employees Foxconn. We know the number
of people who have jumped to their death. You can't extrapolate a subset of
the suicides and compare that to the national average for all suicides.

~~~
yummyfajitas
People probably would be irrationally alarmed. People are also irrationally
alarmed when one pretty blond girl vanishes, or when a moron tries to set his
underwear on fire on a plane. 60 minutes does devote undue attention to such
things, and Obama would probably say "something must be done".

People are more irrational about some topics than others. So what?

~~~
dev_jim
_People probably would be irrationally alarmed._

It's irrational to be alarmed about a company driving workers to commit
suicide? Are you seriously making that argument?

~~~
yummyfajitas
Yes, it is irrational to worry about a suicides rate of a subset of people
which is not statistically different than the suicide rate of the nation as a
whole. You'll note that I'm not applying any double standard to China - I made
the exact same argument two years ago about France Telecom:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=872813>

~~~
Natsu
You did not respond to his point that the suicide rate of people who jumped to
their deaths is unlikely to represent the entire number of suicides. I tend to
agree with him.

Given that someone is posting an infographic here that appears to tacitly
claim that the few workers who jumped represent the _entire_ list of suicides
at Foxconn, you'll forgive me if I want to examine the data sources and know
exactly how the reporting mechanisms work.

Because when I see how anomalously low it is compared to the suicide rate
pretty much everywhere else, exactly one thing springs to mind: under-
reporting.

~~~
yummyfajitas
I was merely responding to his point about 3 hypothetical suicides at GM, not
defending Foxconn against all charges. If you have better data on the suicide
rate at Foxconn, go ahead and post it.

~~~
Natsu
Fair enough, but I sincerely doubt that anyone has accurate information on the
suicide rate at Foxconn. I just can't believe in anomalously low statistics
compared to everywhere else given with no data on how the information was
collected.

------
rluhar
China is undergoing the biggest urbanization in history. More and more people
are moving from the country side to the city to find work, make more money and
improve their standard of living. As already mentioned in this thread, the
jobs available at the likes of Foxconn are better paid, and probably safer
than other alternatives available to a semi / unskilled worker.

Let me put it another way - a child of a worker employed at Foxconn now will
have better opportunities in the future (with access to better schooling, more
money) than the child of a poor farmer in the country side. I believe a
similar sort of change happened in most industrialized countries during
periods of rapid industrialization. Perhaps some of the people considering a
boycott of Apple's products have a great grandparent who moved to the city and
worked long hours for "low pay" about a hundred years ago!

------
brudgers
> _"That’s what being poor means, having to work extremely hard to make very
> little."_

"Being poor" means not having very much money.

Working extremely hard to make very little, when one does not care for the
work and has little practical alternative is being exploited.

This is or is not to say that Apple or Foxconn is exploiting the workers.

The argument attributed to Krugman is essentially the same argument that was
advanced in opposition to divestiture in apartheid South Africa in the 1980's
- that economic exploitation is better than change.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Krugman's argument does not apply to apartheid.

I'll make an analogy. If you are punching someone, I might punch you back. In
the short run, this action harms both your face and my hand, and I might
accidentally step on your victim in the process. Counterproductive, right? But
in the long run, it provides you an incentive to stop punching the victim, and
they wind up better off. Similarly, economic sanctions against South Africa
would harm everyone in South Africa (including the victims), but might cause
the ruling elite to change their behavior.

In contrast, if you are sick, punching you won't help. You are now more
motivated to get beterbut so what? There is no simple action you can take to
become better. Sanctions against China or Foxconn are closer to this situation
- there is no simple action they can take to stop being poor.

Interestingly, I've been told by a couple of black South African that life was
indeed better in many ways under apartheid. As it was described to me, "at
least under apartheid, if your sister gets gang raped, the cops will beat down
the N __* who did it." (Very rough quote, I'm remembering a conversation from
2004.)

(Side note: isn't it surprising to read old Krugman? These days it's easy to
forget that he was once an economist.)

~~~
brudgers
Yes, yes, Krugman's argument does not apply to apartheid.

It is the logical form of his argument which parallels the form of arguments
made against divestiture in the apartheid regime. The logical form of the
argument may be summed up as "the possibility of distant perverse effects
outweighs the value of more immediate virtuous effects."

A analogy would be, we have a contract which requires me to pay you in cash.
When you come to receive payment, I refuse to pay cash on the grounds that you
might become infected by a virus on one of the bills.

------
bilbo0s
Well Apple and Foxconn are swiftly constructing a vast manufacturing
installation in Brazil right now. Several actually. So now maybe everyone will
stop complaining about working conditions. But I doubt it.

Of course...maybe they will just start complaining about the D@#N Brazilians
stealing our jobs. Somehow I think complaining is just part of what people in
the developed world do.

~~~
batista
That and exploiting third world workers.

------
VonLipwig
Call me heartless... a job needs doing. Someone is doing it.

If Apple ran these factories then yes, boycott them. However they don't. They
hire Chinese companies to put their products together.

This is a China problem not an Apple problem. China can introduce work
standards, maximum working hours, minimum pay etc. Contracts can then be
renegotiated or whatever.

As things stand though the factories are supplying jobs to those who need
jobs. If the jobs weren't required the people wouldn't be doing them.

Is the situation good? No. However, this is an issue for the Chinese
Government. You introduce law's, factories follow laws, working conditions
improve.

It would be bad business for Apple to narrow its margins in such a competitive
market to provide better working conditions than the majority of other
shithole factories in China.

------
casca
The issue is not about economics, it's about morality. His economic arguments
are sound, this is indeed how capitalism works. Apple (and many others) have
made a decision to introduce a level of indirection - the Foxconn people are
legally not Apple employees, but for all practical intents and purposes, they
are.

Just like pollution, gross worker exploitation has been largely eliminated in
the first world* and has just been relocated to the third world.

The question is whether Apple and the consumers who support them should
morally continue on their path.

* "largely eliminated" does not mean that there is not significant abuse, just that as a percentage of the employed population, it's historically very small

~~~
tptacek
I don't understand the argument here. If the issue is morality, then an
effective boycott of Apple products harms Chinese workers, because nobody is
working at Foxconn instead of some better latent opportunity in the Chinese
economy.

If Apple paid workers the prevailing wage for US skilled labor, Apple would
not be paying workers in China at all, because the discount on labor is the
primary reason it outsources to China.

One looks at the spread between Apple's COGS and Apple's list prices and
wonders how it can be reasonable that Apple captures that whole spread. But
that's why we have markets: over time, wage pressure erodes Apple's margins;
Foxconn (or comparable companies) obtain better clients, or are simply forced
to increase their cost because of competition from other firms.

When Apple responds to that pressure by finding another third world country to
buy from, it's simply repeating the same process in that country: unless they
source forced labor from Myanmar or North Korea, the only way they can get
labor is by _improving_ the wages that were already available in that country.

Part of the issue here seems to be the (unreasonable) expectation that _one
company_ can fix third-world rural poverty _instantly_. Improving the lives of
millions of people in Asia is a process that will involve many, many countries
and take many decades.

~~~
dasil003
> _Part of the issue here seems to be the (unreasonable) expectation that_ one
> company _can fix third-world rural poverty_ instantly.

I think you've hit the nail on the head here. It's easy to hate big
corporations, but even if you make the argument that they are exploiting
workers, what are the alternatives?

If Americans truly have a moral responsibility to improve Chinese lives, then
actually what is necessary is a foreign policy that directly aims to level the
playing field between the countries. It might be something effectively akin to
an international progressive tax, I don't know what form it would take, but
the point is that Americans would never stand for this. People are already
complaining daily about losing their jobs to overseas workers, and the entire
culture—both cultures I believe—are based on competition. Corporations are
just a handy scapegoat to assuage our liberal guilt.

------
ksec
LOL

As if Apple is the root of all problems. As if Foxconn only manufacture
products from Apple. As if people are FORCED to work in those conditions. As
if they DONT have a choice of not working there.

And i am sorry peeps, what happen if Apple suddenly decide to double pay
Foxconn? What happens if EVERYONE double pay them? Would those people get
double their salary?

And it is great that Foxconn are now considering using Advance robotics
instead, more people Jobless, more people suffer.

Oh, and i forgot, American has once been through this stage as well, and
looking from the web it is obvious they dont teach history there.

------
thwest
We should just have tariffs on imports that don't meet our labor and
environmental standards.

~~~
wmf
That would never pass, but assuming that it did, it would cause a consumer
revolt when people saw the higher prices on their toys (even if it only
applied to luxury goods).

~~~
v0cab
That's a rather defeatist attitude. People would be all for tariffs if they
were told that it makes American workers' labor more competitive.

------
sigzero
There's an Apple boycott? First I have heard of it.

------
SODaniel
I don't get it. How is it NOT a valid point of concern that Apple has 70%
margins on some products that are produced by extreme low income workers under
bad conditions?

~~~
jsn
But it's obvious, isn't it? The workers choose to work there, for that income
and under those conditions. This means that all alternative options available
to them are worse (like working for even lower income and in worse conditions,
or even not working at all). So, clearly, Apple has improved their conditions.
Plus, Apple is doing it at profit -- which means that that improvement is
sustainable. Isn't it marvelous? I mean, I don't like Apple products, but I
have to give it to them: they change lives of thousands of workers for the
better.

~~~
MartinCron
_The workers choose to work there, for that income and under those conditions_

Considering how many workers who choose to work there are underage, you can't
exactly say that they are giving meaningful consent to work there.

~~~
jsn
But I believe I can. These kids often choose between living in hopeless
poverty and earning a reasonable living. It's pretty plain and simple. You
don't have to be 21 to make a rational decision in a situation like this.

~~~
MartinCron
I was thinking more along the lines of 13-year olds, as Daisey encountered in
his travels. There's a reason why developed nations don't let children enter
into contracts.

~~~
tsotha
Yeah, the reason is they can afford it. Because developed nations have a
safety net that puts food on the table while those kids are at school instead
of work.

The whole equation is different for developing countries.

------
razzaj
This is a load of crap. I think this attitude of justifying someone's wrong
doing by pointing out that everyone else is doing it, is just hypocrisy. On
the other hand I cant agree with people lashing out on apple because of this
practice, although i do disagree with the practice in the first place. I will
tell you why this seemingly contradictory stand isn't contradictory at all.

The practice of exploiting someone else's weaknesses for one's own advantage
is widely spread and even sanctioned by some societies in general (implicitly
and sometimes less so), the bottom of the problem is not tech companies
abusing poor workforce, it is the general lack of consensus as to what is fair
and what is not. Singling out a single actor from the flock is also unfair
(such as is the case today with Apple - and just because they are so
successful-). Not is it only unfair, it is counter productive because it will
hurt apple and in no way do any good to the chinese workers.

Now, we want to fix the problem? Then we need to first figure out what the
fuss is all about, and i say that is easy!

This entire argument, it looks to me, boils down to fairness. The question of
What is Fair, and what is not (or evil if you will). It is not a new argument,
for ages people have tried to settle on a general agreement on what it is to
be leading the good life. Religions were built around this and constitutions
were designed for that as well; the social contract that defines who we are as
Americans, Chinese, Arabs, French, Christians, Muslims etc.... It has however
been very difficult to bring all these people to agree together to one single
approach to life, and so over eons people have "siloed" each with their own
"moral code".

And i say companies (including apple) have all abided by these contracts and
are not abusing any of their compatriots. So in essence they are not in
violation of anything. Why? simply because the "abused" -by western standards-
people you are concerned about are not being abused in America, but in China,
and what's more? Their treatment is not considered to be abuse in China, it is
legal THERE.

This is horrifying, because it is cool to indirectly abuse someone overseas as
long as you treat your compatriots fairly? I say not, but in order to make it
un-cool we need to agree to a new universal bill of ethics where things are
more defined and definitive like What is a minimum fair working condition
universally.

What now?

I think it is time for tech companies that have made billions (including
apple) to take a step back and ponder their moto "we do stuff that changes the
world", add to it " ... to be a better place for all" and apply it on all the
aspects of their business. This new bill of ethics once finalsed can be
"ratified" by these monster companies and others will follow. The reason i am
specifically speaking of tech companies it because i know tech and the hacker
spirit and i can assert that there is a general good will and faith to make
the world a better place, and since the world has given us, and still is,
great things and lots of appreciation, the industry and community is mature
enough ,now, to start giving back and leading by example.

------
georgieporgie
_At best, forcing developing countries to adhere to our labor standards would
create a privileged labor aristocracy, leaving the poor majority no better
off._

I'm tired of this apologist bullshit. It's been showing up in HN articles for
weeks now.

Yes, I understand the concept that the standard and cost of living are lower
in China. I understand that it may be better to have children working than
starving on the streets. I understand that rural farm life in China is
terrible.

That is absolutely _no excuse_ for keeping people in near-slave conditions.
That is no excuse for allowing people to be maimed (by machinery _and_ by non-
stop repetitive, back-to-back 12 - 16 hour shifts) with no compensation. That
is no excuse for allowing people to be blacklisted if they make any complaint
about working conditions.

Apple is now sitting on $100 _billion_ and still telling us that their
products could never be manufactured in the US. Hilariously, one reason they
cite is that you can't find a fab plant right next to a glass plant. Guess
what? Build them both in the US, pay reasonable US wages, and provide
reasonable US working conditions.

If Apple's success _requires_ that 8,000 people be put instantly onto
production lines for insanely long shifts, day after day until their bodies
fall apart, _then their products should not exist_.

~~~
AllenKids
It's all so emotional isn't it?

If you rage harder maybe our Chinese people's life would magically become
better.

Or in fact you do not care as long as your shinny new toys are isolated from
the poverty and suffering of the rest of the world and manufactured in your
sunshine and rainbow and god's chosen America.

Apple's success enabled Foxconn and other suppliers to employ literally
millions of Chinese people, millions of otherwise poorer people to each send
home $3000+ dollers per year.

It's ugly, it could be better, some aspects of the factory life need immediate
improvement even by Chinese standard, on humanitarian reasons alone.

It has nothing to do with Apple's 100B reserve. It's not that Apple can not
afford it. It's my country, China, with its vast under educated labor surplus
can not afford the US dream, can not abandon low value add manufacturing
industry.

~~~
georgieporgie
_Or in fact you do not care as long as your shinny new toys are isolated from
the poverty and suffering of the rest of the world and manufactured in your
sunshine and rainbow and god's chosen America._

Instead of being a dick, why don't you read what I've written more closely?

Manufacturing in the US is just _one option_ , which I suggest because they
insist that they can't possibly do anything to improve labor conditions at the
Chinese factories.

 _China, with its vast under educated labor surplus can not afford the US
dream, can not abandon low value add manufacturing industry._

Nobody is saying China should abandon its manufacturing industry. People are
saying that _labor conditions_ should be better. This can be done without
destroying China's manufacturing sector.

~~~
AllenKids
I'm an asshole, not a dick. Mind you.

Apple can and is trying to improve the labor conditions at its supply chain.
That's the whole point of its annul report. Foxconn is trying too. Those
companies' primary goal is money, suicide workers cost a lot of money. Bad PR
cost a lot of money.

What's impossible is suddenly western standard living, what's impossible is
immediate strict labor law enforcement, what's impossible is working condition
the same level as in the US.

~~~
georgieporgie
_What's impossible is suddenly western standard living_

Why do you, and others, keep bringing this up as if anyone asked for that?

~~~
AllenKids
Because in almost every article about Chinese Labor practice it was filled
with details describing how horrible those dormitory livings were, using
colorful words like slave-labor, soul-crushing etc.

But to a lot of Chinese people, living in the complex certainly is not nice,
but not unimaginably horrid either. I spent half of my college years with 7
other dudes in a room about 130 sqft, for example.

~~~
georgieporgie
I think you need to read more about the conditions at Foxconn.

In college, you weren't doing mind-numbing 12 - 16 hour shifts, the same
actions day after day after day until your body failed. You weren't
blacklisted for complaining to whoever ran the facility. You weren't maimed by
machinery and subsequently completely ignored.

There is a _lot_ to be done that has absolutely nothing to do with a "western
standard of living".

------
beatle
<http://www.apple.com/supplierresponsibility/>

[http://www.apple.com/supplierresponsibility/code-of-
conduct/...](http://www.apple.com/supplierresponsibility/code-of-
conduct/labor-and-human-rights.html)

[http://www.apple.com/supplierresponsibility/code-of-
conduct/...](http://www.apple.com/supplierresponsibility/code-of-
conduct/health-and-safety.html)

[http://www.apple.com/supplierresponsibility/code-of-
conduct/...](http://www.apple.com/supplierresponsibility/code-of-
conduct/environmental-impact.html)

<http://www.apple.com/supplierresponsibility/auditing.html>

------
falling
From the article:

 _> Boycotting Apple for better Foxconn wages and conditions is like having
sex for virginity. Entirely counter-productive and exactly the wrong thing to
be doing._

~~~
SODaniel
I think it's pretty much proven without a doubt that public opinion can sway
corporations and politics. I really don't understand this form of 'Corporate
protectionism'.

------
zeroboy
Oh thank God we as a consumer society are trying to sweep this issue under the
rug. It's starting to ruin the enjoyment of my Apple products.

Those so called hard working conditions where poor Chinese people work 16 hour
days 7 days a week in unsafe conditions until they're literally crippled...
they should be grateful they even have a job.

What are these workers expecting? Compassion? Sorry. They were born in the
wrong country. God bless America!

The sooner we can rationalize this issue away, the better. I don't need the
guilt trip, and I sure as hell don't need the inconvenience.

~~~
LearnYouALisp
Masterful satire.

------
gcb
i wouldn't expect less from an economist. just hear his paradoxes:

1st he quotes: "First of all, even if we could assure the workers in Third
World export industries of higher wages and better working conditions, this
would do nothing for the peasants, day laborers, scavengers, and so on who
make up the bulk of these countries’ populations. "

tl;dr: even if you raise those workers pay, it will do nothing for the other
workers in the country

2nd he concludes: "Wages paid to manufacturing workers in China are not
determined by the productivity of those specific workers. They are not
determined by US wages, by the profits that Apple makes nor even by the good
intentions of the creative types that purchase Apple products. They are
determined by the wages paid by other jobs in China and that is itself
determined by the average level of productivity across the Chinese economy."

tl;dl: the workers are paid poorly because everyone in the coutry is badly
paid.

see what he did there?

he just used the cause of the problem as a consequence and dismissed it!

boycott apple (and others!) so that those specific workers wage will rise to
please public opinion, and with that, the wage of everyone else will also
rise!

~~~
hetman
And where is the money for "everyone else" going to come from?

~~~
z0r
Africa. Somebody has to pull the short straw, I guess - your objection
indicates that you would agree that somebody will have to be exploited

~~~
hetman
No, it indicates that a complex economy takes time to develop because so many
structures therein rely on each other.

Are you suggesting that if a billion Chinese were to be transplanted to the
USA tomorrow they would all find good paying jobs? Where would the
infrastructure to support all this come from? Now add to this the fact China
doesn't even have the economic infrastructure that the USA does.

I don't see any exploitation here only gradual growth and development.

By your logic I assume you believe Africa needs to be exploited for the
benefit of the Chinese?

