

On the apparent Apple suicide - vijayr
http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/07/22/on-the-apple-suicide/

======
robotrout
I frequently go to the factories in Guangzhou and deal with the workers there.

The housing is not substandard. There are employee dorms and employee
cafeterias at every factory I've been to. These things are completely self
contained. I've toured them, and they're like college dorms. The workers stay
there, in the dorms and eat there. They're not prisoners. Everybody goes back
home, (often over a thousand miles) every year for Chinese New Year, for
example. They also leave the factory grounds in the evening, just like you'd
leave a college campus you lived on to hang out downtown.

Now, all that said, the competition for those jobs, I think, is quite intense.
I've been repeatedly impressed by the level of dedication in the engineering
staffs I've worked with. You say you need a fixture modified to allow a
certain PCB component to be tested in a different way, and they're back in 30
minutes with the changed fixture, for example. Those engineers make things
happen in minutes, not days. It's quite motivational to be among them.
However, I'm sure there's a certain fear component that's driving them. It's a
very good job, and they don't want to lose it. I'm not certain how such a
thing can be addressed. It's just a function of the supply and demand of
factory jobs.

I also sense a bit of colonialism mentality in many of my fellow engineers
when we travel over there. We're smart, and they're idiots, is an attitude
that is almost constant among western engineers dealing with Chinese
factories. It's your typical client/vendor bullying, but multiplied by 5 due
to this attitude. When you bully the factory manager, he'll pass that down the
line, I'm sure.

Now, I've never worked with Apple, but I'm told it's a bit scary there. Lot's
of pressure, even for the American engineers to perform to perfection. I
imagine being an Apple vendor is a bit of a nightmare, and a Chinese vendor,
of course is bullied by normal companies, so an Apple Chinese vendor, I have
to assume, is in hell.

Couple all that together, and I can imagine this kid being pretty stressed
out.

~~~
timr
Okay, that's an anecdote. But the problem is that you may well be seeing a
_good_ factory. There are thousands of others that you aren't seeing. You also
aren't seeing what they don't want to show you.

There have been plenty of documentaries and articles about human rights abuses
at Chinese factories over the years. Google for it. It isn't fiction. Maybe
the electronics industry is an island of civility of in the midst of a sea of
corruption and abuse, but somehow, I doubt it. In a country where people are
tainting food with _plastic_ to pinch a penny, I don't give the benefit of the
doubt.

------
GiraffeNecktie
The whole premise of this editorial seems to be that electronics are cheaper
today than they were twenty or thirty years ago because workers are now being
terribly exploited and abused. And we should feel guilty about that. There are
several obvious flaws in this argument. The first is that electronics prices
have come down for a whole raft of reasons ranging from currency exchange
rates, to miniaturization, to automation. Labour is only one small part of the
equation. The second is that crappy working conditions are not unique to
electronics factories in China. Those pyjamas you wore last night, the one's
where the crotch split the second time you put them on, were also made in a
sweatshop somewhere. Years ago it might have been a sweatshop in New York
City. Today it's a sweatshop in Nicarauga or Malaysia. I'm very keen on seeing
working conditions improve for everyone, I just don't think that price is a
meaningful metric for trying to gauge whether the factory worker is getting a
fair shake.

~~~
TallGuyShort
What you say is true - manufacturing techniques have changed more than he lets
on, it's not all labour. However I still think he makes a good point when he
says "it's going to cost" us. We talk about how living conditions need to
improve in 3rd-world countries, but we buy products that exploit that system.
We talk about how gas prices need to come down, but most people haven't
changed their driving habits. We talk about how the economy needs to improve,
but banks are still offering irresponsible mortgages.

He does exaggerate the situation somewhat, but it's true that people will
generally ignore issues that aren't immediately in front of them, and fail to
take responsibility for their own way of life.

~~~
eru
> We talk about how living conditions need to improve in 3rd-world countries,
> but we buy products that exploit that system.

You should buy more stuff from the third world, if you want to help them. Not
less.

> We talk about how gas prices need to come down, but most people haven't
> changed their driving habits.

Not a problem. High gasoline prices are good for the environment.

> We talk about how the economy needs to improve, but banks are still offering
> irresponsible mortgages.

If the banks can afford the offer and you think it's a good deal, why not take
it?

~~~
TallGuyShort
> You should buy more stuff from the third world, if you want to help them.
> Not less.

To a certain extent, true. If they don't have sweatshops to work in, they end
up in worse situations, like prostitution. My point was that people criticize
the conditions in other countries, and the corruption - but they don't stop
and think about how that's partly why they have the lifestyle they do.

> Not a problem. High gasoline prices are good for the environment.

Only if people change their driving habits accordingly, and I know very few
people who have actually altered their lifestyle. Increased sales of hybrids
and less driving is a good thing, but it happens relatively rarely compared to
complaints against OPEC.

> If the banks can afford the offer and you think it's a good deal, why not
> take it?

Because that's exactly how the housing bubble collapsed. My point is that the
banks should offer deals they think they are good, but people shouldn't be
complaining about the economy when they have mountains of debt themselves. I
know a couple of people who have over $10G of credit card debt, and just got
mortgages with no down payments. They also have no formal education and poor
employment. How is that GOOD for the economy? It's good for the bank, yes, but
the irresponsibility has been a major factor in the slow economy.

~~~
sokoloff
>> Not a problem. High gasoline prices are good for the environment.

> Only if people change their driving habits accordingly, and I know very few
> people who have actually altered their lifestyle

That sounds then like gas prices aren't high enough to drive the behavior
change to the extent needed. $4 a gallon gas changed some habits. $10 a gallon
would drive even further behavior change.

~~~
andyking
What sort of behaviour change are you after, though?

It's all very well saying petrol prices should go up to help the environment,
but the people hit hardest are those in rural areas. Should everyone go and
rent a city centre apartment and give up on the countryside because they can't
afford to get about?

~~~
TallGuyShort
My only point is that I hear a lot on the news and from people I associate
with about how gas prices are too high, and they tend to blame it on the
government or on corruption. We hear all this talk of America's 'dependence on
foreign oil', but very few individuals stop and ask themselves why that all
is.

The behavioural change I'd like to see, is for people's reaction to high
prices be "well I'm not going to buy gasoline, then". Granted, gasoline is
almost a necessity in some situations. But if people really did care about
their dependence on oil and the high prices, they wouldn't use it for non-
necessities. If that happened, OPEC would get the message REAL fast.

edit: So for instance - you mention that those who live in rural areas
shouldn't have to rent city center apartments just to get around. Well...
everyone I know who lives in the city (downtown) own cars and drive them
everywhere. I'd like to see more people question each trip and say, "do I
really need to take the car?" I walk to the grocery store, and it only takes
me a 1/2 hour, if that. Most people would take the car, but hey - I don't ever
have to pay for gasoline unless I go out of town.

And I'm not talking about disabled people, or delivery companies. I'm talking
about the average person - if they want to complain about high prices and
government corruption - they should walk. It'd solve the obesity epidemic,
too.

~~~
eru
Disclaimer: I live in Europe and do not own a car. Instead of walking to the
grocery store, I usually use the streetcar or a bike. If you have to feed a
family, it be more convenient to use a car for your groceries, since you can
load so much more onto it than on a bike or on your back. Though, I know a
family that only rents a car for going on vacation, so you can make it work.

And people always like to complain, no matter what.

------
biohacker42
_The disparity between the real cost of gadgetry today as compared to the
1970s and 80s is immense._

Gee I wonder why that is.. something about semi.. conducto... can't quite put
my finger on it.

------
alaskamiller
A few years back when I was working at a fabless chip design firm, I was
assigned to manage and liaison with our overseas (Taipei-based) ODM partner
when they came over here for CES. And I got to know the lead engineers and
designers on their products that work out of China at the factories. After the
shows we went out to party and just talked about random things and have been
corresponding with them ever since. One thing that I've always wondered about
was exactly this situation: the living and working conditions of factory (not
just electronics) workers in China.

The response they gave was that while to outsiders, meaning non-Chinese, it
may be deplorable, but they don't understand the circumstances. To a Chinese
person that was raised in poverty, the slight bump in opportunity offered by
the factory work is much more preferable than nothing at all. In a country
where it's still mostly destitute and farming-based, the manufacturing jobs
are sought after. The money they receive gets sent back to support the family
or gives their next generation of children a shot at middle-class life. It is
what it is.

The other thing they said to consider is this: there are a lot, a lot, a lot,
a lot of people in China. And they are all looking for jobs, any kind of job,
to feed themselves and support their families. People are paid to sweep floors
for 10 hours a day even if there's nothing there. People are paid to watch
parked cars on the street to prevent break-ins even in safe neighborhoods. The
access to this massive and cheap labor pool has benefits and allows for abuse.
Laws and regulations are not able to save them all, for every illegal factory
that gets shut down another one pops up down the road and before morning a
line of people gathered based on whispering rumors will be lined up wanting to
work.

People may suffer, people may be abused, people may even die but this process
went on and on each time a country underwent an industrial revolution and
decided that the invisible hand of capitalism was worth the price for
admission to the big boys club. Be it children working on textiles in England
to children working in coal mines in the United States. And for every human
rights activist in the USA feeling guilty about paying $199.99 for a WalMart
PC or $2.99 for a dozen socks at Target, there are a handful in China, trying
to fight for not just human rights but also democracy, journalistic integrity,
communist principles, or even Confucious teachings. Meaning, there are people
equally, if not more so, concerned about this over there in China and Taiwan.

The point being that it's somewhat condescending to assume that Americans or
Europeans know best how to solve every problem in China or any other country.

This suicide? Should be investigated. If people were at fault, bring them to
court and prosecute them. Justice should be upheld and unhampered with, that's
the best thing that can happen and should be the priority in this incident.
Everything else is just a distraction, the name Apple is just thrown around
for the extra attention. Would this have mattered if it involved another
company like FastMaxChips Designs or Wireless Widget Corporation? It should
and the investigations should all be treated equally whether or not a big name
corporation is involved.

How to assuage your guilt about this overall trend? Considering the decades of
cheap money, tech innovations, and better manufacturing/shipping logistics has
warped our perception of value and pricing, I don't know how else to deal with
it in a free market sense. Consumerism is just a double-edged sword.

------
cesare
> He died to keep the next generation of that phone from your prying eyes.
> This is a reason so mundane and trivial that the mind reels.

Wouldn't it be beautiful if we (as a society) could satisfy all our needs and
our desires without feeling guilty?

Every time I try to discuss this with people (especially with friends and
relatives) I am vehemently reminded that this is a taboo topic.

~~~
TheSOB88
Could you clarify what you're talking about? Sex? Drugs? Is suicide the desire
you're talking about?

~~~
cesare
Not at all.

I mean, we love technology (aren't we hackers?), but probably we feel (albeit
indirectly and just partly) responsible for such things: a man has died for a
lost phone/gadget. One of those we buy, use and work with.

So my question is: how can we change this? Is it still possible?

------
vijayr
This is one of the better posts from the 'techcrunch' family. I wish they
write better posts like these, they definitely have the talent, just need the
will.

------
jpwagner
Anyone think of the movie Antitrust?

~~~
nomoresecrets
No. What's the connection? Hi-tech? Someone dying?

Antitrust is about a company developing and selling a product that is stolen
from somewhere else. I don't remember anyone dying because someone wanted to
see a Mr Blurry-Cam shot of the new iPhone on Engadget.

~~~
jpwagner
Not sure if you've seen the movie based on your assessment. It's been a while
for me. The movie is not about stealing ideas and several people are killed.

The movie is about a corrupt iconic thought leader who bugs hackers' work and
home lives and eventually kills them when they are no longer useful or become
a threat.

Obviously a comment in jest, but Tim Robbins' character looks to have been
based on Jobs (except for the psychopathic thing) and like many similar movies
the "jumped" from 12 stories could be replaced with "thrown" for more drama.

Since when do we have to explain jokes to 3rd graders around here?

~~~
nomoresecrets
The central plot device of the movie is that the CEO tries to hire the people
developing some innovative software. One of them joins, but the other refuses.
The first guy realises that the CEO is stealing his friend's code in order to
make their 'own' new product.

And as for '3rd graders' - lose the attitude. This is HN, not digg.

------
boredguy8
Where are we, where do we want to be, how do we get there? Ted Trainer,
Democracy & Nature, July 2000
<http://www.democracynature.org/vol6/trainer_where.htm>

Rich world living standards could not be as high as they are if these enormous
inequalities, transfers of wealth and deprivations were not occurring. It is a
zero-sum game. If we get the resources necessary to produce throw-away
affluent lifestyles, they are not available to provide basic necessities for
most of the world’s people. The main beneficiaries are the very few who own or
manage the transnational corporations and banks. They are rapidly increasing
their ownership and control through their stunning success in promoting the
free market ideology. The few biggest and most powerful and predatory actors
on the level playing field win, and take almost everything that is worth
taking. Capitalism has never been so triumphantly dominant and secure from
threat. It's legitimacy and permanence is more or less undoubted at official,
political and popular levels.

....

In a market economy there is also a powerful tendency for development to be
inappropriate to the needs of most people and of the environment. Investment
will flow into those ventures likely to yield the highest returns. These are
never the ventures that are most likely to produce what most people need. Thus
while most Third World regions urgently need more production of cheap and
simple food, tools, appliances, housing and clothing, the development that
occurs is of export plantations, mines, Hilton hotels, international airports,
etc. Such development draws away from poorer people the productive resources
which they once had and were able to use to produce for themselves many of the
things they need. Possibly the most disturbing examples of this process are to
do with the application of Third World land to export crops while many people
are malnourished.

