Fat Cat wrote:We're not talking about making $10k a year, we're talking about making $3600. Aside from your math error, your research is poor. $100k would be twice the median income in New York state, hardly homeless. It's clear you don't give a fuck about these people, so I'm not sure why you're trying to defend Foxconn, but even Apple's own audit of Foxconn found that many of their workers were grossly underpaid (as little as $42 a month for assembling iPhones).
EDIT: Assembling iPods, not iPhones. My bad. Also, the factory workers often DO pay for their food and housing, not relying on the laughable magnanimity of Foxconn.
Not defending Foxconn-- but $3600 feeds an extended family in China. This has to be considered.
In 1997 the same things were being said about Nike. My opinion was changed when the lobbyist presenting kept going on and on about wages in Vietnam (which was the focus at the time). In the Q&A I asked if he had ever been to Vietnam or had any idea what the average salary for a doctor, teacher or government official was. After becoming angry he, eventually, admitted that he had/did not. I suspect that it's the same situation here.
I haven't been in a Foxconn plant in China but have seen their operations in other countries and have seen inside two similar companies - I wish that any of the farms that I worked on as a kid were half as clean and offered half as many benefits.
Real costs behind products is a conversation that certainly would be worth having whether one is discussing food or medicine or smart phones. However, pretending that Apple and Foxconn are the bad guys and that the computer you are typing on was made by angels sipping hot cocoa and getting a back rub is having your head in the sand.
Does Foxconn have thousands of applicants for every opening because they seriously have such bad working conditions?
WildGorillaMan wrote:Enthusiasm combined with no skill whatsoever can sometimes carry the day.
Generally doctors and bureaucrats can't be compared to largely unskilled factory workers. They all face different options and demand curves. A doctor has to go through a time consuming and difficult selection process in almost every country. In China or Vietnam, aspiring bureaucrats, at least the ones who are successful in getting employment, most likely have more political connections than they would need in the US.
On top of that, there are probably about 40 countries in the world with similar labor costs and stable environments that would love to have this Foxconn plant.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule
Essentially the pro-Foxconn argument is that because there are starving, downtrodden, and poor people in the world the only reasonable thing to do is to exploit them. Personally, I disagree.
"That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy.
It is our job to see that it stays there." - George Orwell
Fat Cat wrote:Essentially the pro-Foxconn argument is that because there are starving, downtrodden, and poor people in the world the only reasonable thing to do is to exploit them. Personally, I disagree.
This exploitation has lifted about 1b people out of abject poverty over the last few decades. US history is rife with similar and worse exploitation. Not sure what a better (realistic) system would actually look like.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule
No, it hasn't. Poverty reigns throughout China. In point of fact, unbridled capitalism in China has drawn about 300 million people out of poverty while driving the remaining 1.1 billion further into poverty. A better, and long term more realistic, system would be one which enforces livable working conditions and wages.
"That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy.
It is our job to see that it stays there." - George Orwell
Fat Cat wrote:No, it hasn't. Poverty reigns throughout China. In point of fact, unbridled capitalism in China has drawn about 300 million people out of poverty while driving the remaining 1.1 billion further into poverty. A better, and long term more realistic, system would be one which enforces livable working conditions and wages.
Further than they were in the early 80's? I doubt it. You're forgetting about India too.
And you're not giving a solution-- just a wish list of things you'd like to see happen.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule
The fuck are you talking about? The second sentence of my post, which you clearly can't comprehend, advocated a better solution.
"That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy.
It is our job to see that it stays there." - George Orwell
There is nothing about livable wages and working conditions which contravenes good economic sense. Quite the contrary my pygmy friend.
"That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy.
It is our job to see that it stays there." - George Orwell
The short answer is that happy and educated people generate more money through higher paying jobs and higher productivity, and hence have more money to spend.
"That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy.
It is our job to see that it stays there." - George Orwell
Fat Cat wrote:The short answer is that happy and educated people generate more money through higher paying jobs and higher productivity, and hence have more money to spend.
Are you saying China is in a position that they could make this happen? How would they do so? Any examples?
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule
I have to say FC's the voice of reason here. I can't believe you guys are defending the way China does business. Real capitalism works when both sides agree freely to mutually acceptable exchanges. Chinese workers are frequently treated as a disposable commodity and kept utterly powerless by ruthless collusion between government and their employers. Without the government cracking down on the workers, they'd demand better treatment. That they are not allowed to do so explicitly makes their employment not equal to a free exchange of goods and services.
SAR wrote:It is almost 1400 EST, I have been at work and working since 0700 yesterday. I am about to go to the gym, then grocery shop then finish up a slide presentation for a lecture tomorrow. . I laugh at your pussy 60 hour work week.
How the heck do you keep yourself calm and your skills sharp after staying awake for 29 hours, Steve? My late Father could also do that. I could never get him to explain how he routinely worked seventy to eighty hours a week.
They don't over train and over educate Doctors to the point that their skills are beyond second nature, do they?
My best time without sleep was seventy hours. I had mild hallucinations and my work was shit but I was functioning. Longest I ever worked straight through on critical shit was twenty eight hours on a "Engineering Challenge", getting an hour here or there on a desk while the software loaded. Everything turned out fine because I'd done it dozens of times.
Fat Cat wrote:The short answer is that happy and educated people generate more money through higher paying jobs and higher productivity, and hence have more money to spend.
Are you saying China is in a position that they could make this happen? How would they do so? Any examples?
They could stop making trade unions illegal. Now you provide examples of how China CAN'T.
"That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy.
It is our job to see that it stays there." - George Orwell
Fat Cat wrote:There is nothing about livable wages and working conditions which contravenes good economic sense.
Most "liveable wages" are based upon a forty hour work week. Which makes them complete bullshit. Your average salary person does a lot more than forty hours a week, an entrepreneur even more.
I agree that the Dickensian life of a Chinese Factory worker is rough but it's not as rough as living as a peasant in the countryside. Doesn't make their life right but it explains it a bit.
Fat Cat wrote:The short answer is that happy and educated people generate more money through higher paying jobs and higher productivity, and hence have more money to spend.
Are you saying China is in a position that they could make this happen? How would they do so? Any examples?
They could stop making trade unions illegal. Now you provide examples of how China CAN'T.
How would that solve the issue? One of China's big advantage is cheap labor. Unionization would raise the cost of producing the products they make. Businesses that do business in China would go elsewhere where labor is cheaper. Why would businesses that do business in China stay there when they could go elsewhere and make products for cheaper?
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule
Turd advocates slave labor and Gene thinks everyone should be salary so they can work extra hours for no extra pay. It's all about the company to hell with the workers.
Turdacious wrote:
How would that solve the issue? One of China's big advantage is cheap labor. Unionization would raise the cost of producing the products they make. Businesses that do business in China would go elsewhere where labor is cheaper. Why would businesses that do business in China stay there when they could go elsewhere and make products for cheaper?
Japan, Taiwan, and Korea have all already gone through the stage of being the "cheap" manufacturing location and then losing that honor to another country. They coped okay.
Turd advocates slave labor and Gene thinks everyone should be salary so they can work extra hours for no extra pay. It's all about the company to hell with the workers.
Stop your simpleton. I am genuinely interested in ideas for better ways for countries to develop. I want people in these countries to be able to have an opportunity to get the success that we have here.
However, most western efforts to help these countries develop have been miserable failures. The bulk of modern development literature that I've seen backs this up. AFAIK the only successful efforts have been: the Commonwealth Development Corporation (a quasi-public British development effort interested largely in investor profit); the green revolution (expanded crop yields); and remissions from people who go to work in other countries.
US and British development followed the so called 'slave labor' model. Child labor? Yep. Shitty working conditions? Yep. Lousy pay? Yep. It seems to be a phase that countries have to go through on their way to development.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule
Turdacious wrote:
How would that solve the issue? One of China's big advantage is cheap labor. Unionization would raise the cost of producing the products they make. Businesses that do business in China would go elsewhere where labor is cheaper. Why would businesses that do business in China stay there when they could go elsewhere and make products for cheaper?
Japan, Taiwan, and Korea have all already gone through the stage of being the "cheap" manufacturing location and then losing that honor to another country. They coped okay.
Still had to go through the phase though, although they did it quickly (and more power to them for that). And it's unlikely that any of them would have made it through without our security guarantees and economic subsidization.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule
