Apple Factory Conditions

[smc9972]

Welcome to the dystopian technotopia of tomorrow...uh, rather, today.

Feudalism is alive and well, being run by corporations. Employee is a wage slave to its vassal, Foxconn, Foxconn is a vassal to Apple. It's only a matter of time before people in the US are fully integrated into this wonderful system, just be happy that for now we are its masters.

In reality little separates China and the US these days, other than the fact that China is willing to admit to its authoritarian "dictatorship of the economically powerful."

 

[ezekielrage_99]

Are these the same newsgroup who incorrectly reported on the British Troops in Iraq?

Seriously the Britsh press has the worset reputation for "making" news when they have a slow week..... there's verisimilitude for you

I tend to read as much as I can and believe 10% of it, so until there is more info on the iPod debarkel I'm not really going to take much attention of this.

 

[Maxx Power]

Thanks.
The truth prevails over all.

Right... Just ask Amnesty International and Green Peace what they think of the labour situation in China is really like. I can give you a short cut, with 100 US dollars per month, you have just enough if you tighten your belt and eat barely to survive if you already have a room to stay in. Not to mention scarce opportunities for showers, bathroom breaks, and if you get sick, you are done for, good luck affording medication. Even worse is that these factories are built on top of what used to be farmer soil (most of them are in the suburbs), where people locally have sustained themselves for decades, who are all of a sudden in a survival crisis. The only way out is to work for the company who took over the land, it's all possible thanks to a bit of $$$ and a dictative government. The theory that we are doing the people there any good is just a one-man congratulatory pat on the back reach around. The so called "board" they get is just that - a board with fabric on it which if you are tired enough after 15 hours of work, you'll pass out on. Think of your bedroom, now cram 10 people in it in the heat of the summer, no wonder workers there want to break free as fast as they can.

ps. do a bit of search around the web, you can see in pictures what I mean.

 

[ArizonaKid]

Please take a economics class

As a business graduate I have a hard time reading some of the post on these forums which are borderline ignorant.

First,
There is something called a balance score card in business. A good business will balance the interest of stakeholders involved. Stakeholders include the community, workers, shareholders, customers, etc... Although it is the responsibility of a business to turn a profit, placing all the eggs in one basket is typically not ideal.

For example, Enron focused on maximizing shareholder interest blindly, without considering the methods to be used to achieve those goals. This is a very "short term" way of thinking, which in the end caused its downfall. Failing to take a complete balance into perspective is simply bad for business, and shareholders also suffer the results of bad business decisions.

Costco is an example of a company which many consider to over compensate employees. However, when you listen to the CEO of Costco, he doesn't compensate employees for the sake of being nice, he does it because he believes it is good business, and good business practices will in the "long term" (or even short term) benefit all stakeholders...especially shareholders.

Second,
Whoever said Globalization is a disease really needs to take an economics class. This type of thinking is exactly what restricts trade, and ends up hurting the growth of developing countries. Let me give a K through 5 example.

From Wikipedia (Example 1)
Two men land alone in an isolated island. To survive they must undertake a few basic economic activities like water carrying, fishing, cooking and shelter construction and maintenance. The first man is young, strong, and educated and is faster, better, more productive at everything. He has an absolute advantage in all activities. The second man is old, weak, and uneducated. He has an absolute disadvantage in all economic activities. In some activities the difference between the two is great; in others it is small.

Is it in the interest of either of them to work in isolation? Specialization and exchange (trade) can benefit both of them.

How should they divide the work? According to comparative, not absolute advantage: the young man must spend more time on the tasks in which he is much better and the old man must concentrate on the tasks in which he is only a little worse. Such an arrangement will increase total production and/or reduce total labour. It will make both of them richer.

Specialisation and exchange will not be possible if there is an absolute resource constraint. If, for example, the amount of fresh water available on the island is enough for one man only there will be war.

If you want learn more:
Wikipedia Comparative advantage

EDIT
Last
Why do people think we control this economic system? That's the incredible thing about free trade, no one really has complete power, because in the concept of free trade you can use influence (sometimes great influence), but not force. Force is socialism.

America doesn't control free trade and/or free markets; we just are the best at exploiting it. That's a key concept most failures never understand. They blame others for their faults, and don't ever get that they hold the power to better themselves, and those around them. But other countries are learning, and learning quickly. And as they better themselves, we all benefit as well. Yes, there will be road bumps, and people who suffer from exploitation, but as countries mature those exploitations lessen. But that is better than the constant explotation of socialism /communism / fascism.

If you don't understand me, look a Hong Kong and India over the last 50 years. Hong Kong under British rull had no wage laws, free and open markets, and the result was one of the highest standards of living in the world...all built on a rocky harbor with little natural resources.

Now look at India 10 years ago, free society, but socialist economy with laws to protect all aspects of trade and measures to "prevent exploitation." What happened? They hindered trade, free markets, and people were left starving in the streets of Calcutta. I'll take the Hong Kong approach.

 

[ezekielrage_99]

As a business graduate I have a hard time reading some of the post on these forums which are borderline ignorant.

Ignorance is bliss

 

[smc9972]

As a business graduate I have a hard time reading some of the post on these forums which are borderline ignorant.

First,
There is something called a balance score card in business. A good business will balance the interest of stakeholders involved. Stakeholders include the community, workers, shareholders, customers, etc... Although it is the responsibility of a business to turn a profit, placing all the eggs in one basket is typically not ideal.

For example, Enron focused on maximizing shareholder interest blindly, without considering the methods to be used to achieve those goals. This is a very "short term" way of thinking, which in the end caused its downfall. Failing to take a complete balance into perspective is simply bad for business, and shareholders also suffer the results of bad business decisions.

Costco is an example of a company which many consider to over compensate employees. However, when you listen to the CEO of Costco, he doesn't compensate employees for the sake of being nice, he does it because he believes it is good business, and good business practices will in the "long term" (or even short term) benefit all stakeholders...especially shareholders.

Second,
Whoever said Globalization is a disease really needs to take an economics class. This type of thinking is exactly what restricts trade, and ends up hurting the growth of developing countries. Let me give a K through 5 example.

From Wikipedia (Example 1)
Two men land alone in an isolated island. To survive they must undertake a few basic economic activities like water carrying, fishing, cooking and shelter construction and maintenance. The first man is young, strong, and educated and is faster, better, more productive at everything. He has an absolute advantage in all activities. The second man is old, weak, and uneducated. He has an absolute disadvantage in all economic activities. In some activities the difference between the two is great; in others it is small.

Is it in the interest of either of them to work in isolation? Specialization and exchange (trade) can benefit both of them.

How should they divide the work? According to comparative, not absolute advantage: the young man must spend more time on the tasks in which he is much better and the old man must concentrate on the tasks in which he is only a little worse. Such an arrangement will increase total production and/or reduce total labour. It will make both of them richer.

Specialisation and exchange will not be possible if there is an absolute resource constraint. If, for example, the amount of fresh water available on the island is enough for one man only there will be war.

If you want learn more:
Wikipedia Comparative advantage

Variations of that example are trotted out time and time again. You have accomplished the task of a sophist by appealing to authority, in this case yourself (a "business school student") and claimed the other side ignorant. What really must be done is thinking critically and indepdently. So often today we blindly sing to the anthem of globalization without stopping for a second to think for ourselves. Such a thing is maddenning, for to be anti-globalization is to be illiberal and to be illiberal is to be stupid, ignorant, mute, deaf, and dumb, of course, since that has been the prevailing trend of world history for the past five hundred years.

What it all boils down to is whether this "game"--if you will--of global interaction will ultimately end up as something that is zero sum or not. I.e. whether it's a they lose--we win sort of thing or a "we all win" sort of thing. If incomes start increasing in and prices, etc. in less developed countries, do the developed countries stand to gain or lose?

I don't know the answer to that, nor does anyone, frankly, despite what they may tell you to the contrary.

What is not up for argument is that there continues to be a real problem with less developed countries. With the exception of a few (China, Chile, Mexico) most LDCs are only marginally better, if at all, than they were forty years ago. Free traders do indeed appear to have statistically significant higher rates of GDP growth, however, real income growth in most LDCs has remained largely stagnant, again with exceptions. Global trade is not the savior nor the curse that people make it out to be, but what remains is a conundrum.

 

[Maxx Power]

As a business graduate I have a hard time reading some of the post on these forums which are borderline ignorant.

First,
There is something called a balance score card in business. A good business will balance the interest of stakeholders involved. Stakeholders include the community, workers, shareholders, customers, etc... Although it is the responsibility of a business to turn a profit, placing all the eggs in one basket is typically not ideal.

For example, Enron focused on maximizing shareholder interest blindly, without considering the methods to be used to achieve those goals. This is a very "short term" way of thinking, which in the end caused its downfall. Failing to take a complete balance into perspective is simply bad for business, and shareholders also suffer the results of bad business decisions.

Costco is an example of a company which many consider to over compensate employees. However, when you listen to the CEO of Costco, he doesn't compensate employees for the sake of being nice, he does it because he believes it is good business, and good business practices will in the "long term" (or even short term) benefit all stakeholders...especially shareholders.

Second,
Whoever said Globalization is a disease really needs to take an economics class. This type of thinking is exactly what restricts trade, and ends up hurting the growth of developing countries. Let me give a K through 5 example.

From Wikipedia (Example 1)
Two men land alone in an isolated island. To survive they must undertake a few basic economic activities like water carrying, fishing, cooking and shelter construction and maintenance. The first man is young, strong, and educated and is faster, better, more productive at everything. He has an absolute advantage in all activities. The second man is old, weak, and uneducated. He has an absolute disadvantage in all economic activities. In some activities the difference between the two is great; in others it is small.

Is it in the interest of either of them to work in isolation? Specialization and exchange (trade) can benefit both of them.

How should they divide the work? According to comparative, not absolute advantage: the young man must spend more time on the tasks in which he is much better and the old man must concentrate on the tasks in which he is only a little worse. Such an arrangement will increase total production and/or reduce total labour. It will make both of them richer.

Specialisation and exchange will not be possible if there is an absolute resource constraint. If, for example, the amount of fresh water available on the island is enough for one man only there will be war.

If you want learn more:
Wikipedia Comparative advantage

In the real world, Globalization = Americanization. The version of globalization we speak of, is not the sharing of ideas, an information infrastructure to achieve human civilization enlightenment and economic stability. The version we have is to ensure American dominance by forcing everyone else in the market to play by our multinational's rules. In a "free market" the person sells the most stuff is the person who shouts the loudest, translating to in a globalized world, the country benefits the most is the one with the most money. No wonder why the U.S. has been pushing for this so hard, but when it comes to issues like soft lumber, U.S. refuse to buy from Canada, when it comes to issues like pollution, the U.S. threatens any country with economic sanctions.

You seem to forget that the economics theory predicted the unsuitability of human governance of economic systems - that humans suffer from money greed, power greed, short-sightedness, etc. And that's why there are some checks and balances in THEORY. When you look at this model applied to the world, many things do not fall into theory, for example, the number of businesses in competition are not completely independant, that they can help each other out by - the DRAM fiasco (price setting) of all the first tier manufactorurs last year or so, and it wasn't the first time either. That the checks and balances don't work if the number of competing corporations is too few to result in market monopoly - Micro$oft. That progress and innovations are used to stimulate the industry - think patent portfolios. That the economics requires an market feedback time to be shorter than the internal administration feedback time so that incorrect, or unethical behaviour can be controlled by consumer choices - not happening.

Specialization requires coordination which means overhead (administration), which tends to impede the progress achieved by specialization, it's the exact same thing as the Law of Diminishing Returns aplied to any hierachical system. You also have to remember that the overhead itself produces no fundamental goods or services that can not be achieved otherwise. Which means all of the specialized sectors must work harder to keep the administration alive, and entrust it to make informed and educated decisions, which it often does not.

Studying economics is great, but then you are an economic theorist, not an economic experimentalist.

 

[Mehmet]

And, honestly, they're okay with it for the most part.

And you know this how? Have you lived the life they live? Please never say something like this again until you actually go through what the people building this stuff go through.

 

[ArizonaKid]

I'll believe in free markets and trade

You seem to forget that the economics theory predicted the unsuitability of human governance of economic systems - that humans suffer from money greed, power greed, short-sightedness, etc. And that's why there are some checks and balances in THEORY. When you look at this model applied to the world, many things do not fall into theory, for example, the number of businesses in competition are not completely independant, that they can help each other out by - the DRAM fiasco (price setting) of all the first tier manufactorurs last year or so, and it wasn't the first time either. That the checks and balances don't work if the number of competing corporations is too few to result in market monopoly - Micro$oft. That progress and innovations are used to stimulate the industry - think patent portfolios. That the economics requires an market feedback time to be shorter than the internal administration feedback time so that incorrect, or unethical behaviour can be controlled by consumer choices - not happening.

Studying economics is great, but then you are an economic theorist, not an economic experimentalist.

I do agree with some of your points. But what is the other option? To allow the government to restrict free markets and free trade because of a few ignorant and short sighted players? These failures are there own downfall, and goverments typically are reactive and restrictive, rather than proactive, with inplementing policies of "fairness" that end up hurting all members of a open market.

Yes, I do believe in the THEORY, that the markets will end up taking care of the bad companies, more so than gov't.

Yes, look at Microsoft. They got to be powerfull by producing a product that was of benefit. But they did not start out as a monopoly, I hope we all know that. Bill Gates is not a all powerfull Sith, as much as we would like to believe so.

So, yes they were/are a monopoly, but as a result they stiffled there own in innovations and a company like Apple was able to capture the segments of the computing market by innovation. Even though Microsoft is, or was, a monopoly, their power was still limited to the markets. And the markets, in the case of online music and devices, choose Apple. Is it really that hard to believe that for 10 or so years Microsoft simply produced the best computing products?? Well we could argue again that people were forced, but than were back were we started, not accepting that the other computing companies simply had crappy products.

Apple didn't accept that Microsoft was a monopoly. They did not run for cover and scream for the goverment to kill the evil company, instead they turned around and fought Microsoft on a territory that was believed to be owned. Firefox is doing the same thing!

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying anarchy. Free markets still have rules, and those that cheat should get punished. But more often than not, protectionist ideals don't only hurt the so called bad companies, the "Microsofts", they hurt everyone else who plays the game.

 

[puuukeey]

no logo.

if you buy or believe a brand your stupid. end of story. apple has NEVER been cute,cuddly, or zen. if this "hurts their image" than you had the wrong impression

 

[Mehmet]

As a business graduate I have a hard time reading some of the post on these forums which are borderline ignorant.

First,
There is something called a balance score card in business. A good business will balance the interest of stakeholders involved. Stakeholders include the community, workers, shareholders, customers, etc... Although it is the responsibility of a business to turn a profit, placing all the eggs in one basket is typically not ideal.

For example, Enron focused on maximizing shareholder interest blindly, without considering the methods to be used to achieve those goals. This is a very "short term" way of thinking, which in the end caused its downfall. Failing to take a complete balance into perspective is simply bad for business, and shareholders also suffer the results of bad business decisions.

Costco is an example of a company which many consider to over compensate employees. However, when you listen to the CEO of Costco, he doesn't compensate employees for the sake of being nice, he does it because he believes it is good business, and good business practices will in the "long term" (or even short term) benefit all stakeholders...especially shareholders.

Second,
Whoever said Globalization is a disease really needs to take an economics class. This type of thinking is exactly what restricts trade, and ends up hurting the growth of developing countries. Let me give a K through 5 example.

From Wikipedia (Example 1)
Two men land alone in an isolated island. To survive they must undertake a few basic economic activities like water carrying, fishing, cooking and shelter construction and maintenance. The first man is young, strong, and educated and is faster, better, more productive at everything. He has an absolute advantage in all activities. The second man is old, weak, and uneducated. He has an absolute disadvantage in all economic activities. In some activities the difference between the two is great; in others it is small.

Is it in the interest of either of them to work in isolation? Specialization and exchange (trade) can benefit both of them.

How should they divide the work? According to comparative, not absolute advantage: the young man must spend more time on the tasks in which he is much better and the old man must concentrate on the tasks in which he is only a little worse. Such an arrangement will increase total production and/or reduce total labour. It will make both of them richer.

Specialisation and exchange will not be possible if there is an absolute resource constraint. If, for example, the amount of fresh water available on the island is enough for one man only there will be war.

If you want learn more:
Wikipedia Comparative advantage

EDIT
Last
Why do people think we control this economic system? That's the incredible thing about free trade, no one really has complete power, because in the concept of free trade you can use influence (sometimes great influence), but not force. Force is socialism.

America doesn't control free trade and/or free markets; we just are the best at exploiting it. That's a key concept most failures never understand. They blame others for their faults, and don't ever get that they hold the power to better themselves, and those around them. But other countries are learning, and learning quickly. And as they better themselves, we all benefit as well. Yes, there will be road bumps, and people who suffer from exploitation, but as countries mature those exploitations lessen. But that is better than the constant explotation of socialism /communism / fascism.

If you don't understand me, look a Hong Kong and India over the last 50 years. Hong Kong under British rull had no wage laws, free and open markets, and the result was one of the highest standards of living in the world...all built on a rocky harbor with little natural resources.

Now look at India 10 years ago, free society, but socialist economy with laws to protect all aspects of trade and measures to "prevent exploitation." What happened? They hindered trade, free markets, and people were left starving in the streets of Calcutta. I'll take the Hong Kong approach.

don't think that everyone is so ignorant.

What are the four basic goals of econ?
1. Efficiency
2. Equity
3. Stability
4. Growth.

And you got number 1 right, but you missed something; efficiency =/= equity.

 

[puuukeey]

I think the upshot of sweatshop controversies is that people should demand laws about corporate transparency.

in a free economy, the consumer is supposed to have perfect information. presented with just price and features, consumers will never make an ethical choice.

 

[ArizonaKid]

don't think that everyone is so ignorant.

What are the four basic goals of econ?
1. Efficiency
2. Equity
3. Stability
4. Growth.

And you got number 1 right, but you missed something; efficiency =/= equity.

I was careful not to call any one person ignorant. And, I don't believe that to be the case. I did state that some of the post borderline ignorance. That's fair. My post from time to time can suffer from ignorance and stupidity too.

And your right about efficiency =/= equality. But I don't think economic equality will ever exist, regardless of type of economy. However, I am sure you can guess the method I believe to achieve that balance.

 

[ezekielrage_99]

I was careful not to call any one person ignorant. And, I don't believe that to be the case. I did state that some of the post borderline ignorance. That's fair. My post from time to time can suffer from ignorance and stupidity too.

And your right about efficiency =/= equality. But I don't think economic equality will ever exist, regardless of type of economy. However, I am sure you can guess the method I believe to achieve that balance.

And remember equity and equality are two totally different things when it comes to the business world.....

 

[lord_flash]

I guess Apple is just another greedy company... Modern world is all about greed.

That doesn't make it good or right. Lets not get caught making excuses for Apple.

I don't know if you yanks have it, but in the UK we have 'fair trade' coffee where the producers are paid a little more for their crop, something approaching a reasonable amount. It'd be good if there were fair trade iPods (indeed if they all were) given that Apple make a lot more money per unit than virtually anyone else in the industry.

It's a shame companies like Dell on't pay staff well, but with their margins you can see why. Apple should be a special case because they charge so much. They have no excuse.

 

[lord_flash]

These people WANT to work 15 hours a day and probably would work more if given the chance.

No, they WANT to be able to feed their families and this is the ony way they can. That is a big difference. They probably don't want to be patronised by some smug foreigner justifying the hideous inequality by saying they want to spend their entire waking life working, but they don't have a choice about that either. You arrogant twit.

 

[Spanna]

China's GDP is going to be higher then America's by 2020 and there economy will become the largest in the world. They have got themselves into this position by opening there doors to foreign invetment. So maybe the workers in the ipod factory earning $100 a month are happy in the knowledge they are helping there country become the most powerfull country in the world.
This is China's century.

 

[qtip919]

In the real world, Globalization = Americanization. The version of globalization we speak of, is not the sharing of ideas, an information infrastructure to achieve human civilization enlightenment and economic stability. The version we have is to ensure American dominance by forcing everyone else in the market to play by our multinational's rules. In a "free market" the person sells the most stuff is the person who shouts the loudest, translating to in a globalized world, the country benefits the most is the one with the most money. No wonder why the U.S. has been pushing for this so hard, but when it comes to issues like soft lumber, U.S. refuse to buy from Canada, when it comes to issues like pollution, the U.S. threatens any country with economic sanctions.

You seem to forget that the economics theory predicted the unsuitability of human governance of economic systems - that humans suffer from money greed, power greed, short-sightedness, etc. And that's why there are some checks and balances in THEORY. When you look at this model applied to the world, many things do not fall into theory, for example, the number of businesses in competition are not completely independant, that they can help each other out by - the DRAM fiasco (price setting) of all the first tier manufactorurs last year or so, and it wasn't the first time either. That the checks and balances don't work if the number of competing corporations is too few to result in market monopoly - Micro$oft. That progress and innovations are used to stimulate the industry - think patent portfolios. That the economics requires an market feedback time to be shorter than the internal administration feedback time so that incorrect, or unethical behaviour can be controlled by consumer choices - not happening.

Specialization requires coordination which means overhead (administration), which tends to impede the progress achieved by specialization, it's the exact same thing as the Law of Diminishing Returns aplied to any hierachical system. You also have to remember that the overhead itself produces no fundamental goods or services that can not be achieved otherwise. Which means all of the specialized sectors must work harder to keep the administration alive, and entrust it to make informed and educated decisions, which it often does not.

Studying economics is great, but then you are an economic theorist, not an economic experimentalist.

You have no idea what you are talking about...you would have been much closer to the truth if you had said something like

Globalization = Big Business taking over world

Then, after you are done saying that, use the term "Multinational corporations" a few times, and make sure you tie it to "controlling the world"

Look, business and captial gain is COMPETITION. You live in a dream world if you think anyone (outside of Christians and Philanthropists) is really interested in advancing the condition of the human experience.

Oh, and put your money where your mouth is before you reply

 

[lord_flash]

America doesn't control free trade and/or free markets; we just are the best at exploiting it.

Isn't it great the way that everyone who takes a business class thinks they know everything, rather than just the opinions of a few lecturers (professors)?

America doesn't control free trade, no, but America does prevent free trade from existing at all. America imposes high tariffs on imports, especially agricultural, to 'protect' its own industries while at the same time telling other countries they should abolish all tariffs to create 'free' trade.

IT's NOT FREE IF ONE COUNTRY DOES IT AND NOT THE OTHER.

Most Americans don't know this because they either don't care, or it isn't on TV, or both. It is dispicable behaviour nevertheless.

The reason America has been 'best' at exploiting trade is that, traditionally, oil has been traded in dollars (even transactions between Europe and Saudi, for example). This is starting to change, and with it the dollar's value is sinking. Other countries don't need dollars as OPEC decides to use Euros instead of dollars.

Interestingly, Sadam was one of the first leaders to suggest making the change from dollars. Look what happened to him.

 

[lord_flash]

As an aside, and British readers will know what I mean here, was the Daily Mail in favour of or against sweat shops?

(For Americans and other aliens: The Daily Mail is a newspaper more reactionary than a right-wing republican, which actually supported Hitler before WW2. In general they have anothing against working innocent Chiniese to death, so long as they are not allowed into the UK. Presumably they will be encouraging their readers to buy iPods and possibly the special 'torture' edition, produced by wage-slaves who are beaten extra hard?)

 

[Henri Gaudier]

Then, you have the current economic system in China, which is cruel and unfair.
Trade with China and drag them kicking and screaming from communism to a more equitable system, as happened in Eastern Europe 15 years ago.

In this instance, the Chinese are suffering at the hands of capitalism. The very system that you want to "drag them kicking and screaming" into!

After the collapse of the Soviet Union and free market conditions were imposed, life expectancy dropped in Russia! And as for eastern Europe, I've lived in Budapest and there only the young enjoy capitalism because it offers them techno music, coke and clubs etc. The old, long for communism and old Hungary to return because under communism everyone could afford to eat well. Not now. Near where I used to live, there was an old bar where famous revolutionaries, poets and writers met. The bar was hundreds of years old with period features, wood panneling etc. Macdonalds bought it and ripped it to pieces and made it into their usual corporate shell. There, the staff had to work 2 hours to earn the price of a Bigmac. Now Budapest is full of Macdonalds & CCTV. Hail Capitalism.

 

[TimDaddy]

I guess we should wait until we know for sure this is true, and whether Apple plans to do anything about it, until we rag on them too much. I used my emloyer, Toyota, as an example in my earlier post, so I'll use them again. Certain media outlets around here would have you believe that we are worked like slaves for very little money. People have actually asked me if I really only make half what UAW workers make and work 15-16 hour per day! This not even close to true. The UAW spreads these stories to get public opinion on their side. Do we work a little harder for a little less than UAW workers? Absolutely. But, we have a lot more job security. Hell, this my be the best factory in China, which may not mean much, and The Mail or whoever is just blowing things way out of proportion. I still hate everything being outsourced to countries with virtual slave labor, but maybe we should presume our favorite company innocent until proven guilty.

 

[lord_flash]

In this instance, the Chinese are suffering at the hands of capitalism. The very system that you want to "drag them kicking and screaming" into!

Here, Here! Why is it Americans presume that their way of doing things - which works OK for them - is the right way for everyone? And why try and force it on them in a way no one in America would tolerate. For a demonstration of the failure of 'shock therapy', the economists phrase for the conversion of the former soviet states to capatalism, look at the current crisis in Russia. The population is hemorrhaging, the standard a of living is much lower than under communism and crime - inevitably - is soaring. It's easy to say people should live another way, but you have no right to make them.

An ideal solution would be to let economies, and political systems, evolve naturally. Otherwise you're just a dictator.

 

[Music_Producer]

I love how everyone here tries to feel sorry for the average Chinese worker and quips "I will happily pay more for an ipod if it means better treatment for the factory workers".. Give me a break, 90% of the time all of you complain about how expensive Apple products are.

And you find it shocking that Chinese workers work 15 hours a day? So? They want to work more! My brother in law has 2 jobs, and is out of the house almost all day.. I guess you would say that this country is exploiting him, huh? Its his choice!

And as ArizonaKid commented on how ignorant most of the posts are, I would add to that and even call them retarded. My mom in India, owns a little nursing home, and pays the maids $40/month. Does this mean that she ill-treats them? Or is taking advantage of them? No! Thats how much they are paid, in fact, $40 per month is more than the average 'salary' a maid earns.

My wife (who is typically American, and, you know.. has no clue about how people can live comfortably on this small amount of money) was quite shocked, and thought my mom was some sort of a scrooge, etc.(she actually thought my mom was 'evil' ) Anyway, after she realized (talking to the maids, my friends, etc.) that they would rather work at my mom's place for that $40, than work somewhere else where they get paid $20, she understood. Additionally, they *don't have a choice*! Instead of being bums and begging on the streets, and resorting to crime.. they are willing to work, and $40 gets them food (3 big meals a day) travel money, clothing, etc. And she has 4 kids, sends them to school and takes care of them much better than any of the kids I've seen out here being taken care of.

You can only understand that people can get by with $40/$50 a month, when you realize that unlike life in the United States, its easy to have a decent livelihood in countries like India and China. In fact, I won't be surprised if that maid who earns $40 per month, has more savings than the average joe out here.

And the next time you worry about the condition of Chinese workers, etc.. don't look for low prices at dealnews.com, or go to Walmart, or look for the cheapest LCD monitor you can buy (it has to be made in china), etc etc.

 

[TiMacLover]

This news shocked me.

I was really hit hard when I read of the Nike Apple iPod deal, Nike is a terrible company and I feel Apple should be one of the last to be showing them off to be something good or special in this world.

I literally convence people to buy Apple all the time, but this might make me change winds.

If any of you would like to read more about sweatshops or more into companies known for sweatshops you can visit my myspace I post up a lot of stuff I've collected for people to read, if you like it please pass it on, stop the support of these companies!

http://myspace.com/truthstar

A thing for the people saying that it's the government's fault for these conditions. The governments get money from corporations to carry out controlling these, they are the main supporters! To stop support to the major companies doing these horrid workers misconducts is to send a message to them to change their ways. The popular philosophy is to boycott them so they will begin to loose profit and change their ways. Attacking large companies head one give them a lot of heat to deal with and set an example to others to change their ways.

This has been a great discussion!