You have a key word missing there that makes it difficult to respond to the point you're trying to make.
If the missing word is 'high,' that tells me you don't get Econ 101. You know, demand, supply, competition...
If the missing word is 'low' then I don't understand what you're implying.
Too low. The demand is outstripping supply by too grate a margin which means Apple isn't making as much profit as they otherwise cold have.
This is also seen from the unusually high interest in the high end model over the lower tier models. The standard unit sale model should naturally make the low end sell the most, followed by the middle and then the upper tier.
However I didn't expect them to alter this once this was evident. You can drop price points but it's hard to increase them without potential blow back. I have no ruled out that Apple's use of the Retina Display (and possibly doubling the storage) might lead to an increase in the base price for those models with the new display.
I can make a case for 0.5% for subsidized laptops for poor children. Another person can make a case for setting aside 0.5% to subsidize iPads for doctors who serve patients in the frontlines of war-torn zones. Someone else can make a case for 2.5% for setting up a test manufacturing plant back home in, say, Michigan. Yet another person can make a case for 0.9% for.....
Do you see where I am going with this? Where does it start? Stop? For what causes should it go, and who decides? If there's a toss-up, how do we break the tie about which cause is more important?
What I am talking about is spending money targeted specifically and directly at those who work to assemble Apple products and that's it. I find it odd that you can't see a distinction between that and the examples you cite above.
So Foxconn is allegedly hiding the evidence? Troubling, if true.
I don't believe for a second that Foxconn is deliberately employing underage workers. Given the number of people they employ, it would be surprising if they aren't accidentally doing so due to employees lying about their age. As many in this thread have pointed out, given the huge number of adults applying for jobs there, why on earth would Foxconn deliberately employ under-age labour?
Do you see where I am going with this? Where does it start? Stop
According to Mr. H, it both starts and stops at Apple ensuring that its supply chain use reasonable labor policies. His posts have been clear on that point.
I don't believe for a second that Foxconn is deliberately employing underage workers. Given the number of people they employ, it would be surprising if they aren't accidentally doing so due to employees lying about their age. As many in this thread have pointed out, given the huge number of adults applying for jobs there, why on earth would Foxconn deliberately employ under-age labour?
Did it say they were hiring underage workers, or rather working them longer hours than Chinese law (or was it just policy??) permitted?
How many times do you have to be beaten over the head with the fact at this is NOT an Apple factory? You do realise that this company makes electronic devices for many other companies, right?
And your 6 brain cells havn't been able to compute that this is by design - so that companies like Apple have a scapegoat? Or are you just 'playing' stupid?
The investors on this site make more money in 1 day of doing absolutely nothing then a lot of these workers will who toil in these factories for years. They are easy to pick out... they are the ones lashing out here in Apple's defence... Terrified that their free meal ticket and gravy train is going to end.
According to Mr. H, it both starts and stops at Apple ensuring that its supply chain use reasonable labor policies. His posts have been clear on that point.
Are you his assistant? Or is there an echo in here?
So yes, I thought things could look a lot worse inside Foxconn. And there are no easy answers about what could be done better. If Apple decided to bring its manufacturing stateside instead, costs for its products would, of course, skyrocket. And many thousands of Chinese workers would, let?s remember, lose their jobs.
If Apple took Weir up on his offer and doubled Foxconn factory worker salaries out of its own pocket, leaving prices static and shouldering the impact to its profit, that would be nice, right? Perhaps less so to Apple?s shareholders, but still?Apple can probably afford to double Foxconn employee salaries while remaining hugely profitable; it needs to spend about $2 per hour per day per Foxconn employee.
But is that the right move? I?m not sure what impact such a move would have on the Foxconn employees who work on Dell or Sony or Acer or Amazon products. And I?m not sure it teaches the right values to Foxconn?s management team, either.
While I recognize my own conclusion may be unpopular, here it is: I?m not convinced that Apple needs to right a wrong here. Again, it seems like Foxconn?s existing salaries are competitive, and it?s clear that the company?s jobs are coveted.
I eagerly await the FLA?s report from inside Foxconn, and I?m confident if problems are found, Apple will work to fix them. But I was pleasantly surprised by how bland life inside Foxconn appears. I was expecting a sweatshop staffed with employees leading miserable lives. But Nightline?s report left me feeling that while I wouldn?t want a job at Foxconn, many in China are happy to work there. Seeing that, coupled with my confidence that Apple really will aim to make what improvements it can, makes me feel comfortable using my MacBook Pro without feeling ashamed.
What I am talking about is spending money targeted specifically and directly at those who work to assemble Apple products and that's it. I find it odd that you can't see a distinction between that and the examples you cite above.
I find it odd that you consider that (i.e., pay a profit-making company money to subsidize their workers' living quarters) to be a remotely sensible use of Apple's money compared to educating deprived children or help healthcare workers in the frontlines of war who are or could be using Apple's product.
Indeed, your concern for relatively well-off workers who are relatively well-fed and well-housed compared to poor children and people who are putting their life on the line by trying to save that of others, to be shockingly misplaced.
If you're going to film it i secrecy Burbank isn't the place to do it. Area 51 seems much better suited.
From the title: "Factory workers claim Foxconn hid underage employees before FLA inspection"
Don't believe every AI headline. One a few days ago said Apple's iPhone4 settlement would only apply to a few buyers when Apple said nothing of the sort.
I think in this case Foxconn wasn't accused of hiring underage workers. They were accused of over-working 16 and 17 year olds if I'm correct.
EDIT: You should read more carefully Soli. From AI's article:
Workers at Apple partner Foxconn have alleged that their employer transferred underage employees to other departments or did not schedule them to work overtime in order to avoid discovery during recent inspections by the Fair Labor Association, according to one non-governmental organization...
"All underage workers, between 16-17 years old, were not assigned any overtime work and some of them were even sent to other departments," ...
Apple's supplier code of conduct allows for workers between 16 and 18 years old if they are legally allowed to work, but it requires special protections for those workers that limit how much and what kinds of work they are allowed to perform.
So the employee's weren't under legal age to work. Apple obligated themselves to special protections for those younger worker's and the claim is they weren't following, or at least enforcing, their policy.
I find it odd that you consider that (i.e., pay a profit-making company money to subsidize their workers' living quarters) to be a remotely sensible use of Apple's money compared to educating deprived children or help healthcare workers in the frontlines of war who are or could be using Apple's product.
Indeed, your concern for relatively well-off workers who are relatively well-fed and well-housed compared to poor children and people who are putting their life on the line by trying to save that of others, to be shockingly misplaced.
'Nuff said.
Are you deliberately misunderstanding and/or misinterpreting what I'm saying?
Nice try there with your second paragraph. Were we not talking specifically about what Apple could do with 0.5% of its wealth?
You are the one that brought up "poor children and people who are putting their life on the line by trying to save that of others", and I would add in a way that suggested you think nothing should be spent on them, either.
Don't believe every AI headline. One a few days ago said Apple's iPhone4 settlement would only apply to a few buyers when Apple said nothing of the sort.
I think in this case Foxconn wasn't accused of hiring underage workers. They were accused of over-working 16 and 17 year olds if I'm correct.
The same logic applies. Why would they have to when they have so many of the proper age that can work overtime without an age restriction?
Comments
No.
No.
No.
No.
Yes
No.
Oh, I want to play too!
Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, No, Yes.
What's your counter-argument?
You have a key word missing there that makes it difficult to respond to the point you're trying to make.
If the missing word is 'high,' that tells me you don't get Econ 101. You know, demand, supply, competition...
If the missing word is 'low' then I don't understand what you're implying.
Too low. The demand is outstripping supply by too grate a margin which means Apple isn't making as much profit as they otherwise cold have.
This is also seen from the unusually high interest in the high end model over the lower tier models. The standard unit sale model should naturally make the low end sell the most, followed by the middle and then the upper tier.
However I didn't expect them to alter this once this was evident. You can drop price points but it's hard to increase them without potential blow back. I have no ruled out that Apple's use of the Retina Display (and possibly doubling the storage) might lead to an increase in the base price for those models with the new display.
I can make a case for 0.5% for subsidized laptops for poor children. Another person can make a case for setting aside 0.5% to subsidize iPads for doctors who serve patients in the frontlines of war-torn zones. Someone else can make a case for 2.5% for setting up a test manufacturing plant back home in, say, Michigan. Yet another person can make a case for 0.9% for.....
Do you see where I am going with this? Where does it start? Stop? For what causes should it go, and who decides? If there's a toss-up, how do we break the tie about which cause is more important?
What I am talking about is spending money targeted specifically and directly at those who work to assemble Apple products and that's it. I find it odd that you can't see a distinction between that and the examples you cite above.
oh, i want to play too!
yes, yes, yes, yes, no, yes.
what's your counter-argument?
√ √ √ √ X √ lowercasefiller
So Foxconn is allegedly hiding the evidence? Troubling, if true.
I don't believe for a second that Foxconn is deliberately employing underage workers. Given the number of people they employ, it would be surprising if they aren't accidentally doing so due to employees lying about their age. As many in this thread have pointed out, given the huge number of adults applying for jobs there, why on earth would Foxconn deliberately employ under-age labour?
Out of where do you pull this stuff?
Actually, don't answer that one.....
This one I dreamed up all by myself. That was clear from the post itself.
Do you see where I am going with this? Where does it start? Stop
According to Mr. H, it both starts and stops at Apple ensuring that its supply chain use reasonable labor policies. His posts have been clear on that point.
I don't believe for a second that Foxconn is deliberately employing underage workers. Given the number of people they employ, it would be surprising if they aren't accidentally doing so due to employees lying about their age. As many in this thread have pointed out, given the huge number of adults applying for jobs there, why on earth would Foxconn deliberately employ under-age labour?
Did it say they were hiring underage workers, or rather working them longer hours than Chinese law (or was it just policy??) permitted?
This reminds me of the reports after the first moon landing occurred that it was filmed in a studio in Burbank.
If you're going to film it i secrecy Burbank isn't the place to do it. Area 51 seems much better suited.
Did it say they were hiring underage workers, or rather working them longer hours than Chinese law (or was it just policy??) permitted?
From the title: "Factory workers claim Foxconn hid underage employees before FLA inspection"
This reminds me of the reports after the first moon landing occurred that it was filmed in a studio in Burbank.
Impossible. Everyone knows it was filmed at Area 51.
How many times do you have to be beaten over the head with the fact at this is NOT an Apple factory? You do realise that this company makes electronic devices for many other companies, right?
And your 6 brain cells havn't been able to compute that this is by design - so that companies like Apple have a scapegoat? Or are you just 'playing' stupid?
The investors on this site make more money in 1 day of doing absolutely nothing then a lot of these workers will who toil in these factories for years. They are easy to pick out... they are the ones lashing out here in Apple's defence... Terrified that their free meal ticket and gravy train is going to end.
According to Mr. H, it both starts and stops at Apple ensuring that its supply chain use reasonable labor policies. His posts have been clear on that point.
Are you his assistant? Or is there an echo in here?
http://www.macworld.com/article/1655...t_factory.html
Conclusion:
So yes, I thought things could look a lot worse inside Foxconn. And there are no easy answers about what could be done better. If Apple decided to bring its manufacturing stateside instead, costs for its products would, of course, skyrocket. And many thousands of Chinese workers would, let?s remember, lose their jobs.
If Apple took Weir up on his offer and doubled Foxconn factory worker salaries out of its own pocket, leaving prices static and shouldering the impact to its profit, that would be nice, right? Perhaps less so to Apple?s shareholders, but still?Apple can probably afford to double Foxconn employee salaries while remaining hugely profitable; it needs to spend about $2 per hour per day per Foxconn employee.
But is that the right move? I?m not sure what impact such a move would have on the Foxconn employees who work on Dell or Sony or Acer or Amazon products. And I?m not sure it teaches the right values to Foxconn?s management team, either.
While I recognize my own conclusion may be unpopular, here it is: I?m not convinced that Apple needs to right a wrong here. Again, it seems like Foxconn?s existing salaries are competitive, and it?s clear that the company?s jobs are coveted.
I eagerly await the FLA?s report from inside Foxconn, and I?m confident if problems are found, Apple will work to fix them. But I was pleasantly surprised by how bland life inside Foxconn appears. I was expecting a sweatshop staffed with employees leading miserable lives. But Nightline?s report left me feeling that while I wouldn?t want a job at Foxconn, many in China are happy to work there. Seeing that, coupled with my confidence that Apple really will aim to make what improvements it can, makes me feel comfortable using my MacBook Pro without feeling ashamed.
What I am talking about is spending money targeted specifically and directly at those who work to assemble Apple products and that's it. I find it odd that you can't see a distinction between that and the examples you cite above.
I find it odd that you consider that (i.e., pay a profit-making company money to subsidize their workers' living quarters) to be a remotely sensible use of Apple's money compared to educating deprived children or help healthcare workers in the frontlines of war who are or could be using Apple's product.
Indeed, your concern for relatively well-off workers who are relatively well-fed and well-housed compared to poor children and people who are putting their life on the line by trying to save that of others, to be shockingly misplaced.
'Nuff said.
Under unregulated capitalism, employers gang together to ensure that there will be an army of unemployed, willing to work for slave wages.
Or maybe without all that red tape, there would be so many jobs available, they would be forced to compete for workers.
If you're going to film it i secrecy Burbank isn't the place to do it. Area 51 seems much better suited.
From the title: "Factory workers claim Foxconn hid underage employees before FLA inspection"
Don't believe every AI headline. One a few days ago said Apple's iPhone4 settlement would only apply to a few buyers when Apple said nothing of the sort.
I think in this case Foxconn wasn't accused of hiring underage workers. They were accused of over-working 16 and 17 year olds if I'm correct.
EDIT: You should read more carefully Soli. From AI's article:
Workers at Apple partner Foxconn have alleged that their employer transferred underage employees to other departments or did not schedule them to work overtime in order to avoid discovery during recent inspections by the Fair Labor Association, according to one non-governmental organization...
"All underage workers, between 16-17 years old, were not assigned any overtime work and some of them were even sent to other departments," ...
Apple's supplier code of conduct allows for workers between 16 and 18 years old if they are legally allowed to work, but it requires special protections for those workers that limit how much and what kinds of work they are allowed to perform.
So the employee's weren't under legal age to work. Apple obligated themselves to special protections for those younger worker's and the claim is they weren't following, or at least enforcing, their policy.
I find it odd that you consider that (i.e., pay a profit-making company money to subsidize their workers' living quarters) to be a remotely sensible use of Apple's money compared to educating deprived children or help healthcare workers in the frontlines of war who are or could be using Apple's product.
Indeed, your concern for relatively well-off workers who are relatively well-fed and well-housed compared to poor children and people who are putting their life on the line by trying to save that of others, to be shockingly misplaced.
'Nuff said.
Are you deliberately misunderstanding and/or misinterpreting what I'm saying?
Nice try there with your second paragraph. Were we not talking specifically about what Apple could do with 0.5% of its wealth?
You are the one that brought up "poor children and people who are putting their life on the line by trying to save that of others", and I would add in a way that suggested you think nothing should be spent on them, either.
Don't believe every AI headline. One a few days ago said Apple's iPhone4 settlement would only apply to a few buyers when Apple said nothing of the sort.
I think in this case Foxconn wasn't accused of hiring underage workers. They were accused of over-working 16 and 17 year olds if I'm correct.
The same logic applies. Why would they have to when they have so many of the proper age that can work overtime without an age restriction?