Quote:
Originally Posted by
Alonso Perez 
Here is a simple metric: if a worker making iPads can't possibly afford even the cheapest model, the wages are too low.
I think that's a flawed argument. There's plenty of people in the US that can't afford an iPad either, and they're making much more than the Chinese factory workers. It would be more accurate to say that if a worker can't afford the necessities of life (food, shelter), then the wages are too low. The value of the product being assembled is irrelevant. Even in the US, the average line worker in auto manufacturing plants can't afford the vehicles they're assembling without taking out a multi-year loan (it's more than their annual salary), and even then perhaps not after living expenses are considered. My first job out of college as a software engineer (with a 4-year degree, that's "skilled" labor mind you, not unskilled manufacturing work), fully half of my salary, before taxes, was what an apartment cost to rent in the same area. And I wasn't unique in that. Nobody considered that 'too low'. It was considered a reasonable entry-level salary. If an unskilled Chinese laborer can rent a 1 bedroom apartment for half their monthly salary, and still afford to feed themselves for the month with the other half, why is that unreasonable?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Alonso Perez
If they have virtually no time off, then the hours are too long.
That's a little vague, but working 60 hours per week (one of the most recent accusations leveled) is not "too long". There are countries where the US-accepted 40-hour week is considered excessive too. Does that mean that US residents should only work 30 hours per week? For plenty of people in the US, forty to sixty hours is a normal workweek. "Too long" is working for 80 hour weeks for two months, followed by 4 days straight in your office, taking 1 hour power naps every 10 hours or so, just to complete a project. Then getting a whole weekend off and repeating the process all over again. This, I can also say, is from personal experience. On top of that, being salaried, there was
no overtime pay - it was 'just part of the job'. Hell, even as a teenager (16-22 years old) I worked 40-80 (and occasionally up to 100) hours per week between two jobs for 4 months out of the year (summers) in order to earn the money I needed. When school was in session I worked 10-20 hours per week on nights & weekends, on top of attending school full-time. Nobody was yelling about underage labor or not enough "time off".
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Alonso Perez
If they can be made to work at any hour, day or night, with little or no notice, then the conditions are too harsh.
You're right, forced labor is too harsh. But accepting a job where shift work is a possibility, and known in advance, is not. Even if that means doing night shifts on week and days the next. It's damned rough to work jobs like that, but it hardly counts as a human rights violation. There's low-income individuals in the US that do exactly that; working two jobs, six or seven days per week, just to make ends meet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Alonso Perez
China needs to be China, but you don't need to replay the 19th century again every time a country industrializes, particularly if the companies responsible are from the West and already know how that played out.
No, not play-for-play as it went down in the developed west, and I raised the point that western development has mitigated this somewhat in China, but to a certain extent, you do. It has to come around on it's own, otherwise it's an artificial change and it won't stick. It's a bit of a stretch for a metaphor, but just because your older sibling made mistakes as a teenager and learned from them, doesn't mean you won't make the same mistakes, even if you know about them - it's part of the growth process.
