Bla bla bla. That's because they are making 10X what the other factories are making.
So? Since when are the workers entitled to a share of company profits?
Furthermore, your argument is incorrect. No one knows how much Foxconn makes at that factory. After all it is a Foxconn factory, not an Apple one. And, once again, why is Apple singled out when so many other companies use Foxconn?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland
Nope, I'm not. They are bored and their employer needs to help alleviate it. It's simple really. If you had half of a brian you could work it out.
I have a nephew named Brian. Does that help?
Besides, why is it the employer's job to make sure that the employee doesn't get bored? If the employee doesn't want a boring job, they should get an education.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz
Here's the evidence:
Quote:
According to her, local Chinese government departments provide recruitment assistance for Foxconn and sometimes require that schools send their students to the manufacturer for internships even if their studies are in unrelated disciplines.
That is not evidence of slave labor. Furthermore, there's no evidence that Apple uses any of those interns.
You apparently don't understand how education works. Many schools in the U.S. also require internships - even if there are no internships available in the field of study. It is not uncommon for someone to do an internship in an unrelated field. It's not slave labor by any stretch of the imagination.
How is asking someone who apparently thinks everything is fine and dandy if they'd be prepared to work like that, a strawman argument?
Surely it's hypocritical to expect others to live and work in conditions you wouldn't tolerate for yourself or your family just so your favourite company can avoid parting with 0.5% of their accumulated wealth (wealth which was accumulated on the back of these workers in the first place)?
It's like asking a dog if he'd rather be a human. He's always been a dog, how the hell would he know.
If you don't get that then all the explaining in the world won't help you.
How is asking someone who apparently thinks everything is fine and dandy if they'd be prepared to work like that, a strawman argument?
Surely it's hypocritical to expect others to live and work in conditions you wouldn't tolerate for yourself or your family just so your favourite company can avoid parting with 0.5% of their accumulated wealth (wealth which was accumulated on the back of these workers in the first place)?
I think this is the wrong argument to make.
If no one expected someone else to do work that they wouldn't do themselves, the world would stop working overnight.
There are different classes of people and jobs inside every economy/country as well as between each country. It's not like everyone in North America is drinking lattes and everyone in China is slaving in a mine. There are rich people over there and poor people over here.
A more reasonable way to look at it is how are the wages and conditions relative to the general wages and conditions of the economy/country in general?
Another good metric would be, how do the jobs in the Chinese factories compare to factory jobs anywhere else or even specifically in the North American economy?
The accusations of "repetitive, boring work" for instance are ludicrous when one is talking about work in a factory on an assembly line. The idea that you might get a relatively bad wage for doing such trash work is also obvious and prevalent everywhere, not just China.
I've had many jobs (granted not recently), that involved working in a factory doing the same stupid actions over and over again day after day for minimum wage. They were mind numbingly stupid jobs that I got out of as soon as I could, and they were all in North America.
The accusations of "repetitive, boring work" for instance are ludicrous when one is talking about work in a factory on an assembly line. The idea that you might get a relatively bad wage for doing such trash work is also obvious and prevalent everywhere, not just China.
I agree with most of what you said, especially this. However, we seem to have got away from what I was originally called on - I said Apple could spend a very small amount of their accumulated wealth (a one-off cost) in order to substantially improve the living conditions of everyone who works to make their products.
If you're going to try and tell me that that's a stupid idea, you need to come up with more convincing arguments.
1) well... Its complicated, but probably not too young. But just curious because you tend to give the more reasoned responses in this forum...in your opinion, how young is enough to work in a factory 60 hours a week and why? IMO, it should be at the end of about 10 years of basic education. Enough to know if there is other oppurtunities. Now is 60 hours too much... Whole other discussion.
Wow, I remember when we had big factories with tons of manual labor. Sigh.
I think that depends on the country's laws, which should take into account many factors such as way or life and culture.
I don't think that a 17yo that came from a rural area is going to a structured school at 17yo. I think it's similar to the US during its industrial revolution... except with plenty of cameras to record what is going on.
Personally I don't think 60 hours a week of a structured environment is too young for a 17yo, but I do think that 10 hours a week of a monotonous job is too much in the sense that they aren't learning anything. They aren't engaging their still developing minds.
That doesn't mean I would take this opportunity away from them as without it they have much less structure, little to no opportunities, and it ends up hurting their community and themselves more.
Quote:
2) Is this a rhetorical question?
Absolutely not. With 10s of thousands of people lining up for work why would Foxconn need to hire and then hide underage workers when there are so many workers of the appropriate age willing to work?
Sounds like the pay is better at Foxconn, for Apple employes at least, than other employees at Foxconn and elsewhere. Now the hours have to be address (an eight hour day, a five day week) which will lighten the paycheque but allow for a life. Foxconn and Apple can decide if they want to pay overtime (over an 8 hour day which would then be the prerogative of the employer and employee). One meal break and two fifteen minutes breaks is the norm in the West. Problem solved.
Many would choose the work the over time. A union of sorts would benefit both employer and employee and address disagreements.
He said, she said doesn't address the problem.
The government has to become part of the picture with labour reform and labour standards.
That can't do that Shaun, because that would work and people on this forum don't want to solve problems, they just want to defend Apple no matter what. If anything threatens their little Apple they put on their cult hats and start kicking, screaming and generally belittling.
I know what you mean Ireland. Shame we can't pass off all the nutters to 9to5Mac lol.
Classic strawman argument. Clearly Apple can't afford to give away iPads and making profit isn't evil. But spending money on improving accommodation would be a one-off cost that Apple would in effect not even notice.
It is a fact that relative to subsistence costs in China, the Foxconn wage is a good one. The hours are (very) long but not unheard of in developed nations. This is far from slave labour but would you do it? Would you be happy for your son or daughter to do it? Would you be happy to live in accommodation where you share washing facilities and don't even have your own bedroom? I think that just because conditions in the rest of China are worse doesn't mean that you should be able to so easily brush this under the carpet.
It is also a fact that Apple have accumulated $100 billion due to their very high margins, a significant element of which is the low manufacturing costs. I really do not think that asking them to put 0.5% of that back into the system is too much to ask.
I am the one making a 'straw man argument'?! If you know what that means, look in the mirror.
More to the point, if I (and my family) lived in the conditions that most of Foxconn's labor pool does, you bet your patootie I would do it. Gladly. Joyfully. Thankfully.
In fact, I'd be really distressed at condescending - even if well-meaning - Westerners judging me and telling me how I should live my life.
As someone said in a different thread a little while ago, if Apple offered two iPads that are identical: one for $499 and the other for $549 where Apple promised that the extra $50 would go to provide better accommodations for Foxconn workers, which line would you stand in?
I agree with most of what you said, especially this. However, we seem to have got away from what I was originally called on - I said Apple could spend a very small amount of their accumulated wealth (a one-off cost) in order to substantially improve the living conditions of everyone who works to make their products.
If you're going to try and tell me that that's a stupid idea, you need to come up with more convincing arguments.
Of course it's not a stupid idea but, and I've said this before, Foxconn is not an island unto itself. We don't know if there is any pressure on Foxconn from the government to maintain an environment that isn't too far above the status quo. Raising the standard of living for one small group of people (yes, even a million people is a small group in China) could cause a lot of disruption throughout the entire manufacturing base.
... and, as I've also said before, anyone who doubts this just has to read about the labor movements in the U.S. and Britain. Changes at one plant creates a chain of events all the way down the line.
I am the one making a 'straw man argument'?! If you know what that means, look in the mirror.
Yes, you are. I suggested making a one-off spend and your reply failed to address the point and instead made a silly retort.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
As someone said in a different thread a little while ago, if Apple offered two iPads that are identical: one for $499 and the other for $549 where Apple promised that the extra $50 would go to provide better accommodations for Foxconn workers, which line would you stand in?
I pay extra for my meat to ensure that the animals had a better life whilst they were alive.
Anyway, your question is irrelevant. Apple has already accumulated enough wealth to address living conditions. I've think I've already made it clear I don't really have a problem with wages.
Of course it's not a stupid idea but, and I've said this before, Foxconn is not an island unto itself.
I am aware of this. I'm not saying Apple should make living conditions in all of China better. I think Apple have enough money that they could make living conditions for people manufacturing Apple products better. Apple has no obligation to improve conditions for those working on other products.
This would increase supply of workers wishing to work on Apple production lines and enable Foxconn to cherry-pick the most able workers for said Apple lines. This improves manufacturing efficiency and/or quality for Apple and puts pressure on other Foxconn clients to step up and improve conditions for their workers.
I am aware of this. I'm not saying Apple should make living conditions in all of China better. I think Apple have enough money that they could make living conditions for people manufacturing Apple products better. Apple has no obligation to improve conditions for those working on other products.
This would increase supply of workers wishing to work on Apple production lines and enable Foxconn to cherry-pick the most able workers for said Apple lines. This improves manufacturing efficiency and/or quality for Apple and puts pressure on other Foxconn clients to step up and improve conditions for their workers.
It sounded like a lot of what a "friend of a friend saw" and not any kind of proof that what Chan is stating like it is fact, is anything other than rumors.
Adding to this, she's doing a lot of "Apple needs to" without first going to the local government and demanding laws are changed.
Plus there's a lot of assumption and supposition going on without real facts to back it up.
For example, at what point is a teenager no longer a legally mandated student. By that I mean is it legally possible that a 16-17 year old has completed all required education and simply isn't going on to university and instead going into trade work. This is possible in the UK etc even though the US system isn't set up that way (which is why we have rules about no more than 20 hours a week, not after 9pm during the school year etc). Chan seems to be assuming that all 16-17 year olds are or are supposed to be in school. Is this true.
Then there's the living wage issue. According to recent articles, these workers make roughly $1.80 an hour. they have the choice to pay $17 a month to live in the dorms (which most of them do) and spend about $2.50 a day for meals in the cafe. So their room and board is roughly $92 a month. I don't know the tax game in China but in the US, someone can lose around 1/3 of their pay in various taxes so lets use that math. That's still $192 for someone that works 5 day a week 8 hours a day. With rent, food and utilities covered that's $100 left for them to do whatever with. That math doesn't sound like anyone is forced into working overtime to live (unless they want a more posh life).
Also are they being paid extra for OT and under china law when does that kick in. It is possible that in China 12 hours a day isn't OT, nor is 6 days a week. Which means that the laws are the issue, not Foxconn. Because the workers would know that that is the score as it is the score everywhere.
Reports like this are half formed and that irks me. Almost as much as that "Agony and Ecstasy of Steve Jobs" show where the guy wrote it mostly off of rumor and admits he has no understand of Chinese law or culture and from his tone doesn't care to understand.
Apple has already accumulated enough wealth to address living conditions. I've think I've already made it clear I don't really have a problem with wages.
I'm assuming if anybody is between 16-18 and working, then they are doing it because they want to and they are getting paid adequately, so what's the problem again? .
The activists want to make it sound like parents are yanking their dumb teens out of school and sending them to work to support the family when that might not be the case at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
after repeating the same motion thousands of times a day, they feel like machines.
Maybe they should be sent back to school cause they aren't smart enough to understand what factory work is. Nor that they haven't sold themselves to the company for life so they have the right to quit and they should use it.
It's like that one article that quoted the woman that took a temp job during her uni 'spring break' (which was about a month long). She said she wanted to make some quick and fairly easy money but then complained about long hours etc. She actually made the comment that she was quitting in a week to go back to school and she was going to work night and day to make sure she got perfect marks so she'd never have to come back to a place like Foxconn again.
As someone said in a different thread a little while ago, if Apple offered two iPads that are identical: one for $499 and the other for $549 where Apple promised that the extra $50 would go to provide better accommodations for Foxconn workers, which line would you stand in?
$50 is way too much. If an iPad cost an extra $14.10, that would allow an extra 10 cents for each of the 141 steps needed to make one.
If the deal was that the worker got 8 cents and Foxcon got 2 cents, the worker's pay would go up hugely, Foxcon's profits would go up hugely, Apple would lose nothing, and lots of people would pay an extra $14.10.
I agree with most of what you said, especially this. However, we seem to have got away from what I was originally called on - I said Apple could spend a very small amount of their accumulated wealth (a one-off cost) in order to substantially improve the living conditions of everyone who works to make their products.
If you're going to try and tell me that that's a stupid idea, you need to come up with more convincing arguments.
Assuming they all make $1.78 per hour and there are 400k employees working on Apple products that's over $2 billion a year lose in profit. While I'm all for other making more money if they are currently well above the average with people begging for jobs does it make sense to pay them more for a job that takes little to no skill set?
What if that wage doubling would be the shift that would fire half the workforce in favour of automation? Now you have 200k less jobs with those employees making no money and living on the street or going back home to farms that can't satisfactorily offer gainful employment, food or perhaps even shelter.
That was just a simple way for me to make an example. I realize that you specifically mentioned living conditions not base pay. Now I agree that the living conditions could be improved and I would even go so far to say that the living conditions over anything else is likely the cause of the suicide. There is privacy, no adequate personal space to call your own, but at some point increasing the standard of living will have the same effect in the scenario above. Robots don't need a place to sleep and eat. They don't need private bathrooms or game rooms.
This seems to be the same thing we've seen in history books with so many other countries industrializing... except with cameras. I wonder if it's our place to say how they should be run. I also wonder why we are focusing on Foxconn when there are other countries that have a lot more people suffering with no hope of a Foxconn-like factory giving them a chance to work and live in a clean and safe environment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
As someone said in a different thread a little while ago, if Apple offered two iPads that are identical: one for $499 and the other for $549 where Apple promised that the extra $50 would go to provide better accommodations for Foxconn workers, which line would you stand in?
If we just account for the 141 stations mentioned for the iPad that $50 gets stripped down to an additional 36¢ per iPad per person on that line at any one time. How many iPads can they make in a day?
I'm willing to pay that. I have even said that Apple has priced the iPad too because it has no competition and it stays hard to come by for far too long in its release cycle.
Comments
The management behaves differently when the inspectors are around as opposed to when they are not??? ZOMG!
That would *never* happen in the USA.
Workers in a Factory have to do boring, repetitive actions all day long?
Unheard of!
Bla bla bla. That's because they are making 10X what the other factories are making.
So? Since when are the workers entitled to a share of company profits?
Furthermore, your argument is incorrect. No one knows how much Foxconn makes at that factory. After all it is a Foxconn factory, not an Apple one. And, once again, why is Apple singled out when so many other companies use Foxconn?
Nope, I'm not. They are bored and their employer needs to help alleviate it. It's simple really. If you had half of a brian you could work it out.
I have a nephew named Brian. Does that help?
Besides, why is it the employer's job to make sure that the employee doesn't get bored? If the employee doesn't want a boring job, they should get an education.
Here's the evidence:
According to her, local Chinese government departments provide recruitment assistance for Foxconn and sometimes require that schools send their students to the manufacturer for internships even if their studies are in unrelated disciplines.
That is not evidence of slave labor. Furthermore, there's no evidence that Apple uses any of those interns.
You apparently don't understand how education works. Many schools in the U.S. also require internships - even if there are no internships available in the field of study. It is not uncommon for someone to do an internship in an unrelated field. It's not slave labor by any stretch of the imagination.
How is asking someone who apparently thinks everything is fine and dandy if they'd be prepared to work like that, a strawman argument?
Surely it's hypocritical to expect others to live and work in conditions you wouldn't tolerate for yourself or your family just so your favourite company can avoid parting with 0.5% of their accumulated wealth (wealth which was accumulated on the back of these workers in the first place)?
It's like asking a dog if he'd rather be a human. He's always been a dog, how the hell would he know.
If you don't get that then all the explaining in the world won't help you.
How is asking someone who apparently thinks everything is fine and dandy if they'd be prepared to work like that, a strawman argument?
Surely it's hypocritical to expect others to live and work in conditions you wouldn't tolerate for yourself or your family just so your favourite company can avoid parting with 0.5% of their accumulated wealth (wealth which was accumulated on the back of these workers in the first place)?
I think this is the wrong argument to make.
If no one expected someone else to do work that they wouldn't do themselves, the world would stop working overnight.
There are different classes of people and jobs inside every economy/country as well as between each country. It's not like everyone in North America is drinking lattes and everyone in China is slaving in a mine. There are rich people over there and poor people over here.
A more reasonable way to look at it is how are the wages and conditions relative to the general wages and conditions of the economy/country in general?
Another good metric would be, how do the jobs in the Chinese factories compare to factory jobs anywhere else or even specifically in the North American economy?
The accusations of "repetitive, boring work" for instance are ludicrous when one is talking about work in a factory on an assembly line. The idea that you might get a relatively bad wage for doing such trash work is also obvious and prevalent everywhere, not just China.
I've had many jobs (granted not recently), that involved working in a factory doing the same stupid actions over and over again day after day for minimum wage. They were mind numbingly stupid jobs that I got out of as soon as I could, and they were all in North America.
The accusations of "repetitive, boring work" for instance are ludicrous when one is talking about work in a factory on an assembly line. The idea that you might get a relatively bad wage for doing such trash work is also obvious and prevalent everywhere, not just China.
I agree with most of what you said, especially this. However, we seem to have got away from what I was originally called on - I said Apple could spend a very small amount of their accumulated wealth (a one-off cost) in order to substantially improve the living conditions of everyone who works to make their products.
If you're going to try and tell me that that's a stupid idea, you need to come up with more convincing arguments.
1) well... Its complicated, but probably not too young. But just curious because you tend to give the more reasoned responses in this forum...in your opinion, how young is enough to work in a factory 60 hours a week and why? IMO, it should be at the end of about 10 years of basic education. Enough to know if there is other oppurtunities. Now is 60 hours too much... Whole other discussion.
Wow, I remember when we had big factories with tons of manual labor. Sigh.
I think that depends on the country's laws, which should take into account many factors such as way or life and culture.
I don't think that a 17yo that came from a rural area is going to a structured school at 17yo. I think it's similar to the US during its industrial revolution... except with plenty of cameras to record what is going on.
Personally I don't think 60 hours a week of a structured environment is too young for a 17yo, but I do think that 10 hours a week of a monotonous job is too much in the sense that they aren't learning anything. They aren't engaging their still developing minds.
That doesn't mean I would take this opportunity away from them as without it they have much less structure, little to no opportunities, and it ends up hurting their community and themselves more.
2) Is this a rhetorical question?
Absolutely not. With 10s of thousands of people lining up for work why would Foxconn need to hire and then hide underage workers when there are so many workers of the appropriate age willing to work?
Many would choose the work the over time. A union of sorts would benefit both employer and employee and address disagreements.
He said, she said doesn't address the problem.
The government has to become part of the picture with labour reform and labour standards.
Otherwise, who knows who is telling the truth.
That can't do that Shaun, because that would work and people on this forum don't want to solve problems, they just want to defend Apple no matter what. If anything threatens their little Apple they put on their cult hats and start kicking, screaming and generally belittling.
I know what you mean Ireland. Shame we can't pass off all the nutters to 9to5Mac lol.
Classic strawman argument. Clearly Apple can't afford to give away iPads and making profit isn't evil. But spending money on improving accommodation would be a one-off cost that Apple would in effect not even notice.
It is a fact that relative to subsistence costs in China, the Foxconn wage is a good one. The hours are (very) long but not unheard of in developed nations. This is far from slave labour but would you do it? Would you be happy for your son or daughter to do it? Would you be happy to live in accommodation where you share washing facilities and don't even have your own bedroom? I think that just because conditions in the rest of China are worse doesn't mean that you should be able to so easily brush this under the carpet.
It is also a fact that Apple have accumulated $100 billion due to their very high margins, a significant element of which is the low manufacturing costs. I really do not think that asking them to put 0.5% of that back into the system is too much to ask.
I am the one making a 'straw man argument'?! If you know what that means, look in the mirror.
More to the point, if I (and my family) lived in the conditions that most of Foxconn's labor pool does, you bet your patootie I would do it. Gladly. Joyfully. Thankfully.
In fact, I'd be really distressed at condescending - even if well-meaning - Westerners judging me and telling me how I should live my life.
As someone said in a different thread a little while ago, if Apple offered two iPads that are identical: one for $499 and the other for $549 where Apple promised that the extra $50 would go to provide better accommodations for Foxconn workers, which line would you stand in?
Nope, I'm not. They are bored ....
Then they should quit, let someone else have the job, go write an opera or something.
I agree with most of what you said, especially this. However, we seem to have got away from what I was originally called on - I said Apple could spend a very small amount of their accumulated wealth (a one-off cost) in order to substantially improve the living conditions of everyone who works to make their products.
If you're going to try and tell me that that's a stupid idea, you need to come up with more convincing arguments.
Of course it's not a stupid idea but, and I've said this before, Foxconn is not an island unto itself. We don't know if there is any pressure on Foxconn from the government to maintain an environment that isn't too far above the status quo. Raising the standard of living for one small group of people (yes, even a million people is a small group in China) could cause a lot of disruption throughout the entire manufacturing base.
... and, as I've also said before, anyone who doubts this just has to read about the labor movements in the U.S. and Britain. Changes at one plant creates a chain of events all the way down the line.
I am the one making a 'straw man argument'?! If you know what that means, look in the mirror.
Yes, you are. I suggested making a one-off spend and your reply failed to address the point and instead made a silly retort.
As someone said in a different thread a little while ago, if Apple offered two iPads that are identical: one for $499 and the other for $549 where Apple promised that the extra $50 would go to provide better accommodations for Foxconn workers, which line would you stand in?
I pay extra for my meat to ensure that the animals had a better life whilst they were alive.
Anyway, your question is irrelevant. Apple has already accumulated enough wealth to address living conditions. I've think I've already made it clear I don't really have a problem with wages.
Of course it's not a stupid idea but, and I've said this before, Foxconn is not an island unto itself.
I am aware of this. I'm not saying Apple should make living conditions in all of China better. I think Apple have enough money that they could make living conditions for people manufacturing Apple products better. Apple has no obligation to improve conditions for those working on other products.
This would increase supply of workers wishing to work on Apple production lines and enable Foxconn to cherry-pick the most able workers for said Apple lines. This improves manufacturing efficiency and/or quality for Apple and puts pressure on other Foxconn clients to step up and improve conditions for their workers.
I am aware of this. I'm not saying Apple should make living conditions in all of China better. I think Apple have enough money that they could make living conditions for people manufacturing Apple products better. Apple has no obligation to improve conditions for those working on other products.
This would increase supply of workers wishing to work on Apple production lines and enable Foxconn to cherry-pick the most able workers for said Apple lines. This improves manufacturing efficiency and/or quality for Apple and puts pressure on other Foxconn clients to step up and improve conditions for their workers.
You obviously didn't understand my comment.
It sounded like a lot of what a "friend of a friend saw" and not any kind of proof that what Chan is stating like it is fact, is anything other than rumors.
Adding to this, she's doing a lot of "Apple needs to" without first going to the local government and demanding laws are changed.
Plus there's a lot of assumption and supposition going on without real facts to back it up.
For example, at what point is a teenager no longer a legally mandated student. By that I mean is it legally possible that a 16-17 year old has completed all required education and simply isn't going on to university and instead going into trade work. This is possible in the UK etc even though the US system isn't set up that way (which is why we have rules about no more than 20 hours a week, not after 9pm during the school year etc). Chan seems to be assuming that all 16-17 year olds are or are supposed to be in school. Is this true.
Then there's the living wage issue. According to recent articles, these workers make roughly $1.80 an hour. they have the choice to pay $17 a month to live in the dorms (which most of them do) and spend about $2.50 a day for meals in the cafe. So their room and board is roughly $92 a month. I don't know the tax game in China but in the US, someone can lose around 1/3 of their pay in various taxes so lets use that math. That's still $192 for someone that works 5 day a week 8 hours a day. With rent, food and utilities covered that's $100 left for them to do whatever with. That math doesn't sound like anyone is forced into working overtime to live (unless they want a more posh life).
Also are they being paid extra for OT and under china law when does that kick in. It is possible that in China 12 hours a day isn't OT, nor is 6 days a week. Which means that the laws are the issue, not Foxconn. Because the workers would know that that is the score as it is the score everywhere.
Reports like this are half formed and that irks me. Almost as much as that "Agony and Ecstasy of Steve Jobs" show where the guy wrote it mostly off of rumor and admits he has no understand of Chinese law or culture and from his tone doesn't care to understand.
You obviously didn't understand my comment.
oops. Sorry.
So you are suggesting that perhaps there is a Chinese government conspiracy that prevents Foxconn improving the living conditions of its workers?
Apple has already accumulated enough wealth to address living conditions. I've think I've already made it clear I don't really have a problem with wages.
And to whom do you think that money belongs?
I'm assuming if anybody is between 16-18 and working, then they are doing it because they want to and they are getting paid adequately, so what's the problem again? .
The activists want to make it sound like parents are yanking their dumb teens out of school and sending them to work to support the family when that might not be the case at all.
after repeating the same motion thousands of times a day, they feel like machines.
Maybe they should be sent back to school cause they aren't smart enough to understand what factory work is. Nor that they haven't sold themselves to the company for life so they have the right to quit and they should use it.
It's like that one article that quoted the woman that took a temp job during her uni 'spring break' (which was about a month long). She said she wanted to make some quick and fairly easy money but then complained about long hours etc. She actually made the comment that she was quitting in a week to go back to school and she was going to work night and day to make sure she got perfect marks so she'd never have to come back to a place like Foxconn again.
These kids haven't figured that last bit out yet
As someone said in a different thread a little while ago, if Apple offered two iPads that are identical: one for $499 and the other for $549 where Apple promised that the extra $50 would go to provide better accommodations for Foxconn workers, which line would you stand in?
$50 is way too much. If an iPad cost an extra $14.10, that would allow an extra 10 cents for each of the 141 steps needed to make one.
If the deal was that the worker got 8 cents and Foxcon got 2 cents, the worker's pay would go up hugely, Foxcon's profits would go up hugely, Apple would lose nothing, and lots of people would pay an extra $14.10.
That is my guess, anyways.
I agree with most of what you said, especially this. However, we seem to have got away from what I was originally called on - I said Apple could spend a very small amount of their accumulated wealth (a one-off cost) in order to substantially improve the living conditions of everyone who works to make their products.
If you're going to try and tell me that that's a stupid idea, you need to come up with more convincing arguments.
Assuming they all make $1.78 per hour and there are 400k employees working on Apple products that's over $2 billion a year lose in profit. While I'm all for other making more money if they are currently well above the average with people begging for jobs does it make sense to pay them more for a job that takes little to no skill set?
What if that wage doubling would be the shift that would fire half the workforce in favour of automation? Now you have 200k less jobs with those employees making no money and living on the street or going back home to farms that can't satisfactorily offer gainful employment, food or perhaps even shelter.
That was just a simple way for me to make an example. I realize that you specifically mentioned living conditions not base pay. Now I agree that the living conditions could be improved and I would even go so far to say that the living conditions over anything else is likely the cause of the suicide. There is privacy, no adequate personal space to call your own, but at some point increasing the standard of living will have the same effect in the scenario above. Robots don't need a place to sleep and eat. They don't need private bathrooms or game rooms.
This seems to be the same thing we've seen in history books with so many other countries industrializing... except with cameras. I wonder if it's our place to say how they should be run. I also wonder why we are focusing on Foxconn when there are other countries that have a lot more people suffering with no hope of a Foxconn-like factory giving them a chance to work and live in a clean and safe environment.
As someone said in a different thread a little while ago, if Apple offered two iPads that are identical: one for $499 and the other for $549 where Apple promised that the extra $50 would go to provide better accommodations for Foxconn workers, which line would you stand in?
If we just account for the 141 stations mentioned for the iPad that $50 gets stripped down to an additional 36¢ per iPad per person on that line at any one time. How many iPads can they make in a day?
I'm willing to pay that. I have even said that Apple has priced the iPad too because it has no competition and it stays hard to come by for far too long in its release cycle.