I don't agree with Apple doing it just because they have the money. The Chinese government has a lot more money so why are we expecting them to better there way of life?
Because it's Apple who for years has benefited from the low manufacturing cost, which has enabled them to accumulate a vast amount of wealth that now puts them in the position of having the means to address the situation whilst suffering as-near-as-damnit no material impact.
Because it's Apple who for years has benefited from the low manufacturing cost, which has enabled them to accumulate a vast amount of wealth that now puts them in the position of having the means to address the situation whilst suffering as-near-as-damnit no material impact.
What about China benefiting from a low cost work force that most of the rest of the world can't compete with?
It's certainly noble to take a stand for the betterment of others who can do nothing for you but unfortunately this isn't how good business works. There has to be a reason that is ulately financial to get Apple involved.
Perhaps I can use the Socrate method to relay my point so let me ask you this: Should Apple, utilizing Foxcon's labor force not jut focus on the 400k employees working on their products or for all of Foxconn? If Apple should take an initiative for some of Foxconn's employees why no the ones working on products for MS, Dell, Acer, etc.? They certainly have the money and they still people if they aren't making iDevices.
And what about the other 75 clients. Should they put in offices and hotlines and police the factory as well.
Sure why not. I think a million people work at Foxconn so there is plenty of space. Or Apple could take the lead, claim the moral high ground and use it as a selling point. Apple embraced environmental concerns a few years ago and now it's at the forefront of their marketing.
Because it's Apple who for years has benefited from the low manufacturing cost, which has enabled them to accumulate a vast amount of wealth that now puts them in the position of having the means to address the situation whilst suffering as-near-as-damnit no material impact.
But do you think it would be fair for Foxconn to pay ONLY workers who touch Apple product more, and leave the rest as is? Wouldn't that cause tension within the company, and contribute to a feeling of injustice and unfairness, especially when the job description is the same whether its an iPad or anything else? Should Apple then contribute to the pay of ALL of Foxconn's employees, thus subsidizing the company? I'd love workers to be paid more, I just think the hypothetical scenarios of Apple contributing to suppliers wages is extremely complex, and not so cut and dry, especially considering the unfair dynamics and politics it would introduce within the company.
What about China benefiting from a low cost work force that most of the rest of the world can't compete with?
I'm not convinced China has the means to improve the living quarters of every Chinese citizen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
There has to be a reason that is ulately financial to get Apple involved.
Well, I disagree with that but nevertheless we've both answered this question already; in the long run I believe Apple would financially gain from the investment:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
by allowing the workers happier which will increase productivity, longer employment per individual, and result in increase goodwill among buyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Should Apple, utilizing Foxcon's labor force not jut focus on the 400k employees working on their products or for all of Foxconn? If Apple should take an initiative for some of Foxconn's employees why no the ones working on products for MS, Dell, Acer, etc.? They certainly have the money and they still people if they aren't making iDevices.
I've already addressed this. I think I've made it clear that I'm talking about Apple spending money to improve living quarters for those working on Apple products, not anyone else's. They are indeed still people if they are not making iDevices but it's up to DELL etc. and DELL etc.'s customers to actively do something about those making DELL etc.'s products.
I'm not convinced China has the means to improve the living quarters of every Chinese citizen.
China has magnitudes more money than Apple to improve the conditions of average Chinese.... and I think they are. They have a fast growing middle class and that market will likely be more profitable for Apple than the US within a few years.
Quote:
I've already addressed this. I think I've made it clear that I'm talking about Apple spending money to improve living quarters for those working on Apple products, not anyone else's. They are indeed still people if they are not making iDevices but it's up to DELL etc. and DELL etc.'s customers to actively do something about those making DELL etc.'s products.
That I don't get. If it's about Apple's bottom line then I agree with Apple doing it (or any company) and Apple has more reason to because of their financial and psychological position in the world (which is why this story has even happened). But if we are talking about being humane then that should transcend anything to do with working on Apple product or even working at Foxconn or being Chinese. It should be about giving everyone an opportunity.
It sounds like we are in agreement on many aspects here but perhaps the way were coming at it is different. It's certainly not an easy problem to resolve or else we wouldn't be discussing it.
So Foxconn is allegedly hiding the evidence? Troubling, if true.
I don't see why they would need to. If they so many applying for the jobs why would they hire 13yos when it's against the law? What is the benefit for Foxconn over workers of the appropriate age?
Because it's Apple who for years has benefited from the low manufacturing cost, which has enabled them to accumulate a vast amount of wealth that now puts them in the position of having the means to address the situation whilst suffering as-near-as-damnit no material impact.
I spent the 1950s in 40-beds dormitories. And the food was institutional and awful. And for the most part the hygienic conditions were substandard for the days. Yet my parents paid extortion money to get me in.
Why? Well, the educational matrix was so tightly fitted to my potential that it relegated the relatively poor living conditions where they belong: an ancillary footnote in my personal history.
This debate should hover over lifting young people up from futureless misery through life-changing, potential-enabling priorities. Easy access to a new educational framework, to innovative educational tools, ...and time slots to unleash all that great creative potential onto it.
My intellectual development had to pay due process for its enablement. And I'm none the physically worst for it. If Apple can seize the moment and 'mobilize' part of its cash riches for youth enfranchisement, I would look upon it as a paradigmatic cash procurement.
Because it's Apple who for years has benefited from the low manufacturing cost, which has enabled them to accumulate a vast amount of wealth that now puts them in the position of having the means to address the situation whilst suffering as-near-as-damnit no material impact.
That's the essence of socialism, right there, folks. Its nothing more than theft. And you see in this post the naked greed at the root of it.
These people don't give a damn about workers, they just want to steal Apple's money. Apple is a target because it has been successful.
Nevermind that when these people get their way, as they had in China in the not too distant past, 10s of MILLIONS of people starve.
Nope. Who cares about genocide, so long as I can steal from the productive!
Mr. H is advocating theft, nothing more, and in one way or another, he's doing it because HE will benefit from the idea taking hold.
Because it's Apple who for years has benefited from the low manufacturing cost, which has enabled them to accumulate a vast amount of wealth that now puts them in the position of having the means to address the situation whilst suffering as-near-as-damnit no material impact.
Nicely stated.
My guess is that they could do everything you suggest, gain a public relations coup, and earn a profit on the invested capital.
So Foxconn is allegedly hiding the evidence? Troubling, if true.
Don't trouble yourself.
Leftists lie. its what they do when it comes to economics. They can't stand reality, so they lie. No matter what Apple does, they'll be claiming that Apple is employing underage workers. Its the only thing they have to use against Apple.
If Apple made all their hardware by robots, they'd be complaining that Apple wasn't employing enough humans.
(Neocons lie too, only they lie to get us into wars... about equally as destructive.)
Nicely stated. My guess is that they could do everything you suggest, gain a public relations coup, and earn a profit on the invested capital.
This ignores economic reality. When you have some jobs paying massively more than others, then you have a massive increase in desire for those jobs, which leads to job peddling, back room deals, etc. It is the creator of corruption.
Mr. H would love that, because in a few years he could be bitching about Foxxconn employees getting killed by the mafia that exists to control Apple jobs. (which came about because this recommendation was followed.)
In fact, that's what Mr. H wants-- a mafia-- which is another way of saying union.
Part of the inspection process has to be rooting out cover-ups. If this is true (and it?s perfectly plausible in China) then it?s something the FLA has to get to the bottom of, if they?re to perform their mission effectively. Presumably, one or two visits is not the end of the process, so anyone hiding underage employees from Apple and the public can still get busted. I hope they are!
$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'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.
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.
I honestly think it beggars belief that you think it'd be wrong to spend 0.5% of that wealth to improve living conditions of those making Apple products.
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?
Comments
I don't agree with Apple doing it just because they have the money. The Chinese government has a lot more money so why are we expecting them to better there way of life?
Because it's Apple who for years has benefited from the low manufacturing cost, which has enabled them to accumulate a vast amount of wealth that now puts them in the position of having the means to address the situation whilst suffering as-near-as-damnit no material impact.
Because it's Apple who for years has benefited from the low manufacturing cost, which has enabled them to accumulate a vast amount of wealth that now puts them in the position of having the means to address the situation whilst suffering as-near-as-damnit no material impact.
What about China benefiting from a low cost work force that most of the rest of the world can't compete with?
It's certainly noble to take a stand for the betterment of others who can do nothing for you but unfortunately this isn't how good business works. There has to be a reason that is ulately financial to get Apple involved.
Perhaps I can use the Socrate method to relay my point so let me ask you this: Should Apple, utilizing Foxcon's labor force not jut focus on the 400k employees working on their products or for all of Foxconn? If Apple should take an initiative for some of Foxconn's employees why no the ones working on products for MS, Dell, Acer, etc.? They certainly have the money and they still people if they aren't making iDevices.
And what about the other 75 clients. Should they put in offices and hotlines and police the factory as well.
Sure why not. I think a million people work at Foxconn so there is plenty of space. Or Apple could take the lead, claim the moral high ground and use it as a selling point. Apple embraced environmental concerns a few years ago and now it's at the forefront of their marketing.
Because it's Apple who for years has benefited from the low manufacturing cost, which has enabled them to accumulate a vast amount of wealth that now puts them in the position of having the means to address the situation whilst suffering as-near-as-damnit no material impact.
But do you think it would be fair for Foxconn to pay ONLY workers who touch Apple product more, and leave the rest as is? Wouldn't that cause tension within the company, and contribute to a feeling of injustice and unfairness, especially when the job description is the same whether its an iPad or anything else? Should Apple then contribute to the pay of ALL of Foxconn's employees, thus subsidizing the company? I'd love workers to be paid more, I just think the hypothetical scenarios of Apple contributing to suppliers wages is extremely complex, and not so cut and dry, especially considering the unfair dynamics and politics it would introduce within the company.
What about China benefiting from a low cost work force that most of the rest of the world can't compete with?
I'm not convinced China has the means to improve the living quarters of every Chinese citizen.
There has to be a reason that is ulately financial to get Apple involved.
Well, I disagree with that but nevertheless we've both answered this question already; in the long run I believe Apple would financially gain from the investment:
by allowing the workers happier which will increase productivity, longer employment per individual, and result in increase goodwill among buyers
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.
Should Apple, utilizing Foxcon's labor force not jut focus on the 400k employees working on their products or for all of Foxconn? If Apple should take an initiative for some of Foxconn's employees why no the ones working on products for MS, Dell, Acer, etc.? They certainly have the money and they still people if they aren't making iDevices.
I've already addressed this. I think I've made it clear that I'm talking about Apple spending money to improve living quarters for those working on Apple products, not anyone else's. They are indeed still people if they are not making iDevices but it's up to DELL etc. and DELL etc.'s customers to actively do something about those making DELL etc.'s products.
I'm not convinced China has the means to improve the living quarters of every Chinese citizen.
China has magnitudes more money than Apple to improve the conditions of average Chinese.... and I think they are. They have a fast growing middle class and that market will likely be more profitable for Apple than the US within a few years.
I've already addressed this. I think I've made it clear that I'm talking about Apple spending money to improve living quarters for those working on Apple products, not anyone else's. They are indeed still people if they are not making iDevices but it's up to DELL etc. and DELL etc.'s customers to actively do something about those making DELL etc.'s products.
That I don't get. If it's about Apple's bottom line then I agree with Apple doing it (or any company) and Apple has more reason to because of their financial and psychological position in the world (which is why this story has even happened). But if we are talking about being humane then that should transcend anything to do with working on Apple product or even working at Foxconn or being Chinese. It should be about giving everyone an opportunity.
It sounds like we are in agreement on many aspects here but perhaps the way were coming at it is different. It's certainly not an easy problem to resolve or else we wouldn't be discussing it.
So Foxconn is allegedly hiding the evidence? Troubling, if true.
I don't see why they would need to. If they so many applying for the jobs why would they hire 13yos when it's against the law? What is the benefit for Foxconn over workers of the appropriate age?
It's certainly not an easy problem to resolve or else we wouldn't be discussing it.
Hell, we're still trying to resolve it in North America.
Because it's Apple who for years has benefited from the low manufacturing cost, which has enabled them to accumulate a vast amount of wealth that now puts them in the position of having the means to address the situation whilst suffering as-near-as-damnit no material impact.
I spent the 1950s in 40-beds dormitories. And the food was institutional and awful. And for the most part the hygienic conditions were substandard for the days. Yet my parents paid extortion money to get me in.
Why? Well, the educational matrix was so tightly fitted to my potential that it relegated the relatively poor living conditions where they belong: an ancillary footnote in my personal history.
This debate should hover over lifting young people up from futureless misery through life-changing, potential-enabling priorities. Easy access to a new educational framework, to innovative educational tools, ...and time slots to unleash all that great creative potential onto it.
My intellectual development had to pay due process for its enablement. And I'm none the physically worst for it. If Apple can seize the moment and 'mobilize' part of its cash riches for youth enfranchisement, I would look upon it as a paradigmatic cash procurement.
Because it's Apple who for years has benefited from the low manufacturing cost, which has enabled them to accumulate a vast amount of wealth that now puts them in the position of having the means to address the situation whilst suffering as-near-as-damnit no material impact.
That's the essence of socialism, right there, folks. Its nothing more than theft. And you see in this post the naked greed at the root of it.
These people don't give a damn about workers, they just want to steal Apple's money. Apple is a target because it has been successful.
Nevermind that when these people get their way, as they had in China in the not too distant past, 10s of MILLIONS of people starve.
Nope. Who cares about genocide, so long as I can steal from the productive!
Mr. H is advocating theft, nothing more, and in one way or another, he's doing it because HE will benefit from the idea taking hold.
Because it's Apple who for years has benefited from the low manufacturing cost, which has enabled them to accumulate a vast amount of wealth that now puts them in the position of having the means to address the situation whilst suffering as-near-as-damnit no material impact.
Nicely stated.
My guess is that they could do everything you suggest, gain a public relations coup, and earn a profit on the invested capital.
So Foxconn is allegedly hiding the evidence? Troubling, if true.
Don't trouble yourself.
Leftists lie. its what they do when it comes to economics. They can't stand reality, so they lie. No matter what Apple does, they'll be claiming that Apple is employing underage workers. Its the only thing they have to use against Apple.
If Apple made all their hardware by robots, they'd be complaining that Apple wasn't employing enough humans.
(Neocons lie too, only they lie to get us into wars... about equally as destructive.)
Nicely stated. My guess is that they could do everything you suggest, gain a public relations coup, and earn a profit on the invested capital.
This ignores economic reality. When you have some jobs paying massively more than others, then you have a massive increase in desire for those jobs, which leads to job peddling, back room deals, etc. It is the creator of corruption.
Mr. H would love that, because in a few years he could be bitching about Foxxconn employees getting killed by the mafia that exists to control Apple jobs. (which came about because this recommendation was followed.)
In fact, that's what Mr. H wants-- a mafia-- which is another way of saying union.
That's the essence of socialism, right there, folks. Its nothing more than theft. And you see in this post the naked greed at the root of it.
These people don't give a damn about workers, they just want to steal Apple's money. Apple is a target because it has been successful.
Nevermind that when these people get their way, as they had in China in the not too distant past, 10s of MILLIONS of people starve.
Nope. Who cares about genocide, so long as I can steal from the productive!
Mr. H is advocating theft, nothing more, and in one way or another, he's doing it because HE will benefit from the idea taking hold.
Don't be daft.
In fact, that's what Mr. H wants-- a mafia--
He never said anything like that. These kind of "mis-attribution" posts should be a cause of reprimand around here.
$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.
Out of where do you pull this stuff?
Actually, don't answer that one.....
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.
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.
I honestly think it beggars belief that you think it'd be wrong to spend 0.5% of that wealth to improve living conditions of those making Apple products.
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?
Yes, honestly, it beggars belief.