6 ms·

Apple taken to task for reporting partners' child labor violations

37 points by tvon 17y ago

rauljara 17y ago
Apple never should have allowed this stuff in the first place, but if other companies see Apple making a change for the better, and then only getting pummeled for it, what incentive will they have to change?
- rgrove 17y ago
  Apple didn't allow this stuff. Their suppliers did, while trying to hide it from Apple. Unlike most companies, Apple actually bothered to investigate their suppliers and uncover these abuses rather than simply taking them at their word.
  - kiba 17y ago
    It's an abuse from a Western point of view where we are comfortable enough to ban child labor and even consider it "exploitative". For the family of that child, it's a disaster. For the Chinese economy, it's one less cheaper worker to drive the engine of progress. If the child find any job at all, it may be prostitution, scrapping metals, and other much more less savory work. He may be lucky to find a higher paying job for his family. Now, it's perfectly in the right of Apple(Or the CEO officiating the policy) to do this, as they have the right to dictate whatever voluntary contracts to their suppliers. They may have even seen the temporary profit margin loss as a win in the long run. But where is the moral justification for banning child labor, and a voluntary one at that?
    - palish 17y ago
      How is it immoral to ban 7-day overtime child labor? Edit: Quit downvoting him you morons, he brings up an interesting point of view with interesting arguements and should not be punished for doing so.
      - kiba 17y ago
        We allow adults to work insane overtime, but not for children. Why? Isn't it still voluntary that children choose to work insane overtime? Isn't the employer providing compensation for the children, which they accept in the first place? Do you begrudge an employer who provide you food and shelter and a chance to live another day in exchange for some work?
        pyre 17y ago
        > Do you begrudge an employer who provide you food and shelter and a chance to live another day in exchange for some work? By this argument, pimps are really philanthropists.
        kiba 17y ago
        I never suggested that a employer is a philanthropist. However if an employer is the only one who will give a job, than, it is a morally superior outcome to starving. Taking that job away will in fact, create an inferior moral outcome.
        palish 17y ago
        Just wondering, do you spend a lot of time thinking about sex workers?
        pyre 17y ago
        Huh? A pimp was the first modern-day 'employer' I could think of that is controlling and abusive to his/her 'employees' in a way that lends itself to metaphor. Would you pose the same question to someone that used the saying, "I'm whoring myself out?"
        palish 17y ago
        While I can empathize with your point of view, I have to disagree. Children don't have the perspective to make an informed decision about whether they should accept certain working conditions. (I'm speaking as a former child who would have accepted any kind of working conditions to have a "real" job.) For a child, there is a very real chance his entire life could become dominated by insane work policies. He really shouldn't be deciding whether or not to accept those policies until he reaches a certain level of maturity. Also, you say that we should accept child labor in the name of progress. However, if we do not discourage this practice now, then it will always be accepted later, after China or whoever is a "modern" country.
    - julius_geezer 17y ago
      a. Where is the assurance that the labor is voluntary? b. "one less cheaper worker"; perhaps encouraging the supplier to pay wages to adults that will allow them to raise their children? c. "Drive the engine of progress". Well, or serve as corduroy on the road that party insiders take to the bank.
      - kiba 17y ago
        a. Where is the assurance that the labor is voluntary? You might have a point if people are enslaved into working. b. "one less cheaper worker"; perhaps encouraging the supplier to pay wages to adults that will allow them to raise their children? Perhaps, but you could look at it in another way. The person who own that factory will have more money into investing in human capitals or factory capital that will provide more jobs or increase specialization. Specialization will naturally lead to higher real wages as workers of certain type become scarce. Also, they may also get training on the job. It's the seen that we know, but the unseen that we may not know precisely. It could be either way. It would be presumptuous to think that we know the best path to economic development. c. "Drive the engine of progress". Well, or serve as corduroy on the road that party insiders take to the bank. Well, I don't know what you mean by that. The poor can choose to save what they earn too.
        pyre 17y ago
        > You might have a point if people are enslaved into working. Who's to say that the parents aren't forcing the child? The voluntary-vs-involuntary argument doesn't have to mean that the employer is forcing the child to work. > Well, I don't know what you mean by that. The poor can choose to save what they earn too. So you believe that the difference between a poor person and a 'rich' person is the ability to save money. So no rich person squanders money, and no poor person saves money?
        kiba 17y ago
        Who's to say that the parents aren't forcing the child? The voluntary-vs-involuntary argument doesn't have to mean that the employer is forcing the child to work. I am assuming that all child labor are voluntary. If it is child slavery, that's a different matter. So you believe that the difference between a poor person and a 'rich' person is the ability to save money. So no rich person squanders money, and no poor person saves money? I never say the difference of actual behaviors, but only the similarity of choices.
    - martey 17y ago
      From the actual report: "Apple discovered three facilities that had previously hired 15-year-old workers in countries where the minimum age for employment is 16." Hiring 15 year olds was illegal in these countries. The "Western point of view" had nothing to do with it.
      - kiba 17y ago
        I was discussing the morality of child labor, not whether child labor is illegal.
      - palish 17y ago
        Okay, that's silly. A fifteen year old is basically a sixteen year old, so if a company wants to hire him, it's stupid that they have no way of doing so. Also, that issue isn't really related to the core child labor morality debate.
        telemachos 17y ago
        But the minute you say that, I will respond, "Okay, that's silly. A fourteen year old is basically a fifteen year old." So since you've argued that a fifteen year old is basically a sixteen year old, then by parity of reasoning... And the next thing you know, we have nine year old kids in factories and William Blake rolling over in his grave.
        palish 17y ago
        Cute, but it dodges the issue that it's hard to define what a "child" is. I think having a minimum accepted age, and a way to hire special children under that age (but with greater working restrictions) is a good compromise.
        Frazzydee 17y ago
        So you think that there should be no minimum age at all? Would you be comfortable having 6-year-olds working in a factory, even if it's just for 1 hour/day? China sets an absolute minimum age of 16, and mandated special working conditions for workers between 16 and 18. This allows for a sort of "sliding scale" for that transition period between childhood and adulthood. And I think that saying, "we don't want any workers younger than X years old" is legitimate policy. It's also a lot easier to enforce an absolute minimum age as opposed to special working conditions.
    - Frazzydee 17y ago
      From a policy perspective, I think one justification for banning child labour is to encourage equal opportunities for children of poor vs. rich families. Because of the diminishing marginal utility of money, children from affluent families will have no pressure to work, and can therefore focus on school for a better future. Children from poorer families will have significant pressure to find a job, as any extra money coming into the family will offer a large difference in living conditions. Without minimum working age laws, most poor children will drop out of school and never realize their true long-term potential. It also results in a less efficient economy, as the people recognized to have higher intellectual capacity, and placed in appropriate societal roles, will be a subset of the relatively affluent portion of society, and not necessarily the best-suited.
      - kiba 17y ago
        From a policy perspective, I think one justification for banning child labour is to encourage equal opportunities for children of poor vs. rich families. Because of the diminishing marginal utility of money, children from affluent families will have no pressure to work, and can therefore focus on school for a better future. Children from poorer families will have significant pressure to find a job, as any extra money coming into the family will offer a large difference in living conditions. Without minimum working age laws, most poor children will drop out of school and never realize their true long-term potential. This is to assume that labor does not provide an education in itself. We're also assuming that education are particularly effective or appropriate. Most 18 years old are still unable to do much else other than basic labors. We're also forgetting to take into account economic growth. It may be that economic growth increase opportunity for education, as baser needs are being meet with increasing efficiency, allowing newer generations to get an education. It may be that the level of education is proper for third world countries and that child labor laws and the formation of a public education system were an aftereffect of an increasingly affluent society, not the actual cause.
        Frazzydee 17y ago
        Absolutely. This is why child labour laws are typically stronger in more affluent countries, where there are opportunities for better jobs beyond factory work. The efficacy of education isn't really as much of an issue as the job prospects for the educated, which, in affluent countries, are generally better than job prospects for non-educated individuals. My policy rationale presupposes this, and it's certainly not relevant in every country. I do agree that the Western view of completely boycotting child labour causes more harm than good. But corporations must respect local laws. Such laws are created by the countries themselves, who are in the best position to decide whether the imposition of a minimum age is a good policy choice. I didn't mean to say that a minimum age is a good policy choice everywhere, because it might not be. But we can't make an educated decision on when to have a minimum wage if we don't know why we're doing it :)
    - solutionyogi 17y ago
      Thank you for providing the only sane voice in this thread. Everyone who is from the first world country and who has never visited a third world country should stop talking about child labor. Now. Just stop it. It's very easy to bash child labor but do you know why the child labor exists in first place? Do you think parents of those child have any other alternatives? For their parents, it's a choice between living another day or dieing of hunger. For them, the so called 'abusive' work condition is the only option to survive. To give a little personal perspective, let me tell you my story. I am from India. And when I was 10 years old (in 1990), my mom took up some side work to support us. She would do it 7 days a week and I would do it in evenings and full day on Sunday. We did it not for food but to make sure that me and my sisters could go to school and get the books we need. It was back breaking work but it was worth for me and my family. I was lucky enough that I worked so that I can go to school. Few of my other cousins were not that lucky. They had to work so that they can eat in evening. Because of my education, I have been successful and have been living in USA for last 5 years. Those poor cousins are now grown up and doing an average job but they are doing everything possible to send their kids to school. I am sure their next generation will be much much better off. Before you decry child labor next time, ask yourself, what's the alternative for the child? Are you going to provide that alternative? If not, you are taking away the only viable choice from that child. Please don't do that. For more thoughts, read this: http://cafehayek.com/2005/07/postrel_on_edmo.html http://cafehayek.com/2005/07/postrel_on_edmo.html
      - renegade 17y ago
        I am from India too and I agree with you.Except I have another viewpoint. There is something known as supply and demand of educated labor. Jobs involving little or no use of education(like working in a cheap restaurant, serving tea in offices, construction workers etc etc), can be easily done by kids. If you have educated 100 kids, made them do nothing until they turn 18, and there are only 50 jobs requiring education, and 50 jobs requiring no education then you have just wasted many years of working and earning of those kids who will work in the latter category. Someone has to do jobs requiring no skill or education, By enforcing an anti-child labor law you are just removing the natural head start those people would have in life (by working and acquiring experience) against those who go to schools and colleges. People who grow up on farms are almost always out of the application of anti-child labor laws, and its important for them to do so, and because of this agriculture remains a profession passed on from generation to generation. The point is with gradual prosperity less and less kids work in dangerous menial jobs, its not the child labor laws which have prevented kids from working, but the parents have stopped sending their kids to work because its not needed anymore. About break the laws of those nations, well honestly speaking my own observation is that American companies follow the most amount of laws in these countries than any other individual or domestic corporation, this really does increase their costs more than how a domestic corporation would produce the same thing(by breaking the stupid laws and bribing govt officials), but American corporations don't care because they aren't really producing for domestic markets, they are producing for American markets where people can pay the slightly higher cost.
glhaynes 17y ago
Note that Apple is prominently linking to this document, one of their supplier audit reports, from the front page of apple.com.
ahi 17y ago
This article is incredibly poorly written. Apple did a good thing by investigating their suppliers' practices. Why are they being "taken to task"?
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
    - jmm 17y ago
      Yeah, petty. Deleted.
      - telemachos 17y ago
        Ditto. Petty on my part as well.
- tvon 17y ago
  I believe that's the point of the article.
jmm 17y ago
Two part terribleness of globalization - we port manufacturing jobs overseas to cut costs. The cost savings are based on acceptable exploitation in another land. Meanwhile the US transitions to an icky service economy and lose core middle class manufacturing jobs. (I'm ok paying more for transparent and/or domestic.)
- lionhearted 17y ago
  > The cost savings are based on acceptable exploitation in another land. I've spent time in poor countries. It's not that simple. Though I agree that it's a bad thing for Americans that manufacturing is happening less in the States.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
- tcskeptic 17y ago
  This is a very myopic view of exported manufacturing jobs. While I would not argue that manufacturing jobs exported overseas permit those workers to obtain and maintain a US middle class lifestyle, I know for a certain fact that these jobs allow them access to a standard of living they would otherwise have no access to. If you think the hard lives of the third world urban manufacturing workers are hard, remember that most of them fled the abject and overwhelming poverty of rural agricultural areas and see their new jobs and lifestyle as a substantial step up. Do you think western manufacturing workers have a right to their relatively luxurious lifestyle even if maintaining those jobs in the west doom countless millions in developing countries to a life of hard to imagine levels of deprivation, struggle and pain?
- ryanwaggoner 17y ago
  The cost savings are based on acceptable exploitation in another land. Come on, this is ridiculous. The cost savings are based primarily on a dramatically lower cost of living, differences in exchange rates, etc. If I can hire someone in NYC for $125 / hr or hire someone in Arkansas for $50 / hr and the Arkansas guy has a higher standard of living in Arkansas, how am I exploiting him? It's no different on an international level.
hpvic03 17y ago
Why is a service economy "icky"?
- jmm 17y ago
  I myself am from a former steel/rail/textile boom area and have seen the effects of the exodus of big manufacturing in the states on a local level. I suppose a service economy isn't "icky" in and of itself - it's that people often operate with a simplistic evaluation that an improving economy (GDP or whatever) is a healthy economy. Meanwhile certain manufacturing sectors have atrophied to the point of nonexistence with disastrous effects on many communities. And what has picked up the slack over the last 50 (?) years to keep us all peachy with the economic shift? The service sector. There's lots to talk about in regards to why the shift occurred, but one contributing factor is the unsavory (unethical?) labor systems abroad that we so conveniently continue to overlook. p.s. Some might argue these days that a service economy is "icky" when a fair amount of the services are financial services.
electromagnetic 17y ago
Let's look at this rationally, despite child labour laws in western countries our governments gladly allow minors to take care of their disabled or infirm parents or siblings instead of covering the cost of care workers. This is the most ungodly form of exploitation in western countries, no child is going to refuse caring for their parents because they have no knowledge that they're unlikely to graduate high school and will have employment problems their entire life. Even if they did know, they're incapable of making that choice and will likely always choose to care for their family, but our governments have configured our labour laws to allow this to take place and readily admit they have no intention of changing the laws. Most western countries even give out awards for 'young carers'. These are children exploited 24/365, with overtime pay this work would easily be 6-figure income on minimum wage, and children as young as a few years old are regularly doing things they shouldn't have to. Beyond that, we readily allow our children to babysit, mow the lawn, rake the leaves, and a whole host of tasks that exploit children for reduced expenses, and we readily allow this in our own homes. Yet we complain about child labour in third world countries, why? Because the poverty level is so high in these countries that the children need to work to help provide for their families. The main, and often only cause, of child labour is parental poverty. If you solve parental poverty, you solve child labour. Once the parents can support themselves be it by better wages, unemployment or disability insurances, then those very parents will be free to exploit their own children like we do our own. Once the parents can support their families, their children will be voluntarily babysitting and doing chores. If we don't evaluate babysitting as child exploitation in a first world country, then we have to seriously re-evaluate what child exploitation means in a third world economy. I'm certain the majority of these children are doing it exclusively to provide for their family, and forcing them out of legal employment will force them to illegal employment. This means forcing underage children into criminal organizations that will allow them to get money. For many children this will quite literally come down to a child working in a factory vs working in a gang or working as a child prostitute. I don't particularly want children working in factories, even if the conditions are vastly better than what my great-grandfather went through. However, in my opinion, even if it prevents only a single girl from working as a prostitute, it's a moral fucking victory. However, it's likely to prevent thousands of young girls from working as prostitutes, and thousands of boys from joining gangs and dealing drugs.

37 points by tvon 17y ago

Apple never should have allowed this stuff in the first place, but if other companies see Apple making a change for the better, and then only getting pummeled for it, what incentive will they have to change?

rgrove 17y ago
Apple didn't allow this stuff. Their suppliers did, while trying to hide it from Apple. Unlike most companies, Apple actually bothered to investigate their suppliers and uncover these abuses rather than simply taking them at their word.
- kiba 17y ago
  It's an abuse from a Western point of view where we are comfortable enough to ban child labor and even consider it "exploitative". For the family of that child, it's a disaster. For the Chinese economy, it's one less cheaper worker to drive the engine of progress. If the child find any job at all, it may be prostitution, scrapping metals, and other much more less savory work. He may be lucky to find a higher paying job for his family. Now, it's perfectly in the right of Apple(Or the CEO officiating the policy) to do this, as they have the right to dictate whatever voluntary contracts to their suppliers. They may have even seen the temporary profit margin loss as a win in the long run. But where is the moral justification for banning child labor, and a voluntary one at that?
  - palish 17y ago
    How is it immoral to ban 7-day overtime child labor? Edit: Quit downvoting him you morons, he brings up an interesting point of view with interesting arguements and should not be punished for doing so.
    - kiba 17y ago
      We allow adults to work insane overtime, but not for children. Why? Isn't it still voluntary that children choose to work insane overtime? Isn't the employer providing compensation for the children, which they accept in the first place? Do you begrudge an employer who provide you food and shelter and a chance to live another day in exchange for some work?
      - pyre 17y ago
        > Do you begrudge an employer who provide you food and shelter and a chance to live another day in exchange for some work? By this argument, pimps are really philanthropists.
        kiba 17y ago
        I never suggested that a employer is a philanthropist. However if an employer is the only one who will give a job, than, it is a morally superior outcome to starving. Taking that job away will in fact, create an inferior moral outcome.
        palish 17y ago
        Just wondering, do you spend a lot of time thinking about sex workers?
        pyre 17y ago
        Huh? A pimp was the first modern-day 'employer' I could think of that is controlling and abusive to his/her 'employees' in a way that lends itself to metaphor. Would you pose the same question to someone that used the saying, "I'm whoring myself out?"
      - palish 17y ago
        While I can empathize with your point of view, I have to disagree. Children don't have the perspective to make an informed decision about whether they should accept certain working conditions. (I'm speaking as a former child who would have accepted any kind of working conditions to have a "real" job.) For a child, there is a very real chance his entire life could become dominated by insane work policies. He really shouldn't be deciding whether or not to accept those policies until he reaches a certain level of maturity. Also, you say that we should accept child labor in the name of progress. However, if we do not discourage this practice now, then it will always be accepted later, after China or whoever is a "modern" country.
  - julius_geezer 17y ago
    a. Where is the assurance that the labor is voluntary? b. "one less cheaper worker"; perhaps encouraging the supplier to pay wages to adults that will allow them to raise their children? c. "Drive the engine of progress". Well, or serve as corduroy on the road that party insiders take to the bank.
    - kiba 17y ago
      a. Where is the assurance that the labor is voluntary? You might have a point if people are enslaved into working. b. "one less cheaper worker"; perhaps encouraging the supplier to pay wages to adults that will allow them to raise their children? Perhaps, but you could look at it in another way. The person who own that factory will have more money into investing in human capitals or factory capital that will provide more jobs or increase specialization. Specialization will naturally lead to higher real wages as workers of certain type become scarce. Also, they may also get training on the job. It's the seen that we know, but the unseen that we may not know precisely. It could be either way. It would be presumptuous to think that we know the best path to economic development. c. "Drive the engine of progress". Well, or serve as corduroy on the road that party insiders take to the bank. Well, I don't know what you mean by that. The poor can choose to save what they earn too.
      - pyre 17y ago
        > You might have a point if people are enslaved into working. Who's to say that the parents aren't forcing the child? The voluntary-vs-involuntary argument doesn't have to mean that the employer is forcing the child to work. > Well, I don't know what you mean by that. The poor can choose to save what they earn too. So you believe that the difference between a poor person and a 'rich' person is the ability to save money. So no rich person squanders money, and no poor person saves money?
        kiba 17y ago
        Who's to say that the parents aren't forcing the child? The voluntary-vs-involuntary argument doesn't have to mean that the employer is forcing the child to work. I am assuming that all child labor are voluntary. If it is child slavery, that's a different matter. So you believe that the difference between a poor person and a 'rich' person is the ability to save money. So no rich person squanders money, and no poor person saves money? I never say the difference of actual behaviors, but only the similarity of choices.
  - martey 17y ago
    From the actual report: "Apple discovered three facilities that had previously hired 15-year-old workers in countries where the minimum age for employment is 16." Hiring 15 year olds was illegal in these countries. The "Western point of view" had nothing to do with it.
    - kiba 17y ago
      I was discussing the morality of child labor, not whether child labor is illegal.
    - palish 17y ago
      Okay, that's silly. A fifteen year old is basically a sixteen year old, so if a company wants to hire him, it's stupid that they have no way of doing so. Also, that issue isn't really related to the core child labor morality debate.
      - telemachos 17y ago
        But the minute you say that, I will respond, "Okay, that's silly. A fourteen year old is basically a fifteen year old." So since you've argued that a fifteen year old is basically a sixteen year old, then by parity of reasoning... And the next thing you know, we have nine year old kids in factories and William Blake rolling over in his grave.
        palish 17y ago
        Cute, but it dodges the issue that it's hard to define what a "child" is. I think having a minimum accepted age, and a way to hire special children under that age (but with greater working restrictions) is a good compromise.
        Frazzydee 17y ago
        So you think that there should be no minimum age at all? Would you be comfortable having 6-year-olds working in a factory, even if it's just for 1 hour/day? China sets an absolute minimum age of 16, and mandated special working conditions for workers between 16 and 18. This allows for a sort of "sliding scale" for that transition period between childhood and adulthood. And I think that saying, "we don't want any workers younger than X years old" is legitimate policy. It's also a lot easier to enforce an absolute minimum age as opposed to special working conditions.
  - Frazzydee 17y ago
    From a policy perspective, I think one justification for banning child labour is to encourage equal opportunities for children of poor vs. rich families. Because of the diminishing marginal utility of money, children from affluent families will have no pressure to work, and can therefore focus on school for a better future. Children from poorer families will have significant pressure to find a job, as any extra money coming into the family will offer a large difference in living conditions. Without minimum working age laws, most poor children will drop out of school and never realize their true long-term potential. It also results in a less efficient economy, as the people recognized to have higher intellectual capacity, and placed in appropriate societal roles, will be a subset of the relatively affluent portion of society, and not necessarily the best-suited.
    - kiba 17y ago
      From a policy perspective, I think one justification for banning child labour is to encourage equal opportunities for children of poor vs. rich families. Because of the diminishing marginal utility of money, children from affluent families will have no pressure to work, and can therefore focus on school for a better future. Children from poorer families will have significant pressure to find a job, as any extra money coming into the family will offer a large difference in living conditions. Without minimum working age laws, most poor children will drop out of school and never realize their true long-term potential. This is to assume that labor does not provide an education in itself. We're also assuming that education are particularly effective or appropriate. Most 18 years old are still unable to do much else other than basic labors. We're also forgetting to take into account economic growth. It may be that economic growth increase opportunity for education, as baser needs are being meet with increasing efficiency, allowing newer generations to get an education. It may be that the level of education is proper for third world countries and that child labor laws and the formation of a public education system were an aftereffect of an increasingly affluent society, not the actual cause.
      - Frazzydee 17y ago
        Absolutely. This is why child labour laws are typically stronger in more affluent countries, where there are opportunities for better jobs beyond factory work. The efficacy of education isn't really as much of an issue as the job prospects for the educated, which, in affluent countries, are generally better than job prospects for non-educated individuals. My policy rationale presupposes this, and it's certainly not relevant in every country. I do agree that the Western view of completely boycotting child labour causes more harm than good. But corporations must respect local laws. Such laws are created by the countries themselves, who are in the best position to decide whether the imposition of a minimum age is a good policy choice. I didn't mean to say that a minimum age is a good policy choice everywhere, because it might not be. But we can't make an educated decision on when to have a minimum wage if we don't know why we're doing it :)
  - solutionyogi 17y ago
    Thank you for providing the only sane voice in this thread. Everyone who is from the first world country and who has never visited a third world country should stop talking about child labor. Now. Just stop it. It's very easy to bash child labor but do you know why the child labor exists in first place? Do you think parents of those child have any other alternatives? For their parents, it's a choice between living another day or dieing of hunger. For them, the so called 'abusive' work condition is the only option to survive. To give a little personal perspective, let me tell you my story. I am from India. And when I was 10 years old (in 1990), my mom took up some side work to support us. She would do it 7 days a week and I would do it in evenings and full day on Sunday. We did it not for food but to make sure that me and my sisters could go to school and get the books we need. It was back breaking work but it was worth for me and my family. I was lucky enough that I worked so that I can go to school. Few of my other cousins were not that lucky. They had to work so that they can eat in evening. Because of my education, I have been successful and have been living in USA for last 5 years. Those poor cousins are now grown up and doing an average job but they are doing everything possible to send their kids to school. I am sure their next generation will be much much better off. Before you decry child labor next time, ask yourself, what's the alternative for the child? Are you going to provide that alternative? If not, you are taking away the only viable choice from that child. Please don't do that. For more thoughts, read this: http://cafehayek.com/2005/07/postrel_on_edmo.html http://cafehayek.com/2005/07/postrel_on_edmo.html
    - renegade 17y ago
      I am from India too and I agree with you.Except I have another viewpoint. There is something known as supply and demand of educated labor. Jobs involving little or no use of education(like working in a cheap restaurant, serving tea in offices, construction workers etc etc), can be easily done by kids. If you have educated 100 kids, made them do nothing until they turn 18, and there are only 50 jobs requiring education, and 50 jobs requiring no education then you have just wasted many years of working and earning of those kids who will work in the latter category. Someone has to do jobs requiring no skill or education, By enforcing an anti-child labor law you are just removing the natural head start those people would have in life (by working and acquiring experience) against those who go to schools and colleges. People who grow up on farms are almost always out of the application of anti-child labor laws, and its important for them to do so, and because of this agriculture remains a profession passed on from generation to generation. The point is with gradual prosperity less and less kids work in dangerous menial jobs, its not the child labor laws which have prevented kids from working, but the parents have stopped sending their kids to work because its not needed anymore. About break the laws of those nations, well honestly speaking my own observation is that American companies follow the most amount of laws in these countries than any other individual or domestic corporation, this really does increase their costs more than how a domestic corporation would produce the same thing(by breaking the stupid laws and bribing govt officials), but American corporations don't care because they aren't really producing for domestic markets, they are producing for American markets where people can pay the slightly higher cost.

glhaynes 17y ago

Note that Apple is prominently linking to this document, one of their supplier audit reports, from the front page of apple.com.

ahi 17y ago

This article is incredibly poorly written. Apple did a good thing by investigating their suppliers' practices. Why are they being "taken to task"?

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
  - jmm 17y ago
    Yeah, petty. Deleted.
    - telemachos 17y ago
      Ditto. Petty on my part as well.
tvon 17y ago
I believe that's the point of the article.

jmm 17y ago

Two part terribleness of globalization - we port manufacturing jobs overseas to cut costs. The cost savings are based on acceptable exploitation in another land. Meanwhile the US transitions to an icky service economy and lose core middle class manufacturing jobs. (I'm ok paying more for transparent and/or domestic.)

lionhearted 17y ago
> The cost savings are based on acceptable exploitation in another land. I've spent time in poor countries. It's not that simple. Though I agree that it's a bad thing for Americans that manufacturing is happening less in the States.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
tcskeptic 17y ago
This is a very myopic view of exported manufacturing jobs. While I would not argue that manufacturing jobs exported overseas permit those workers to obtain and maintain a US middle class lifestyle, I know for a certain fact that these jobs allow them access to a standard of living they would otherwise have no access to. If you think the hard lives of the third world urban manufacturing workers are hard, remember that most of them fled the abject and overwhelming poverty of rural agricultural areas and see their new jobs and lifestyle as a substantial step up. Do you think western manufacturing workers have a right to their relatively luxurious lifestyle even if maintaining those jobs in the west doom countless millions in developing countries to a life of hard to imagine levels of deprivation, struggle and pain?
ryanwaggoner 17y ago
The cost savings are based on acceptable exploitation in another land. Come on, this is ridiculous. The cost savings are based primarily on a dramatically lower cost of living, differences in exchange rates, etc. If I can hire someone in NYC for $125 / hr or hire someone in Arkansas for $50 / hr and the Arkansas guy has a higher standard of living in Arkansas, how am I exploiting him? It's no different on an international level.

hpvic03 17y ago

Why is a service economy "icky"?

jmm 17y ago
I myself am from a former steel/rail/textile boom area and have seen the effects of the exodus of big manufacturing in the states on a local level. I suppose a service economy isn't "icky" in and of itself - it's that people often operate with a simplistic evaluation that an improving economy (GDP or whatever) is a healthy economy. Meanwhile certain manufacturing sectors have atrophied to the point of nonexistence with disastrous effects on many communities. And what has picked up the slack over the last 50 (?) years to keep us all peachy with the economic shift? The service sector. There's lots to talk about in regards to why the shift occurred, but one contributing factor is the unsavory (unethical?) labor systems abroad that we so conveniently continue to overlook. p.s. Some might argue these days that a service economy is "icky" when a fair amount of the services are financial services.

electromagnetic 17y ago

Let's look at this rationally, despite child labour laws in western countries our governments gladly allow minors to take care of their disabled or infirm parents or siblings instead of covering the cost of care workers. This is the most ungodly form of exploitation in western countries, no child is going to refuse caring for their parents because they have no knowledge that they're unlikely to graduate high school and will have employment problems their entire life. Even if they did know, they're incapable of making that choice and will likely always choose to care for their family, but our governments have configured our labour laws to allow this to take place and readily admit they have no intention of changing the laws. Most western countries even give out awards for 'young carers'. These are children exploited 24/365, with overtime pay this work would easily be 6-figure income on minimum wage, and children as young as a few years old are regularly doing things they shouldn't have to. Beyond that, we readily allow our children to babysit, mow the lawn, rake the leaves, and a whole host of tasks that exploit children for reduced expenses, and we readily allow this in our own homes. Yet we complain about child labour in third world countries, why? Because the poverty level is so high in these countries that the children need to work to help provide for their families. The main, and often only cause, of child labour is parental poverty. If you solve parental poverty, you solve child labour. Once the parents can support themselves be it by better wages, unemployment or disability insurances, then those very parents will be free to exploit their own children like we do our own. Once the parents can support their families, their children will be voluntarily babysitting and doing chores. If we don't evaluate babysitting as child exploitation in a first world country, then we have to seriously re-evaluate what child exploitation means in a third world economy. I'm certain the majority of these children are doing it exclusively to provide for their family, and forcing them out of legal employment will force them to illegal employment. This means forcing underage children into criminal organizations that will allow them to get money. For many children this will quite literally come down to a child working in a factory vs working in a gang or working as a child prostitute. I don't particularly want children working in factories, even if the conditions are vastly better than what my great-grandfather went through. However, in my opinion, even if it prevents only a single girl from working as a prostitute, it's a moral fucking victory. However, it's likely to prevent thousands of young girls from working as prostitutes, and thousands of boys from joining gangs and dealing drugs.