5 ms·

So it's fair for a multi-billion dollar company to exploit the "global market" by farming work out to 3rd world countries... But not for a customer who is lite

So it's fair for a multi-billion dollar company to exploit the "global market" by farming work out to 3rd world countries... But not for a customer who is literally dying to take advantage of that same "global market" to save himself? Like everything else in the global economy, laws are only enforced to protect the strong against the weak, and yet we wonder how all the wealth is accumulating in the hands of the few.

rdtsc 10y ago
> So it's fair for a multi-billion dollar company to exploit the "global market" by farming work out to 3rd world countries... That makes sense. It is interesting that when usually there are "anti-globalization" protests shown in the media, the protesters are presented as fringe idiots, violent, with facemasks and so on. Sort of implying "look at these crazies not wanting countries get close to each other, trade and be friends". The truth is globalization is overloaded to apply only to large companies. And usually the more they "globalize" -- the more they create inequality and pain for those at the bottom. So then they also end up increasing border controls, formulate various laws and agreements and ram those through each country's legislature to protect segmentation and control of market.
- icebraining 10y ago
  All evidence I've seen points to a massive reduction of poverty "at the bottom" (the actual bottom, not developed world's bottom) as globalization has increased in the last few decades. On what do you base the claim that it has increased pain?
surrealvortex 10y ago
I didn't take a position one way or the other in my comment. But if anything, I definitely did not support the company. I was more concerned about the billions of people in other countries who will suffer because they will lose access to medicine even more. Some of the comments below pointed out that India had the ability to break patents if the government considered the drugs overpriced, so I'm not sure that's a very valid concern anymore.
ikeboy 10y ago
How is giving people jobs exploiting them again?
- trbvm2 10y ago
  By the definition of exploit. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/exploit http://www.dictionary.com/browse/exploit "to utilize, especially for profit; turn to practical account"
  - ikeboy 10y ago
    Well that meaning of exploit doesn't have the negative connotation clearly implied above, which requires harm.
- drauh 10y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_suicides https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_suicides
  - evanpw 10y ago
    "The suicide rate at Foxconn during 2010 remained lower than that of the general Chinese population at the time as well as all 50 states of the United States."
    - nickpsecurity 10y ago
      What is the rate of employers whose practices cause a large group of their employees to jump off their building all at once? I can't remember ever seeing that headline in U.S. papers except referring to China and such. Must be rare here. I wonder what the rate of mass suicide is in general for "all 50 states of the United States" vs Chinese companies like Foxconn.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - 10y ago
option_greek 10y ago
That's a very interesting point! Is also applicable to digital content restrictions (pricing differences).

rdtsc 10y ago

> So it's fair for a multi-billion dollar company to exploit the "global market" by farming work out to 3rd world countries... That makes sense. It is interesting that when usually there are "anti-globalization" protests shown in the media, the protesters are presented as fringe idiots, violent, with facemasks and so on. Sort of implying "look at these crazies not wanting countries get close to each other, trade and be friends". The truth is globalization is overloaded to apply only to large companies. And usually the more they "globalize" -- the more they create inequality and pain for those at the bottom. So then they also end up increasing border controls, formulate various laws and agreements and ram those through each country's legislature to protect segmentation and control of market.

icebraining 10y ago
All evidence I've seen points to a massive reduction of poverty "at the bottom" (the actual bottom, not developed world's bottom) as globalization has increased in the last few decades. On what do you base the claim that it has increased pain?

surrealvortex 10y ago

I didn't take a position one way or the other in my comment. But if anything, I definitely did not support the company. I was more concerned about the billions of people in other countries who will suffer because they will lose access to medicine even more. Some of the comments below pointed out that India had the ability to break patents if the government considered the drugs overpriced, so I'm not sure that's a very valid concern anymore.

ikeboy 10y ago

How is giving people jobs exploiting them again?

trbvm2 10y ago
By the definition of exploit. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/exploit http://www.dictionary.com/browse/exploit "to utilize, especially for profit; turn to practical account"
- ikeboy 10y ago
  Well that meaning of exploit doesn't have the negative connotation clearly implied above, which requires harm.
drauh 10y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_suicides https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_suicides
- evanpw 10y ago
  "The suicide rate at Foxconn during 2010 remained lower than that of the general Chinese population at the time as well as all 50 states of the United States."
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    What is the rate of employers whose practices cause a large group of their employees to jump off their building all at once? I can't remember ever seeing that headline in U.S. papers except referring to China and such. Must be rare here. I wonder what the rate of mass suicide is in general for "all 50 states of the United States" vs Chinese companies like Foxconn.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - 10y ago

option_greek 10y ago

That's a very interesting point! Is also applicable to digital content restrictions (pricing differences).