5 ms·

How is giving people jobs exploiting them again?

by ikeboy 11y ago

trbvm2 11y 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 11y ago
  Well that meaning of exploit doesn't have the negative connotation clearly implied above, which requires harm.
drauh 11y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_suicides https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_suicides
- evanpw 11y 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 11y 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 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - tim333 11y ago
      >large group of their employees to jump off their building all at once? Didn't happen at Foxconn. They were all on separate days over a few years. Not sure where you got "mass suicide" from. It's not mentioned in the comment you refer to.
      - nickpsecurity 11y ago
        Wait, this was apparently misreported to me although it still says wonders about the situation. It was a threatened mass suicide that led to concessions. Over a dozen did jump to death. And the worst part of what I originally received.... curtailing the suicides by installing safety nets instead of better working conditions... did happen. So, yes, that's unusually bad with not many in the U.S. that can compare. I'll be interested if you know any companies in the U.S. where over ten people have jumped off one roof with company installing safety nets.
        rtkwe 11y ago
        I doubt it'll happen in the US because we don't really have workers dormitories for people to jump from and in the US very few people jump for suicides (~2%) vs guns (~56%), suffocation/hanging (~25%) or poisoning (~11%). source: http://lostallhope.com/suicide-statistics/us-methods-suicide http://lostallhope.com/suicide-statistics/us-methods-suicide
        nickpsecurity 11y ago
        Ok, that makes more sense. So, I modify the question to be U.S. workers threatening mass suicide by gun or whatever with a good number at one plant over time. Then, the plant starts taking preventative measures against various suicide equipment instead of investing in working conditions. This actually has more odds of happening.
        rtkwe 11y ago
        You'd probably have to go back a ways to at least the early 1900s I'd guess to get the right combination of horribleness to get that. These days workplace suicides are relatively rare 1-2 per million workers. Also being poor sucks but US workers are waaay more mobile than a rural Chinese person who move into a company town from their home town/village so before they'd get to 'I'll kill myself in protest' they'll probably get to 'I'll change jobs or quit' first.
ubernostrum 11y ago
I think a way to state this that you can't semantically object to is: We live in a society in which those who control large corporations argue that it is virtuous to relocate significant portions of the business to locations which are cheaper due to more lax or nonexistent laws protecting workers and/or the environment, and thus consumers back in the US receive the same quality of product but at a lower price thanks to the location-based saving. This opens up a counterargument that it should just as equally be virtuous to purchase medication from places where the retail price is cheaper due to more lax or nonexistent laws protecting intellectual property claims in pharmaceuticals, by which process consumers back in the US receive the same quality of product but at a lower price thanks to the location-based saving. After all, protection of workers, protection of the environment and protection of intellectual property are all sliding-scale values; if it's fair for one person to do arbitrage on one of these in order to make money, why shouldn't it be fair for another person to do arbitrage on another?
- ikeboy 11y ago
  >We live in a society in which those who control large corporations argue that it is virtuous to relocate significant portions of the business to locations which are cheaper due to more lax or nonexistent laws protecting workers and/or the environment, and thus consumers back in the US receive the same quality of product but at a lower price thanks to the location-based saving. I don't think this is entirely fair. Some of the lower cost can surely be attributed to lower cost of living in those locations, not necessarily due to more lenient laws. In that case, it isn't comparable to arbitrage over IP.

How is giving people jobs exploiting them again?

by ikeboy 11y ago

How is giving people jobs exploiting them again?

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 11y ago
Well that meaning of exploit doesn't have the negative connotation clearly implied above, which requires harm.

drauh 11y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_suicides https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_suicides

evanpw 11y 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 11y 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 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - tim333 11y ago
    >large group of their employees to jump off their building all at once? Didn't happen at Foxconn. They were all on separate days over a few years. Not sure where you got "mass suicide" from. It's not mentioned in the comment you refer to.
    - nickpsecurity 11y ago
      Wait, this was apparently misreported to me although it still says wonders about the situation. It was a threatened mass suicide that led to concessions. Over a dozen did jump to death. And the worst part of what I originally received.... curtailing the suicides by installing safety nets instead of better working conditions... did happen. So, yes, that's unusually bad with not many in the U.S. that can compare. I'll be interested if you know any companies in the U.S. where over ten people have jumped off one roof with company installing safety nets.
      - rtkwe 11y ago
        I doubt it'll happen in the US because we don't really have workers dormitories for people to jump from and in the US very few people jump for suicides (~2%) vs guns (~56%), suffocation/hanging (~25%) or poisoning (~11%). source: http://lostallhope.com/suicide-statistics/us-methods-suicide http://lostallhope.com/suicide-statistics/us-methods-suicide
        nickpsecurity 11y ago
        Ok, that makes more sense. So, I modify the question to be U.S. workers threatening mass suicide by gun or whatever with a good number at one plant over time. Then, the plant starts taking preventative measures against various suicide equipment instead of investing in working conditions. This actually has more odds of happening.
        rtkwe 11y ago
        You'd probably have to go back a ways to at least the early 1900s I'd guess to get the right combination of horribleness to get that. These days workplace suicides are relatively rare 1-2 per million workers. Also being poor sucks but US workers are waaay more mobile than a rural Chinese person who move into a company town from their home town/village so before they'd get to 'I'll kill myself in protest' they'll probably get to 'I'll change jobs or quit' first.

ubernostrum 11y ago

I think a way to state this that you can't semantically object to is: We live in a society in which those who control large corporations argue that it is virtuous to relocate significant portions of the business to locations which are cheaper due to more lax or nonexistent laws protecting workers and/or the environment, and thus consumers back in the US receive the same quality of product but at a lower price thanks to the location-based saving. This opens up a counterargument that it should just as equally be virtuous to purchase medication from places where the retail price is cheaper due to more lax or nonexistent laws protecting intellectual property claims in pharmaceuticals, by which process consumers back in the US receive the same quality of product but at a lower price thanks to the location-based saving. After all, protection of workers, protection of the environment and protection of intellectual property are all sliding-scale values; if it's fair for one person to do arbitrage on one of these in order to make money, why shouldn't it be fair for another person to do arbitrage on another?

ikeboy 11y ago
>We live in a society in which those who control large corporations argue that it is virtuous to relocate significant portions of the business to locations which are cheaper due to more lax or nonexistent laws protecting workers and/or the environment, and thus consumers back in the US receive the same quality of product but at a lower price thanks to the location-based saving. I don't think this is entirely fair. Some of the lower cost can surely be attributed to lower cost of living in those locations, not necessarily due to more lenient laws. In that case, it isn't comparable to arbitrage over IP.