8 ms·

For comparison (note $6.80/month = $81.60/year): https://www.historyextra.com/period/slave-labour/ https://www.historyextra.com/period/slave-labour/ > Self-hir

For comparison (note $6.80/month = $81.60/year): https://www.historyextra.com/period/slave-labour/ https://www.historyextra.com/period/slave-labour/ > Self-hire _slaves_ could command between $100 a year (for unskilled labour in the early 19th century) to as much as $500 (for skilled work in the Lower South in the late 1850s). Also, as a reminder from 2013, this is far from a first for Apple: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/05/woman-nearly-died-making-ipad https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/05/woman-...

bserge 6y ago
Does that account for inflation? Because I believe you could buy way more for $100 in the early 19th century...
- mehrdadn 6y ago
  Believe it or not, it appears to have NOT been adjusted for inflation. (So, multiply it by 15x.) See the $249.60 per year figure here and the following paragraph. http://lestweforget.hamptonu.edu/page.cfm?uuid=9FEC4E79-B361-4EEE-E0FADE75507425B7 http://lestweforget.hamptonu.edu/page.cfm?uuid=9FEC4E79-B361...
  - srtjstjsj 6y ago
    adjusting for inflation is also adjusting for purchasing power, so the old numbers might be a better reference point for low Cost of Living in India
incrudible 6y ago
I find all these slavery comparisons in poor taste. Across history you will find slaves that were treated well, accumulated wealth, were educated and held in high regard - yet they still legally were the property of another person. The fundamental distinction with slavery is not a bad paycheck. In this case, the distinction wasn't a bad paycheck either. The compensation was fine on paper, it just wasn't actually paid out, which is plain fraud. If the response of these workers is to ransack the place, that just tells you how bad/corrupt the legal system must be.
- learnstats2 6y ago
  > If the response of these workers is to ransack the place, that just tells you how bad/corrupt the legal system must be. This suggests that the legal system ideally ought to exist for the benefit of capital owners who commit fraud, so they don't suffer material loss. Is that what you mean?
  - kkdaemas 6y ago
    I think what the poster means is that the workers had so little trust in the legal system that they did not bother pursing this is court. Instead, they tried to create a media narrative to get Apple to pay attention.
    - learnstats2 6y ago
      The reason I ask the question is that I understand differently: 1. We don't know if these workers (or other workers) are pursuing this in court. Legal and illegal pursuit are not mutually exclusive, at all. 2. If the factory owner is not paying wages because they are already bankrupt, there is nothing that the legal system could reasonably do about that. 3. The workers would not have recourse to claim funds from Apple: I'm not aware that they would even in any country with a "good" legal system. It strikes me as a long stretch to reach "bad/corrupt legal system" as a conclusion.
      - incrudible 6y ago
        1. We might reasonably assume that a worker who expects compensation through due process would also expect that same due process be used against them for causing property damage. 2. If I had assumed this to possibly be the case, I could not have reasonably made the argument. I am assuming this is a case of fraud and therefore it should be theoretically subject to legal recourse. If it's possible for the workers to cause 7 million dollars worth of property damage, it should've been possible to liquidate some of that equipment to pay the workers. 3. The company responsible for paying the salaries is not Apple. > It strikes me as a long stretch to reach "bad/corrupt legal system" as a conclusion. Your parent and multiple siblings interpreted my comment correctly.
dmos62 6y ago
> > Self-hire _slaves_ [in the early 19th century U.S.] Note that what you're referring to in that quote is what was called wage slavery. Today we just call it a job where we're not an owner. Back then such activity was considered a form of slavery and was frowned upon. It was semi-acceptable only because it was considered a temporary means to save up enough wealth to become a business/farm owner.
- mehrdadn 6y ago
  Nothing in the article tells me this is some exaggerated terminology for "people who weren't business owners". Everything in it is pretty clear that these people earned that wage while they were actual slaves.
  - dmos62 6y ago
    That comment provides context for the phenomenon of "self-hire" slavery in the civil war era United States. Not talking about contemporary wage slavery.

bserge 6y ago

Does that account for inflation? Because I believe you could buy way more for $100 in the early 19th century...

mehrdadn 6y ago
Believe it or not, it appears to have NOT been adjusted for inflation. (So, multiply it by 15x.) See the $249.60 per year figure here and the following paragraph. http://lestweforget.hamptonu.edu/page.cfm?uuid=9FEC4E79-B361-4EEE-E0FADE75507425B7 http://lestweforget.hamptonu.edu/page.cfm?uuid=9FEC4E79-B361...
- srtjstjsj 6y ago
  adjusting for inflation is also adjusting for purchasing power, so the old numbers might be a better reference point for low Cost of Living in India

incrudible 6y ago

I find all these slavery comparisons in poor taste. Across history you will find slaves that were treated well, accumulated wealth, were educated and held in high regard - yet they still legally were the property of another person. The fundamental distinction with slavery is not a bad paycheck. In this case, the distinction wasn't a bad paycheck either. The compensation was fine on paper, it just wasn't actually paid out, which is plain fraud. If the response of these workers is to ransack the place, that just tells you how bad/corrupt the legal system must be.

learnstats2 6y ago
> If the response of these workers is to ransack the place, that just tells you how bad/corrupt the legal system must be. This suggests that the legal system ideally ought to exist for the benefit of capital owners who commit fraud, so they don't suffer material loss. Is that what you mean?
- kkdaemas 6y ago
  I think what the poster means is that the workers had so little trust in the legal system that they did not bother pursing this is court. Instead, they tried to create a media narrative to get Apple to pay attention.
  - learnstats2 6y ago
    The reason I ask the question is that I understand differently: 1. We don't know if these workers (or other workers) are pursuing this in court. Legal and illegal pursuit are not mutually exclusive, at all. 2. If the factory owner is not paying wages because they are already bankrupt, there is nothing that the legal system could reasonably do about that. 3. The workers would not have recourse to claim funds from Apple: I'm not aware that they would even in any country with a "good" legal system. It strikes me as a long stretch to reach "bad/corrupt legal system" as a conclusion.
    - incrudible 6y ago
      1. We might reasonably assume that a worker who expects compensation through due process would also expect that same due process be used against them for causing property damage. 2. If I had assumed this to possibly be the case, I could not have reasonably made the argument. I am assuming this is a case of fraud and therefore it should be theoretically subject to legal recourse. If it's possible for the workers to cause 7 million dollars worth of property damage, it should've been possible to liquidate some of that equipment to pay the workers. 3. The company responsible for paying the salaries is not Apple. > It strikes me as a long stretch to reach "bad/corrupt legal system" as a conclusion. Your parent and multiple siblings interpreted my comment correctly.

dmos62 6y ago

> > Self-hire _slaves_ [in the early 19th century U.S.] Note that what you're referring to in that quote is what was called wage slavery. Today we just call it a job where we're not an owner. Back then such activity was considered a form of slavery and was frowned upon. It was semi-acceptable only because it was considered a temporary means to save up enough wealth to become a business/farm owner.

mehrdadn 6y ago
Nothing in the article tells me this is some exaggerated terminology for "people who weren't business owners". Everything in it is pretty clear that these people earned that wage while they were actual slaves.
- dmos62 6y ago
  That comment provides context for the phenomenon of "self-hire" slavery in the civil war era United States. Not talking about contemporary wage slavery.