7 ms·
To the tune of Childish Gambinos "This is America": This is globalism This was always the point of offloading to other countries. Less regulations, lower wages
by arminiusreturns 6y ago
To the tune of Childish Gambinos "This is America": This is globalism
This was always the point of offloading to other countries. Less regulations, lower wages, less powerful workers and workers unions, and higher profit margins. Ross Perot was right but nobody listened to him. Apple isnt unique, and this isnt the first time. Its systemic.
So tired of the trope of accusing anybody critical of globalism of being an isolationist. Protectionism is a valid and needed (to a certain degree) approach for all nation states, ours included.
- amelius 6y agoEven if it's systemic, you could at least try to do something about it if you're one of the big guys. This is what I dislike most about Apple: they're trying to be a leader, but are not acting like one.
- njanirudh 6y agoApple is less of a leader and more of a mafia godfather
- Judgmentality 6y ago> This is what I dislike most about Apple: they're trying to be a leader, but are not acting like one. How is Apple trying to be a leader in anything besides profits?
- Fezzik 6y agoApple absolutely attempts to present itself as a morally/ethically superior company. See, for example, from just 7 months ago: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/31/apple-ceo-tim-cook-email-to-employees-about-george-floyd.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/31/apple-ceo-tim-cook-email-to-... Or, re the environment, from Apple’s current website: https://www.apple.com/environment/ https://www.apple.com/environment/ You can find all sorts of similar posturing on a number of topics from Apple.
- chongli 6y agoWhy should we consider any moral stance, by any for-profit corporation, as anything other than marketing? The real problem, as I see it, is that individuals see their relationships to corporations as anything other than transactional. Strange things happen when people adopt a company’s marketing effort into their personal identity. Instead, we should be looking at corporations objectively and deciding whether their incentives align with our own. Keep our identities with other individuals, not with corporations and branding.
- turminal 6y ago> Or, re the environment, from Apple’s current website: https://www.apple.com/environment/ https://www.apple.com/environment/ Someone should calculate how much energy an iPhone uses for rendering that page (or any other on their website). I bet reducing that would make a difference environmentally.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- threeseed 6y ago> This is what I dislike most about Apple: they're trying to be a leader, but are not acting like one. Apple has done far more than any tech company to take ownership of their supply chain.
- amelius 6y agoI wouldn't call that a good sign of leadership. That's more an act of shutting everyone else off from access to technology. Instead, a good leader will help lift others. Take Microsoft Research. For a long time, they were a leader in scientific publications in CS, with many awards. Compare that to Apple, and imho any sign of "leadership" is completely non-existent in comparison.
- onethought 6y agoIt also spreads wealth. China lifted more people out of poverty than any nation in history, because of globalisation. Are you saying poverty is less important than workers rights? Economies develop. This is part of it. You’ve just had a “protectionist” President, US is worse off by almost every measure... as a counter example to your “protectionism is needed”
- heavyset_go 6y agoJust so that we're on the same page, you're claiming that virtual slave prisoners are being lifted out of poverty through forced labor, correct?
- anoraca 6y agoThat's a straw man. They're saying that hundreds of millions of Chinese people (and others around the world) have risen out of poverty because of globalism. You're only giving credit for the negative impacts of globalism, and in kind of a duplicitous manner.
- heavyset_go 6y agoIf the virtual slaves aren't being made wealthy from their forced labor, then who is and why should we support them?
- arzt 6y agoI am not sure I understand this argument. The article states the "laborers" in question are given a choice as follows: submit to unpaid forced labor else go to a CCP reeducation camp. Nowhere is it stated those subjected to this choice have the opportunity to take advantage of rising living standards.
- onethought 6y agoI agree “forced work” or slavery should be stopped. But go and visit these factories in China... the people are their voluntarily... because their alternative is worse than those conditions. Like I said economies develop, China should improve its workers rights laws, and slowly it has and will. We should avoid and remove slavery. Agree. But using developing countries as an example of why developed countries should be more protectionist at exactly the point in time where the US tried that and lost out on almost every front is insane and disconnected from reality
- itsgrimetime 6y agoI think “this is capitalism/liberalism” is a better way to call it out. I am tired of the globalism/isolationism dichotomy that gets thrown around too, but there are good reasons to criticize attributing all of these problems to globalism. For one, “globalism” is commonly used as a racist dog whistle, and is a popular antisemitic conspiratorial buzzword. Second, calling out globalism as the root of the problem leaves out the fact that it’s capitalism that drives the need for globalism, not globalism existing just for the sake of globalism.
- matsemann 6y agoInstead of blaming globalism, maybe one should make companies responsible for their external effects? As in, lawfully responsible, to be tried as if they did it themselves. Like pollution, using other companies to do their unethical biddings etc (child or slave labor for instance).
- staunch 6y agoWhy not just ban outsourcing to countries with poor labor laws? The commonly stated purpose of the U.S. outsourcing to China was to 1. help lift it out of poverty and 2. bring it democracy through capitalism. Goal #1 has been largely achieved and Goal #2 has been an epic failure. The U.S. should completely phase out outsourcing to China over the next decade. This would drive a huge acceleration of automated manufacturing in the U.S. which is the future anyway. Companies like Apple could move all manufacturing to the U.S. over a decade if they wanted to. They have the money and the technology. But they're currently addicted to cheap (and unethical) labor. They're unlikely quit on their own, as long as U.S. law enables their addiction.
- valuearb 6y agoSounds like a great way to crush third world countries deeper into poverty. I love it!
- staunch 6y agoSo, you're in favor of maintaining slave labor as long as possible? Got it!
- valuearb 6y agoYour apparently in favor of making it permanent. Jobs like the ones Apple provides in China are a huge part of lifting their workers out of poverty. Without globalization those same workers would be back on the farms going brutal manual labor for far less pay. Do you really care about third world workers, or do you care more about virtue signaling devotion to long discredited political concepts?
- Siira 6y agoI agree, but globalism has on the whole improved the human condition by a lot. The vast majority of people aren’t middle-class citizens of developed countries. Like everything, balance is key.
- koonsolo 6y agoIndeed. Without the outsourcing, they would still be in those same conditions, but earning less. Now there is external money coming into their economy.
- koonsolo 6y agoIsn't it just 1 parameter: cheaper? This kind of work is outsourcing anyway. So I think all the things you mention there have no impact, since it all wouldn't matter when the price would be the same.
- valuearb 6y agoYou seem to want to kill flies with nuclear weapons. The vast majority of third world workers benefit from free trade and freely choose the jobs it produces. Protectionism sentences people far poorer than you to far worse economic lives. Taking away Apple assembly jobs doesn’t increase third world wages or worker protections, it makes them worse. Those workers are consigned to work back in brutal rural jobs that not only pay less but are far more dangerous. Globalism is how the third world living standards catch up.
- arminiusreturns 6y agoMy countries government should understand the implications of the policies it impliments, including the impact on people in other countries, but my governments first concern shouldn't be those other peoples, it should be it's own citizens! For those who seriously try to understand this topic, the implication you aren't talking about (and a myriad more) is that due to this we can expect the first world standards/wealth to decrease in response. Of course there are those who then respond "good! about time!" or some equivalent, but I digress. The mental gymanstics I see being performed in comments here boggles the mind, but I am thankful at least to have a refresher on all the kinds of responses I need to be prepared to rebute. Lets restate them as prereq for responding to them: (on globalism) It increases the wealth of poor people in other countries It offers more employment opportunities for said people It increases the wealth of the third world in general It's not globalism, it's the companies who participate in it and aren't heald accountable. You had a "protectionist" president and how did that work out? It's not globalisms fault, it's capitalisms fault. Globalism as a term is a "racist dog whistle" and an "antisemitic conspiratorial buzzword" So far, none of these are particularly well thought out or presented, and suffer obvious weaknesses. I'm not sure if I feel like taking the time currently to dissect them each right now, but they will go in the todo list.
- wolverine876 6y ago> My countries government should understand the implications of the policies it impliments, including the impact on people in other countries, but my governments first concern shouldn't be those other peoples, it should be it's own citizens! The people in other countries are human beings with exactly the same value and rights as I have. The responsible thing to do is to do both. Just like my responsibility is to both take care of my family and my community and the world, all at once. If I sacrifice one, I'm irresponsible and failing. I would be (and sometimes am) ashamed that my government fails at those responsibilities. The parent assumes a zero-sum tradeoff, but that's not how trade, peace, and freedom work - they benefit everyone. Thankfully, I have great solutions internationally. Globalization and the democratic world order have been the most successful international policies by orders of magnitude. Name any point in history, any approach to international trade or international relations, that has yielded the success of the post-WWII era? Not only in economics, but in peace and freedom. We need to do better. What better option do you offer, that will improve the lives of the next generation