10 ms·

The Apple Boycott: People Are Spouting Nonsense about Chinese Manufacturing

126 points by falling 15y ago

gcb 15y ago
i wouldn't expect less from an economist. just hear his paradoxes: 1st he quotes: "First of all, even if we could assure the workers in Third World export industries of higher wages and better working conditions, this would do nothing for the peasants, day laborers, scavengers, and so on who make up the bulk of these countries’ populations. " tl;dr: even if you raise those workers pay, it will do nothing for the other workers in the country 2nd he concludes: "Wages paid to manufacturing workers in China are not determined by the productivity of those specific workers. They are not determined by US wages, by the profits that Apple makes nor even by the good intentions of the creative types that purchase Apple products. They are determined by the wages paid by other jobs in China and that is itself determined by the average level of productivity across the Chinese economy." tl;dl: the workers are paid poorly because everyone in the coutry is badly paid. see what he did there? he just used the cause of the problem as a consequence and dismissed it! boycott apple (and others!) so that those specific workers wage will rise to please public opinion, and with that, the wage of everyone else will also rise!
- hetman 15y ago
  And where is the money for "everyone else" going to come from?
  - z0r 15y ago
    Africa. Somebody has to pull the short straw, I guess - your objection indicates that you would agree that somebody will have to be exploited
    - hetman 15y ago
      No, it indicates that a complex economy takes time to develop because so many structures therein rely on each other. Are you suggesting that if a billion Chinese were to be transplanted to the USA tomorrow they would all find good paying jobs? Where would the infrastructure to support all this come from? Now add to this the fact China doesn't even have the economic infrastructure that the USA does. I don't see any exploitation here only gradual growth and development. By your logic I assume you believe Africa needs to be exploited for the benefit of the Chinese?
  - gcb 15y ago
    Companies that profit from the low wages. They will just profit a bit less
falling 15y ago
From the article: > Boycotting Apple for better Foxconn wages and conditions is like having sex for virginity. Entirely counter-productive and exactly the wrong thing to be doing.
- SODaniel 15y ago
  I think it's pretty much proven without a doubt that public opinion can sway corporations and politics. I really don't understand this form of 'Corporate protectionism'.
beatle 15y ago
http://www.apple.com/supplierresponsibility/ http://www.apple.com/supplierresponsibility/ http://www.apple.com/supplierresponsibility/code-of-conduct/labor-and-human-rights.html http://www.apple.com/supplierresponsibility/code-of-conduct/... http://www.apple.com/supplierresponsibility/code-of-conduct/health-and-safety.html http://www.apple.com/supplierresponsibility/code-of-conduct/... http://www.apple.com/supplierresponsibility/code-of-conduct/environmental-impact.html http://www.apple.com/supplierresponsibility/code-of-conduct/... http://www.apple.com/supplierresponsibility/auditing.html http://www.apple.com/supplierresponsibility/auditing.html
brudgers 15y ago
>"That’s what being poor means, having to work extremely hard to make very little." "Being poor" means not having very much money. Working extremely hard to make very little, when one does not care for the work and has little practical alternative is being exploited. This is or is not to say that Apple or Foxconn is exploiting the workers. The argument attributed to Krugman is essentially the same argument that was advanced in opposition to divestiture in apartheid South Africa in the 1980's - that economic exploitation is better than change.
- tptacek 15y ago
  I don't understand the point you're trying to make here. In what sense is Foxconn's average wage comparable to South African Apartheid? Nobody in China is forced to accept a job at Foxconn; in fact, if Apple produced goods the way its critics appear to want it to, they wouldn't even have the option of working for Foxconn wages, because Apple's manufacturing would take place in the US.
  - brudgers 15y ago
    First point: The author is mistaken. One can be poor without suffering exploitation in the labor market. Second point: Krugman argues that wages should not be raised (which is presumably the course demanded by our conscience) because it might hurt the very people we seek to help. "And it might not even do that. The advantages of established First World industries are still formidable. The only reason developing countries have been able to compete with those industries is their ability to offer employers cheap labor. Deny them that ability, and you might well deny them the prospect of continuing industrial growth, even reverse the growth that has been achieved. And since export-oriented growth, for all its injustice, has been a huge boon for the workers in those nations, anything that curtails that growth is very much against their interests. A policy of good jobs in principle, but no jobs in practice, might assuage our consciences, but it is no favor to its alleged beneficiaries." This is the same logic which underlay the arguments against divestiture - i.e. that exploitation is preferable to some imagined alternative form of suffering. Third point: Foxconn et al may or may not be exploiting workers.
- 15y ago
casca 15y ago
The issue is not about economics, it's about morality. His economic arguments are sound, this is indeed how capitalism works. Apple (and many others) have made a decision to introduce a level of indirection - the Foxconn people are legally not Apple employees, but for all practical intents and purposes, they are. Just like pollution, gross worker exploitation has been largely eliminated in the first world* and has just been relocated to the third world. The question is whether Apple and the consumers who support them should morally continue on their path. * "largely eliminated" does not mean that there is not significant abuse, just that as a percentage of the employed population, it's historically very small
- aidenn0 15y ago
  If you buy into A) Utilitarianism B) The economic arguments of the article Then the morality question is addressed by this.
- brown9-2 15y ago
  I think the point here though is that if Apple's consumers don't want to continue on this moral path, they better be prepared to boycott pretty much every other electronic company in existence. It's BS to only point out Apple here.
  - jhancock 15y ago
    You can solve this problem by either chipping away at it by targeting one company and pushing forward a bit or by getting the China and U.S. governments to handle it for all. Both approaches are reasonable. You have to start somewhere.
- tptacek 15y ago
  I don't understand the argument here. If the issue is morality, then an effective boycott of Apple products harms Chinese workers, because nobody is working at Foxconn instead of some better latent opportunity in the Chinese economy. If Apple paid workers the prevailing wage for US skilled labor, Apple would not be paying workers in China at all, because the discount on labor is the primary reason it outsources to China. One looks at the spread between Apple's COGS and Apple's list prices and wonders how it can be reasonable that Apple captures that whole spread. But that's why we have markets: over time, wage pressure erodes Apple's margins; Foxconn (or comparable companies) obtain better clients, or are simply forced to increase their cost because of competition from other firms. When Apple responds to that pressure by finding another third world country to buy from, it's simply repeating the same process in that country: unless they source forced labor from Myanmar or North Korea, the only way they can get labor is by improving the wages that were already available in that country. Part of the issue here seems to be the (unreasonable) expectation that one company can fix third-world rural poverty instantly. Improving the lives of millions of people in Asia is a process that will involve many, many countries and take many decades.
SODaniel 15y ago
I don't get it. How is it NOT a valid point of concern that Apple has 70% margins on some products that are produced by extreme low income workers under bad conditions?
- jsn 15y ago
  But it's obvious, isn't it? The workers choose to work there, for that income and under those conditions. This means that all alternative options available to them are worse (like working for even lower income and in worse conditions, or even not working at all). So, clearly, Apple has improved their conditions. Plus, Apple is doing it at profit -- which means that that improvement is sustainable. Isn't it marvelous? I mean, I don't like Apple products, but I have to give it to them: they change lives of thousands of workers for the better.
  - MartinCron 15y ago
    The workers choose to work there, for that income and under those conditions Considering how many workers who choose to work there are underage, you can't exactly say that they are giving meaningful consent to work there.
    - jsn 15y ago
      But I believe I can. These kids often choose between living in hopeless poverty and earning a reasonable living. It's pretty plain and simple. You don't have to be 21 to make a rational decision in a situation like this.
      - MartinCron 15y ago
        I was thinking more along the lines of 13-year olds, as Daisey encountered in his travels. There's a reason why developed nations don't let children enter into contracts.
        tsotha 15y ago
Terretta 15y ago
Isn't it an Xbox Boycott? A Dell Boycott? An HP Boycott? It's annoying when journalists (NY Times in this case) hang their story on the Foxconn client doing the most to keep track of working conditions, just because Apple is a name that gets readers. More to the point, as the article recounts, it's not clear Foxconn is China's worst problem. It seems it's even safer to work there than in America. "Read" this infographic: http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lym1w8YedI1qbv2gy.png http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lym1w8YedI1qbv2gy.png
- SODaniel 15y ago
  I think it's even more odd that Apple somehow has become the medias corporate prodigal son that can do nothing wrong. People need to realize that Apple is no longer the upshot company trying to survive under the boot heel of Microsoft, but actually a vastly profitable company utilizing all the methods expected from a global industrial giant. Stop treating Apple as if they are some form of 'do good' company!
  - geuis 15y ago
    I don't think many people are trying to say Apple needs protecting or can do no wrong. What people are saying is that they are being singled out for doing something wrong when in fact, on almost all points presented, the opposite is true.
  - jamesaguilar 15y ago
    This article is a reaction to a media feeding frenzy around Apple's supposed abuses of Chinese workers. Your view that the media treats Apple with kid gloves is out of date.
- zalew 15y ago
  There's one thing true in this piece of pointless infographic you linked - it's all about context. Those 'average' rates include people working in workplaces dangerous by definition. How do you compare injuries and suicide rates in a factory where you glue a few electronic pieces together, to let's say, building railroads or mining coal?
bilbo0s 15y ago
Well Apple and Foxconn are swiftly constructing a vast manufacturing installation in Brazil right now. Several actually. So now maybe everyone will stop complaining about working conditions. But I doubt it. Of course...maybe they will just start complaining about the D@#N Brazilians stealing our jobs. Somehow I think complaining is just part of what people in the developed world do.
- batista 15y ago
  That and exploiting third world workers.
diogenescynic 15y ago
>"If not to buy Apple, what’s the substitute – Samsung? Don’t you know that Samsung’s products are from its OEM factory in Tianjin? Samsung workers’ income and benefits are even worse than those at Foxconn. If not to buy iPad – (do you think) I will buy Android Pad? Have you ever been to the OEM factories for Lenovo and ASUS? Quanta, Compaq … factories of other companies are all worse than those for Apple. Not to buy iPod – (do you think) I will buy Aigo, Meizu? Do you know that Aigo’s Shenzhen factory will not pay their workers until the 19th of the second month? If you were to quit, fine, I’m sorry, your salary will be withdrawn. Foxconn never dares to do such things. First, their profit margin is higher than peers as they manufacture for Apple. Second, at least those foreign devils will regularly audit factories. Domestic brands will never care if workers live or die. I am not speaking for Foxconn. I am just speaking as an insider of this industry, and telling you some disturbing truth." This doesn't excuse Apple or any of the other companies working with Foxconn, but it suggests that there are many sides of this issue, and many voices yet to be heard on it: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2012/01/many-chinese-workers-want-those-jobs-foxconn/48101/ http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2012/01/many-chine...
thwest 15y ago
We should just have tariffs on imports that don't meet our labor and environmental standards.
- wmf 15y ago
  That would never pass, but assuming that it did, it would cause a consumer revolt when people saw the higher prices on their toys (even if it only applied to luxury goods).
  - v0cab 15y ago
    That's a rather defeatist attitude. People would be all for tariffs if they were told that it makes American workers' labor more competitive.
Steko 15y ago
The wikipedia article on sweatshops does a good job of covering both sides of this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweatshop http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweatshop The pro-sweatshop argument is encapsulized in this example: In an article about a Nike sweatshop in Vietnam, Johan Norberg wrote, "But when I talk to a young Vietnamese woman, Tsi-Chi, at the factory, it is not the wages she is most happy about. Sure, she makes five times more than she did, she earns more than her husband, and she can now afford to build an extension to her house. But the most important thing, she says, is that she doesn't have to work outdoors on a farm any more... Farming means 10 to 14 hours a day in the burning sun or the intensive rain... The most persistent demand Nike hears from the workers is for an expansion of the factories so that their relatives can be offered a job as well." The contra argument seems dominated by appeals to emotion ala Mike Daisey: "_____ can't even afford to buy the ipad he makes", "_____ only makes X dollars an hour/day/week/month/year." "X workers were injured/killed in this accident" "workers often have to work overtime" "workers have to stand" I think Mike Daisey should spend some time in rural China with the relatives of Foxconn employees who do backbreaking farm work. But who would go to see that show without "Steve Jobs" in the title?
- MartinCron 15y ago
  That's creating a false dichotomy, though. Just because a sweatshop may be better than backbreaking farm work, doesn't mean we can't care about what is happening in sweatshops. Also, it's "Daisey".
  - nickheer 15y ago
    True enough, but I don't believe that's the discussion we are, or should be, having. I think it's a case of reanalysing our consideration of the advantages and disadvantages of low-wage labour and being very fastidious about how we approach both. It is correct to say that we can't care about what is happening in sweatshops, but it's also correct to say that we need to be more careful about our arguments against them. It's more complicated than many people (not to say that you are one of these) believe.
    - 15y ago
rluhar 15y ago
China is undergoing the biggest urbanization in history. More and more people are moving from the country side to the city to find work, make more money and improve their standard of living. As already mentioned in this thread, the jobs available at the likes of Foxconn are better paid, and probably safer than other alternatives available to a semi / unskilled worker. Let me put it another way - a child of a worker employed at Foxconn now will have better opportunities in the future (with access to better schooling, more money) than the child of a poor farmer in the country side. I believe a similar sort of change happened in most industrialized countries during periods of rapid industrialization. Perhaps some of the people considering a boycott of Apple's products have a great grandparent who moved to the city and worked long hours for "low pay" about a hundred years ago!
adriand 15y ago
The problem that Apple is experiencing is the exposure of the tension between its marketing and its image, and reality. The author of the article says, "That’s what being poor means, having to work extremely hard to make very little. Yes, that is a harsh thing to say but then reality can indeed be harsh." No one would deny that reality can be harsh. At the same time, you can't deny that Apple - and, of course, the other electronics companies - does not truthfully convey that reality to its customers. Doing so would not be in Apple's best interest. However, if this boycott succeeds, it would demonstrate that having this tension between reality and image is also not in Apple's best interest. The article also makes the standard corporatist argument that the behaviour of corporations is outside of their control, because they are subject to market forces. This tact ignores the human factor. Apple is made up of humans. It is not humanly impossible to demand that a supplier adhere to higher standards than are prevalent in the rest of China. Setting that aside, let's examine the issue purely from the standpoint of the marketplace, but rather than looking at the Chinese labour marketplace, let's look at the American consumer goods marketplace. Humans respond to a variety of different factors when making purchasing decisions. It is not just about price and quality, but can also be about morality and emotion. In this instance, Apple's customers may be persuaded to boycott Apple because of these subjective factors. That may seem unfair to some, but isn't that just a risk of globalization? After all, a global company must deal with market forces everywhere it operates: both market forces affecting who makes its products, and market forces affecting who purchases them. Apple will be forced to balance these market forces, and when it does so, it may result in lower profit margins but better working conditions at its suppliers' factories.
- bane 15y ago
  "The problem that Apple is experiencing is the exposure of the tension between its marketing and its image, and reality." It's funny how relevant the Eloi and the Morlocks still are today, more than 100 years after being put down in ink. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eloi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eloi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morlock http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morlock
dev_jim 15y ago
I am sick and tired of hearing how the suicides are no big deal because they are less than the national average. 1) You don't know the non-jumping suicide rate. There could be plenty of workers who take their lives privately in their dormitories. 2) Jumping off a roof of your workplace is a VERY different type of suicide then swallowing a bunch of pills. It's making a statement about who the employer is and what they have driven the employee to do. There would be a national alarm if we had 18 blue-collar workers jump off the roofs of a GM plant.
- awj 15y ago
  > There would be a national alarm if we had 18 blue-collar workers jump off the roofs of a GM plant. I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I did want to point out the faulty logic at play here. It would be a national alarm because this number is very high for our nation. Any time you're dealing with foreign cultures it's easy to forget about all of the things that are only true for your culture. Eighteen suicides sounds awfully high, but if it's lower than the average it's actually progress. I'm sure we'd all be much happier if the number was zero, but I'll take progress toward an ideal over ineffectually trying to force it to happen immediately. note: I have no idea what the average suicide rate is in China, "as a public statement" or otherwise. The article quotes 22/100,000/year and extrapolates from that to say that Foxconn is "doing well." My point is that judging foreign cultures by your own standards is a dicey game, and sometimes you just have to be content with improvement instead of trying to mandate equality.
  - dev_jim 15y ago
    It would be a national alarm because this number is very high for our nation Eighteen was just using the number in the article. A national alarm would be sounded if 3 workers jumped to their death at a GM plant last year. GM executives would be tripping over themselves to show remorse, there would be a 60 Minutes specials on the reason GM drove the employees to their deaths, psychologists would be called in to help workers, etc., etc., etc. The point is that people would be alarmed, as they should be. People wouldn't be making excuses that suicide happens, deal with it. Eighteen suicides sounds awfully high, but if it's lower than the average it's actually progress. Again, we don't know the suicide rate of employees Foxconn. We know the number of people who have jumped to their death. You can't extrapolate a subset of the suicides and compare that to the national average for all suicides.
zeroboy 15y ago
Oh thank God we as a consumer society are trying to sweep this issue under the rug. It's starting to ruin the enjoyment of my Apple products. Those so called hard working conditions where poor Chinese people work 16 hour days 7 days a week in unsafe conditions until they're literally crippled... they should be grateful they even have a job. What are these workers expecting? Compassion? Sorry. They were born in the wrong country. God bless America! The sooner we can rationalize this issue away, the better. I don't need the guilt trip, and I sure as hell don't need the inconvenience.
- Maascamp 15y ago
  I wish I could upvote you more than once for this comment.
- LearnYouALisp 15y ago
  Masterful satire.
georgieporgie 15y ago
At best, forcing developing countries to adhere to our labor standards would create a privileged labor aristocracy, leaving the poor majority no better off. I'm tired of this apologist bullshit. It's been showing up in HN articles for weeks now. Yes, I understand the concept that the standard and cost of living are lower in China. I understand that it may be better to have children working than starving on the streets. I understand that rural farm life in China is terrible. That is absolutely no excuse for keeping people in near-slave conditions. That is no excuse for allowing people to be maimed (by machinery and by non-stop repetitive, back-to-back 12 - 16 hour shifts) with no compensation. That is no excuse for allowing people to be blacklisted if they make any complaint about working conditions. Apple is now sitting on $100 billion and still telling us that their products could never be manufactured in the US. Hilariously, one reason they cite is that you can't find a fab plant right next to a glass plant. Guess what? Build them both in the US, pay reasonable US wages, and provide reasonable US working conditions. If Apple's success requires that 8,000 people be put instantly onto production lines for insanely long shifts, day after day until their bodies fall apart, then their products should not exist.
- mike_esspe 15y ago
  Do you think this 8000 workers would be better of unemployed?
  - LearnYouALisp 15y ago
    "Unde non sequitur..."
- hahainternet 15y ago
  I agree entirely. I wish I could pen a stronger endorsement. There's a not so subtle undercurrent of privilege that runs through a lot of the apologist postings and it drives me mad.
- dgregd 15y ago
  "That is absolutely no excuse for keeping people in near-slave conditions." Sure, just few clicks in Foxconn payroll system and problem solved. But Chinese don't want to do that because they are evil. Sorry for this harsh comment. I'm from post communist country and I'm also tired of that kind of thinking. IMHO the real reason why people support the idea of Apple boycott is that 8000 high wages engineering jobs has been moved to China. But it more political correct to talk about poop labor standards, etc.
ksec 15y ago
LOL As if Apple is the root of all problems. As if Foxconn only manufacture products from Apple. As if people are FORCED to work in those conditions. As if they DONT have a choice of not working there. And i am sorry peeps, what happen if Apple suddenly decide to double pay Foxconn? What happens if EVERYONE double pay them? Would those people get double their salary? And it is great that Foxconn are now considering using Advance robotics instead, more people Jobless, more people suffer. Oh, and i forgot, American has once been through this stage as well, and looking from the web it is obvious they dont teach history there.
VonLipwig 15y ago
Call me heartless... a job needs doing. Someone is doing it. If Apple ran these factories then yes, boycott them. However they don't. They hire Chinese companies to put their products together. This is a China problem not an Apple problem. China can introduce work standards, maximum working hours, minimum pay etc. Contracts can then be renegotiated or whatever. As things stand though the factories are supplying jobs to those who need jobs. If the jobs weren't required the people wouldn't be doing them. Is the situation good? No. However, this is an issue for the Chinese Government. You introduce law's, factories follow laws, working conditions improve. It would be bad business for Apple to narrow its margins in such a competitive market to provide better working conditions than the majority of other shithole factories in China.
razzaj 15y ago
This is a load of crap. I think this attitude of justifying someone's wrong doing by pointing out that everyone else is doing it, is just hypocrisy. On the other hand I cant agree with people lashing out on apple because of this practice, although i do disagree with the practice in the first place. I will tell you why this seemingly contradictory stand isn't contradictory at all. The practice of exploiting someone else's weaknesses for one's own advantage is widely spread and even sanctioned by some societies in general (implicitly and sometimes less so), the bottom of the problem is not tech companies abusing poor workforce, it is the general lack of consensus as to what is fair and what is not. Singling out a single actor from the flock is also unfair (such as is the case today with Apple - and just because they are so successful-). Not is it only unfair, it is counter productive because it will hurt apple and in no way do any good to the chinese workers. Now, we want to fix the problem? Then we need to first figure out what the fuss is all about, and i say that is easy! This entire argument, it looks to me, boils down to fairness. The question of What is Fair, and what is not (or evil if you will). It is not a new argument, for ages people have tried to settle on a general agreement on what it is to be leading the good life. Religions were built around this and constitutions were designed for that as well; the social contract that defines who we are as Americans, Chinese, Arabs, French, Christians, Muslims etc.... It has however been very difficult to bring all these people to agree together to one single approach to life, and so over eons people have "siloed" each with their own "moral code". And i say companies (including apple) have all abided by these contracts and are not abusing any of their compatriots. So in essence they are not in violation of anything. Why? simply because the "abused" -by western standards- people you are concerned about are not being abused in America, but in China, and what's more? Their treatment is not considered to be abuse in China, it is legal THERE. This is horrifying, because it is cool to indirectly abuse someone overseas as long as you treat your compatriots fairly? I say not, but in order to make it un-cool we need to agree to a new universal bill of ethics where things are more defined and definitive like What is a minimum fair working condition universally. What now? I think it is time for tech companies that have made billions (including apple) to take a step back and ponder their moto "we do stuff that changes the world", add to it " ... to be a better place for all" and apply it on all the aspects of their business. This new bill of ethics once finalsed can be "ratified" by these monster companies and others will follow. The reason i am specifically speaking of tech companies it because i know tech and the hacker spirit and i can assert that there is a general good will and faith to make the world a better place, and since the world has given us, and still is, great things and lots of appreciation, the industry and community is mature enough ,now, to start giving back and leading by example.
sigzero 15y ago
There's an Apple boycott? First I have heard of it.

126 points by falling 15y ago

gcb 15y ago

i wouldn't expect less from an economist. just hear his paradoxes: 1st he quotes: "First of all, even if we could assure the workers in Third World export industries of higher wages and better working conditions, this would do nothing for the peasants, day laborers, scavengers, and so on who make up the bulk of these countries’ populations. " tl;dr: even if you raise those workers pay, it will do nothing for the other workers in the country 2nd he concludes: "Wages paid to manufacturing workers in China are not determined by the productivity of those specific workers. They are not determined by US wages, by the profits that Apple makes nor even by the good intentions of the creative types that purchase Apple products. They are determined by the wages paid by other jobs in China and that is itself determined by the average level of productivity across the Chinese economy." tl;dl: the workers are paid poorly because everyone in the coutry is badly paid. see what he did there? he just used the cause of the problem as a consequence and dismissed it! boycott apple (and others!) so that those specific workers wage will rise to please public opinion, and with that, the wage of everyone else will also rise!

hetman 15y ago
And where is the money for "everyone else" going to come from?
- z0r 15y ago
  Africa. Somebody has to pull the short straw, I guess - your objection indicates that you would agree that somebody will have to be exploited
  - hetman 15y ago
    No, it indicates that a complex economy takes time to develop because so many structures therein rely on each other. Are you suggesting that if a billion Chinese were to be transplanted to the USA tomorrow they would all find good paying jobs? Where would the infrastructure to support all this come from? Now add to this the fact China doesn't even have the economic infrastructure that the USA does. I don't see any exploitation here only gradual growth and development. By your logic I assume you believe Africa needs to be exploited for the benefit of the Chinese?
- gcb 15y ago
  Companies that profit from the low wages. They will just profit a bit less

falling 15y ago

From the article: > Boycotting Apple for better Foxconn wages and conditions is like having sex for virginity. Entirely counter-productive and exactly the wrong thing to be doing.

SODaniel 15y ago
I think it's pretty much proven without a doubt that public opinion can sway corporations and politics. I really don't understand this form of 'Corporate protectionism'.

beatle 15y ago

http://www.apple.com/supplierresponsibility/ http://www.apple.com/supplierresponsibility/ http://www.apple.com/supplierresponsibility/code-of-conduct/labor-and-human-rights.html http://www.apple.com/supplierresponsibility/code-of-conduct/... http://www.apple.com/supplierresponsibility/code-of-conduct/health-and-safety.html http://www.apple.com/supplierresponsibility/code-of-conduct/... http://www.apple.com/supplierresponsibility/code-of-conduct/environmental-impact.html http://www.apple.com/supplierresponsibility/code-of-conduct/... http://www.apple.com/supplierresponsibility/auditing.html http://www.apple.com/supplierresponsibility/auditing.html

brudgers 15y ago

>"That’s what being poor means, having to work extremely hard to make very little." "Being poor" means not having very much money. Working extremely hard to make very little, when one does not care for the work and has little practical alternative is being exploited. This is or is not to say that Apple or Foxconn is exploiting the workers. The argument attributed to Krugman is essentially the same argument that was advanced in opposition to divestiture in apartheid South Africa in the 1980's - that economic exploitation is better than change.

tptacek 15y ago
I don't understand the point you're trying to make here. In what sense is Foxconn's average wage comparable to South African Apartheid? Nobody in China is forced to accept a job at Foxconn; in fact, if Apple produced goods the way its critics appear to want it to, they wouldn't even have the option of working for Foxconn wages, because Apple's manufacturing would take place in the US.
- brudgers 15y ago
  First point: The author is mistaken. One can be poor without suffering exploitation in the labor market. Second point: Krugman argues that wages should not be raised (which is presumably the course demanded by our conscience) because it might hurt the very people we seek to help. "And it might not even do that. The advantages of established First World industries are still formidable. The only reason developing countries have been able to compete with those industries is their ability to offer employers cheap labor. Deny them that ability, and you might well deny them the prospect of continuing industrial growth, even reverse the growth that has been achieved. And since export-oriented growth, for all its injustice, has been a huge boon for the workers in those nations, anything that curtails that growth is very much against their interests. A policy of good jobs in principle, but no jobs in practice, might assuage our consciences, but it is no favor to its alleged beneficiaries." This is the same logic which underlay the arguments against divestiture - i.e. that exploitation is preferable to some imagined alternative form of suffering. Third point: Foxconn et al may or may not be exploiting workers.
15y ago

casca 15y ago

The issue is not about economics, it's about morality. His economic arguments are sound, this is indeed how capitalism works. Apple (and many others) have made a decision to introduce a level of indirection - the Foxconn people are legally not Apple employees, but for all practical intents and purposes, they are. Just like pollution, gross worker exploitation has been largely eliminated in the first world* and has just been relocated to the third world. The question is whether Apple and the consumers who support them should morally continue on their path. * "largely eliminated" does not mean that there is not significant abuse, just that as a percentage of the employed population, it's historically very small

aidenn0 15y ago
If you buy into A) Utilitarianism B) The economic arguments of the article Then the morality question is addressed by this.
brown9-2 15y ago
I think the point here though is that if Apple's consumers don't want to continue on this moral path, they better be prepared to boycott pretty much every other electronic company in existence. It's BS to only point out Apple here.
- jhancock 15y ago
  You can solve this problem by either chipping away at it by targeting one company and pushing forward a bit or by getting the China and U.S. governments to handle it for all. Both approaches are reasonable. You have to start somewhere.
tptacek 15y ago
I don't understand the argument here. If the issue is morality, then an effective boycott of Apple products harms Chinese workers, because nobody is working at Foxconn instead of some better latent opportunity in the Chinese economy. If Apple paid workers the prevailing wage for US skilled labor, Apple would not be paying workers in China at all, because the discount on labor is the primary reason it outsources to China. One looks at the spread between Apple's COGS and Apple's list prices and wonders how it can be reasonable that Apple captures that whole spread. But that's why we have markets: over time, wage pressure erodes Apple's margins; Foxconn (or comparable companies) obtain better clients, or are simply forced to increase their cost because of competition from other firms. When Apple responds to that pressure by finding another third world country to buy from, it's simply repeating the same process in that country: unless they source forced labor from Myanmar or North Korea, the only way they can get labor is by improving the wages that were already available in that country. Part of the issue here seems to be the (unreasonable) expectation that one company can fix third-world rural poverty instantly. Improving the lives of millions of people in Asia is a process that will involve many, many countries and take many decades.

SODaniel 15y ago

I don't get it. How is it NOT a valid point of concern that Apple has 70% margins on some products that are produced by extreme low income workers under bad conditions?

jsn 15y ago
But it's obvious, isn't it? The workers choose to work there, for that income and under those conditions. This means that all alternative options available to them are worse (like working for even lower income and in worse conditions, or even not working at all). So, clearly, Apple has improved their conditions. Plus, Apple is doing it at profit -- which means that that improvement is sustainable. Isn't it marvelous? I mean, I don't like Apple products, but I have to give it to them: they change lives of thousands of workers for the better.
- MartinCron 15y ago
  The workers choose to work there, for that income and under those conditions Considering how many workers who choose to work there are underage, you can't exactly say that they are giving meaningful consent to work there.
  - jsn 15y ago
    But I believe I can. These kids often choose between living in hopeless poverty and earning a reasonable living. It's pretty plain and simple. You don't have to be 21 to make a rational decision in a situation like this.
    - MartinCron 15y ago
      I was thinking more along the lines of 13-year olds, as Daisey encountered in his travels. There's a reason why developed nations don't let children enter into contracts.
      - tsotha 15y ago

Terretta 15y ago

Isn't it an Xbox Boycott? A Dell Boycott? An HP Boycott? It's annoying when journalists (NY Times in this case) hang their story on the Foxconn client doing the most to keep track of working conditions, just because Apple is a name that gets readers. More to the point, as the article recounts, it's not clear Foxconn is China's worst problem. It seems it's even safer to work there than in America. "Read" this infographic: http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lym1w8YedI1qbv2gy.png http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lym1w8YedI1qbv2gy.png

SODaniel 15y ago
I think it's even more odd that Apple somehow has become the medias corporate prodigal son that can do nothing wrong. People need to realize that Apple is no longer the upshot company trying to survive under the boot heel of Microsoft, but actually a vastly profitable company utilizing all the methods expected from a global industrial giant. Stop treating Apple as if they are some form of 'do good' company!
- geuis 15y ago
  I don't think many people are trying to say Apple needs protecting or can do no wrong. What people are saying is that they are being singled out for doing something wrong when in fact, on almost all points presented, the opposite is true.
- jamesaguilar 15y ago
  This article is a reaction to a media feeding frenzy around Apple's supposed abuses of Chinese workers. Your view that the media treats Apple with kid gloves is out of date.
zalew 15y ago
There's one thing true in this piece of pointless infographic you linked - it's all about context. Those 'average' rates include people working in workplaces dangerous by definition. How do you compare injuries and suicide rates in a factory where you glue a few electronic pieces together, to let's say, building railroads or mining coal?

bilbo0s 15y ago

Well Apple and Foxconn are swiftly constructing a vast manufacturing installation in Brazil right now. Several actually. So now maybe everyone will stop complaining about working conditions. But I doubt it. Of course...maybe they will just start complaining about the D@#N Brazilians stealing our jobs. Somehow I think complaining is just part of what people in the developed world do.

batista 15y ago
That and exploiting third world workers.

diogenescynic 15y ago

>"If not to buy Apple, what’s the substitute – Samsung? Don’t you know that Samsung’s products are from its OEM factory in Tianjin? Samsung workers’ income and benefits are even worse than those at Foxconn. If not to buy iPad – (do you think) I will buy Android Pad? Have you ever been to the OEM factories for Lenovo and ASUS? Quanta, Compaq … factories of other companies are all worse than those for Apple. Not to buy iPod – (do you think) I will buy Aigo, Meizu? Do you know that Aigo’s Shenzhen factory will not pay their workers until the 19th of the second month? If you were to quit, fine, I’m sorry, your salary will be withdrawn. Foxconn never dares to do such things. First, their profit margin is higher than peers as they manufacture for Apple. Second, at least those foreign devils will regularly audit factories. Domestic brands will never care if workers live or die. I am not speaking for Foxconn. I am just speaking as an insider of this industry, and telling you some disturbing truth." This doesn't excuse Apple or any of the other companies working with Foxconn, but it suggests that there are many sides of this issue, and many voices yet to be heard on it: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2012/01/many-chinese-workers-want-those-jobs-foxconn/48101/ http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2012/01/many-chine...

thwest 15y ago

We should just have tariffs on imports that don't meet our labor and environmental standards.

wmf 15y ago
That would never pass, but assuming that it did, it would cause a consumer revolt when people saw the higher prices on their toys (even if it only applied to luxury goods).
- v0cab 15y ago
  That's a rather defeatist attitude. People would be all for tariffs if they were told that it makes American workers' labor more competitive.

Steko 15y ago

The wikipedia article on sweatshops does a good job of covering both sides of this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweatshop http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweatshop The pro-sweatshop argument is encapsulized in this example: In an article about a Nike sweatshop in Vietnam, Johan Norberg wrote, "But when I talk to a young Vietnamese woman, Tsi-Chi, at the factory, it is not the wages she is most happy about. Sure, she makes five times more than she did, she earns more than her husband, and she can now afford to build an extension to her house. But the most important thing, she says, is that she doesn't have to work outdoors on a farm any more... Farming means 10 to 14 hours a day in the burning sun or the intensive rain... The most persistent demand Nike hears from the workers is for an expansion of the factories so that their relatives can be offered a job as well." The contra argument seems dominated by appeals to emotion ala Mike Daisey: "_____ can't even afford to buy the ipad he makes", "_____ only makes X dollars an hour/day/week/month/year." "X workers were injured/killed in this accident" "workers often have to work overtime" "workers have to stand" I think Mike Daisey should spend some time in rural China with the relatives of Foxconn employees who do backbreaking farm work. But who would go to see that show without "Steve Jobs" in the title?

MartinCron 15y ago
That's creating a false dichotomy, though. Just because a sweatshop may be better than backbreaking farm work, doesn't mean we can't care about what is happening in sweatshops. Also, it's "Daisey".
- nickheer 15y ago
  True enough, but I don't believe that's the discussion we are, or should be, having. I think it's a case of reanalysing our consideration of the advantages and disadvantages of low-wage labour and being very fastidious about how we approach both. It is correct to say that we can't care about what is happening in sweatshops, but it's also correct to say that we need to be more careful about our arguments against them. It's more complicated than many people (not to say that you are one of these) believe.
  - 15y ago

rluhar 15y ago

China is undergoing the biggest urbanization in history. More and more people are moving from the country side to the city to find work, make more money and improve their standard of living. As already mentioned in this thread, the jobs available at the likes of Foxconn are better paid, and probably safer than other alternatives available to a semi / unskilled worker. Let me put it another way - a child of a worker employed at Foxconn now will have better opportunities in the future (with access to better schooling, more money) than the child of a poor farmer in the country side. I believe a similar sort of change happened in most industrialized countries during periods of rapid industrialization. Perhaps some of the people considering a boycott of Apple's products have a great grandparent who moved to the city and worked long hours for "low pay" about a hundred years ago!

adriand 15y ago

The problem that Apple is experiencing is the exposure of the tension between its marketing and its image, and reality. The author of the article says, "That’s what being poor means, having to work extremely hard to make very little. Yes, that is a harsh thing to say but then reality can indeed be harsh." No one would deny that reality can be harsh. At the same time, you can't deny that Apple - and, of course, the other electronics companies - does not truthfully convey that reality to its customers. Doing so would not be in Apple's best interest. However, if this boycott succeeds, it would demonstrate that having this tension between reality and image is also not in Apple's best interest. The article also makes the standard corporatist argument that the behaviour of corporations is outside of their control, because they are subject to market forces. This tact ignores the human factor. Apple is made up of humans. It is not humanly impossible to demand that a supplier adhere to higher standards than are prevalent in the rest of China. Setting that aside, let's examine the issue purely from the standpoint of the marketplace, but rather than looking at the Chinese labour marketplace, let's look at the American consumer goods marketplace. Humans respond to a variety of different factors when making purchasing decisions. It is not just about price and quality, but can also be about morality and emotion. In this instance, Apple's customers may be persuaded to boycott Apple because of these subjective factors. That may seem unfair to some, but isn't that just a risk of globalization? After all, a global company must deal with market forces everywhere it operates: both market forces affecting who makes its products, and market forces affecting who purchases them. Apple will be forced to balance these market forces, and when it does so, it may result in lower profit margins but better working conditions at its suppliers' factories.

bane 15y ago
"The problem that Apple is experiencing is the exposure of the tension between its marketing and its image, and reality." It's funny how relevant the Eloi and the Morlocks still are today, more than 100 years after being put down in ink. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eloi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eloi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morlock http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morlock

dev_jim 15y ago

I am sick and tired of hearing how the suicides are no big deal because they are less than the national average. 1) You don't know the non-jumping suicide rate. There could be plenty of workers who take their lives privately in their dormitories. 2) Jumping off a roof of your workplace is a VERY different type of suicide then swallowing a bunch of pills. It's making a statement about who the employer is and what they have driven the employee to do. There would be a national alarm if we had 18 blue-collar workers jump off the roofs of a GM plant.

awj 15y ago
> There would be a national alarm if we had 18 blue-collar workers jump off the roofs of a GM plant. I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I did want to point out the faulty logic at play here. It would be a national alarm because this number is very high for our nation. Any time you're dealing with foreign cultures it's easy to forget about all of the things that are only true for your culture. Eighteen suicides sounds awfully high, but if it's lower than the average it's actually progress. I'm sure we'd all be much happier if the number was zero, but I'll take progress toward an ideal over ineffectually trying to force it to happen immediately. note: I have no idea what the average suicide rate is in China, "as a public statement" or otherwise. The article quotes 22/100,000/year and extrapolates from that to say that Foxconn is "doing well." My point is that judging foreign cultures by your own standards is a dicey game, and sometimes you just have to be content with improvement instead of trying to mandate equality.
- dev_jim 15y ago
  It would be a national alarm because this number is very high for our nation Eighteen was just using the number in the article. A national alarm would be sounded if 3 workers jumped to their death at a GM plant last year. GM executives would be tripping over themselves to show remorse, there would be a 60 Minutes specials on the reason GM drove the employees to their deaths, psychologists would be called in to help workers, etc., etc., etc. The point is that people would be alarmed, as they should be. People wouldn't be making excuses that suicide happens, deal with it. Eighteen suicides sounds awfully high, but if it's lower than the average it's actually progress. Again, we don't know the suicide rate of employees Foxconn. We know the number of people who have jumped to their death. You can't extrapolate a subset of the suicides and compare that to the national average for all suicides.

zeroboy 15y ago

Oh thank God we as a consumer society are trying to sweep this issue under the rug. It's starting to ruin the enjoyment of my Apple products. Those so called hard working conditions where poor Chinese people work 16 hour days 7 days a week in unsafe conditions until they're literally crippled... they should be grateful they even have a job. What are these workers expecting? Compassion? Sorry. They were born in the wrong country. God bless America! The sooner we can rationalize this issue away, the better. I don't need the guilt trip, and I sure as hell don't need the inconvenience.

Maascamp 15y ago
I wish I could upvote you more than once for this comment.
LearnYouALisp 15y ago
Masterful satire.

georgieporgie 15y ago

At best, forcing developing countries to adhere to our labor standards would create a privileged labor aristocracy, leaving the poor majority no better off. I'm tired of this apologist bullshit. It's been showing up in HN articles for weeks now. Yes, I understand the concept that the standard and cost of living are lower in China. I understand that it may be better to have children working than starving on the streets. I understand that rural farm life in China is terrible. That is absolutely no excuse for keeping people in near-slave conditions. That is no excuse for allowing people to be maimed (by machinery and by non-stop repetitive, back-to-back 12 - 16 hour shifts) with no compensation. That is no excuse for allowing people to be blacklisted if they make any complaint about working conditions. Apple is now sitting on $100 billion and still telling us that their products could never be manufactured in the US. Hilariously, one reason they cite is that you can't find a fab plant right next to a glass plant. Guess what? Build them both in the US, pay reasonable US wages, and provide reasonable US working conditions. If Apple's success requires that 8,000 people be put instantly onto production lines for insanely long shifts, day after day until their bodies fall apart, then their products should not exist.

mike_esspe 15y ago
Do you think this 8000 workers would be better of unemployed?
- LearnYouALisp 15y ago
  "Unde non sequitur..."
hahainternet 15y ago
I agree entirely. I wish I could pen a stronger endorsement. There's a not so subtle undercurrent of privilege that runs through a lot of the apologist postings and it drives me mad.
dgregd 15y ago
"That is absolutely no excuse for keeping people in near-slave conditions." Sure, just few clicks in Foxconn payroll system and problem solved. But Chinese don't want to do that because they are evil. Sorry for this harsh comment. I'm from post communist country and I'm also tired of that kind of thinking. IMHO the real reason why people support the idea of Apple boycott is that 8000 high wages engineering jobs has been moved to China. But it more political correct to talk about poop labor standards, etc.

ksec 15y ago

LOL As if Apple is the root of all problems. As if Foxconn only manufacture products from Apple. As if people are FORCED to work in those conditions. As if they DONT have a choice of not working there. And i am sorry peeps, what happen if Apple suddenly decide to double pay Foxconn? What happens if EVERYONE double pay them? Would those people get double their salary? And it is great that Foxconn are now considering using Advance robotics instead, more people Jobless, more people suffer. Oh, and i forgot, American has once been through this stage as well, and looking from the web it is obvious they dont teach history there.

VonLipwig 15y ago

Call me heartless... a job needs doing. Someone is doing it. If Apple ran these factories then yes, boycott them. However they don't. They hire Chinese companies to put their products together. This is a China problem not an Apple problem. China can introduce work standards, maximum working hours, minimum pay etc. Contracts can then be renegotiated or whatever. As things stand though the factories are supplying jobs to those who need jobs. If the jobs weren't required the people wouldn't be doing them. Is the situation good? No. However, this is an issue for the Chinese Government. You introduce law's, factories follow laws, working conditions improve. It would be bad business for Apple to narrow its margins in such a competitive market to provide better working conditions than the majority of other shithole factories in China.

razzaj 15y ago

This is a load of crap. I think this attitude of justifying someone's wrong doing by pointing out that everyone else is doing it, is just hypocrisy. On the other hand I cant agree with people lashing out on apple because of this practice, although i do disagree with the practice in the first place. I will tell you why this seemingly contradictory stand isn't contradictory at all. The practice of exploiting someone else's weaknesses for one's own advantage is widely spread and even sanctioned by some societies in general (implicitly and sometimes less so), the bottom of the problem is not tech companies abusing poor workforce, it is the general lack of consensus as to what is fair and what is not. Singling out a single actor from the flock is also unfair (such as is the case today with Apple - and just because they are so successful-). Not is it only unfair, it is counter productive because it will hurt apple and in no way do any good to the chinese workers. Now, we want to fix the problem? Then we need to first figure out what the fuss is all about, and i say that is easy! This entire argument, it looks to me, boils down to fairness. The question of What is Fair, and what is not (or evil if you will). It is not a new argument, for ages people have tried to settle on a general agreement on what it is to be leading the good life. Religions were built around this and constitutions were designed for that as well; the social contract that defines who we are as Americans, Chinese, Arabs, French, Christians, Muslims etc.... It has however been very difficult to bring all these people to agree together to one single approach to life, and so over eons people have "siloed" each with their own "moral code". And i say companies (including apple) have all abided by these contracts and are not abusing any of their compatriots. So in essence they are not in violation of anything. Why? simply because the "abused" -by western standards- people you are concerned about are not being abused in America, but in China, and what's more? Their treatment is not considered to be abuse in China, it is legal THERE. This is horrifying, because it is cool to indirectly abuse someone overseas as long as you treat your compatriots fairly? I say not, but in order to make it un-cool we need to agree to a new universal bill of ethics where things are more defined and definitive like What is a minimum fair working condition universally. What now? I think it is time for tech companies that have made billions (including apple) to take a step back and ponder their moto "we do stuff that changes the world", add to it " ... to be a better place for all" and apply it on all the aspects of their business. This new bill of ethics once finalsed can be "ratified" by these monster companies and others will follow. The reason i am specifically speaking of tech companies it because i know tech and the hacker spirit and i can assert that there is a general good will and faith to make the world a better place, and since the world has given us, and still is, great things and lots of appreciation, the industry and community is mature enough ,now, to start giving back and leading by example.

sigzero 15y ago

There's an Apple boycott? First I have heard of it.