4 ms·

>Suicides, for example, are less common at Foxconn than in the general population. I see this often cited when talking about suicides at Foxconn but comparing

by jotux 14y ago

>Suicides, for example, are less common at Foxconn than in the general population. I see this often cited when talking about suicides at Foxconn but comparing suicides at a company to the general population is not that useful. The population of Foxconn workers are young(typical age reported to be 18) and 100% employed. That's not a group of people you want to compare to a span-all-socioeconomic-classes general population.

tolmasky 14y ago
Actually, if you compare to that age group specifically, it would seem to make the number even "better". In America, suicides in the age group of 15 to 24 are the third leading cause of death, with 4000 suicides in 2004 [1] (whereas if you compare to the general population here it is the 11th leading cause of death). Of course, its difficult comparing suicide rates in different countries, and other factors may be at play, but this just goes to show that suicides are not a good metric to make this otherwise perfectly valid point (when more teenagers kill themselves here than in foxconn plants, the argument becomes more difficult that everyone is killing themselves because things are so terrible). Suicide itself is an incredibly complex topic that should probably not be trivialized. This is of course not to say conditions there are in any way good, they're not. I just think its better to rely on the other much more ample and obvious evidence. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_suicide_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_suicide_in_the_United_S...
- dalke 14y ago
  jotux said age and 100% employment, so specifically said that "other factors may be in play." BTW, some 17.6% of the US population between 15 and 24 are unemployed.
- Someone 14y ago
  "Actually, if you compare to that age group specifically, it would seem to make the number even "better". In America, suicides in the age group of 15 to 24 are the third leading cause of death, with 4000 suicides in 2004 [1] (whereas if you compare to the general population here it is the 11th leading cause of death)." Not necessarily. The #10 cause for the general population may be deadlier than the #1 cause for 15-24 year olds. That Here are some made up numbers: 15-24 year olds: 0.1% deaths/year, of which 10% due to suicide general population: 1% deaths per year, of which 5% due to suicide That would have 0.01% of all 15-24 commit suicide each year, but 0.05% of the general population. As I said, I made up the numbers. However, I do not think they are completely out of range. 1% deaths in a stable population gives a life expectancy of 100 years, but the US population is growing and hence relatively young. Also, looking at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf, Figure 3, I think 1% is a reasonable guess at that figure. The x% due to suicide numbers likely are exaggerations (a Zipf curve will have trouble getting to 5% in rank 10)
robocat 14y ago
Foxconn have a strong incentive to avoid employing employees likely to commit suicide, or alternatively to sack at-risk employees. So suicide rate can't be used as a proxy for measuring employee conditions. I was going to suggest that the lower rate could be due to having more female workers, since far more men then women commit suicide BUT it turns out that in China this is not the case (in US studies they measure that women try a lot but don't succeed at the same rate - cause of that is contentious argument - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_and_suicide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_and_suicide). To answer main thread, the article does include a bunch of bollocks (my favorite bit is where they try to shock us with the half-life of Uranium), but the core of the article seems to be probably valid. Aside: why is it so common that eco-articles (or eco-movies) ruin their core theme by adding outrageous bollocks?
- derleth 14y ago
  > So suicide rate can't be used as a proxy for measuring employee conditions. Except everyone mentions the Foxconn Suicides as a major problem. Giving actual numbers is a way to remedy that specific bit of untruth. > my favorite bit is where they try to shock us with the half-life of Uranium For the people who don't know: Long half-life means lower radiation over any given period. The really hot stuff, the stuff that throws off a lot of radiation per second, doesn't last long precisely because it's throwing away so much energy to get to a more stable state. Isotopes that stick around longer do so because they're more stable, and so have less energy to throw away every second.
mseebach 14y ago
Out of a million people, 17 suicides isn’t much—indeed, American college students kill themselves at four times that rate. http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/02/ff_joelinchina/ http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/02/ff_joelinchina/ I think US college students is a socioeconomically appropriate group to compare with.

by jotux 14y ago

tolmasky 14y ago

Actually, if you compare to that age group specifically, it would seem to make the number even "better". In America, suicides in the age group of 15 to 24 are the third leading cause of death, with 4000 suicides in 2004 [1] (whereas if you compare to the general population here it is the 11th leading cause of death). Of course, its difficult comparing suicide rates in different countries, and other factors may be at play, but this just goes to show that suicides are not a good metric to make this otherwise perfectly valid point (when more teenagers kill themselves here than in foxconn plants, the argument becomes more difficult that everyone is killing themselves because things are so terrible). Suicide itself is an incredibly complex topic that should probably not be trivialized. This is of course not to say conditions there are in any way good, they're not. I just think its better to rely on the other much more ample and obvious evidence. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_suicide_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_suicide_in_the_United_S...

dalke 14y ago
jotux said age and 100% employment, so specifically said that "other factors may be in play." BTW, some 17.6% of the US population between 15 and 24 are unemployed.
Someone 14y ago
"Actually, if you compare to that age group specifically, it would seem to make the number even "better". In America, suicides in the age group of 15 to 24 are the third leading cause of death, with 4000 suicides in 2004 [1] (whereas if you compare to the general population here it is the 11th leading cause of death)." Not necessarily. The #10 cause for the general population may be deadlier than the #1 cause for 15-24 year olds. That Here are some made up numbers: 15-24 year olds: 0.1% deaths/year, of which 10% due to suicide general population: 1% deaths per year, of which 5% due to suicide That would have 0.01% of all 15-24 commit suicide each year, but 0.05% of the general population. As I said, I made up the numbers. However, I do not think they are completely out of range. 1% deaths in a stable population gives a life expectancy of 100 years, but the US population is growing and hence relatively young. Also, looking at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf, Figure 3, I think 1% is a reasonable guess at that figure. The x% due to suicide numbers likely are exaggerations (a Zipf curve will have trouble getting to 5% in rank 10)

robocat 14y ago

Foxconn have a strong incentive to avoid employing employees likely to commit suicide, or alternatively to sack at-risk employees. So suicide rate can't be used as a proxy for measuring employee conditions. I was going to suggest that the lower rate could be due to having more female workers, since far more men then women commit suicide BUT it turns out that in China this is not the case (in US studies they measure that women try a lot but don't succeed at the same rate - cause of that is contentious argument - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_and_suicide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_and_suicide). To answer main thread, the article does include a bunch of bollocks (my favorite bit is where they try to shock us with the half-life of Uranium), but the core of the article seems to be probably valid. Aside: why is it so common that eco-articles (or eco-movies) ruin their core theme by adding outrageous bollocks?

derleth 14y ago
> So suicide rate can't be used as a proxy for measuring employee conditions. Except everyone mentions the Foxconn Suicides as a major problem. Giving actual numbers is a way to remedy that specific bit of untruth. > my favorite bit is where they try to shock us with the half-life of Uranium For the people who don't know: Long half-life means lower radiation over any given period. The really hot stuff, the stuff that throws off a lot of radiation per second, doesn't last long precisely because it's throwing away so much energy to get to a more stable state. Isotopes that stick around longer do so because they're more stable, and so have less energy to throw away every second.

mseebach 14y ago

Out of a million people, 17 suicides isn’t much—indeed, American college students kill themselves at four times that rate. http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/02/ff_joelinchina/ http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/02/ff_joelinchina/ I think US college students is a socioeconomically appropriate group to compare with.