5 ms·

> Quite the opposite, it's almost always two very happy parties engaging in an exchange that each of them finds advantageous. When I buy an iPhone from Apple,

> Quite the opposite, it's almost always two very happy parties engaging in an exchange that each of them finds advantageous. When I buy an iPhone from Apple, I suspect quite a few folks in the mines, factories, shipping, and retail chain that gets those "two happy parties" connected aren't so happy. They are, however, deeply important to the transaction.

satvikpendem 5mo ago
They are working for money, often in jobs paying more than others in their local economy, when they otherwise wouldn't be.
- ceejayoz 5mo ago
  Arbeit macht frei!
  - satvikpendem 5mo ago
    Ah yes, people working for money, often more than they could make in other jobs in the local economy, is now slavery or concentration camp level conditions. I wish people here would actually live in a second or third world country before saying things like this from the comfort of their air conditioned house.
    - ceejayoz 5mo ago
      Slavery would still be slavery if you got paid $0.01/day, so there's clearly some kind of threshold we all have for "good, fairly compensated work".
      - satvikpendem 5mo ago
        If your local economy pays you $0.001/day instead, then congratulations, you now make 10x more than everyone else. It doesn't matter how much a dollar is worth elsewhere in the world, because purchasing power parity exists. It's like me being mad that on a hypothetical Mars people make a million dollars a day, that does not affect me whatsoever.
        ceejayoz 5mo ago
        > If your local economy pays you $0.001/day instead, then congratulations, you now make 10x more than everyone else. Sure. The kapos at concentration camps got better food and treatment, too. That doesn't make it a fair, happy, or good arrangement.
        satvikpendem 5mo ago
        I'm not going to continue with someone like you who'd equate concentration camp contidions to working in a factory. It is simply highly disrespectful to those who've actually lived through or died in them. Have a good day.
        ceejayoz 5mo ago
        > equate concentration camp contidions to working in a factory Oh no, not accurately stating history! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_labour_under_German_rule_during_World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_labour_under_German_rul... > The use of slave and forced labour in Nazi Germany (German: Zwangsarbeit) and throughout German-occupied Europe during World War II took place on an unprecedented scale. It was a vital part of the German economic exploitation of conquered territories. It also contributed to the mass extermination of populations in occupied Europe. Titrating the nastiness of it from "will definitely kill you" to "will make you die miserable, broke, and broken" isn't, IMO, a great fix. People are not required to be satisfied with a tiny pittance just because it's more than their neighbor has.
        satvikpendem 5mo ago
        Not sure what you're talking about, I explicitly said those are concentration camp conditions, so obviously yes Nazis murdered many people while making them work in factories. Seems like you think I think they didn't. But modern factory conditions are nowhere near what that regime did. If you want to know, work in a factory. That is what I mean by not equating concentration camp contidions to working in a modern factory.
  - zeroonetwothree 5mo ago
    [flagged]
    - ceejayoz 5mo ago
      Say Nazi shit, get compared to Nazis. Per Godwin himself! Call it his second law. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/19/godwins-law-trump-hitler-00132427 https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/19/godwins-la...
  - sophrosyne42 5mo ago
    [flagged]
    - ceejayoz 5mo ago
      I will accept that, in context (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48531429 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48531429), as high praise.
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
- lkjdsklf 5mo ago
  It’s still exploitative. The point is that the “gains” are overwhelmingly absorbed by the top. There’s no reason they couldn’t pay them a much bigger share of the profits and raise up that entire part of the world. But yet, they don’t. Because that would cost them some of their own wealth. I’m not even saying it should be equally distributed. The disparity is insane right now though.
  - csallen 5mo ago
    > There’s no reason they couldn’t pay them a much bigger share... Why should they pay more than market worth? When you go shop at a store, do you pay double the price tag just because you can? No, you don't, because that would cost you more of your wealth. Does the average person in a first-world country donate half their wealth to the average person in a second-world countries? Does the average person in a second world country donate half their wealth to the average person in a third world country? No, and no. It's not really a common thing in human nature to give up a lot of what we have in order to support those who are less fortunate. You might say that's sad, but imo it's still a fact. What is curious about human nature is how, despite this lack of behavior on our own part, we expect those who have more than us to give us what they have. Market wages and prices are fairly set, largely due to supply and demand. > The disparity is insane right now though The disparity is better than ever imo. I'd rather live in this time period than any other, thanks to technology, which is a great equalizer. It provides amazing quality of life improvements across so many areas, from education and healthcare to entertainment and food; then capitalistic competition absolutely demolishes the costs of this tech, to the point where prohibitively expensive tech becomes affordable to billions. Today, a middle class person can eat a cheeseburger that's just as good as what Bill Gates is eating, drive a car that's 99% as good as his, travel to the same places he travels to, wear clothes that are just as good as his, read the same books, watch movies, listen to the same music, go to the same plays, etc. The rich sit in slightly bigger chairs, enjoy slightly shorter waits, and many other improvements that historically would've been considered negligible compared to the gaps between kings and peasants, nobility and servants, owners and slaves, rich and poor. In fact, the richest are having to resort to paying insane prices for useless luxury goods and brand names just to differentiate themselves. Or paying outrageous sums for luxury toys like yachts and planes that most wouldn't even want.
csallen 5mo ago
> I suspect quite a few folks in the mines, factories, shipping, and retail chain that gets those "two happy parties" connected aren't so happy. Okay, if you're going to make such a claim and trust in it, then can I presume you have answers to these two questions? 1. In a world without Apple, what would these people be doing that would make them happier? 2. What exactly is stopping them from doing that now?
- ceejayoz 5mo ago
  > What exactly is stopping them from doing that now? I think the rise of China demonstrates they're certainly trying.
- esarbe 5mo ago
  1. Not being forced to work in the cobalt mines, I suspect. 2. Economic coercion. The people are forced by the capitalist system - that was shaped by capitalist interests - to participate in a system they don't have any say in. They cannot even opt out.
  - csallen 5mo ago
    1. You didn't answer the question. You said what they wouldn't be doing. What would they be doing that would be making them happier? 2. You didn't answer this question either. What specifically is stopping them from opting out? Who is putting a gun to their head and saying they can't live a hunter-gatherer lifestyle or be a subsistence farmer? The answer is nothing. People are largely making these choices themselves, because they're better options, for reasons that are obvious to anyone who's read a bit of history.
    - inigyou 5mo ago
      Um, the police will put a gun to your head if you're homeless. To not be homeless you can build on your land or someone else's land. If you build on someone else's land the police puts a gun to your head. To own land you need to participate in the system, and then after a whole lifetime working the cobalt mines the system might just let you get a section of property by the time you die if you're lucky.

satvikpendem 5mo ago

They are working for money, often in jobs paying more than others in their local economy, when they otherwise wouldn't be.

ceejayoz 5mo ago
Arbeit macht frei!
- satvikpendem 5mo ago
  Ah yes, people working for money, often more than they could make in other jobs in the local economy, is now slavery or concentration camp level conditions. I wish people here would actually live in a second or third world country before saying things like this from the comfort of their air conditioned house.
  - ceejayoz 5mo ago
    Slavery would still be slavery if you got paid $0.01/day, so there's clearly some kind of threshold we all have for "good, fairly compensated work".
    - satvikpendem 5mo ago
      If your local economy pays you $0.001/day instead, then congratulations, you now make 10x more than everyone else. It doesn't matter how much a dollar is worth elsewhere in the world, because purchasing power parity exists. It's like me being mad that on a hypothetical Mars people make a million dollars a day, that does not affect me whatsoever.
      - ceejayoz 5mo ago
        > If your local economy pays you $0.001/day instead, then congratulations, you now make 10x more than everyone else. Sure. The kapos at concentration camps got better food and treatment, too. That doesn't make it a fair, happy, or good arrangement.
        satvikpendem 5mo ago
        I'm not going to continue with someone like you who'd equate concentration camp contidions to working in a factory. It is simply highly disrespectful to those who've actually lived through or died in them. Have a good day.
        ceejayoz 5mo ago
        > equate concentration camp contidions to working in a factory Oh no, not accurately stating history! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_labour_under_German_rule_during_World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_labour_under_German_rul... > The use of slave and forced labour in Nazi Germany (German: Zwangsarbeit) and throughout German-occupied Europe during World War II took place on an unprecedented scale. It was a vital part of the German economic exploitation of conquered territories. It also contributed to the mass extermination of populations in occupied Europe. Titrating the nastiness of it from "will definitely kill you" to "will make you die miserable, broke, and broken" isn't, IMO, a great fix. People are not required to be satisfied with a tiny pittance just because it's more than their neighbor has.
        satvikpendem 5mo ago
        Not sure what you're talking about, I explicitly said those are concentration camp conditions, so obviously yes Nazis murdered many people while making them work in factories. Seems like you think I think they didn't. But modern factory conditions are nowhere near what that regime did. If you want to know, work in a factory. That is what I mean by not equating concentration camp contidions to working in a modern factory.
- zeroonetwothree 5mo ago
  [flagged]
  - ceejayoz 5mo ago
    Say Nazi shit, get compared to Nazis. Per Godwin himself! Call it his second law. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/19/godwins-law-trump-hitler-00132427 https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/19/godwins-la...
- sophrosyne42 5mo ago
  [flagged]
  - ceejayoz 5mo ago
    I will accept that, in context (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48531429 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48531429), as high praise.
deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
lkjdsklf 5mo ago
It’s still exploitative. The point is that the “gains” are overwhelmingly absorbed by the top. There’s no reason they couldn’t pay them a much bigger share of the profits and raise up that entire part of the world. But yet, they don’t. Because that would cost them some of their own wealth. I’m not even saying it should be equally distributed. The disparity is insane right now though.
- csallen 5mo ago
  > There’s no reason they couldn’t pay them a much bigger share... Why should they pay more than market worth? When you go shop at a store, do you pay double the price tag just because you can? No, you don't, because that would cost you more of your wealth. Does the average person in a first-world country donate half their wealth to the average person in a second-world countries? Does the average person in a second world country donate half their wealth to the average person in a third world country? No, and no. It's not really a common thing in human nature to give up a lot of what we have in order to support those who are less fortunate. You might say that's sad, but imo it's still a fact. What is curious about human nature is how, despite this lack of behavior on our own part, we expect those who have more than us to give us what they have. Market wages and prices are fairly set, largely due to supply and demand. > The disparity is insane right now though The disparity is better than ever imo. I'd rather live in this time period than any other, thanks to technology, which is a great equalizer. It provides amazing quality of life improvements across so many areas, from education and healthcare to entertainment and food; then capitalistic competition absolutely demolishes the costs of this tech, to the point where prohibitively expensive tech becomes affordable to billions. Today, a middle class person can eat a cheeseburger that's just as good as what Bill Gates is eating, drive a car that's 99% as good as his, travel to the same places he travels to, wear clothes that are just as good as his, read the same books, watch movies, listen to the same music, go to the same plays, etc. The rich sit in slightly bigger chairs, enjoy slightly shorter waits, and many other improvements that historically would've been considered negligible compared to the gaps between kings and peasants, nobility and servants, owners and slaves, rich and poor. In fact, the richest are having to resort to paying insane prices for useless luxury goods and brand names just to differentiate themselves. Or paying outrageous sums for luxury toys like yachts and planes that most wouldn't even want.

csallen 5mo ago

> I suspect quite a few folks in the mines, factories, shipping, and retail chain that gets those "two happy parties" connected aren't so happy. Okay, if you're going to make such a claim and trust in it, then can I presume you have answers to these two questions? 1. In a world without Apple, what would these people be doing that would make them happier? 2. What exactly is stopping them from doing that now?

ceejayoz 5mo ago
> What exactly is stopping them from doing that now? I think the rise of China demonstrates they're certainly trying.
esarbe 5mo ago
1. Not being forced to work in the cobalt mines, I suspect. 2. Economic coercion. The people are forced by the capitalist system - that was shaped by capitalist interests - to participate in a system they don't have any say in. They cannot even opt out.
- csallen 5mo ago
  1. You didn't answer the question. You said what they wouldn't be doing. What would they be doing that would be making them happier? 2. You didn't answer this question either. What specifically is stopping them from opting out? Who is putting a gun to their head and saying they can't live a hunter-gatherer lifestyle or be a subsistence farmer? The answer is nothing. People are largely making these choices themselves, because they're better options, for reasons that are obvious to anyone who's read a bit of history.
  - inigyou 5mo ago
    Um, the police will put a gun to your head if you're homeless. To not be homeless you can build on your land or someone else's land. If you build on someone else's land the police puts a gun to your head. To own land you need to participate in the system, and then after a whole lifetime working the cobalt mines the system might just let you get a section of property by the time you die if you're lucky.