I think the problems come because businesses squeeze their suppliers more and more. They pay so little for each item that they charge us so much for, that it is totally disingenuous when they throw up their hands in shock when appalling conditions inevitably emerge. They *must* know these conditions and practices are inevitable, but they get to say it's not them, because it's the suppliers.
Unfortunately, they're not going to change, because it's absolutely core business strategy to reduce costs and increase prices whenever they can. Asking how much Apple pay their suppliers for each iPad, MacBook or whatever would be an interesting question.
We know how much they cost to manufacture, at least in terms of parts, right? Aside from the cost of development, marketing, etc. I'm surprised that mechanizing the production process is more expensive than hiring a "disposable" workforce--unless these devices simply can't be assembled by machine? (Not that I'm saying we should replace people with machines... That's a whole other issue.)
Geeze, I just realized what this whole situation reminds me of: Paolo Bacigalupi's Wind-Up Girl.
I've long resigned myself to the fact that in order for me to maintain a the standard of living to which I'm accustomed on this side of the world, plenty of nameless brown children will have to suffer on the other side of the planet, where I can neither see nor hear them. And if you've got a smartphone, if you're wearing clothes made in Indonesia or Bangladesh, if you drink store-bought coffee and buy supermarket produce and drive a modern car and peck away at a laptop, so do you. They're all soaked in blood and suffering and oppression.
Realistically, decent work conditions (the same as in the West) would mean prices of electronics and clothes and toys that would go way up
I'm not convinced of this. What it would mean is that the advantage to corporations of locating their factories overseas would be greatly lessened; it might no longer off-set the cost of international shipping and paperwork. If that happened, manufacturing jobs would re-appear in the US, and be available for organizing here, thus infusing the labor unions with fresh blood and power. And when people make enough money to do so, they buy things. Even Ford understood that in order to get rich, he had to pay his workers enough so that they could afford to buy one of his cars. It could mean an era of economic prosperity like the one for white people in the 1940s and 1950s, which, no matter what conservatives wish to believe, rested in part on the achievements of Big Labor.
Oh, I don't think they'll be cheaper. But if we get union jobs back, more people will be able to afford them, which effectively amounts to the same thing.
I completely believe you about the shipping costs. I was kind of using it as a synecdoche for the logistical inconvenience that comes from locating your production bases far from some of your biggest markets, an inconvenience that is currently off-set by the savings in labor costs.
Mike Dailey suggests we simply try to improve conditions over there, the way they were improved over the course of a century at home.
By becoming radical leftist activists and organizing unions whose members risked life and limb to obtain decent treatment? I'm in favor of that, definitely.
Right. It's grossly oversimplified, and I suppose it also dishonors the sacrifices people made to get us to where we are today, for better or ill. That's another thing that bothers me: how poorly I remember our own history and where we came from. I can do something to rectify that, at least.
they’re complicit in every one of those human rights violation-as are we all.
I reject this kind of breast-beating self-blame. All it does is let Apple off the hook in a "everyone's a little bit racist" way. We have far less power to affect working conditions than does Apple. This is not a question of "as are we all." This is a question of yet another corporation killing and maiming people in order to make even more money. Compared to Apple's responsibility for and power over the situation, any individual's complicity is incredibly puny. Even if we all took collective action to force Apple to mend their ways, I'm not sure how that would go: how big would that collective have to be to force a multi-national super-wealthy corporation to notice, much less act?
Point. I'm still working all this out for myself, but by complicit, I think I mean that we didn't know and we didn't ask, and that's what I find inexcusable. Ignorance isn't a way to shift blame either, especially when today we have access to more information--and ways to share it--than ever before.
Ah. I did know about this--followed the story a couple years back, which is when I first remember it breaking. But it might have been out before then. I remember reading a really interesting piece in The Nation about how Bill Gates, who's gone out of his way to use his wealth to alleviate suffering, is roundly mocked and disparaged as an unappealing geek who needs to loosen up, and Microsoft is the evil empire, but Steve Jobs, who never used his millions to help anybody but himself, gets to be the cool, groovy one, and Apple is somehow allied with counter-cultural values. Reading it really changed my affective relationship to Apple products. I had not before realized how much I'd been affected by their advertising.
I hadn't considered that comparison. I just looked up the article, which says that Jobs actually did away with the charity programs Apple had, though they're back now. And he's quoted as saying, "Bill is basically unimaginative and has never invented anything, which is why I think he’s more comfortable now in philanthropy than technology." He obviously valued creativity over humanity, but they don't have to be mutually exclusive.
While looking up that article in the Nation, I ran across a more recent story about more of the good the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is doing. Now I have more respect for him! Not that I didn't before, but I didn't think about him much. The thing with philanthropy is you're usually not doing it to get a pat on the back, so of course we wouldn't hear about it. People only care how much Apple's quarterly profits are, not how much money a family foundation gave away. The Gates have pledged 95% of their fortune, by the way, which is simply incredible.
Comments 22
Unfortunately, they're not going to change, because it's absolutely core business strategy to reduce costs and increase prices whenever they can. Asking how much Apple pay their suppliers for each iPad, MacBook or whatever would be an interesting question.
Reply
Geeze, I just realized what this whole situation reminds me of: Paolo Bacigalupi's Wind-Up Girl.
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
I'm not convinced of this. What it would mean is that the advantage to corporations of locating their factories overseas would be greatly lessened; it might no longer off-set the cost of international shipping and paperwork. If that happened, manufacturing jobs would re-appear in the US, and be available for organizing here, thus infusing the labor unions with fresh blood and power. And when people make enough money to do so, they buy things. Even Ford understood that in order to get rich, he had to pay his workers enough so that they could afford to buy one of his cars. It could mean an era of economic prosperity like the one for white people in the 1940s and 1950s, which, no matter what conservatives wish to believe, rested in part on the achievements of Big Labor.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
I completely believe you about the shipping costs. I was kind of using it as a synecdoche for the logistical inconvenience that comes from locating your production bases far from some of your biggest markets, an inconvenience that is currently off-set by the savings in labor costs.
Reply
By becoming radical leftist activists and organizing unions whose members risked life and limb to obtain decent treatment? I'm in favor of that, definitely.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Reply
I reject this kind of breast-beating self-blame. All it does is let Apple off the hook in a "everyone's a little bit racist" way. We have far less power to affect working conditions than does Apple. This is not a question of "as are we all." This is a question of yet another corporation killing and maiming people in order to make even more money. Compared to Apple's responsibility for and power over the situation, any individual's complicity is incredibly puny. Even if we all took collective action to force Apple to mend their ways, I'm not sure how that would go: how big would that collective have to be to force a multi-national super-wealthy corporation to notice, much less act?
Reply
Reply
Reply
While looking up that article in the Nation, I ran across a more recent story about more of the good the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is doing. Now I have more respect for him! Not that I didn't before, but I didn't think about him much. The thing with philanthropy is you're usually not doing it to get a pat on the back, so of course we wouldn't hear about it. People only care how much Apple's quarterly profits are, not how much money a family foundation gave away. The Gates have pledged 95% of their fortune, by the way, which is simply incredible.
Reply
Leave a comment