Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple’s longtime supplier accused of using forced labor in China

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

581–590 of 820 posts

Re: Apple’s longtime supplier accused of using forced labor in China

#581

Post by par1970 »

mgh2 wrote: post #564
darig wrote: post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The USA still allows prison slave labor, so good luck with that. Examples: [1] Whole Foods – This organic supermarket buys artisan cheeses and fishes from companies that employ inmates. McDonald’s – Certain McDonald store items such as cutlery and containers were made in prison. Prisoners also sew their employee uniforms, and they only make a few cents an hour from it. Target – Since the early 2000s, Target has relie…

I am surprised by today's lack of ethics discernment - there is big a difference. Prison labor is compensating for crimes committed against society and other people, while uyghur labor is direct discrimination against an entire minority without probable cause. If they happen to commit terrorism, then yes, those specific individuals' forced labor is justified as debt, but right now they are just labeled as "enemies of…

> Prison labor is compensating for crimes committed against society and other people

But the prisoners didn’t commit crimes against “society” they committed them against particular people. Why not force the inmate into indentured servitude under the injured party rather than an opportunistic third party like Walmart?

Re: Apple’s longtime supplier accused of using forced labor in China

#582

Post by thescriptkiddie »

Alupis wrote: post #566
darig wrote: post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The USA still allows prison slave labor, so good luck with that. Examples: [1] Whole Foods – This organic supermarket buys artisan cheeses and fishes from companies that employ inmates. McDonald’s – Certain McDonald store items such as cutlery and containers were made in prison. Prisoners also sew their employee uniforms, and they only make a few cents an hour from it. Target – Since the early 2000s, Target has relie…

There is a big difference between slave/forced labor and paying for cheap labor. Majority of your examples state something along the lines of "paying inmates peanuts to make expensive things"... which literally is not the definition of slave labor. The article is about literal Chinese Slave Labor camps. There is no comparison with any of the things in your list. Most people would also agree, providing a purpose - job…

What? Paying someone (a pittance, mind) doesn't make forced labor not slavery. Read the 13th amendment.

Re: Apple’s longtime supplier accused of using forced labor in China

#583

Post by darig »

Alupis wrote: post #572
mike_h wrote: post #570

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“The article is about literal Chinese Slave Labor camps” Actually it’s not... did you read it? The central allegation is that a few thousand Xinjiang Muslims were offered employment possibly in exchange for political indoctrination. There’s a side allegation that prisoners are also being put to work in factories. There’s no allegation let alone evidence that this is without compensation. And the pennies offered in US…

> “The article is about literal Chinese Slave Labor camps” > > Actually it’s not... did you read it? Yes, but apparently you did not. Here's the quote: > Xinjiang, in the far reaches of Western China bordering Afghanistan, Pakistan and other Muslim-majority countries, is facing a brutal crackdown by China’s government, which has placed more than a million Muslims in concentration camps or forced them to work in facto…

You're doing a fair bit of disingenuous spinning yourself there, chief.

Re: Apple’s longtime supplier accused of using forced labor in China

#584

Post by Alupis »

arentyouspecial wrote: post #579
Alupis wrote: post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a debate worth having - but calling cheaply paid prison labor "Slave Labor", or equivocating it to Chinese Forced Labor Camps is disingenuous and dishonest. They are flatly not the same, even if you believe it's debatably exploitive.

Considering the rise of convict leasing programs across the south after the passing of the 13th amendment, I’d say there was very little difference. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convict_leasing

> The practice peaked around 1880, was formally outlawed by the last state (Alabama) in 1928, and persisted in various forms until it was abolished by President Franklin D. Roosevelt via Francis Biddle's "Circular 3591" of December 12, 1941.

You use something that was ended (because people thought it was wrong!) nearly a century ago as supporting evidence for what exactly?

Re: Apple’s longtime supplier accused of using forced labor in China

#585

Post by Causality1 »

ricardobeat wrote: post #464
Causality1 wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pay attention for a while and you'll notice there's quite a list of topics and positions that are verboten,either because they have a personal army who care about them or there's a finger on the scale. For example, lightly and generally criticizing China will get you a lot of upvotes. Criticizing China in specific ways and proposing strategies of action will get your comment down voted and flagged.

It's part of the HN guidelines to avoid political topics: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html I would imagine Apple et al get a pass since they are strong interests of the audience here. Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon.

That's my point. The rules are only the rules until the bandwagon decides they aren't.

Re: Apple’s longtime supplier accused of using forced labor in China

#586

Post by Alupis »

mike_h wrote: post #578
Alupis wrote: post #572

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “The article is about literal Chinese Slave Labor camps” > > Actually it’s not... did you read it? Yes, but apparently you did not. Here's the quote: > Xinjiang, in the far reaches of Western China bordering Afghanistan, Pakistan and other Muslim-majority countries, is facing a brutal crackdown by China’s government, which has placed more than a million Muslims in concentration camps or forced them to work in facto…

That’s side-allegation, not what this article is about. And it’s a debatable one.

Are we reading the same article?

You stated:

> The central allegation is that a few thousand Xinjiang Muslims were offered employment possibly in exchange for political indoctrination

It's a million, and they were not offered employment. They were "transferred" and forced to work in factories, among other places.

Re: Apple’s longtime supplier accused of using forced labor in China

#587

Post by JohnTHaller »

eznzt wrote: post #13

Why should I believe what the "Tech Transparency Project" (funded by Open Society Foundations) says over what Apple and China say? Honest question.

Well, Apple is fighting against US legislation to thwart slave labor.

Re: Apple’s longtime supplier accused of using forced labor in China

#588

Post by arminiusreturns »

valuearb wrote: post #558
arminiusreturns wrote: post #466

To the tune of Childish Gambinos "This is America": This is globalism This was always the point of offloading to other countries. Less regulations, lower wages, less powerful workers and workers unions, and higher profit margins. Ross Perot was right but nobody listened to him. Apple isnt unique, and this isnt the first time. Its systemic. So tired of the trope of accusing anybody critical of globalism of being an is…

You seem to want to kill flies with nuclear weapons. The vast majority of third world workers benefit from free trade and freely choose the jobs it produces. Protectionism sentences people far poorer than you to far worse economic lives. Taking away Apple assembly jobs doesn’t increase third world wages or worker protections, it makes them worse. Those workers are consigned to work back in brutal rural jobs that not…

My countries government should understand the implications of the policies it impliments, including the impact on people in other countries, but my governments first concern shouldn't be those other peoples, it should be it's own citizens! For those who seriously try to understand this topic, the implication you aren't talking about (and a myriad more) is that due to this we can expect the first world standards/wealth to decrease in response. Of course there are those who then respond "good! about time!" or some equivalent, but I digress.

The mental gymanstics I see being performed in comments here boggles the mind, but I am thankful at least to have a refresher on all the kinds of responses I need to be prepared to rebute. Lets restate them as prereq for responding to them: (on globalism)

It increases the wealth of poor people in other countries

It offers more employment opportunities for said people

It increases the wealth of the third world in general

It's not globalism, it's the companies who participate in it and aren't heald accountable.

You had a "protectionist" president and how did that work out?

It's not globalisms fault, it's capitalisms fault.

Globalism as a term is a "racist dog whistle" and an "antisemitic conspiratorial buzzword"

So far, none of these are particularly well thought out or presented, and suffer obvious weaknesses. I'm not sure if I feel like taking the time currently to dissect them each right now, but they will go in the todo list.

Re: Apple’s longtime supplier accused of using forced labor in China

#589

Post by LatteLazy »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #259
baybal2 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm amazed the world isn't taking more action on China. Its quite sad really, 20 years ago, any one of the headlines from this year would have prompted sanctions and denunciations... Why would world politicians take any actions against China when so many of them do have a finger in the honeypot themselves? Invalidate stock shares* of all companies who made untold billions on China, and you will see that a huge doub…

> The reason why China is not Iraq now is that. And nuclear weapons. Don't forget the elephant in the room. China has nukes, which severely limits the pressure the West can put on it.

And having 1bn people. We couldn't control Iraq or Afghanistans populations (both sub 40mil). Try a job 35 times bigger...

Re: Apple’s longtime supplier accused of using forced labor in China

#590

Post by esarbe »

ksk wrote: post #520
esarbe wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The US peoples voted into power a President who pardons war criminals. And the next incoming President supports (or has supported in the past) wars and bombings which cost the lives of countless non-combatants. Which places has China bombed? If the claim is China has lots its moral standing, then The US is not on any firmer moral ground either.

Yeah, you won't see me grandstanding for the U.S. The U.S. has plenty of issues. But we were talking about China, not the U.S.

By the way, why the U.S.? Why not Lichtenstein or Denmark?

Post reply on HN