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

Foxconn workers threatened mass suicide for their working conditions

theatlanticwire.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 161 posts

Re: Foxconn workers threatened mass suicide for their working conditions

#131

Post by ars »

drumdance wrote: post #128
ars wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's called the "Fallacy of the excluded middle", or a "False dilemma". They don't have to suicide. They can also quit and work somewhere else.

Do you really think that hasn't occurred to them? When's the last time you fel the need to threaten someone with suicide? My guess is never. In that case, can you begin to imagine how desperate someone must feel if this strikes him as a viable option?

I think it hasn't occurred to jmathes, and I think they are bluffing.

I have not heard that things are so bad in China that it's impossible to get a job and suicide is the only alternative. This is just a negotiating tactic.

Re: Foxconn workers threatened mass suicide for their working conditions

#132

Post by drumdance »

philwelch wrote: post #67
nik_0_0 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm the first to admit I'm quite ignorant of my own history, let alone the economic history of Korea and Japan, but surely you aren't suggesting that if we keep buying stuff from China they will turn into a rich country and magically increase the working conditions?

It's not really magical, but yeah, that's how it's always worked. Yes, someone has to actually fix the working conditions, but it's not going to be you or me, it's going to be the Chinese workers themselves. American and British workers formed unions and engaged in often violent struggles to improve pay and working conditions; some enlightened industrialists like Henry Ford voluntarily and profitably improved pay and…

Outsiders can't fix them directly, but they certainly can bring pressure by publicizing things like this and pushing for change at the WTO and other fora.

Re: Foxconn workers threatened mass suicide for their working conditions

#133

Post by drumdance »

Volpe wrote: post #124
Dylan16807 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a terrible definition of exploitation. You're saying that even a single dollar of profit qualifies. How are you even defining value? What if I like bananas more than shirts and you the opposite? Do we somehow exploit each other when we trade?

how do you justify profit not qualifying? bananas and shirts have an intrinsic value, it isn't subjective, they cost X to produce/ship, that's their value. The rest is exploitation. Of course, a pro-capitalist isn't going to like this line of thinking, as it is explicitly anti-capitalism.

"Intrinsic value?" What if I invent a new banana plant that can grow in cold weather. It's so successful that there is a banana glut. All the banana republics face bankruptcy because it costs more to ship the darn things than for me to go out back and pick a fresh bunch off my own personal banana tree?

This may seem like a silly example, but think of how the invention of the tractor affected the draft horse industry.

There is no such thing as intrinsic value. There is only the value the marketplace assigns to it. The Soviets spent decades trying to quantify it -- that is, to figure out how much to pay the janitor compared to the factory manager -- but ultimately gave up.

Re: Foxconn workers threatened mass suicide for their working conditions

#134

Post by drumdance »

elliottcarlson wrote: post #6
juiceandjuice wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you buy a bloodPhone?

Considering how much was already known about the working conditions as well as suicides at Foxconn, it hasn't slowed down sales. I'm sure a mass suicide would get more media attention, but who knows how it would actually affect their bottom line.

You never know where that kind of thing could lead. Perhaps the Occupy Wall Street crowd would rally around it.

Re: Foxconn workers threatened mass suicide for their working conditions

#135

Post by nate_meurer »

TDL wrote: post #115
Tycho wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It lacks the individual/property rights that underpin true capitalism. I think we should invent a new word for it, like 'marketism' or something.

Mercantilism with Chinese characteristics maybe? The Chinese economy seems much more mercantilistic to me at this point in time than anything else.

Yes. Perfect description.

http://www.as-coa.org/articles/2982/The_New_Mercantilism:_Ch...

Re: Foxconn workers threatened mass suicide for their working conditions

#136

Post by paganel »

philwelch wrote: post #101
mrlase wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, China hasn't really been 'communist' since the days of Mao. To expand on what you said, here's an article from 12 years ago (that's getting incredibly weird to say) about China opening up to private enterprise: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/591841.stm . I think most would agree that China is now considered a "socialist market economy [with Chinese characteristics]" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist…

> I think most would agree that China is now considered a "socialist market economy [with Chinese characteristics]" In other words, less "USSR", more"Sweden without elections"?

I might be mistaken, but I don't think health-services (other than basic ones) are free of charge in China. The same goes for education. What's definitely very "Chinese" is the segregation between the rural poor and the urban population. They're no Sweden, that's for sure.

Re: Foxconn workers threatened mass suicide for their working conditions

#137

Post by Dylan16807 »

Volpe wrote: post #124
Dylan16807 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a terrible definition of exploitation. You're saying that even a single dollar of profit qualifies. How are you even defining value? What if I like bananas more than shirts and you the opposite? Do we somehow exploit each other when we trade?

how do you justify profit not qualifying? bananas and shirts have an intrinsic value, it isn't subjective, they cost X to produce/ship, that's their value. The rest is exploitation. Of course, a pro-capitalist isn't going to like this line of thinking, as it is explicitly anti-capitalism.

Cost to produce is along the lines of what I expected you to answer, but I don't understand. Am I not to collect a wage as the runner of the business even if I'm not doing production work? Or is that in fact included in the 'cost to produce' and then you have to figure out a wage with no logical reference frame?

And how is a business going to get the capital to start if it can't take in money to pay interest? If that would be allowed you're dangerously close to capitalism.

Also I disagree that your idea is in fact anti-capitalist. Paying people based on the value they provide in exchange would favor giving successful wall-street fund managers hundreds of millions of dollars which seems supremely capitalist. (the business itself being exploitative to externals doesn't really matter here)

Re: Foxconn workers threatened mass suicide for their working conditions

#138

Post by [deleted] »

ars wrote: post #102
ugh wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Power imbalance can create exploitation even without any external coercion. I think a hypothetical example can be helpful here: Imagine you are in the middle of the desert and dying. Some guy in a helicopter arrives and offers you a contract: He will get you to the closest hospital if you give him all your money and nearly all of all your future income. There is no external coercion involved, nobody is holding a gun…

Of course there is coercion: he's threatening you with passive death. Just because it's passive doesn't change anything.

[deleted]

Re: Foxconn workers threatened mass suicide for their working conditions

#139

Post by ugh »

ars wrote: post #102
ugh wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Power imbalance can create exploitation even without any external coercion. I think a hypothetical example can be helpful here: Imagine you are in the middle of the desert and dying. Some guy in a helicopter arrives and offers you a contract: He will get you to the closest hospital if you give him all your money and nearly all of all your future income. There is no external coercion involved, nobody is holding a gun…

Of course there is coercion: he's threatening you with passive death. Just because it's passive doesn't change anything.

Sure, there is coercion. Note that I only said that there is no (for lack of a better word) external coercion. You might also call it open or explicit, I'm not sure, I'm not really happy about any of those words.

What's not there, however, is any “threat of force” and that is what I was responding to.

Re: Foxconn workers threatened mass suicide for their working conditions

#140

Post by anamax »

louislouis wrote: post #95
anamax wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unfortunately social responsibility does not fly in the name of profit. That is what I mean by exploitation. Profit? How about the buyer? You're free to tell Apple that you won't buy unless they pay enough so workers can have BMWs. If Apple believes you, it will do so and pass along those costs. What? You're not willing to pay for workers to have BMWs? You're awfully free with other people's money.

Your argument is void because the buyer never finds out what conditions the products are made in unless the factory workers protest such as in this case. Social responsibility is not part of the sales pitch, all the buyer see's are the shiny packaging and the sparkly tv commercials with their favorite celebrity. Were the buyer able to make an informed decision regarding his/her purchase, perhaps they'll choose otherw…

> Your argument is void because the buyer never finds out what conditions the products are made in unless the factory workers protest such as in this case.

Buyers find out what they're interested in.

> Were the buyer able to make an informed decision regarding his/her purchase, perhaps they'll choose otherwise.

You write that as if there's no relevant experience. "Fair trade coffee" is merely one of the examples.

Post reply on HN