Foxconn workers threatened mass suicide for their working conditions • Hacker News Board

Re: Foxconn workers threatened mass suicide for their working conditions

#141

Post by Volpe » Wed, Jan 11, 2012, 6:56 AM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #137

Volpe wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

runner of a business? what is that? Does that mean you are living off the surplus value of your workers? or are you a worker yourself? Your "wage" is decided by your work isn't it? i.e if banana is worth x and you pick 5 of them, then you earned 5x no?

I don't understand your capital/interest point.

except in a world of no-profit companies... wall street fund managers wouldn't exist.

Re: Foxconn workers threatened mass suicide for their working conditions

#142

Post by vacri » Wed, Jan 11, 2012, 7:00 AM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #99

vacri wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UK extracted immense amounts of wealth from India alone - where is China's India? Africa was plundered in all senses of the word by western Europe. It's not just Spanish gold that I'm referring to. My point is that the strength of the UK economy of the time wasn't just 'factory workers', conquering a quarter of the world's landmass and nicking their stuff also helped significantly. China can't replicate this.

The question is whether it's more productive to conquer other continents and plunder them with 18th century technology or just produce stuff with 21st century technology. And it's not as easy as you'd think. Most of the imperial powers spent a lot of money on things like shipping people across oceans, maintaining vast military forces to guard their empires, building massive amounts of infrastructure in their empires,…

China has plenty of shit to figure out for the first time - things like the one-child policy are evidence of this. But my real issue is that the idea that western europe industrialised and became an economic powerhouse just on the basis of it's own factory sweat is a poor reading of history.

Also, not sure what you mean by world war between colonies. Spain, England and France had numerous colonies, but didn't abandon them when warring between each other. Germany, Austro-Hungary and Italy weren't big on colonies, and neither World War involved much in the way of colony-on-colony fighting - pretty much all things you would call a colony in some way were fighting on the side of the Allies in both wars.

Re: Foxconn workers threatened mass suicide for their working conditions

#143

Post by Volpe » Wed, Jan 11, 2012, 7:03 AM UTC

drumdance wrote: post #133

Volpe wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

Oh I see what you did there...

so because the soviets tried and failed (with stalinism that is). We should just assume that "free markets" are the best solution despite the obvious exploitation that occur due to the 'profit motive'?

You wouldn't accept a political system that gave more votes to a select minority, so why so keen on an economic system that does that? (substitute votes, for money)

Re: Foxconn workers threatened mass suicide for their working conditions

#144

Post by chimeracoder » Wed, Jan 11, 2012, 7:11 AM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #56

Lots of conflicting thoughts here. It seems pretty clear that the workers think that their working conditions are unjust. Further, they apparently would be OK with those conditions if they got more money. That suggests they don't consider them inhumane, (not justified regardless of pay) rather they are economically unjust. The truth of whether or not they are economically unjust (in a market driven economy, which Chi…

First, China never was truly communist. It was 'communist' in the twisted definition that the state owned the resources and means of production, but that's not Marxism by any stretch - that's state capitalism, which is not the same thing as a planned economy (and neither of which is the the same thing as Marxism).

Second, China has not been 'communist' (note the scare quotes) for many years now.

Third, there certainly are many people starving in China, just as there are people starving in some part of pretty much any society. I find it entirely believable that there are people who one day's worth of unemployment away from starving in China. For that matter, I would have no trouble believing the same about a capitalist country like the US, or the socialist countries in Europe/South America.

Re: Foxconn workers threatened mass suicide for their working conditions

#145

Post by Aloisius » Wed, Jan 11, 2012, 8:31 AM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #56

Lots of conflicting thoughts here. It seems pretty clear that the workers think that their working conditions are unjust. Further, they apparently would be OK with those conditions if they got more money. That suggests they don't consider them inhumane, (not justified regardless of pay) rather they are economically unjust. The truth of whether or not they are economically unjust (in a market driven economy, which Chi…

That suggests they don't consider them inhumane, (not justified regardless of pay) rather they are economically unjust.

There are dollar values in which many people will work in inhumane conditions, especially if it means supporting their family. Many people would willingly give up half their lifespan if it meant a good life for their children.

If you're willing to commit suicide as an act of protest, then you are truly desperate.

Re: Foxconn workers threatened mass suicide for their working conditions

#146

Post by Dylan16807 » Wed, Jan 11, 2012, 8:40 AM UTC

Volpe wrote: post #143

drumdance wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.…

Oh I see what you did there... so because the soviets tried and failed (with stalinism that is). We should just assume that "free markets" are the best solution despite the obvious exploitation that occur due to the 'profit motive'? You wouldn't accept a political system that gave more votes to a select minority, so why so keen on an economic system that does that? (substitute votes, for money)

Selected how? The house/senate split in the us gives more vote to people in less populated areas and it's generally considered an okay idea.

Re: Foxconn workers threatened mass suicide for their working conditions

#147

Post by danssig » Wed, Jan 11, 2012, 8:41 AM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #111

gerggerg wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree. First, education levels among Foxconn employees are probably considerably lower than you can imagine. These people just don't fully understand how inhumane their jobs are or the lasting effects of the chemicals they work with and are probably directly lied to about it. Second they may already be owed money by Foxconn for overtime, healthcare, regular wages etc. and can't just outright quit out of fear…

I completely relate to the emotion, in California we've had folks like Caesar Chavez organize to overthrow the exploitation of immigrant farm workers. I'm saying that the article says they want more money. I'm sure there are lots of other things they want too but as I mentioned its very dangerous to assume anything when dealing with a culture and political climate that is so very different from one you are in or grew…

>That is, unfortunately, the economic force that is allowing these conditions to persist.

No, it's a government problem. An individual is not on equal footing with a group of individuals (e.g. a company). Therefor either the government must allow workers to unionize or it must enforce some level of sane working conditions.

If your "free market" allows companies to exploit people to the point that working slowly kills them and not working kills them quicker then I want nothing what-so-ever to do with it.

Re: Foxconn workers threatened mass suicide for their working conditions

#148

Post by danssig » Wed, Jan 11, 2012, 8:45 AM UTC

nextparadigms wrote: post #114

ChuckMcM wrote: post #56

Lots of conflicting thoughts here. It seems pretty clear that the workers think that their working conditions are unjust. Further, they apparently would be OK with those conditions if they got more money. That suggests they don't consider them inhumane, (not justified regardless of pay) rather they are economically unjust. The truth of whether or not they are economically unjust (in a market driven economy, which Chi…

I don't think Foxxcon cares all that much about lost positions. They have this incoming: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cjo4AsTVh0s

Could you summarize what that is for those of us who can't watch youtube for some hours?

Re: Foxconn workers threatened mass suicide for their working conditions

#149

Post by Dylan16807 » Wed, Jan 11, 2012, 8:49 AM UTC

Volpe wrote: post #141

Dylan16807 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

runner of a business? what is that? Does that mean you are living off the surplus value of your workers? or are you a worker yourself? Your "wage" is decided by your work isn't it? i.e if banana is worth x and you pick 5 of them, then you earned 5x no? I don't understand your capital/interest point. except in a world of no-profit companies... wall street fund managers wouldn't exist.

I'm talking about the guy in the back that tracks all the bananas and schedules the deliveries and orders the equipment and all the other logistics on this banana team. Does he not get paid? Or does this job not exist somehow?

Creating a banana farm takes money. Who is going to do it? If there are no profits then nobody that focuses on money will bother, and nobody that focuses on rewarding labor can get a loan either.

And fine, if you won't ignore the nonexistence of fund managers long enough to answer a question about principles I'll try a different tack. If I invent a banana picker that saves ten million dollars am I entitled to ten million dollars? Value in, value out.

Re: Foxconn workers threatened mass suicide for their working conditions

#150

Post by Volpe » Wed, Jan 11, 2012, 11:09 AM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #149

Volpe wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

runner of a business? what is that? Does that mean you are living off the surplus value of your workers? or are you a worker yourself? Your "wage" is decided by your work isn't it? i.e if banana is worth x and you pick 5 of them, then you earned 5x no? I don't understand your capital/interest point. except in a world of no-profit companies... wall street fund managers wouldn't exist.

I'm talking about the guy in the back that tracks all the bananas and schedules the deliveries and orders the equipment and all the other logistics on this banana team. Does he not get paid? Or does this job not exist somehow? Creating a banana farm takes money. Who is going to do it? If there are no profits then nobody that focuses on money will bother, and nobody that focuses on rewarding labor can get a loan eithe…

sorry to rankle you. I'm not meaning to. More playing out a thought experiment.

So this hypothetical (socialist) banana farm, in order not to disadvantage anyone, would have to be owned by the local community (and ultimately the nation), given private ownership wouldn't exist. People aren't focused on money, or profit, they are focused on bananas, because they enjoy contributing to society.

> If I invent a banana picker that saves ten million dollars am I entitled to ten million dollars.

You are phrasing the question from a capitalist centric point of view. If you invent a banana picker, that is super efficient (and in a capitalist workforce would allow you to cut costs but firing your ten million dollar workforce) then you could just let your workers work less, given there is no profit, and you are already servicing the needs of your community with bananas. So perhaps the workers can think of improvements to other parts of the process, like shipping, or perhaps you just want to give them more time to their family.

It's actually very difficult to think about, given we have an innate capitalist view of things.

Hypotheticals aside, Is it really a controversial point to say that "profit" and "free markets" (while providing an efficient way to price things) motivates a whole lot of behaviours not in the "public good". Should we not explore other alternatives?