How China Built ‘iPhone City’ with Billions in Perks for Apple’s Partner
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
The fact of the matter is that it's not good for business - neither for the people in government, nor for Apple, to be force Apple to make their products where there is some guarantee that the workers are being treated fairly. It's worse for Apple, of course, but politicians don't want to lose their lobbying money or their power.
Lots of people will be saying "it's horrible what they're doing" without realising the cause - the unustainable model of global capitalism that is forever requiring higher and higher returns. Such growth for this kind of labour is much harder to accomplish where it costs more, such as in the US.
Where do you get this from? Pretty much everyone from Europe is very grateful for the various safety nets the countries have built up there, especially in West-Europe.
It is almost 20 years old and notes that industrialization and modernization is a process. It doesn't really work for a country to get rich without climbing it [edit: except free money, like with oil], including simple jobs in the beginning -- and now China is doing it.
In my book, it is good for humanity with a billion less horribly poor people. It doesn't feel bad to be on the other side of that, because of ideology?
I really wish we would all just spend more time focusing on our countries and improving our quality of life through trade and the free exchange of ideas. Other countries don't have to listen to our lessons or advice, or our experience, but being critical gets us nowhere.
It's also incredibly Euro-centric to be thinking that other countries ought to be following the path Europe and the US took to capitalism, and then to say that these countries should be implementing it in such a way that there's the same worker exploitation everywhere.
Worker exploitation isn't some thing in the past. It doesn't just happen in China, it's happening all the time and everywhere. But the case of it is so readily apparent in China it ought to be a case against worker exploitation as a whole. Yet some people still say "nevermind these countries, they're just on their way to being like us". We do not stop to question whether being like Europe is actually beneficial?
I think countries should be free to choose their own paths and for those countries to find their own unique implementations of economic policy and whatnot is fascinating, and we can always learn from them and implement the good things while eschewing the bad. As long as they don't interfere with what my country wants to do, they can do whatever they want.
Other countries like Soviet Union or Maoist China have tried other paths with not exactly stellar results.
(At least, compared to the failure before, with just central planning.)
If you have anything contradicting that, it would be interesting?
(Edit: Ah, I commented on a karma 23 secondary account? :-) )
When Sweden had a high growth, the taxes were low and it was much more of a strict capitalist economy.
When the taxes were raised to be internationally high in the early 70s, the growth crashed and Sweden fell quite a few places in GNP/Capita.
(I am Swedish.)
Bali went straight from having an agrarian economy to a service-based economy without ever going through an industrial period. It can happen given the right conditions, but it isn't common.
They are going through the same thing as us, but we still have people saying that capitalism will move us "forward". No, capitalism in these countries simply means that their exploitation isn't as readily obvious. It's "friendly". This is why there are pool tables in offices for example, it's there to placate you while your wages fail to represent the work you do. The discrepancy between the value of what is produced and the wages given in return is most visible in countries like China in these factories. It's less readily obvious when your boss lets you play pool in the office.
As far as I can tell, the only "indistrialization and modernization" that's going on is workers being treated better, while retaining the idea that it's fine to do certain things that, say, damage the environment and it's fine to maintain the discrepancy between the labour applied and the wages.
I think it ought to be abandoned as a whole, and this concept of "limits to what capitalists can do is better than stopping them from doing it" is abandoned. That's my two cents anyway.
Please note that experiments with alternative societal models often have failure modes like dictatorships and/or a large part of the population dying in horrible ways and/or... It is not something to experiment with lightly.
It is a pity that you proponents of alternative models are so full of hot air, good research and analysis would be needed; there ought to be better ways. Most of you guys sound like you are paid to discredit everything but the status quo.
I agree it's not something to be taken lightly, but saying that there have been failures in the past is not an argument against trying to fix those failures by systematically identifying them. The modern Marxist movement is focused on finding the failures of the 20th century attempts at Socialism.
Besides that, calling out capitalism for the exploitative system that it is by no means implies I'm supporting any particular societal model, nor that I approve of other's societal model. It only means that I disapprove of capitalism.
And you know, I'm sure that during feudalism there were lords, barons and peasants all saying the exact same thing you are saying right now. You can't simply dismiss every other model that society may be fitted to by pointing out that atrocities were committed in the past. That's painting with a brush that is too thick.
>nice and democratic countries And you're even assuming democracy is something inherently good. There is also the distinction between 'pure' democracy and 'bourgeois' democracy that's worth knowing about, as Engels wrote about.
>>You can't simply dismiss every other model that society may be fitted to by pointing out that atrocities were committed in the past.
That was not the point, really.
My point was partly the horrors of a failed societal experiment of the left wingers. But also not that the most other utopian attempts also failed -- but not generally with tens of millions murdered.
For instance, a Nazi would have a point if he/she argued "The mass murders was just one mistake, trust us next time about corporatism; look at the left extremists -- that is systematic failure all the way from Kuba/Nicaragua to the tens of millions in Sovjet/China to Campuchea. They are also systematically pro antisemites as much as we are, today."
So -- most experiments will fail; societies are really, really complex and hard to predict. See my last paragraph in previous comment -- the alternative left I've seen doesn't exactly inspire confidence in any new experiment when hand waving about the obvious problems and arguably having less credibility than the Nazis...
Any arguments for societal experiments need to acknowledge this. It is hard to better what we have now, reading most any history of alternative societies.
(Yes yes, Godwin. But I argue here that Godwin is unfair; the extreme lefties have worse statistics than the Nazis.)
>> And you're even assuming democracy is something inherently good.
Any society will by definition consist of interest groups pulling in different directions. They need to have a say. If you don't even acknowledge that, see my last paragraph in my previous comment... (which you didn't touch.)
(Or in the classical way of putting it: "Sure, democracy sucks -- but I have never seen a suggestion of anything close in niceness that wasn't just hand waving e.g. a juntas obvious interest in keeping the rest of the population as personal property...")
Change: My point was partly the horrors of a failed societal experiment of the left wingers. But also not that the most other utopian attempts also failed -- but not generally with tens of millions murdered.
To: ... The other part was that most other utopian attempts also failed badly (but not generally with tens of millions murdered).
The article doesn't even make sense! He's actually arguing that low wages are better than zero wages, while low wages are also better than high wages, and that the wealth creation whose impact he boasts about isn't even having a subsantial impact!
> First of all, even if we could assure the workers in Third World export industries of higher wages and better working conditions, this would do nothing for the peasants, day laborers, scavengers, and so on who make up the bulk of these countries' populations. At best, forcing developing countries to adhere to our labor standards would create a privileged labor aristocracy, leaving the poor majority no better off.
He doesn't even think to consider that, for example, a tax+entitlements scheme, that every civilized nation has, could stave off this "labor aristocracy". Nor does he explain why a Western labor aristoracy is OK, but an Eastern labor aristocracy is not.
The article is thin logically-bankrupt apologetics.
Krugman himself has walked back his old claims, he calls it "hyper-globalization" (~5minute mark). https://www.ubs.com/microsites/nobel-perspectives/en/paul-kr...
Can you transcribe exactly what support your extreme claims (without taking it out of context from where Krugman said he supports globalization and why he do that.)
Did Krugman EVER talk about any other way of countries to start getting rich and going towards becoming nice societies (democratic, high education, taking care of people, etc)?
If he can show that, I'd guess he'll get another Nobel... at least. :-)
(Krugman discussed income inequality inside societies a bit, not relevant here. And a bit about US politics.)
Saying "your kids have to go to school and not work" and then paying the adults 3 dollars an hour. The family winds up making more money without the kids having to work. (in this admittedly limited example, the family makes double)
If you take the kids out of the equation without increasing the parental pay, then yes, you'll have a harder time with things, as the family just lost 66% of their income, which will mean cutting back.
So you are correct that it is complicated and "stop kids from working" isn't the FULL answer. But it doesn't mean that there aren't solutions - plenty of countries have child labor laws without falling apart.
Other countries don't have child labor laws because their job market evolved and pushed the low labor cost jobs into other countries.
And I'm aware that it's a complicated, sensitive topic. That was my point. But dismissing it entirely because solution X creates problem Y instead of finding solution Y (which probably causes problem Z, which will have a solution eventually too) is not the right answer. Saying "Well we just can't solve this problem, they get to live in squalor and there's NOTHING that can be done to help them" is ridiculous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1850#Nul...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation
Edit: and for the banned guy who called me racist, uh, you also have it backwards.
>>[1] The Civil War started because of uncompromising differences between the free and slave states over the power of the national government to prohibit slavery in the territories that had not yet become states. When Abraham Lincoln won election in 1860 as the first Republican president on a platform pledging to keep slavery out of the territories, seven slave states in the deep South seceded and formed a new nation, the Confederate States of America. <<
[1]http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/faq/?referrer=http...
Use my own case as example. My family suffered financial hardship due to some misfortune when I was 15. I really wanted to work to help my mother. There were rarely part-time jobs in my hometown in China, then. I could quit my study and try to find a full-time job, which I gave serious thoughts. I knew several people who joined workforce around that age, either due to family financial situation like mine, or they thought they had no future in school (it was already very competitive then) and it was better to work early and accumulate working experience. In this sense, they were "child" labors. But they chose to. They were not mistreated because they were under aged. In my view, they made rational decisions to join the workforce.
One of them, a classmate's brother, returned to school after working for 3 years, when their family financial turned around.
Fortunately, our family decided to open a small business. I tried to get as much time as I could to work there to help, while study hard so that I could go to the best colleges. For two years, I didn't have much time to hang out with friends. So I was a part-time "child" labor. But it was my decision. Nobody forced me. I don't regret it a bit.
Let's face the reality. There are many kids who are just not interested in school and are not good at it. There are two options. They can either hang around and be cool, which is a good situation, considering kids of that age tend to get into troubles if their minds are not occupied. Or they can get a job, learn something from the job, develop good work ethics, etc. What do you think is the better option?
I agree with you that attending school is not always the same as learning. Before recent western history many children became apprentices in valuable trade skills which often paid well. Maybe we should start looking at such options again.
It's not impossible, for Apple with $XX Billion in profit hiding in tax shelters, to pay better than subsistence wages to their subcontracted workers (or invest in community resources for the cities where their factories are, or similar).
And then obviously, you don't learn anything on an assembly line. Please put some more thought into this stuff if you ever plan on having kids.
There is nothing that says we have to allow for free trade. It certainly hasn't been a net-benefit to the United States itself.
Because of our trade rules. Modern trade agreements are pretty much about mandating labor/environmental regulations and respect of IP (mainly pharma/movies/music) in exchange for easier access to the the US market.
When now other nations are going through an industrialization phase that's actually far more respectful of worker rights than the West's industrialization was, why complain?
"did any other market complain about worker safety or abuse or pollution and refuse to buy products?"
Now that we've progressed through industrialisation to a point where life expectancy has dramatically improved, along with living conditions and all the rest, it's given us a point of comparison.
Countries that are going through an industrialisation phase aren't being criticised in comparison to a pre-industrialisation state, they're being criticised in comparison to what other post-industrialised countries have achieved. Sure, it's an unfair comparison, but the first time around, that comparison didn't exist.
What gives you the illusion that other nations are more respectful of worker rights than the US/EU was in the past?
China's cities are poisoned with smog today, for just one example.
"Would I be allowed to sell that product in the US? Probably not."
Whether anyone would buy it is a different question: I wouldn't be surprised if a product built in such a way were boycotted.
I would also expect to see court cases and fines (probably in excess of all profits for the product), for the labour conditions.
So sure, you could probably sell it. You probably wouldn't profit from it though.
It's the same when companies hire contracting agencies to run their warehouse operations. It's not Amazon's policies, it's the staffing/contracting/warehousing agency, who run operations according to Amazon's rules and just get it done, however they will. "Now be sure you don't abuse your workers while keeping to schedule and standards, wink wink."
Or when ag companies buy tomatoes, for example, from Mexico, where the tomatoes are grown in healthier conditions than the workers live. Occasionally the abuse of these ag workers will surface, and companies like Walmart will point to yet other third party companies that they outsource compliance and certification to. "Our compliance partner has made a complaint to our ag partners, and it's all good."
Interestingly, the large oil players (Shell, BP, etc.) do actually mandate some things - i.e. they are not really supposed to buy oil from countries that don't have functioning elections, some environmental protections, human rights, etc. etc. I believe this is a requirement of the World Bank, and the UN.
This is why you see shill elections in a lot of West African countries - they need it to look like they are functioning democracy, even though a country has had the same "elected" president for 22 years :)
Also, this is why Africa loves dealing with China, who doesn't get involved in their internal politics.
If you want, say, textile workers to have humane working conditions, you regulate the textile manufacturing industry, and you want enforcement officers in the garment district, not the retail district.
Second, trade agreements exist and are a more effective way to do what you want.
Third, it is impossible to tell how a product was made by looking at it. How would you enforce a law that makes a product illegal based on something invisible?
Let's say I were building product in the US with child labor
in unsafe conditions not adhering to US laws and regulations.
Would I be allowed to sell that product in the US? Probably not.
You read in the news a lot about how INS will raid a farm or meat processing factory to arrest illegal workers. Those conditions are often really unsafe and there are also teens working there too.
And yet those farms are still able to sell their produce.
That figure is astounding, that every other smartphone manufacturer shares only 10% of worldwide profit.
Samsung came in at #2 with 0.9% of profits (they usually do a little better, but the Note 7 thing happened).
It's mainly because they actually suffered losses, which is why Apple's share can be more than 100%.
So, Apple's high profits depend on a whole lot of government subsidies in China. And then Apple takes that cash and protects it from US tax rates by storing it in Ireland. And now, some interesting questions are raised about the legality of that tax scheme.
Maybe the US doesn't need more businesses like Apple.
They don't depend on them. Apple would still profit nicely (albeit less) without these subsidies.
But then again the same thing could be say of various players on various industries. Detroit was, too, a city built thanks to a lot of subsidies and tax breaks; oil companies extract tremendous profits thanks to subsidies, tax breaks and all kinds of government help... so on and so forth.
Aside from that, I don't think there's a question to be raised about the legality of Apple tax scheme. There's a question to be raised about it's fairness, sure, but not the legality. Apple is using the same loopholes any other corporation can exploit (and they all do, to the extent they can or know how to).
What we need is updated international and national tax codes that start taking these things into account. Most of the current legislation was designed for a time much simpler and with less access to global markets and manufacturing chains.
it's a fair point.
sometimes i think: who cares if Apple or Google or Exxon are headquartered in Cupertino or Mountain View or Dallas or New Delhi or Bahrain or Shenzhen? what difference does it make? who gives a shit? they don't want to pay taxes and neither do i.
http://www.macworld.co.uk/feature/apple/does-apple-pay-tax-h...
in today's landscape, i don't know how to tell if Apple's location actually matters to me. what if Apple were headquartered in Finland, Japan or China? they don't pay my taxes. they don't employ me. they bring a lot of people from outside the US to do their work. they also outsource a ton of work to other countries.
why would I really care about Apple's location or country of incorporation? i bet people in Ireland care a lot more than i do.
But I'm sure Irish taxpayers would welcome getting the $billion+ tax revenue currently going to fund the US government as well, if you really don't want it.
This article doesn't include the word "unemployment" which is the reason for this focus. Though the official unemployment rate is 4%, the real rate is believed to be at least 12, not counting the non-existent migrants who aren't legally permitted to travel due to the hokou system.
(I am always astonished when I hear that China is supposedly "beating" the US: by what possible metric could this be true?)
[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-moving-from-foxconn-to-...