The human cost of the Kindle
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
Morality should not be restricted by geographic borders.
Conquest & colonialism want us all to see things with the same glasses.
Saying this is not taking sides or being "cynical" or "capitalistic". The point is if you want change you have to FIGHT to change laws and make them be enforced (through lawsuits / unions). It's always a power struggle and you'll stay on the weak side if you keep screaming "morality" at corporate entities and rely on their good will to enforce workers right... Saying otherwise is deluding other people and/or yourself of reality, but i guess it feels good to feel on "the right side" without actually doing anything.
source: many family members in unions who fought for their rights in france
It's everyone's job.
it's every PERSON's job yeah. not companies.
Not for whatever reason - in fact, US citizens would have a different stance about US workers conditions because they have both the responsibility and the authority (due to their sovereignty) to dictate the working conditions of their fellow countrymen.
Since Chinese people won't grant us the same authority, we shouldn't have the same responsibility and hence our position will be necessarily different.
(Same goes for any other pair of countries; eg Germany and Vietnam or France and Bangladesh)
I am not espousing the inhuman treatment of these workers. However, for many people in India and around the world, this would be an order of magnitude improvement of their lives. I think China is on the right track. The working conditions would get better as the economy grows. The injustice might seem appalling, but have you wondered what the alternative is?
Yeah, wealthy people not living like space-age Caligulas on the backs of disenfranchised poor people. Seems like a pretty good alternative to me.
Even when you include the part you conveniently left out about the poor living in even worse conditions that make their current situation a far better option?
Do you really think they were pulled from a cozy office doing 9 to 5 to this?
If we deny these people the prospect of working in factories we are doing them no favours. How is removing demand for their labor going to make them wealthier?
It is not the sweatshops fault these people are poor. It is their poverty that makes a job you find unappealing appealing for them. By all means lobby to increase foreign aid. By all means donate cash via Give Directly.
But don’t think for a moment you are enriching these people’s lives by reducing the demand for their labor. Such thoughts are economic insanity.
Rather it is the sweatshops fault that it is an inhumane sweatshop which treates the people who work there inhumanely.
What? these inhumane working conditions aren't appealing to any human. Nobody is asking to reduce the demand for their labor, maybe the product should be priced accordingly to facilitate good working conditions and pay instead.
This is your privilege talking. Billions of people find them far more appealing than a precarious life of backbreaking farm labor.
From paying labor less than it’s worth and keeping the difference for yourself.
People use sweatshop labor because they can steal even more of the value created by these worker’s labor, knowing there’s not a damn thing they can do about it. And they’ve done so for so long, amassed so much wealth, that they now can pay for boatloads of “intellectuals” to justify their exploitation as good and necessary, leading to us having this conversation now.
In this case it's very clear where wealth comes from: Bezos and the rest of the Amazon shareholders are severely underpaying these workers in violation of China's labor laws. Did you read the article?
> We can’t have stolen this wealth as not the smallest fraction of it existed in all the world before the industrial revolution.
The capacity for self-deception is always a bit surprising. Confronted with a clear and concrete case of labor exploitation and wage theft you insist, never the less, it is not labor exploitation and wage theft. That is economic insanity.
> How is removing demand for their labor going to make them wealthier?
There's no need to appeal to vague self-serving questions. The impact of labor standards on global trade have been studied and their impact can be quantified. Here, in particular, the California Effect [1] has been proven to be very effective in increasing labor and environmental [3] standards around the world. California alone could likely help here a lot by demanding regulatory advertising on these products. The first step would be to educate American consumers so they understand the enormous suffering that goes into these products.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_effect
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/28/opinion/free-trade-by-its...
[3] https://www.nature.org/magazine/archives/the-california-effe...
The vast bulk of 'wealth' is generated by perpetual rent-seeking by those that maintain artificial scarcity. There are exceptions of course, and most of those are to be found in new technologically driven enterprises.
Ummmm evidence? Is there an article or study or book which backs this idea up?
This sounds like one interesting idea (the wealth production enabled by ideas, knowledge, systems, etc) coupled with a big dose of denial of reality, namely, the exploitation (of natural resources in Africa, India, and the americas, and of human labor and lives via slavery) which allowed the industrial revolution to come into being.
Plus, the article mentions how other regions in China such as Shenzhen _do_ have better labor practices. It’s not a binary choice between zero opportunity and abusive sweatshops.
In several generations, they may industrialize to the point where they achieve a western standard of living.
Is it ethical to deny them this chance because it makes you feel bad about thier current condition compared to your own?
Sell child -> Work in sweatshop -> Gain basic labor right of 8-hour -> etc ...
I’m not certain, but I think it does sound like your statement actually is indeed espousing the inhumane of those workers at that factory.
Perhaps this is due entirely to the race to bottom inspired by competitive pressure -- the various bidders all trying to find a way to offer Amazon the lowest bid -- or perhaps it is due to internal pressures, where managers can be rewarded for finding savings that are significant relative to the cost of a certain phase in the process, even if it is of little consequence for the cost of the final device.
Slap some pretty marketing around your product and most consumers are blissfully ignorant. Certainly helped by global-scale supply chains that add a fog of war.
Even those who are aware of it, in many cases, fall prey to "that's a pity" thinking without actually changing their own habits. Like a crowd of folks walking by litter - many shake their heads, but few actually pick it up.
Have you omitted all such products from your own life? Good for you if so, but few of us can make such a claim.
Tl;dr: Runaway optimization processes erode "sacred" or non-economic values in all environments without a central coordinating authority cognizant of and opposed to the problem. But do read the article; I can't do it justice in a summary.
Shaming the wealthiest (known) man in the world for the business practices that helped make him that way is quite fair. The same things have been written about Apple.
... and nobody cares about an /r/Entrepreneurs guy drop-shipping some widget from China.
Are people entitled to wages higher than the prevailing market rate simply because their employer is capable of paying such wages? Do you really want to live in a world where employees of rich people get paid more than employees of more average people? The vast majority of workers would not be lucky enough to work for a really rich guy and would be paid less for the same work than the few who do. That seems less fair than everyone being paid the market rate.
Consider what might happen if Amazon paid their workforce 5% more than their competitors instead of paying bottom dollar. Competition for that higher wage would improve the quality of their workforce (and then produce a higher quality product). Other employers would them also compete to get quality workers.
I'm sure Amazon would be willing to pay more to well-qualified workers than to less-qualified workers. But that's not the type of argument I was responding to. The parent comment suggested that Bezos should pay his employees more simply because he can afford to.
I don't see how it's reasonable to base employee wages on the wealth of the company owner -- if Amazon stock tanked and Bezos lost a lot of money, should he cut employee wages? If not, then why should he increase wages when his personal wealth increases? It would be better for employee wages to be based on the employee's skills, not the employer's personal financial circumstances.
The equilibrium may still not end up with A and B paying the same, but personally I care more about everyone having enough than everyone having the same, so even unequal wage increases are a positive in my book.
The justification for the wages being the wages is that that IS what the open market decided.
I was not aware Kindles were poorly assembled and subject to low yields in terms of quality currently.
Actually it wouldn't be so simple. Amazon is one of the lowest margin businesses on earth. The vast majority of Bezos' wealth is in Amazon's overpriced stock.
It wouldn't really be possible to pay workers a larger wage both from his wealth, seeing as its stock, nor from cutting margins further.
It's not his workers. It'S Foxconn. Is Bezos also responsible for the livelihood of the people who mine the rare metals in the poorest countries? By this logic this is a never ending chain of responsibilities.
Imagine if Nike said that in regards to paying for child labor.
I work for a big mining company, 'social licence' is discussed at board level. Now most of that may very well be corporate bullshit, but the impact of social responsibility perception amongst the owners (shareholders) on share price is clear.
At the end of the day, these are of the highest paying jobs in the country. "Fair pay" is highly relative and these jobs are slowly and surely helping to build up the Chinese middle class.
Progress is slow, and simply trying to graft the standards of Western societies onto places way behind is tone deaf to reality. Chinese PPP actually higher than USA which considering where the country was only 50 years ago should be seen as a great accomplishment http://www.ibtimes.com/china-economy-surpasses-us-purchasing...
This article is just a hit piece void of any actual economics because it's hip to hate on rich people, in particular one who got there by grinding out efficiency at a desk made from 2x4 for years before the success started.
Hell, when I was 16 working in a kitchen finally making money I did everything I could to get overtime and my goal was hitting 60 hours a week.
These countries will change at their own pace, and Bezos or Apple aren't evil for being of the best jobs in a given country.
Tariffs on countries with sub-standard working conditions and environmental practices.
I personally don't want to participate in a slave economy.
Wanna bet? Why do you think rural populations leave as soon as they are able and move to cities to work in factories.
> Lots of western elites see something like that as a luxurious retirement.
The bigger stereotype is rich westerners fetishizing harsh rural life - the kind of life they aren't willing to participate in but have no problem advocating for for the poor in developing nations.
I have spoken to many "rich westerners" about my (also western, not poor but rural) upbringing and gotten responses which were longing for that sort of life. It is possible to live very well by a certain standard, on a small amount of land by doing most of the things you need for yourself. There are a lot of people who want that instead of their city life. Not for others but for themselves.
Very few people who didn't experience something like it have any idea at all what it might be like.
I bet. There is a romanticization of a back-to-basics lifestyle. But western farming is nothing like 3rd world subsistence farming.
>It is possible to live very well by a certain standard, on a small amount of land by doing most of the things you need for yourself.
There is a hidden assumption underneath your statement, namely that you have ready access to electricity, indoor plumbing, modern healthcare, and generally typical western infrastructure. So what you're describing is either cottage living, or a hobby farm. Those are nothing like 3rd world subsistence farming.
Development doesn't happen immediately, but it can happen fairly rapidly (50 years for Korea vs 200+ for the US).
By increasing productivity through industrialization and technology advancements, and by doing those things before the rest of the world. (and by having economic systems that accomplished this faster/more effectively than others, possibly also as the result of plagues that decimated the population a few times)
In case nobody gets the joke: the economic system was the plague.
The reduction in population of some of those epidemics made fairly large improvements in the survivors' lives and can be seen as the stimulus in a lot of the progression of Europe.
Progress that led to wealth in the west wan't just the industrial revolution(s), it started long before and was the effect of several technological and social developments.
You seem to be ignoring the human labor part that happened around then and the backbreaking work that they did. Robots didn't get it done nor did the 40 hour work week.
yes, but if you think your great-great grandparents had it easy, well you should ask around and read books written around that time. I think you forget the standards for everyone was just plain misery not long ago.
I have actually read a bit about how one of my great-great grandfathers lived, and it didn't seem he was miserable and could arguably be said to be better off.
More to the point though, the question was how the West got rich. I was talking about the last ~1000 years, maybe a little less, of history in the western world and how their development led in part to the differences in development today. What that has to do with how many ancestors 100 years ago were miserable or not doesn't really connect.
Taking on that subject though, I have this idea that people regardless of situations are on a grand scheme equally miserable. Whether living in a cave 20,000 years ago or a New York penthouse, if you had a way to quantify misery I doubt you would be able to find a significant discrepancy. (corollary: much of the depression and other mental illnesses experienced today are a result of the drastically different environment and set of hardships experienced compared to the ones we evolved in)
The West was still pretty poor even 200 years ago. Going back 1000 years ago makes no difference. Economic development and the fact that almost everyone benefited from it in the West is very, very recent History.
By profiting on other people’s labor time; not their own.
But it also just happens that, in the US, 30 hours is just the right amount to forgo providing benefits and job security, so your proposal was not that far off.
Certainly not. During the early ages of industrialization, workers made a better living in the cities than in the countryside, but had to work a lot for it too.
In the early 1800s the mill employed 885 workers. 540 were female and 497 were children as young as seven. Their working day started at 5:30am, 45-minute breakfast at 9:00am, 45-minute dinner at 2:00pm and work finished at 7:00pm. Children finished at 3:15pm to attend the company school.
The Factory Act, passed in 1833, changed how the mill treated its workers. The act restricted working hours and also prohibited employment of children under nine.
Making bad working conditions and lax environmental standards expenses instead of profit centers.
The US/EU/UK give foreign aid to States with resources they want. Thereby keeping autocrats in power (they take a huge cut of that aid; people typically get the scraps after they pay off essential supporters and generals).
Foreign policy is always about resource management and almost always helps keep autocrats in power. When the nation runs out of resources and aid is cut, it typically promotes democratization because the leader can no longer pay supporters. They have to appeal to the people and increase the influence selectorate size. If they don't and the people rise up, they'll often win if the leader doesn't find a way to pay the police/army.
States (both democratic and autocratic) exist because they have a monopoly on violence. Foreign aid really only helps autocrats maintain that monopoly.
Also, here's a list of recipients of US foreign aid[0]. I don't see an obvious connection between material wealth and amount of aid spent.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_foreign_aid#Over...
States don't exist because they have a monopoly on violence, it is just that a (at least semi-) monopoly on violence is a core trait of a state. Statehood is the evolutionarily stable outcome of any geographic population so far. An area without a state will, without exception, develop one.
Math... my brain... what is happening...
Used to?
I found this article about geese populations dwindling in China: https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/22/15675010/china-wild-geese...
I wonder if that's why they no longer come to Hengyang?
How so?
If anything, I would be more inclined to buy the latest and greatest tech every year if I had more money to spend. I think most consumers would do the same.
But I realize these are symbolic. You can't affect a company by purchasing decisions. I still shop at Whole Foods even after the buyout.
The idea you can vote with your dollars is bullshit and ignores the power these companies have with their advertising.
It's not. You're just annoyed noone is 'voting' with you.
2. You're not responsible for fraudulent charges, so worrying about major retailers having your credit card number isn't really reasonable. I don't recommend saving your credit card in any store website. Enter it each time so they can't store it.
Selling things in the USA profitably on the basis of cheap labor in countries with weak environmental and labor protection should not be so simple.
A tariff program is probably not even necessary because overwhelmingly American corporations can simply be taxed for their import activities in a VAT manner and the problem goes away.
It would devastate the poor worldwide. Nations that are rich are the only ones that can spend to care about the environment.
If you want clean air in India and China you want a middle class that demands it because they're not starving.
Jay Kay described the inspiration for Automaton: "in recognition of the rise of artificial intelligence and technology in our world today and how we as humans are beginning to forget the more pleasant, simple and eloquent things in life and in our environment including our relationship with one another as human beings"
Yeah, the hours are very long compared to western standards. I also much prefer the way the Europeans find work-life balance. But that is because you are already a very rich society and you can afford that. Also there is also a cultural and historical difference. In China, or Korea, or Japan, wherever in East Asia, working long hours is very normal, be it for low-level workers or high-level executives. This is just a part of the culture. Without it, how could China which was so poor 40 years ago become rich and powerful again this fast? Even the US is much more workaholic than Europe, without the mandatory one-month holiday etc. If you imagine that Foxconn workers are subjected to slave-like treatments as if they were in a plantation or a mine, you can't be further from facts. Yes, I personally prefer to have a better work-life balance, but that's because I can already make the choices. For many underprivileged populace in China, working for Foxconn is the best possible opportunity they can get.
Of course I also do acknowledge that even though there's no essential slavery the work conditions can and shall be improved, especially now that China has got a lot richer already. In a sense the industrialists during the industrial revolution can also argue that they were not really forcing workers into "slavery", but the workers had actually no choice whatsoever since every workplace was the same (the modern Chinese factories are definitely much better than those places in the 18th century though). Anyways just wanted to offer a different perspective here. If you actually go there and talk to most of the workers I believe you'd hear a similar answer to that offered by my relative, i.e. they just want to save up some money when they can and this opportunity is as good as it can get under the current social circumstances. They'll likely return to their hometown to start something else after working such a job for a while. I do also believe that the accelerating social inequality in China is a problem that has to be addressed and there should be many more opportunities for the poor. But that's in a way similar to what's happening in the US and not something fundamentally/qualitatively different.
It's maybe early yet to talk about what Bezos is going to do with his fortune; Amazon isn't all-grown-up yet. It's still possible he's going to go in the Gates direction, and I think it's much to early to say he's going in Ellison's direction.
But that doesn't make everything we like him doing an act of philanthropy.
At a bare minimum he could pay the people who have generated his wealth for him a little better.
What is the difference between Bill Gates “philanthropy” and a corporate PR campaign? For example, why is “philanthropy” promoting MasterCard across Africa a great way to address inequality? It appears to have had opposite effects in the US. But even if it were effective: philanthropy?
Also.. If the job if so bad.. then do something else
Richer people with savings or parental support will always be able to quit & search for better work; and no doubt that’s where this arrogant ‘go and search for another job then’ sentiment comes from.
Note that China doesn’t have effective social security, so retraining isn’t an option.