Calling hard-working people in developing country (my homeland) "slaves" just because they don't get paid the same as Americans is one of the most hypocritical thing I am really tired to hear on Western forums.
America is extremely expensive to live in, so "westerners" don't really have a grasp of just how far a single USD goes elsewhere in the world.
A lot of the locals I got to know resented Western, media-driven interference in their jobs, they wanted to work longer hours, make more money, etc. They also resented being presented as helpless indentured servants. A lot of them were (are?) proud of their job.
Not applauding the labor practices, just an additional anecdata-point.
[Edited for: data -> anecdata]
As others in this thread have pointed out, if you utilize tons of contractors, your revenue per employee may look huge, but your profit per employee will go down because you still have to pay all those people. Whether you use contractors or employees, it still comes out of your bottom line.
Now, I assume what you are really arguing is that loads of Foxconn contractors should increase the denominator in the "per employee" part of the equation. But that's why profit is a better metric, because if you look at profit per employee of Foxconn, you'd see it is much, much lower than Apple.
Using profit seems slightly better (theoretically, it gauges how effective management is at converting contractor effort into profit). But we all know that you can't compare the term "profits" between industries, whereas, revenue is consistent no matter what your business is.
I'm not arguing that the number includes the Foxconn employees in the denominator, and it shouldn't, because the numerator (Apple's net earnings) doesn't include money paid to Foxconn (as that's a cost of goods sold for Apple).
I wouldn't read too much into any of those measures.
Care to name a hardware company that doesn't use parts from Foxconn?
People there want to work at Foxconn.
The “slavery” rhetoric is entirely baseless.