Comment by maratd | Hacker News Reader

Comment by maratd | Hacker News Reader

One of the hallmark properties of a market economy is that you have choice. You don't like your compensation? You quit. The truth is that everyone at the factory is there because they want to be. Because it beats being back on the farm. But still, Foxconn created the problem.

When Western media freaked out over the suicides, Foxconn got scared. They started making their employees sign non-suicide agreements. What? That is the height of stupidity. If a worker wants to commit suicide, a contract isn't going to stop them. However, if a worker does not want to kill themselves ... it creates a new bargaining opportunity.

I have zero sympathy for Foxconn on this. They created the problem with a bad business decision, by explicitly broadcasting where they were vulnerable and making themselves even more vulnerable.

You don't need to be sympathetic with the workers either. They're just negotiating for higher pay in a unique way. Completely within their rights. Nobody is jumping. The ones who are going to jump won't advertise it or ask for anything beforehand.

> You don't need to be sympathetic with the workers either. They're just negotiating for higher pay in a unique way. Completely within their rights. Nobody is jumping. The ones who are going to jump won't advertise it or ask for anything beforehand.

They're not asking for higher pay. They're asking for basic rule of law and enforcement of contracts. Foxconn promised them money and then didn't pay it. In Shenzen there is no practical way for the worker to force the company to pay. The workers are screwed.

Getting your employer to pay up shouldn't require negotiation of any kind, much less 'negotiation' of this extreme nature.

I'm halfway through the TAL piece and this sort of thing is all that most workers are asking for; "Pay my overtime." "Use less toxic chemicals on the assembly line." "Let me do different activities so I don't destroy my hands from doing the same motion all the time." "Let me join a union without putting me in jail."

I have sympathy for anyone who works in conditions where simple basic things like this aren't taken for granted.

> You don't need to be sympathetic with the workers either. They're just negotiating for higher pay in a unique way. Completely within their rights. Nobody is jumping. The ones who are going to jump won't advertise it or ask for anything beforehand.

This is bizarre to me. Shouldn't we be sympathetic to the workers? Some of us are really lucky to have been born in a country where the industrial revolution already took place and labor union struggles already succeeded in establishing the ability to take group action against your employers for better working conditions. So what if paying a fair wage or giving better conditions hurts Foxconn's bottom line?

Also, it is not true that those that threaten suicide do not intend to follow through. This story is an unusual situation since it is group action against an employer, but people threaten and commit suicide for a variety of reasons the world over and your statement erases those peoples experiences.

No. It’s exploitation, pure and simple. It might be better than the alternatives but it’s still exploitation. I simply cannot comprehend how you cannot have empathy in such a situation.

Industrialization – over the course of more than one century – led to a more prosperous, just and healthier society in many western nations. That doesn’t negate the millions of workers who were exploited along the way.

> It’s exploitation, pure and simple.

One party can't exploit another without the threat or use of force. If no threat of force is present, then the relationship is voluntary and both parties should accept responsibility for participating in it.

> It might be better than the alternatives but it’s still exploitation.

If a man one thousand years from the future came to visit you, he may very well consider your standard of living absolutely deplorable. But that wouldn't mean you are being exploited. Since no force is being used. See above.

> I simply cannot comprehend how you cannot have empathy in such a situation.

Why would I have empathy for either party in a business transaction? What? This is business. It is as much business for Foxconn as it is for their employees. Let them hash it out.

> This is business. ... Let them hash it out.

When is a disagreement not business? Why should we be unwilling to take sides in a negotiating even when it is "business?" When a person's negotiating position is so bad that they use suicide to opt out, I feel sympathy, and I suspect that humanity might me better off if their position were improved by non-capitalist intervention of some kind.

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.

A lot of people at Foxconn have already committed suicide. Why would they be bluffing this time? It's the exact opposite of the boy crying wolf.

Also, by reading this article, aren't you now hearing that "things are so bad in China?" Given the size and importance of Foxconn, this is the equivalent of wildcat strikes at GM or Ford. For all we know there are many small firms that are also abusive, but they don't get the media attention.

It did occur to me. When I said their "negotiating position is so bad that they use suicide to opt out," the choice I was talking about was between working at Foxconn and trying to find another job. I said "opt out" to mean inserting their own third option; suicide. I chose this language explicitly with the goal of showing that I realize that they have at least three options, because I expected you to argue this point with me otherwise. I'm sorry for my lack of clarity. It's something I'm working on.

Whether their plan to suicide is a bluff is relevant to our apparant disagreement. I think it is at least partly not a bluff, because Foxconn employees have a history of killing themselves. Given that their employees commit suicide based on their working conditions and perceived lack of alternative, I don't think you can rationally think it's good for them to be in this situation. I am not telling you that you should feel sympathy for them, although I certainly do. What I mean is that it is possible for a person to be in a business negotiation position that is bad in the same sense of the word "bad" that being raped is bad. The fact that they have multiple options and that the options involve money is not enough to absolve their malefactors. If I were forced to choose between paid to amputate my own body parts and starving to death for lack of money, and the person asking me to amputate my limbs could pay me without amputating my limbs at no cost to themselves, I would call that unethical. I would say so even if they were not themselves amputating my limbs, killing me, or actively restricting my other options.

> because Foxconn employees have a history of killing themselves

This isn't true. Foxconn employee are less likely to kill themself than the general population.

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 to your head and forcing you to sign, but it’s still exploitation. (All the laws I know acknowledge that: Not helping someone who is dying is a crime.)

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.

> One party can't exploit another without the threat or use of force.

Exploitation can happen through more than just force. Of course, at what point you call something duress, coercion, or force is somewhat subjective, but none of these requires someone putting a gun to your head. If you are offered money to do something that you don't want to do, but the alternative is starvation because you're so poor, that is certainly duress, it is probably coercion, and it may even be force. But it is also certainly exploitation.

Income inequality, which creates power inequality, is the main driver of exploitation. If you make people poor enough, you can make them desperate enough to do just about anything. There are people in this world who will sell you their children, and all of them are poor. There are also people who will buy those children. This is not a free exchange that makes both parties better off. It's exploitation. No guns required.

At Foxconn and other large factories in China, you don't just get a paycheck, you get a place to live, food to eat etc. They even have you do morning calisthenics like in the military.

To lose your job there is to immediately become homeless.

> You don't need to be sympathetic with the workers either.

Of course not, they are just accepting 36 hour shifts because they are bored. Not because the alternative is starvation and unemployment.

Okay, let me see if I got this straight. Foxconn workers are picking between two shitty jobs. Job A is worse than Job B. Job A is so bad that they are threatening to commit suicide. What kind of choice is this?

A bad one.

It's called the choice of capitalism for the poor. Basically get exploited or don't eat.

Let me get this straight: you are using one of the most ruthless [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_trade] command economies in the world as an example of the ills of Capitalism?

I'm not just talking about China. It really doesn't matter which country the factories are in. The poor will always get exploited. Be it child labour in India or Indonesia, or closing of GM Flint Michigan.

Exploitation of the poor is at the root of capitalism if you think about it from a basic level. It's all about making profit, and for that you need cheap labour provided by the poor, globalization provides an abundance of poor people to be exploited. Don't like the working hours here? Hey we got queues of peasants lined up outside to replace you. Get back to work.

Exactly! In the last half century the poor in South Korea and Taiwan were exploited so much that they turned those countries into first world nations.

I'll assume you're bringing up those 2 countries as a direct comparison to North Korea and China? Correct? China seems to be doing alright for now. As for NK? Well when the country was formed, it got the better half compared to South Korea, in that it had all valuable resources and manufacturing. Now you have to ask how did this country with its head start manage to fall behind to its southern counterpart? Had the playing field been level, ie no sanctions placed and NK was allowed to partake in international trade, the story today would be very different.

I'm confused. If a company pays people money to build stuff for them (as in India or Indonesia), you criticize them as exploiting the poor.

And if they stop paying people money to build stuff for them (as in Flint Michigan), you also criticize them for exploiting the poor?

Pay is certainly a good thing. But perhaps the companies need a heavy touch of social responsibility as part of their manifesto. Unfortunately social responsibility does not fly in the name of profit. That is what I mean by exploitation.

> 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 otherwise.

> 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.

How is the closing of an unprofitable manufacturing facility exploitation?

Cheap labor is not the only source of profit. Many companies employ only highly compensated individuals to create products & services that they sell profitably.

The root of capitalism is private property rights & the right to voluntarily exchange goods & services.

China has been blatantly capitalist since the economic reforms of Deng Xiaoping, similar to the USSR after the 1965 economic reform.

Don't fool yourself - China is capitalist. It is capitalist regardless of what its leadership claims or the extent to which it uses state mechanisms or market mechanisms.

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

Capitalism comes in many forms. I am not sure any of them are "true."

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...

Chinese people generally are not allowed to own land. Most people are renters from the state. That doesn't sound very capitalist to me.

http://www.economist.com/node/5660833

Chinese workers are powerless and sometimes even suicidal. That definitely sounds like capitalism to me.

The capitalist exploitation of the working class comes in many forms, in China it just doesn't involve market mechanisms.

Yes, I'm sure all those Chinese employees are pining for the days when "don't eat" was the only option.

Do you have it straight? From the article: "Instead of the raise they requested, these workers were given the following ultimatum: quit with compensation, or keep their jobs with no pay increase. Most quit and never got the money. That's when the mass suicide threat came in. The incident actually caused a factory wide shutdown, reports Record China. "

Genuinely suicidal people don't threaten to commit suicide, they just do it. These people tipped their hand by coming off the roof without Foxconn conceding to their demands. If idle threats to commit suicide are a surefire indication that someone's being mistreated, then millions of teenage ex-boyfriends and ex-girlfriends are mistreated, too.

Threatening to jump off a building shows even less conviction than a genuine hunger strike (which will kill you more effectively than picketing on a rooftop making idle threats). IRA terrorists have engaged in hunger strikes to get released from prison--does that mean it's abusive to imprison terrorists?

The Chinese attitude to suicide is completely different to the one in the west, which everyone commenting here is missing. Worker suicides would cause a tremendous loss of face for Foxconn while preserving the face of the workers' families. The point of an anti-suicide contract is not to prevent people from feeling suicidal but to prevent the individual who signs it from holding that over Foxconn as a threat. If someone committed suicide after signing such a contract, the contract has priority and the loss of face would be from the worker's family.

Not everyone who is suicidal does so because they are mentally ill. People kill themselves for political causes, too. It's kind of a thing for monks to set themselves on fire as a means of political protest.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/10/world/asia/tibet-march/index.h...

Also, Gandhi went on hunger strikes.

Not to mention the Arab Spring.

> Also, Gandhi went on hunger strikes.

As I pointed out, so did the IRA.

It's one option more than they would have without Foxconn.

If these workers were subsistence farmers back in rural China, with earnings < what they get at Foxconn, they would be worse off. They just wouldn't have anyone to blame or to demand more money from.

This is why prosperity often results in unrest.

And unrest often leads to political change.

The same kind people have in the USA, sadly. I know the guys on our production floor and I'll be blunt: factory work sucks.

If they want it to be better, they need labor laws. The people working that kind of job have little leverage. For example, if people are working 20 hour shifts in ~120 degree heat, it just sucks to be them. But once someone turns that into an on-the-record safety issue? Things get fixed. Maybe China should copy that...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com