Hacker News Reader

Comment by maratd | Hacker News Reader

> 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.

View on HN

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.

> 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.

> 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com