Hacker News Reader

Comment by curiousfiddler | Hacker News Reader

Not to forget that they don't just sell their products in the US. And not to forget that their sales in APAC region is bound to grow significantly in the future. Not justifying the bad work conditions you're pointing to, but it seems fair to generate employment in places where they're getting their profits from.

View on HN

My point is that, last I heard, Apple is sitting on $70 billion. Meanwhile, Steve Jobs was telling Obama that the US could never produce the iPhone. Why? Because he seemed to think that near-slave conditions (e.g. rousting 8,000 workers from corporate housing for immediate 12-hour shifts) were necessary simply to create the products he sold.

Also, keep in mind that nobody working at Foxconn can afford to purchase the iPads they build. It appears that this will remain the case, no matter how long they work there.

> Also, keep in mind that nobody working at Foxconn can afford to purchase the iPads they build. It appears that this will remain the case, no matter how long they work there.

The same is true for the average American worker at a BMW factory.

I don't think you should try to draw conclusions by comparing commodity personal electronics to luxury automobiles.

Then what is that example trying to prove? There is no way I could afford to pay for the software my company produces.. Should everyone work in a place where they can afford what they build?

Why do you think that US auto workers, making a living wage producing luxury automobiles, have anything to do with near-slave labor?

If Apple has stowed away $70 billion, don't you think they could afford to pay higher wages, benefits for those mangled by RSI (back to back 12 shifts, not counting unpaid overtime) or machinery, and generally not treat people like dirt? I think they can afford to.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com