Human Costs Are Built Into an iPad
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
Possibly the central point of the article is not that "Apple is bad" but that most of us are quite oblivious to the working conditions which bring us cheap and fun gadgets.
We recognize that we cannot avoid benefiting from cheap labor on a daily basis. But just as (according to the article) companies could choose to enforce safety standards, we too might be swayed to demand better from Apple and other companies if we had a bit more exposure to the realities of the situation.
And the article drives home the point that we (customers) don't really care; if we did, we would stop buying [widgets] and [company] would enforce those standards.
Nothing new, sure, but it helps to put a face on the reality of the situation in terms of icons that all of us can recognize.
I do not think there is any correlation either way, but one could argue that, say, putting together a 'work fast, but the end result must be spotless' item is less risky for one's health than putting together a (purely hypothetical, for the sake of the argument) 'we do not care about shards on the glass screen; blood spots on the screen are OK, too, but do it in ten seconds or we will not make a profit' product.
Despite being a hot topic - factory suicide rates are usually well below the USA/China averages.
Also many of the problems don't stem from greedy factory owners, but rather cultural issues. Such as the vast numbers of rural workers who prefer 18-hour factories simply because they can earn more in the few years that they'll be stationed (often saving a dowry or similar nest egg.) In the factories I'd engage we had to pay staff more than what they would earn in their 18 hour day to entice them to work in our "more ethical" 12 hour days. We still found numerous examples of staff using the extra time allocated to them to go and work at smaller factories which would offer short-shifts (deliberately to take advantage of our staff.)
Additionally underage labor is a problem, with workers deliberately falsifying documentation so they can work underage. Now elaborate history checks are required to ensure that the staff member isn't below the appropriate working age.
In conclusion, Apple release their summary reports on their manufacturing, I'd challenge other large companies to be this honest, because it's going to be far worse. (Especially in IT and toys.)
My main point here, though, is that none of this is anything new. Chinese factories are continuing to abuse their workers to increase Western profit margins. Short of completely reforming the Chinese government, what's the alternative? Employing Americans instead so that even more Chinese people starve?
Again, I hate to act like I read the entire article (and I'm now realizing that I probably could have in the time it took to type this out), but I just saw a lot of extreme language.
The article is singling out Apple, but it also contrasts their attitude to the attitudes of HP and other companies which manufacture electronics goods in China.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1qJyAWZeV4
Work that requires you to do one thing 5000 times a day shouldn't be done by a human anyway.
"Out of a million people, 17 suicides isn’t much—indeed, American college students kill themselves at four times that rate."
Do they want Apple to change the conditions, or do they want everyone to do it? Is it a relevant story to them because of the working conditions or because of Apple's involvement?
I imagine what revealing and and informative articles someone like Pro Publica might be able to do, because they don't have these weird proclivities and know that in order to change a problem, you have to cover it in nuance, detail and, keep running with it, until it picks up and inspires people to effect change.
This by comparison reads like a bland piece with some choice quotes peppered around it. If they had made the article with Apple as an example or example case, then it would be more interesting; the NYT are, after all, the best people in the world at making infographics, in my opinion.
I can't help get the impression that the NYT are ruining what could be a great debate and movement by this silly focus on Apple's part in something that is so much larger than them.
Even more to the point, read the articles. Some entrepeneur has an oppurtinity to get sales by re-building tech manufacturing in the US because. People will buy the products because they want to re-invest in America.
If the NY Times doesn't like how the iPad is being made perhaps they should pull their content from Newsstand. Wait until the NY Times finds out how many loggers die each year to cut down the trees to make its paper.
"Many major technology companies have worked with factories where conditions are troubling. However, independent monitors and suppliers say some act differently. Executives at multiple suppliers, in interviews, said that Hewlett-Packard and others allowed them slightly more profits and other allowances if they were used to improve worker conditions."
The article clearly explains that Apple management does care, but that their drive for secrecy and control makes it much more difficult for them to affect change. Maybe he typed it on an HP computer instead.
Wait until the NY Times finds out how many loggers die
each year to cut down the trees to make its paper.
This is brilliant. How many millions of papers has the NYT moved in its history? How many barrels of ink and logs did that use? And what's the death/injury rate in ink and paper factories per million units?Multiply this through, and it is quite likely that 1000+ people have died in the process of feeding the Times.
The New York Times is weird. Hundreds of thousands of people are dead in Iraq and elsewhere, due in large part to conditions the Times' Judith Miller and other media sources helped bring about. There is no reporting on that. All computer companies can be called to account for complicity (and yeah, unto their suppliers' supplier!), but never a newspaper for starting a war.
A) page views
B) hedge funds trying to short AAPL by spreading negative news the day AFTER a record-breaking quarter.
C) A & B
WHY single out Apple?
I am interested in your opinion about the larger issue. Is what is described in the article OK now and not newsworthy, or does the article describe disturbing things about labor practices that are intrinsically newsworthy?