Now Can We Start Talking About the Real Foxconn?
go.bloomberg.com
go.bloomberg.com
This wasn't evil Westerners coming in and mercilessly exploiting the natives; this was simply the bog-standard working conditions in every construction site across the country. When I saw that, I realised that the entire Western dialectic about sweatshops ("Michael Jordan earns $40M for endorsing shoes that are made by 12-year-olds earning $1 per day!") was completely irrelevant and corrupt. What I realised is that a classically "awful" sweatshop would be entail a spectacular improvement in both salaries and working conditions, compared to the alternatives. Yes, a sweatshop would still be bad if compared to working conditions in the West, but people in developing countries -- particularly at the time -- didn't have access to working conditions in the West, so that was a meaningless comparison to make. The only legitimate comparison was to the alternatives actually available to them, and seen in that light, a typical Nike sweatshop looked like Nirvana.
Fortunately, India continued to go down the path of globalisation, and I still work there frequently. Western businesses set up shops which "exploited" the native workers by giving them vastly better salaries and working conditions than anything they'd ever had before. Successive waves of these businesses created a climate of tremendous economic mobility, with workers constantly jockeying to jump to each emerging income tier. In just over a decade, I've seen several hundred million people come out of absolutely grinding poverty into a lifestyle which is still poor but not truly deprived; I've seen several hundred million more acquire a standard of living that -- considering the difference in purchasing parity power -- is perfectly in line with first-world norms. This has had a knock-on effect in every sector of the economy, including those where the Western presence isn't particularly felt. When I go to construction sites now, for example, the workers still tend to live in (better) temporary shanty-towns next to the construction sites, but now they have safety gear, their pay has increased about 40-fold, and their children go to school rather than work.
It has been an absolute pleasure to watch this happen. From everything I've seen, the rise of China -- which Foxconn epitomises -- has roughly paralleled this course of development, only more so.
Frankly, the question of "how bad is Foxconn, really?" should have been answerable with a single data point: their suicide rate is lower than that of China's as a whole. That should tell you something. Foxconn is undoubtedly imperfect, but that one fact demonstrates that it must be better than the alternatives. Much of the negative perception of Foxconn has been driven by cultural misunderstanding rather than reality. When sensationalist journalists tried to turn the (statistically lower) rate of suicide into a news story, the instincts of Foxconn managers were to save face, act humble, and vow to do better. That's how you gain respect in Confucian culture, but to Americans it looked like an admission of guilt. It would have been better if their PR department had foregone the absurd suicide nets and such, and simply said "Look, our suicide rate is lower than the rest of China's, so take that, biatches!"
That would have gotten the truth across more succinctly than anything else.
Still, I wonder if there are ways of hacking the development curve to get more people and their entire economy moving faster. China for example, appears to be going through a modern version of the industrial revolution, intense pollution and all...and China may be too far along their process for this to matter. But as Chinese wages and conditions improve, the next "cheap place to build our crap" will need to start from someplace...just like many countries are developing telecom infrastructures without landlines, I wonder if future fast-growth developing countries can develop without having to go through the nastiness of an Industrial Revolution.
I think while your perception of the native working conditions and the improvement that westerners brought to that is probably true, it also misses the point completely.
The criticism is not about the working conditions per se, but rather that the western companies knowingly hand-pick nations with the worst-off working conditions because it cheapens their productive chain. It's not about the company exploiting the local workers more so than usual, but that they choose to manufacture in countries that regularly allow local workers to be exploited and so they can too without "worrying".
What makes it worst is that the western companies do not share the cultural traits and history that makes the country what it is, but rather they come from a place where stricter rules are valued, and are valued for a reason (quality of life, safety, health, rights), that they then choose to ignore in favor of their own bottom line.
That is what the real issue is. It IS inhumane from their part and they SHOULD be questioned on their decisions and practices.
I know that there are plenty others factors that drive companies there, but it's still a decision and they should be accountable, if not legally than morally.
[Edit: is there something wrong with the comment that its being downvoted?]
You could also flip this 'fact' around, and present it as: Western companies knowingly hand-pick nations with the biggest need for the investment they're providing.
But in both cases, you'd be missing the point that the money is just going where it gets the biggest return, and that that trumps most other concerns.
I'm not arguing with that, just pointing out that the reason why people feel at odds with that practice is not because they don't understand why it's like it is, but that they don't agree with it morally.
This isn't their intent, but it is the practical outcome of what they do.
P.S. You shouldn't be downvoted, your comment was good.
The fact is, the factories are bad. There's too much overtime, and people aren't paid enough (just like anyone in their country, though), safety rules are sometimes lax. But if you look around, you'll find places that are even worse (than this specific factory) here in Poland, in a supposedly „civilized” country.
Sounds unconstitutional to me.
For example, nobody is talking about raising taxes on unhealthy food or asking heavy smokers and drinkers to pay more for their health insurance. Or ask them to enroll in some kind of sports or life-style program that would improve their health before it becomes an issue. I would be all for it by the way, but it's basically not part of any discussion by any political party.
The comparison between India and China is flawed: India is a democracy (albeit far from perfect), China is not. China is a dictatorship that has been violating human rights on a massive scale for decades and decades.
Call me old-fashioned, but I try to avoid doing business with totalitarian regimes. It just isn't right. My heart bleeds every time I buy a gadget or any other product made in China. Most of the time I don't even have a choice. Oh, Made In Taiwan, where are you?
And perhaps it's time to ask ourselves: is it really a good idea to transfer and outsource more and more technological research and production - one of the cornerstones of our modern and future society - to a totalitarian state like China?
(Skipping goods that you know are produced by bad people is still fine)
Hopefully it can prevent that the situation gets even worse. Or that those in power become even more powerful.
Note that it takes more than prosperity to become a democracy. It certainly helps, but there are more factors at play.
The only weapon against oppressive regime is economic and cultural freedom and influence. Exchange wares, exchange ideas, and eventually there would be a market for democracy, so to speak.
I know a very few countries that are both prosperous and non-democratic. And you won't mind all of those: they don't have to do bad things since they've got money.
The stable door is always shut after the horse has bolted.
Foxconn is a Taiwanese company, and a household name in China. Insanely high profile, lots to lose, and relatively little protection. The owner is presumably well connected (he's been running factories in Shenzhen since 1988); but while he'll have some friends who'll bend a few rules, I doubt he has anyone in the right place who will risk their life for him (i.e. a close family member at the top). There were bound to be investigations, and his government connections could have risked execution if they help cover anything up.
After the suicides, Foxconn came under heavy attack from the Chinese media. They simply couldn't afford to break any rules after that. I don't know if they did before the deaths (and I doubt they were any worse than many other factories in China), but of course they were squeaky-clean afterwards.
A common logical fallacy is occurring here: An argument is made toward a larger picture, the argument is false therefore the larger picture doesn't exist. It only proves that the American Life author was wrong and that further investigation is needed, not at all that Foxconn is a nice place.
The focus of the story is not on Apple and the consequences of consumerism. Instead, it is on Foxconn and the human difficulties inherent in the industrialization of an economy. The shifting of the ground is deliberate.
Daisey's story and Schmitz reporting agree on the fact that Apple's business processes entail problematic operational practices [references below].
That the Bloomberg article ignores them is a not unexpected response to the sort of muckraking Daisey engaged in. The current media campaign is far more sophisticated, but at its heart its motivations are no different from the response to The Jungle a century ago.
http://www.marketplace.org/topics/business/apple-economy/app....
http://www.marketplace.org/topics/tech/apple-economy/china-c....
Now, fair enough that Bloomberg champions the needs of big business, and fair enough that big business wants and need to use these places to build their products. But that does not mean that there is no agenda here. There might not be, but there is certainly a sniff of re-branding going on here.
All Im saying is there is good grounds to be sceptical at the motivation here.
Most significantly it's 2006 cover story on the use of South American slave labour by car companies:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a...
And more recently on Victoria Secret's use of child labour:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-15/victoria-s-secret-r...
Only last month they ran this story about slavery in the pipeline of American seafood:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-23/slaves-put-squid-on...
citation?
China
Cost of labor per hour: $1.27
Nature of outsourcing: general manufacturing, electronic assembly and parts manufacturing, apparel (shoes, socks and clothing)
The same article says the cost of labour in Bangladesh is: $0.23... I suspect there's lower to be found for those willing to keep the clicking.
Nature of outsourcing: significant college graduate pool, beginning IT services
"The biggest gripe, which surprised us somewhat, is that they don’t get enough overtime. They wanted to work more, to get more money." This, the biggest gripe, at a place that had to deploy suicide nets around the building perimeters. I can't think of a more patronizing way to write this article.
I, personally, don't know what goes on at Foxconn. But the chance at holding accountable those who enable injustice was lost the day the US bank representative stood proudly in front of Congress and announced "We're too big to fail."; knowing that any backlash would be brief and easily defeated. At that moment it became clear to me that propaganda, which many thought the internet would disable, is more powerful than ever.
Disinformation has far greater utility than information.
There's some caution needed though. Most workers are female which is traditionally higher for attempted but lower for completed suicide, and they don't have as many readily accessible means. (EG, American young men have access to guns.)
The reporters say they spoke to people, freely, and Foxconn didn't know who they spoke to. The reporters seem remarkably ignorant about the fears people have about speaking out when living in an oppressive regime. (China probably executes more people than any other country; there are over 50 crimes that carry the death penalty; some criminals are interviewed for tv programmes before they are executed).
There are a lot of problems at Chinese factories. The fact that poor peasants consider factory work to be better than their regular life just shows how bad life in China is for poor people.
China still has growing pains that it needs to work through.
(http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/24/the-ieconomy-ho...)
Note that Apple is demanding that Foxconn complies with Apple's policy for overtime - that workers earning about $18 per day must not work more than 60 hours a week. Unless it's an emergency. Or an unusual situation.
It's unfortunate that the concentration is almost entirely on Foxconn, because there are worse factories in China.
The suicide thing is probably bogus, though it would depend on who is collecting the stats on that and how. It seems too good and that's what gives me pause. If they're being graded on that now, they have incentive to under-report it. I'm not sure if we'll ever know the truth, though.
For example, I'm reminded of one incident I saw where they gave out awards for a "perfect" day. In truth, that shift was new. They didn't know how to reject defective products, so they didn't. Oops.
They found out, but they never bothered to take the award plaque off of the trophy wall. It sits there to this day, unbeaten.
The first world build up, both deliberately and circumstantially (e.g. World War II), a fairly strong system of profit-sharing and workforce representation and safety.
Then, increasing geographic mobility (physical, and communication) provided means of operating portions or the entirety of a business outside of that scope, while maintaining the first world market/destination for finished product.
Given that much of the first world was in one form or another "democratic", at that point, those populations faced a choice. Erect barriers to insure the propagation of those protections within their societies, but at perhaps the expense of less individual, immediate wealth -- at least, as measured in objects possessed. Or allow this "outsourcing", undermining domestic production and attendant protections in favor of individual gains -- short term gains, for those not in a position of major equity or enabling and so profiting off of the inter-societal transfers.
In my perspective, barring a regression, at this point we are headed towards a world society as well as economy. However, the timeframes are still such that individuals can end up "losers" with regard to opportunities available or lost during their productive lifespans.
In the U.S., for example, many people are "losing", right now.
The question arises: Has what has happened been the best way forward that was possible? Or could the U.S. et al. have maintained greater barriers while still enabling progress? The ideo of "lifting up" the third world, instead of "racing to the lowest common denominator"?
I, for one, don't know the answer to that. Personally, though, I would have liked to try harder for it.
Many people in the U.S. are scared, and outraged, and fearful, and many other things, of what they see -- or what is reported -- in China and other places, because behind and beyond the immediate situation, they see or perhaps intuit at some level their own future.
Maybe in the 80's and even 90's, many people here just felt it was wrong that another person be treated like that. And they compared those circumstances to their own and wished the latter whole-heartedly for these other people.
Now, many people are just plain scared. If they're not already living in this future of decreasing expectations.
I think that is the, or at least one of, the elephants in the room, in this entire discussion.
We were supposed to be improving the lives of these folk. But now it looks to (rhetorical) me that it was, is at my and our own expense.
I'm not arguing for one interpretation or the other, here. But I would like to see this perspective -- this view from "the other side", if I've seen and understood it at least partially correctly -- added to the conversation.
And, to loop back to what I mentioned earlier, this happened in the context of "democratic" first world societies. (However imperfect that democracy might be.) So... in casting about for blame, if such is to be sought and found at all, I don't think those populations can simply point to business executives and "corrupt" politicians for the answer. Whether citizens voted, or didn't bother, they were and are part of the choice.