aelephant Posted October 25, 2013 Posted October 25, 2013 So I had a very short discussion with a friend of mine about why she won't buy an iPhone. I remembered I had read that the working conditions at Foxconn are actually much better than working conditions elsewhere because everything has to be very clean when working with delicate electronics. She countered by saying, "Just because the working conditions are better, doesn't mean they are good." At the time I didn't know how to respond, but a few minutes later what popped into my head was, "Compared to what?" I think it didn't come to mind immediately because her argument was already a "Compared to what?" kind of argument. If Foxconn is the best possible job that person X can get, you are (in part) depriving person X of the best possible job he can get by NOT buying an iPhone. If no one bought iPhones & Foxconn closed it's doors, what would happen to all of the people employed there? Go back to making footballs or shoes? Go into the sex trade? Just curious how others would have responded. (PS I don't think it is immoral to not buy an iPhone)
Mick Bynes Posted October 25, 2013 Posted October 25, 2013 I played with a former friend's iPhone before. I did not like it and I do not intend on buying one. I use Apple products, but I will never have an iPhone or an iPad.
NotDarkYet Posted October 26, 2013 Posted October 26, 2013 The worker at Foxcom has chosen that job as the best option for them. If Foxcom closes (because people quit buying), this person will have to get a worse job. And people flood into these factories from their shitty poor villages. They often make enough in a year or two to buy a house in their hometown. I imagine working in a factory is better than picking cabbage under the sun.
ILO Posted October 26, 2013 Posted October 26, 2013 @threebobs and yet if someone's conscience and moral compass indicates that it's not a fair situation one should listen carefully.
ThatAtheistPlace Posted October 26, 2013 Posted October 26, 2013 Why all the anti-talk around a phone? It's. a. phone. Although sweatshops and things of that nature certainly exist, I agree with 3Bobs, you have to ask yourself just how bad things were that someone would voluntarily work in poor conditions. Governments try to "expose" these wrongs as a capitalist inevitability just to make it seem like they are needed to keep the free market in check. It took further-developed countries having an industrial period before advancing. Forcing places to shut down, that people are clamoring to work in, doesn't entice other companies to come in and create competitive working environments and wages. Ilo, your level of empathy for another's situation is naturally lessened the less you've walked in that person't shoes.
wdiaz03 Posted October 26, 2013 Posted October 26, 2013 I don't think one can deprive a person of a job by not buying a phone. You are assuming Apple wont see a trend of diminishing sales and they will not inquire about why. If all those in the iPhone cult decide not to keep buying products because working conditions, then Apple will simple change those conditions. But I would doubt it'll get that far. maybe they drop the price, I don't think that all consumers can unite in such a way to cause the closure of a plant. If that does happen Samsung might buy the plant and sell to a less picky public. The knowledge that exists in that plant will not be waste on menial jobs. If Foxconn is the best possible job that person X can get, you are (in part) depriving person X of the best possible job he can get by NOT buying an iPhone. If no one bought iPhones & Foxconn closed it's doors, what would happen to all of the people employed there? Go back to making footballs or shoes? Go into the sex trade?...
aelephant Posted October 26, 2013 Author Posted October 26, 2013 So I brought this up to my friend, & they basically equated buying a stolen phone to buying a phone made by people in less than ideal conditions. Basically, if I refuse to buy a stolen phone, it only has the desired effect if *everyone* refuses to buy a stolen phone. In an economy like China's, even if I refuse to work in Foxconn because the working conditions are poor, there are plenty of people who will be willing to. How would you respond?
MrCapitalism Posted October 26, 2013 Posted October 26, 2013 How "Sweatshops" Help the Poor - Mises Daily
aelephant Posted October 27, 2013 Author Posted October 27, 2013 How "Sweatshops" Help the Poor - Mises Daily Thanks for the link! Good reading. So I brought this up to my friend, & they basically equated buying a stolen phone to buying a phone made by people in less than ideal conditions. Basically, if I refuse to buy a stolen phone, it only has the desired effect if *everyone* refuses to buy a stolen phone. In an economy like China's, even if I refuse to work in Foxconn because the working conditions are poor, there are plenty of people who will be willing to. How would you respond? Whether or not people are working for Foxconn is not up to me. If Foxconn is a horrible company that tortures it's employees, then those people should leave. If there are other people who are willing to be tortured, then that is their choice. We can only assume that people make rational choices, so working for Foxconn & being tortured must necessarily be better than the alternative for the people who choose to work there. The only time buying an iPhone becomes a moral question is when there has been a violation of morality -- when force has been initiated. As long as people are not being *forced* to work for Foxconn against their will, buying an iPhone is supporting the business that is offering its employees the best possible benefits. If there were better benefits elsewhere, Foxconn's employees would go work there instead.
Phuein Posted October 27, 2013 Posted October 27, 2013 I just bought some lesser known Chinese smartphone for tenth the price of an iPhone. Just sayin'. :=D Recently, I had an argument with another, who finds Libertarianism interesting and important: Anyone rich can only be so, when others are forced to be poor. While it is true that trade is natural and right for us, it is not true that anyone could hoard so much wealth and possessions, without initiating force. Therefor, the only way the rich could become and remain rich is by using their wealth to free those who are not rich, so that they become an asset to those who would otherwise see them as a liability. In other words, Apple would not be remotely as rich, if they had not the protections that governments offer against competition, such as patents, land restrictions and occupational restrictions.
ThatAtheistPlace Posted October 27, 2013 Posted October 27, 2013 Those statements seem to just be assertions without proof. We don't live in a closed economy and resources are not limited to currency. The subsidy aspect seems correct, but even in a free society where protections aren't given out by a government from taxpayers, but also the UCC isn't upheld, Apple may be in a better position to utilize cheaper labor while assisting the poorer locations that they do business with. If you're smart enough to flourish in THIS environment, I would be amazed at what Apple could do if it didn't have to spend a large amount of their time and efforts on the regulations that are on them today.
Phuein Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 If you're smart enough to flourish in THIS environment, I would be amazed at what Apple could do if it didn't have to spend a large amount of their time and efforts on the regulations that are on them today. I suspect that this is the scariest thing for people. Imagining those that can manipulate such a strict system, let loose in a more free environment. Myself? Nah, I'm not scared. :-D That'd be silly.
ThatAtheistPlace Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 Why? The point of the manipulation (and of business, period) is to stymy competition and affect supply and demand. Free markets don't allow for pseudo-interference and coercion by violence to these things, so the resources devoted to those efforts would have to be more creative in the face of other companies doing the exact same things. What would you be afraid of them doing when they're actually forced to be put in check by the uncertainty of what others are doing to take their customers?
vivosmith Posted November 3, 2013 Posted November 3, 2013 I like Android better personally. I was watching a mini rant on the iphone. I thought it was a tad funny. Here it is. www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqdjLNqEUVA I though he should have brought up the whole issue with maps or youtube XD .
Recommended Posts