Foxconn Bears The Brunt Of Ivory Tower Assault On Capitalism(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Foxconn Bears The Brunt Of Ivory Tower Assault On Capitalism
http://techcrunch.com/2012/04/09/foxconn-kogan/
5 comments
> To imagine that we have willed this universe into being is simply solipsistic
That's a straw man though. Even the most woolly-minded liberal hippy consumer doesn't imagine that their purchasing choices are the sole driver of events in China. The word "solipsistic" doesn't make the possibility of effective consumer activism disappear.
That's a straw man though. Even the most woolly-minded liberal hippy consumer doesn't imagine that their purchasing choices are the sole driver of events in China. The word "solipsistic" doesn't make the possibility of effective consumer activism disappear.
This isn't something that I can provide statistics for, but it seems to me that most news stories take the heavily American-centric angle on the topic. The New Yorker article provides valuable perspective. Of course I support slow and steady pressure on the American corporations involved, but paternalism should be avoided.
Well, I'm European and completely up for critiques of American imperialism. I've never felt any of the criticisms of Apple / Foxconn were specifically aimed at Americans though. I mean they might talk about dollars and relate things to American incomes etc, but I've never felt they gave me license to buy a guilt-free iPhone.
Even choicer: "Chinese staff are generally very grateful for the work they are doing..."
"The Chinese care more about learning and being productive than they do about how many sick days and annual leave days they will get each year."
Thank god there's some white dude here to share the truth about what those Orientals want. Weekends and health insurance? pffft. The only thing Chinese people value is hard work!
(And I'm someone who's not terribly shocked or upset at Foxconn. Terrible article, nonetheless.)
Thank god there's some white dude here to share the truth about what those Orientals want. Weekends and health insurance? pffft. The only thing Chinese people value is hard work!
(And I'm someone who's not terribly shocked or upset at Foxconn. Terrible article, nonetheless.)
Not to be overly sensitive, but I believe the term "Orientals" is derogatory. Even if used in jest, you wouldn't use something like the "N" word casually (http://www.lifeintheusa.com/people/asians.htm). Just pointing this out for the sake of clean conversation.
It's obvious that scarmig is parodying the comments Ruslan makes in the article and thus using the term "Orientals" to criticise and not in his/her own voice. Well perhaps it's not obvious to hyper-ventilating PC police so intent on keeping things "clean" you write a post attacking someone who likely agrees with you..
Edit: You were on the right track when you said "not to be overly sensitive" because even with your misinterpretation of scarmig you were still aware that you were being an annoying whiner.
Edit: You were on the right track when you said "not to be overly sensitive" because even with your misinterpretation of scarmig you were still aware that you were being an annoying whiner.
Besides, as a matter of sheer fact, the Chinese get more annual leave days than, say, Americans.
Her response reminded me of how I felt about work when I started Kogan. Working long hours is not a sign that workers are being exploited. I know plenty of entrepreneurs who are very excited that they spend almost every waking moment creating something that will make the world a better place. The Chinese strike me as very enterprising people, who want to improve their lives and are prepared to work hard to achieve their goals.
So basically:
* This writer, for all his railing against an "ivory-tower assault on capitalism", does not understand the definition of exploitation as given by Marx: the difference between value produced by the worker and value captured by the worker. Entrepreneurs own the businesses at which they work, and can thus capture 100% of their work-value. Employees don't, and usually can't (not even through stock options).
* This writer does not differentiate between a rapidly developing economy (China) and a stagnant, rent-seeking late-capitalist economy (United States).
Assembly lines can be moved to new countries, or even replaced with robots.
Winning a race to the bottom on labor arbitrage is no honor. The Chinese don't consider it an honor either: strikes and demonstrations for higher wages and shorter hours are actually quite common in modern China.
People who were happy with their employer, their job, their wage, their learning opportunity and their livelihood would lose their job, despite the fact that they never once complained.
This is a classic piece of capitalist propaganda brought to bear on every single proposal for improving the conditions of workers. Somehow, improving working conditions and wages for everyone will result in workaholics going emotionally unfulfilled by their sudden birth of free time.
Bullshit. Workaholics will start a side-business in their free time.
We also need to recognize that all countries go through a phase of industrial manufacturing during their development. This happened in England through the industrial revolution, and in the USA in the 19th century. We should not be trying to deprive the Chinese of increasing their prosperity through this significant and mandatory stage of development.
We should every bit be encouraging the Chinese to proceed naturally through this phase of development by creating and enhancing labor protections and trade unions.
I believe there is a lot of value in an open and transparent discussion over important issues.
No you don't. You wrote this entire article to dismiss the current-day labor movement, in its Western branch and implicitly in its Chinese branch, out of hand.
So basically:
* This writer, for all his railing against an "ivory-tower assault on capitalism", does not understand the definition of exploitation as given by Marx: the difference between value produced by the worker and value captured by the worker. Entrepreneurs own the businesses at which they work, and can thus capture 100% of their work-value. Employees don't, and usually can't (not even through stock options).
* This writer does not differentiate between a rapidly developing economy (China) and a stagnant, rent-seeking late-capitalist economy (United States).
Assembly lines can be moved to new countries, or even replaced with robots.
Winning a race to the bottom on labor arbitrage is no honor. The Chinese don't consider it an honor either: strikes and demonstrations for higher wages and shorter hours are actually quite common in modern China.
People who were happy with their employer, their job, their wage, their learning opportunity and their livelihood would lose their job, despite the fact that they never once complained.
This is a classic piece of capitalist propaganda brought to bear on every single proposal for improving the conditions of workers. Somehow, improving working conditions and wages for everyone will result in workaholics going emotionally unfulfilled by their sudden birth of free time.
Bullshit. Workaholics will start a side-business in their free time.
We also need to recognize that all countries go through a phase of industrial manufacturing during their development. This happened in England through the industrial revolution, and in the USA in the 19th century. We should not be trying to deprive the Chinese of increasing their prosperity through this significant and mandatory stage of development.
We should every bit be encouraging the Chinese to proceed naturally through this phase of development by creating and enhancing labor protections and trade unions.
I believe there is a lot of value in an open and transparent discussion over important issues.
No you don't. You wrote this entire article to dismiss the current-day labor movement, in its Western branch and implicitly in its Chinese branch, out of hand.
One of the easiest things the Chinese government can do to raise the living standards of its citizens is to let the yuan float freely - By placing a price ceiling on the yuan against the US dollar it means imports are more expensive and its citizens can buy less.
Consider, if the yuan rose in price by 100% it would mean the price of the iPhone will be halved and more of the workers who toiled the long hours will be able to afford one - or they can cut down on overtime instead.
Right now with the inflation rate is much higher than the interest rate in China, meaning the government is actually penalising people for saving too much.
They are saving that much because they know one day, their money will be worth more.
I agree with the OP the "ivory's assault on foxconn" is essentially pointless and potentially harmful. You are raising the living standards of one small group out of hundreds of thousands at a time. Good luck with that.
Oh and all workers belong to a government operated union.
Consider, if the yuan rose in price by 100% it would mean the price of the iPhone will be halved and more of the workers who toiled the long hours will be able to afford one - or they can cut down on overtime instead.
Right now with the inflation rate is much higher than the interest rate in China, meaning the government is actually penalising people for saving too much.
They are saving that much because they know one day, their money will be worth more.
I agree with the OP the "ivory's assault on foxconn" is essentially pointless and potentially harmful. You are raising the living standards of one small group out of hundreds of thousands at a time. Good luck with that.
Oh and all workers belong to a government operated union.
Consider, if the yuan rose in price by 100% it would mean the price of the iPhone will be halved and more of the workers who toiled the long hours will be able to afford one - or they can cut down on overtime instead.
Wouldn't the price of the iPhone also go up by 100% since they are the ones who make it?
Wouldn't the price of the iPhone also go up by 100% since they are the ones who make it?
No, because the value added by labourers to an iPhone is less than 100%. Much of the rest of the value added are from other countries.
But you do provoke a point - Would Chinese workers be making the iPhone if the yuan rose by 100%? There's a good chance they might not be. Yet, if the rise of the yuan was not a result of intervention by governments, it would mean that the yuan rose because there is high demand for China's exports - As long as China's exports remain in high demand there will be further growth in its exports industry, making sure there will be enough work for China's workers.
But you do provoke a point - Would Chinese workers be making the iPhone if the yuan rose by 100%? There's a good chance they might not be. Yet, if the rise of the yuan was not a result of intervention by governments, it would mean that the yuan rose because there is high demand for China's exports - As long as China's exports remain in high demand there will be further growth in its exports industry, making sure there will be enough work for China's workers.
If by "assault" the OP (Ruslan Kogan) means "angry blog posts" and by "capitalism" he means unbridled corporatism, where Wall St creates bubbles to better gamble their investors monies, where the needs of a burgeoning military / industrial / penal complex peddle human death and misery for profit, where agribusiness monetized the seeds of life, where regulatory capture by cartels is the norm, and where radical laissez faire policies have gutted transparency, accountability, the rule of law, and a fair and impartial court system...
Then, yea, the OP has a point.
As for Apple, Foxconn, and labor:
Apple will continue to adopt modest labor practice improvements because it raises the cost of entry to any would be competitors.
In other words, customer driven demands for increased wages and better working conditions will help cement Apple's front runner position.
Which I think is quite brilliant, in a Machiavellian sort of way.
Then, yea, the OP has a point.
As for Apple, Foxconn, and labor:
Apple will continue to adopt modest labor practice improvements because it raises the cost of entry to any would be competitors.
In other words, customer driven demands for increased wages and better working conditions will help cement Apple's front runner position.
Which I think is quite brilliant, in a Machiavellian sort of way.
Marx was wrong, and Marxism failed. A Chinese peasant who goes from earning 2 cents per day to earning 1 dollar per day has gained enormously, and they know it. That is why Foxconn sees so many applicants for their job openings.
Capitalism is the system that produces such gains, and it's pulled far more people out of poverty than Marxism ever did.
Capitalism is the system that produces such gains, and it's pulled far more people out of poverty than Marxism ever did.
Tell that to the Chinese workers engaging in labor organizing.
This reads like a justification of poor labor conditions, which it is. Eerie echoes of the gilded age.
"I regularly visit all of our Chinese manufacturing facilities to keep an eye on what is going on and I am always talking to the factory owners, managers and assembly line staff."
This is so hilarious to anyone who is in the working class.
This is so hilarious to anyone who is in the working class.
I should elaborate. Why do western folk always think everyone elsewhere is some stupid developing world idiot who would never be able to game the system the same way we game the system over here?
1) There is really no way to prevent the gaming of the system, so it's easier to just suspend disbelief and assume that, "I visited the factory, therefore it's impossible that something could be going on behind my back.
2) If you go over there and the people are nice to you and you get a good vibe from them, it's an assault on your 'people skills' that they could be lying to you without being detected.
2) If you go over there and the people are nice to you and you get a good vibe from them, it's an assault on your 'people skills' that they could be lying to you without being detected.
The author obviously believes his visits rule out the possibility of exploitation. However, there's something to said for actually being on the ground, as opposed to forming opinions based on western paternalism and media histrionics.
[deleted]
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/03/iphon...
Choice paragraph:
"The simple narrative equating American demand and Chinese suffering is appealing, especially at a time when many Americans feel guilty about their impact on the world. It’s also inaccurate and disrespectful. We must be peculiarly self-obsessed to imagine we have the power to drive tens of millions of people on the other side of the world to migrate and suffer in terrible ways. China produces goods for markets all over the world, including for its own consumers, thanks to low costs, a large and educated workforce, and a flexible manufacturing system that responds rapidly to market demands. To imagine that we have willed this universe into being is simply solipsistic. It is also demeaning to the workers. We are not at the center of this story—we are minor players in theirs. By focussing on ourselves and our gadgets, we have reduced the human beings at the other end to invisibility, as tiny and interchangeable as the parts of a mobile phone."