Apple slaves REVOLT, destroy factory over $7/month pay

submitted by hfxB0oyA from (youtu.be)

all 22 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]hfxB0oyA[S] 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

To paraphrase Louis Rossmann, "Apple Is a company that pretends to care about racism... but when it comes time to hire people of colour to make their products, they will hire slaves for seven bucks a month".

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (15 children)

We should ban every product made with slave labor, embargo countries that allow slavery, and seize the assets of companies which profit from slavery.

[–]Trajan 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

With some tweaking this could be a solution and less an authoritarian masturbation fantasy.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I'm not opposed to the idea of the government telling businesses what they can and can't do, so long as the government is controlled by the People. Perhaps that makes me an authoritarian, but if so: it makes me a populist Authoritarian.

Furthermore, the free market system has failed: it is what has allowed the formation of mega-corporations and multi-national monopolies, and it has allowed them to ship jobs and industry overseas, at the expense of Americans.

I much prefer a mixed economy, one that serves the Nation, rather than forcing it to be subservient to the selfish desires of traitors and profiteers. Specifically, a system of National Corporatism.

[–]Trajan 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I'm not opposed to the idea of the government telling businesses what they can and can't do, so long as the government is controlled by the People. Perhaps that makes me an authoritarian, but if so: it makes me a populist Authoritarian.

I said that because of the hyperbolic use of slavery. While this certainly seems exploitative, with terrible pay (even by local standards) and withholding of pay, it's not slavery. There's no evidence that any of these workers are being detained. If we are to begin nationalising private property then we'd want to be precise in our language.

Furthermore, the free market system has failed: it is what has allowed the formation of mega-corporations and multi-national monopolies, and it has allowed them to ship jobs and industry overseas, at the expense of Americans.

Good luck finding a system that won't fail. The issue here is that you're conflating a lot of things together, some of which are indeed a problem, in to a brand new problem that isn't necessarily explained by those things. Big corporations aren't the same as corporations with multi-national monopolies. Even monopolies aren't inherently bad except where that position is exploited to suppress competition. Totally agree that more needs to be done to foster home-grown industry and jobs. Sending all of our jobs and industry to China, effectively an enemy, is utterly stupid. With any Chinese business of note being effectively an arm of the CPC, it would be entirely fair to consider tariffs and measures to discourage consumers from choosing these products. There has to be a delineation between competition, where the response to that is to out-compete them, and dubious practices (e.g. dumping, currency manipulation, forced labour).

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

There's no evidence that any of these workers are being detained.

Yeah, you do make a good point. You can't really call this an instance of slavery, except in a metaphorical sense, but my point still stands. You could, however, call forced labor in China slavery, since a lot of people — mostly Uyghurs — are being detained and forced to work for the communist government.

Big corporations aren't the same as corporations with multi-national monopolies.

I didn't say they're the same thing, I said they have the same root cause: free market Capitalism. Regardless, most mega-corporations are multi-national monopolies, especially in fields such as technology.

Even monopolies aren't inherently bad except where that position is exploited to suppress competition.

The very definition of a monopoly is that it has no competition. You used a lot of words to say nothing at all.

Sending all of our jobs and industry to China, effectively an enemy, is utterly stupid.

Good we agree on that. China really is our number one enemy.

[–]Trajan 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Yeah, you do make a good point. You can't really call this an instance of slavery, except in a metaphorical sense, but my point still stands. You could, however, call forced labor in China slavery, since a lot of people — mostly Uyghurs — are being detained and forced to work for the communist government.

Ta. Yeah, there are definitely instances of forced labour. The work camps in China certainly count. There are also instances in Qatar where migrants are brought in, then have their passports taken away by the employer. I'd be happy to see a complete ban on importing products produced by forced labour and see Western corporations held fully responsible. While it's not them doing this directly, they know this is a risk when they outsource to the developing world. That guy in the video makes a good point - would it really be a significant cost for a corporation to have staff based at these sites to watch for abusive behaviours?

I didn't say they're the same thing, I said they have the same root cause: free market Capitalism. Regardless, most mega-corporations are multi-national monopolies, especially in fields such as technology.

Ah, I took the 'and' in the boolean sense. Sure, there are monopolies, yet most are confined to specific domains. Where companies abuse monopolies or engage in other anti-competitive behaviours they should certainly be taken to task.

The very definition of a monopoly is that it has no competition. You used a lot of words to say nothing at all.

Ironically I probably used too few words, so my apologies for that. It's more complex that what I had said.

  1. A monopoly in this context doesn't require a situation where there is no competition. A company could be deemed to have a monopoly with only a majority of a market. There are different types of monopolies (e.g. statutory monopoly, natural monopoly). How a monopoly is legally defined may vary.

  2. A monopoly isn't inherently bad - it depends on how it is maintained, whether it distorts the market, and if the monopoly is leveraged for anti-competitive ends. A single supermarket in a town may have the monopoly on groceries by doing 80% of the groceries business. Even a small shop in a remote town could have a natural monopoly by virtue of the market being small and difficult to enter. This is both legal and expected. What would we do? Close the one shop in town? No, we'd consider it normal, taking action only if the shop works to suppress new completion. For example, a new shop opens. The original shop then begins selling goods at a loss and offers discounts to people who stay in the one hotel in town - which they also own.

If you look back every twenty years, reviewing monopolies and wealth of corporations, you'll see it's a shifting landscape. Standard Oil was the oil company until it was taken to task for anti-competitive behaviours. Hearst Communications was another company that dominated in its heyday. Nokia? Netscape? IBM? Eastman Kodak? All of these dominated their respective markets yet have subsequently vanished or been superseded. Nokia in the 90s owned the majority of worldwide handset sales (upwards of 50%). Microsoft dominated Internet access via their desktop monopoly, yet completely missed the boat on smart phones. My point here is that the market will in most cases correct itself and that we should be pretty definite on what we're addressing when we choose to intervene.

Good we agree on that. China really is our number one enemy.

Hell yeah! Fair competition should be the goal, and China is both a cheat and a security risk.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

There are also instances in Qatar where migrants are brought in, then have their passports taken away by the employer.

I didn't know about that, that's crazy.

Ah, I took the 'and' in the boolean sense

I was simply using a list of two.

A monopoly in this context doesn't require a situation where there is no competition. A company could be deemed to have a monopoly with only a majority of a market.

Ah, yes. It's not the complete absence of competition, but rather the absence of reasonable competition, at least when competition equates to another business. I tend to equate it to reasonable competition, since there are very few situations in which a large-scale market would have an industry in which only one business operated — that, perhaps, could be called a true monopoly, as opposed to my false definition.

A monopoly isn't inherently bad

But monopolies are naturally bad, because they're inclined to cause harm. Some can resist their own nature, but most of them will submit.

My point here is that the market will in most cases correct itself

Yes, but the goal is to create a market which can do so more effectively. Regulations are simply a means of rewriting the rules of the market, and changing how it behaves — like a program. Once we find a market failure, a bug if you will, we need to rewrite the code.

we should be pretty definite on what we're addressing when we choose to intervene.

Yes, the actual laws should be written in the most precise manner possible. I merely express sentiments and proclaim goals here, and I like to be broad when I do so, because if I wanted to be precise, I'd write an essay.

[–]Trajan 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I didn't know about that, that's crazy.

Yeah, we don't hear much about this. I suppose Twitter is more concerned with 'crunch' for developers and pronouns.

Ah, yes. It's not the complete absence of competition, but rather the absence of reasonable competition, at least when competition equates to another business. I tend to equate it to reasonable competition, since there are very few situations in which a large-scale market would have an industry in which only one business operated — that, perhaps, could be called a true monopoly, as opposed to my false definition.

That makes sense. 'Reasonable competition' is a good way of conceptualising this.

But monopolies are naturally bad, because they're inclined to cause harm. Some can resist their own nature, but most of them will submit.

I'd definitely agree when talking about specific monopolies. There's a lot of complexity in managing monopolies. To begin with, there are natural monopolies, where a monopoly forms through no misconduct. The example of a small town store could be an example of a natural monopoly where the small market, combined with freight costs, makes it barely viable to compete against them. I wouldn't consider this naturally bad any more than I'd consider the need to eat to be bad. It's just the way it works. Certainly it'd be better if competition were viable. There's a risk of a well intentioned yet ruinous approach to such things, trying to solve a problem that can't be solved, and creating a worse outcome than if it had simply been left alone. While competition should always be the goal, it's not always achievable, and more damage will be done by intervening. This neutral view on the morality of monopolies is why regulation tends to focus on how the monopoly is achieved or used.

Yes, but the goal is to create a market which can do so more effectively. Regulations are simply a means of rewriting the rules of the market, and changing how it behaves — like a program. Once we find a market failure, a bug if you will, we need to rewrite the code.

Agreed, that should be the purpose of regulation. The difficulties arise in knowing what it is to be more effective and how to achieve that. Clumsy regulation, with the best of intentions, can be ruinous. Economies are incredibly complex machines that can deliver unpleasant results if interventions are not rare and well considered. Microsoft using its OS monopoly to crush developers of competing application software was a market failure and quite rightly addressed. Criminalising Microsoft simply for having a popular OS would not have been appropriate.

Yes, the actual laws should be written in the most precise manner possible. I merely express sentiments and proclaim goals here, and I like to be broad when I do so, because if I wanted to be precise, I'd write an essay.

That makes sense. By the way, thanks for the chat. This'd be one of the better conversations I've had here.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You're welcome! I'd like to thank you as well, for being more respectful and open to explaining yourself when misunderstood.

[–]christnmusicreleases 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

So basically, ban China, astroturfer?

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Seize CCP-owned businesses, ban CCP apps and websites, issue an embargo, and raise tariffs for every country doing business with the illegitimate government in Beijing.

[–]christnmusicreleases 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Great idea! But surely that's not what you want, is it?

[–]adultmanhwa 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

but you seize CCP-owned business it doesn't mean that will abolish slave labor, it only will change the ownership

[–]tomatosplat 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What did you use to type that message?

[–]madcow-5 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That’s a lot of countries. Also makes the question of where we draw the line and call something slavery.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Defining what "slavery" is can be quite complex, I do agree. And limiting the countries we can do business with can cause us some level of hardship, but perhaps this hardship will force America to become self-sufficient, as it should be.

[–]Intuit 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Now that they destroyed the factory they can go back to their $6/mo. jobs and be happier.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yeah, violence never really solves your problems...

[–]Intuit 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Not when you're destroying the equipment of a company that offered you a better salary than whatever else you could find.

[–]adultmanhwa 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Can we say Rossman actually benefited indirectly from slave labor?

Apple => made apple product (slave labor) => apple product bad => fixed by rossman
*if hypothetically all non-apple engineer boycott fixing apple product - so that it's also insane for the people to pay sky high price for official repair - will that in the end affecting the upper-stream? Contributing for the better world?

[–]whistlepig 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Anyone got an article?

I'm not going to spend several minutes wading through an introduction and whatever else just to get the short answer of what the very vague headline is referring to... when it should just take me about 20 some seconds of glancing at a paragraph or two. This is so Fahrenheit 451