Slashdot Mirror
Avoiding Sweatshop PC Components?
Jimmy asks: "Is there such a thing as a guilt-free PC or components? From what I've been reading, third world sweatshops are contracting just as much assembly work to the big-name hardware suppliers as the unscrupulous clothing/fashion industry. I'd love to have a PC which wasn't made off of the back of some underage girl working for pennies an hour. What about it? When is our new-groove techie conscience going to kick in?" Such concern is commendable, but it's not like Dell, Gateway or any other manufacturere advertise this fact in their Press Packets. How does one go about finding out such information and when you do, instead of just boycotting, why not go public?
From what I've heard about maquiladoras and free-trade zones, you'll probably have a hard time getting good information. And when you do get it, you'll have a hard time keeping it current.
The shops work on contract, with the product changing every few months. Overall, the clothing shops stick with clothing, and the electronics assemblers sticking w/ their area, but when orders fall off, or some semblance of human-rights monitoring gets started up, the shop will fold, and the owner will look for greener pastures. A new industry will open up under the old roof pretty quickly.
Worse still, I read recently about someone having developed a manufacturing facility that fits in a cargo container. Now the whole factory can pick up and head for where the wages are cheapest.
At current component price levels, it should be easy to pick out the ones that didn't come from sweatshops. They are the ones that'll cost almost an order of magnitude more than other similar components. Like it or not, large parts of our western affluence is built on their backs. It is only getting more difficult to find products that don't include that kind of exploitation in their production channel.
I'm willing to pay for good information.
In a related story, the IRS has recently ruled that the cost of Windows upgrades can NOT be deducted as a gambling loss.
The real problem is they aren't getting paid a decent wage for their area, let alown for any where else. The reason why the US has such a high standard of living is the union activity we had that forced higher wages. Even in the US work places where there isn't union support for the workers the paychecks are on average lower, significantly lower. At one time in the US you were able to support a family on the wages of a store clerk. Just try that now. It's not just the third world workers that are getting exploited.
I should give a disclaimer before I start. I spent 7 years kicking around China (including some time as a technical writer for a mainboard manufacturer in Taiwan). I hold well-meaning missionaries with fat bellies going in to "fix" developing countries in utter, complete disdain.
Most of the assembly for PC components is highly automated. I have seen people hand-solder SMT components... These were exploited senior engineers in the Taipei design center. These poor souls were so tired after working 10 hours a day that they could barely drag themselves to their new Toyotas and Nissans to go off to their houses in the suburbs of Taipei.
The rest is all done using SMT machinery. There's a tech monitoring the line for trouble, and there are people doing QC and stuffing boxes at the end of the line. It's pretty boring, but it's light work. Remember as well that the quality demands for electronics are considerably higher than for clothing. You can't train someone just off the farm to run an SMT line.
Making silicon chips is generally a pretty nasty business. You get exposed to lots of fun chemicals, many of which are known carcinogens. The silicon fabs have largely moved overseas for a reason. They're bad neighbors, and bad PR.
On the issue of sweatshops in general, I am largely in agreement with another poster. Labor unions, education, and time solve all problems. If any of you have grandparents old enough to remember when the world's largest developing economy was the United States, ask them about pay and working conditions.
In a complex, cross-dependent society, a lot of hands make everything you touch. Some of them are well-paid, skilled laborers, some have jobs you wouldn't want in a million years. If this bugs your conscience, do the right thing. Sell your gas-guzzling automobile, get out of San Francisco, or New York, or Seattle, or wherever you are now, move to Montana, and unplug. Create your own sustainable economy and be guilt-free.
I'm not sure what the problem is with sweatshops...
for the people running them, they get cheap labor, and can make a decent amount of money
for the people buying from them, they get cheap assembly, and can use pass the savings on to consumers who are unwilling to pay higher costs
for those working in the them, it gives them* a way to earn much needed money (if they didn't need it that much, would they work at thsoe rates?)
*them or those who control them anyhjow
this is a side effect of a market economy, if there is a way to produce something cheaper, it woill be done.
the only way to solve the 'problem' is to develop cheaper alternatives for production, and more appealing options for the workers
of course, as soon as we get all third world nations are up to wage, safty, etc levels of today's united states, other forms of explotation will be considered horribly unethical (and probably called sweatshops as a metaphor)
....
Need a Catering Connection
Boycotting may work (as may unions), but do you want to take a cut in your standard of living? It's great when people say that they really want the quality of living in third world countries to improve, but I often wonder whether people are willing to take the cut in their quality of living in order to make it come true.
Think of it this way. You boycott, forcing the company in question to pay more for labour overseas, improving their quality of living. However, to do this they need to cover higher costs in the form of wages. They then pass on the additional costs to you, as you've clearly expressed that you do not approve of their current practices. So, prices have gone up. Now apply this across the board to all companies. Two things may happen. First, all companies apply this scenario and prices go up across the board. You now can't buy as much as you used to, making your standard of living decrease while their standard of living increases. You get a warm fuzzy feeling, but can't buy your DVD player.
Two, all companies but one decide to raise their prices due to market pressure. However, one company doesn't and is able to undercut all their competitors. A significant portion of the market would probably buy from them, simply because they're cheaper. So, other companies are forced to cut costs in order to effectively compete (or else go out of business). One way to cut costs is to move to where they can pay lower wages, taking you back to where you were in the first place.
Sweatshops are evil, but do you think the majority of western consumers (who have the money) would be willing to lower their standard of living to eliminate them? I may be cynical, but I think not. People really seem to love their DVD players, iPacs and other gadgets.
This is your life, and it's ending one minute at a time.
At one time in the US you were able to support a family on the wages of a store clerk.
And when exactly was this? Something like a store clerk have always been low paying, low skill jobs. The ones most likely to fill these jobs are kids and single adults. I grant you that if a guy had been there a long time and worked a lot of hours, then he might have been able to support a family. Generally, it's always been the case, that if you wanted to make more money, you needed to move into a job that required a skill and/or had risk involved. The supposed person trying to raise a family on minimum wage is a myth. The large majority of these people are teenagers and students. If someone doesn't have the gumption and desire to learn a trade and just stays a warm body for min. wage, they they shouldn't have a family, IMHO. It's irresponsible.
What has changed? The attitude that it is required to have two incomes. In "The Tightwad Gazette" pp23-24, Amy Dacyczyn addresses this. In many cases, you add up the added expeses for transportation, child care, professional wardrobe, meals, increased taxes, etc., the 2nd income isn't contributing that much unless both of them are in the higher paying 'professional' labor markets. [The ones on the low end may actually need two incomes, but in the past, that meant Dad (or sometimes Mom) worked multiple jobs in order to make sure someone was running the household business. My dad did this for decades] In addition, due to reduced amount of time, people often purchase prepackaged, ready made food & other services which end up costing even more (my wife knows people that spend approx $1500/month in groceries because of this). Over the years the companies & individuals selling big ticket items have recognized that the ones with the mid to high paying jobs have some money left over, so their prices have risen to match. Madison avenue has also fueled some of this with their bigger, faster, more, more, more mindset. Compare the houses in a suburb built 30-40 years ago to some new ones. The newer ones have a lot more square footage and most certainly cost more after adjusted for inflation. The same can be set for vehicles. All of this when the average number of people in a family has gone down.
I guess the point is, that it seems too many people have skewed priorities. Do you want both parents working long hours, but no time with each other & the kids, but have a big new house, big new SUVs, and all the latest expensive toys for the kids? Or do you want to be more modest in your living standards, get by on one income, and spend more time with your family? I know for a fact that it's been better for my family to do the latter. The kids get lots of individual attention from their mom and I and aren't total little shits like many of their peers (as related by their peers' parents). On the flip side, my wife recently wanted to work in a museum to get out & about. Most of what she ears is turned right around and given to someone else. I doubt what's left covers the extra taxes we owe, instead of getting a refund.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
. . . but if the machine has a big Swoosh on the side of the box, or if the wallpaper is a picture of Kathy Lee Gifford, steer clear.
Another proud carrier of the $rtbl flag
Not to mention that two income families effectively doubled the size of the labor pool, which meant that everyone has twice the competition for their position (in theory for higher-end jobs, and in practice for lower-end jobs).
Which is one of the big reasons that real wages didn't increase at all in the US between 1972 and 1995 or so (while the standard of living went way up, primarily due to cheap credit).
I've often suspected that this is why productivity stagnated during that period. When the labor pool is expanding rapidly it makes more sense to hire more workers instead of enhancing the productivity of the existing ones. Real wages didn't increase because they depend critically on productivity. I also wonder if the return to increasing real wages recently is a sign that the labor pool is close to saturated again; if so it's a good sign for wages over the long term.
It seems very odd to me that I've never heard a professional economist say pretty much the same thing. It seems so obvious to me that a large increase in the labor pool coinciding with a stagnation in productivity is no coincidence. I wonder if it's something that they all actually know but are afraid to state publically for fear of being branded male oppressor pigs or something.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
You are not lowering your standard of living by choosing not to buy a particular manufacturer's product. Not only are you raising you standard of living, by raising the quality of your own decisions, acknowledging that you do have a say in your own life and your own decisions. But you are also helping to empower workers, both at home and abroad, the net effect of which is to raise the quality of life for everyone involved.
Have you recently visited an industrialized yet highly polarized third world nation? There is no shortage, I assure you. Without a workforce able to organize and collectively bargain, the fruits of their labor is concentrated in the hands of the priveleged few. This often acts in conjunction with reduced political power, which in turn contributes to the lack of funding for infrastructure that immediately effects these workers. That includes housing, transportation, health, and education. It's not hard to see how reduced bargaining power leads to a potential downward spiral in quality of living. The degree to which persons take an active role in their own well being (and the degree to which the powers that be react against them) directly affect what John Kenneth Galbraith once called "private affluence and public squalor."
I would argue that in an ideal world, people would gain equal utility from spiritual and emotional benefits as from materialistic pleasures. However, I would also argue that most people in a capitalistic society, by definition, put high value on materialistic goods.
Preventing people from buying their DVD players is therefore reducing their quality of living. Also, please note I'm not saying what either yourself or I classify as defining our standard of living. Personally, I put more value on happiness and enjoying what I do than on my salary (I don't even own a DVD player). But, I think most people are highly concerned with what they can buy with their money.
This is your life, and it's ending one minute at a time.
I think an interesting point on sweatshop labor is this: 30-40 years ago, India, Taiwan, and South Korea were all at roughly the same economic status (e.g. very low per capita income, low per capita GDP, etc.). India rejected sweatshops as a means of economic development. Taiwan and South Korea accepted them as a necessary evil. India is still a developing nation. Taiwan and South Korea are rivalling Japan to be the richest country in East Asia. There are few sweatshops in Taiwan and South Korea.
The problem isn't sweatshops; it's poverty. Sweatshops are a mere manifestation of that poverty. Think about it for a moment: if the people in say, Bangladesh weren't in poverty, would they work in sweatshops?
What is the most certain cure for poverty? wealth creation (wealth being liquid assets). The biggest asset of a developing country is the manual labor of its citizens. The country does not have huge amounts of wealth (otherwise, it's not a developing nation), and it doesn't tend to have a high education level, because education is expensive.
What a sweatshop does is, for a very low initial cost, convert that labor into cash. Thus, a middle class gradually starts to appear and grow, eventually reaching a size where education and non-manual jobs become a possibility. As this happens, labor costs go up, forcing sweatshops elsewhere.
You certainly are talking out of your ass. Productivity did go up some during the 72-95 period, but at a much lower rate than it did during 45-72. In the post-war period, productivity was increasing at something like 2.5% per year vs. 1% per year in the 72-95 period. There was much hand wringing about why productivity wasn't increasing as rapidly as it had before, and how Japan et. al. were going to catch us productivitywise. Of course this ignored a number of factors, like a big expansion of the labor pool and the fact that Japan had a big edge in productivity gain because they had started out from so much lower than the US to start out with.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
while the standard of living went way up, primarily due to cheap credit
That's a real good way of increasing your standard of living...go into debt. Every so often I tune into Dave Ramsey on the radio. It's funny. It is common for the show to get a call where the guy's household income is 100K+, but he's broke ($10s of thousands on credit cards, leased cars, etc) w/ no savings. The host will offer him a few free clues (cut up the cards, get rid of the leased cars/SUV and get a cheap MOT, plow the money into reducing other debt, etc). At other times there will be a husband & wife who probably make $25-30K a year calling in because they're happy they saved $6K+ within that year to pay everything off but the house.
What's the difference? IMHO, priorities and the emphasis on the 'status' received by the stuff you own. Unfortunately, that stuff ends up owning you.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
The union leaders & the pols they buy off are certainly better off because of it, so they will tell you yes. IMHO, it's not any different than if a CEO buys one.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
I wonder if it's something that they all actually know but are afraid to state publically for fear of being branded male oppressor pigs or something.
It's not politically correct in the current climate, so I'm sure that's a part of it.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs