The Hidden Costs of Bargain Electronics

Fill Dirt writes "Mike Langberg of Knight-Ridder newspapers wrote an interesting article on the the hidden costs of bargain priced consumer electronics. I saw it in the Seattle Times business section with the title Can't lose with bargain DVD player, but low cost carries price ."

Comments

So True

[rhetoric]

(from the article) " If we all stopped buying DVD players tomorrow, conditions in China would probably get worse rather than better." And this folks, is where the real issues can be glimpsed.

Re:So True

[dandelion_wine]

Sad, but probably true. But then leaving an abusive lover could make things worse rather than better -- in the short term. Supporting an oppressive but stable status quo is always safer. That isn't a reason to not try for change.

that article

[dandelion_wine]

was a strange mix of negative comments -- horrific near-slave working conditions in China, coupled with... no S-video output? Cause if it had the S-video connection, I'd be in there!

Seriously, though, as we insist on human rights (never mind fair wages and conditions)as the basis for the entire world, not just our citizens (and not just out mid/upper classes), prices will go up. That's as it should be. We have arrived at a time of unprecedented purchasing power, and have done so at the cost of people we don't have to see or hear on a daily basis. No labour rallies in the streets or our factories, and no one (including my country, Canada) seems willing to cut ties with a powerful trade nation such as China over a little thing like human rights. As long as they're not crushing people with tanks, of course. That upsets the missus.

Re:that article

[Bios_Hakr]

Not sure about Canada, but the US got where it is today by:

1. Stealing land from others.
2. Using slave labour on that land.
3. Cutting down the trees to drive the industrial revolution.
4. Employing child labour to cheaply replace slaves.

Now we want to bitch about other countries doing the same thing? If you LIVE in the US, you are partaking of the fruit made sweet by the sins of our fathers. Even if you are an ultra-PETA-Human Rights-hippie-on-a-reservation, you are still reaping the bounty made avalible from the deaths of countless slaves, children, trees, and animals.

Leave the rest of the world alone you fucking hypocrites. Stop trying to be your brothers' keeper. Just live and be happy knowing full well that in several hundred years China will come arround to our way of thinking....Or maybe we to theirs.

Re:that article

[dandelion_wine]

I agree 100% with your first paragraph, but this is not (for me) about superiority in the marketplace, preventing equalization of an advantage that was certainly ill-gained. If you got that anywhere from my comments, I'd be surprised.

I am, however, not a country, but a person. I am not responsible for what others have done, but I am responsible for what I do, and what a nifty way to avoid responsibility to say that we've done wrong and it would be hypocrisy to act now. I'm not talking about the U.S. bombing anybody. I'm talking about consumers making choices on the basis of something other than their wallet. For those people who have done wrong, it is never hypocrisy to admit mistakes and change, and in this case we're not talking about former slave owners. I'm sorry, but I don't inherit the guilt of my forefathers. I didn't choose to be born here any more than someone chose to be born in China, but that is the root of our responsibility toward change. We are a product of our times; I'm not saying that we in the age of exploration would have done so much better or kinder. But we can. TODAY.

Re:that article

[SoupIsGood Food]

This is a common misunderstanding... the same formula didn't work out too well for the Brazillians. Matter of fact, it didn't work out too well for us... the deep south, haven to slavery and the grossest theft of Native American lands was as close to a third-world backwater as you could find in the industrialized world until the past few decades.

And, if you take a closer look at it, Germany, which didn't have any colonies until really late in the game and couldn't figure out how to exploit them, dominated Europe economically until the first world war, and was probably more than a match for the US on its own. It had no slaves or child labor, but an educated and well compensated working class.

After the Unions took on the Gov't and corporate America to improve working conditions and wages across the board, productivity skyrocketed... we literally buried the fascist societies of the second world war with war materiel, and did so with a sorely depleted workforce as men were mustered to war.

But apart and aside from that, your notion of ethics is peculiar. If it was wrong and evil for "our fathers" (even those of us whose fathers immigrated a generation or so ago) to get ahead using evil means, why is it now acceptable for others to do the same? If you don't find those tactics reprehensible, why bother complaining about them?

We recognize what was done was wrong, and we now wish to make sure other people aren't victimized in the same way. This is not hypocracy, this is a coherent and rational ethical reaction completely consistent with our beliefs. Unless you believe that you should be punished for your father's crimes, which is unethical and hypocritical in and of itself.

SoupIsGood Food

buying more expensive items won't help

[ajagci]

Yes, working conditions in China probably can be poor, even hazardous. But if the fashion industry is any indication, many of the more expensive items are made under similarly bad conditions. With electronics, often, the high price and low price items are just minor variations on the same design anyway.

And what is the alternative? Do you think the Chinese that work in those shops are going to be any happier if you don't buy their products and they are out of a job? If they had an alternative, they'd probably take it.

Europe and the US went through periods of horrendous exploitation and abysmal working conditions before workers demanded, and got, improvements. China will probably follow the same path if given a chance.

Law of the Cheapest

[PRES_00]

Those "hidden" costs (strange, it says made in china on it) exist on most of the electronic appliances we buy. Why should we start worrying now? Even if it had that "made in USA" sticker on it, u might still miss the little disclaimer that says "with parts from -insert poor countrie's name here-. So, even that's not certain.

I'm glad that digital stuff can reproduce media without any loss in quality due to hardware (compared to magnetic mediums).

I would go even as far as encouraging China's non proprietary video format which can be played on royalty-free hardware thus lowering the price even more.

Besides, all the big brand names in digital devices are Japanese. Isn't this outsourcing too?

Dunno bout the "no more mom and pop stores" thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the average joe is fine getting their electronics at WalMart or Kmart or S-Mart or whatever... but some folks (like me) still want to go somewhere there are authorities.

I mean, walk into a Future Shop and ask the minimum wage sales clerk what the difference between two $100 DVD players are and he'll spend 5 minutes studying the boxes, shrug and say "Uh. This one's better." "why?" "uh... it costs more?" or at best just read the features off the box.

I'd rather go into a "mom and pop" or specialty store. Here in Toronto, we have places like Bay-Bloor radio (or in Hamilton, East Hamilton Radio). A little more expensive perhaps, but they really know their stuff - these guys read the manuals on their lunch breaks. And they'll ask you what brand and model your TV is and if you give them a figure, explain what model is the best bang for your buck... or if you'd be willing to spend the extra $50 you could get [brand X] and why its good. Oh, you only have [brand Q] stereo? Well perhaps not this, but this other model since your stereo can't make use of [feature F]

Re:Apex...

[NotAnotherReboot]

Oh, come now, 80%?

I have dealt with a number of Apex players, and even have a Cyberhome player. All of them have functioned without problem.

I have no doubt that a number of them will fail, but, I would be surprised if more than 10% of the total sold are returned defective. The idea is that you get it so cheap that if it does break after awhile, you can buy another and be at the same point. Odds are that the first won't break, and I would wager that the odds of both breaking before the time a player that costs twice as much is lower.

And this is newsworthy?

[Grimster]

So the guy gives a small sum up of how capitalism works and then some vague unsubstantiated arguments that "oh well it'd just get worse" if we didn't buy cheap shit and then that's that.

I don't buy a $30 dvd player, or $119 25 inch tv or a $299 computer expecting quality, I buy it because it's cheap. My 3 year old has a $39 AMW DVD player in his room, it plays dvd's on the 8 year old 27 inch tv I put in there (well 8 years ago I bought it used from a pawn shop, no clue how old it really is) and well, that's about it, if he slides a piece of cheese in there I'm not gonna get pissed about it and he doesn't need optical outputs or S Video or composite or progressive scan or none of that jazz, he wants to see Nemo in bright orange and Spongbob in yellow and he's happy as a clam. Down in the living room it's a Panasonic progressive scan with all the trimmings on a 57" Hitachi wide screem, neither of which are the cheapest (or most expensive) in their class.

My wife's car is a nice mini van with high safety ratings leather seats, blah blah blah. She does a lot of running around and my kid is in there a lot as well, safety is a huge issue and I want them safe in a newish car that isn't likely to break down. My car is a 1997 Geo Tracker beer can on wheels, I put about 3K miles on it per year, I don't NEED a good car, I need a pos I can run to Staples in when I need some blank DVD's. If it breaks down I park it on the side of the road and call my wife on my cell to come get me.

Do I or you need to be told that "cheap stuff tends to be cheap" and furthermore do I need to be told that "working conditions in China aren't good" and that "WalMart doesn't pay employees much"? Sheesh man use a little common sense, this is why #1 I only buy the cheap shit when I have a reason for buying it (as in letting a 3 year old watch DVD's in his room) #2 I am glad I don't live in China, and #3 I'm glad I don't work at WalMart.

Still the part about the name brands and the off brands going down the same assembly line surprised me, oh wait, no it didn't, how many rebadged Lite-On CD's and BTC's marked as Creative or other "big name" brand does one need to see to realize it's often the same cheap shit under the hood?

Re:Pollution?

[dandelion_wine]

I know this sounds obnoxious, but I can't say it better than she can. Read Naomi Klein's "No Logo" if you want an inside look at how the export of manufacturing "aids" developing countries. She makes many technical (but important) observations about how the system is set up to take advantage but not benefit these workers and these countries.

I'll make the simpler argument: you don't support change but supporting the status quo. Employers in the west never volunteered minimum wage, child labour laws, working hour restrictions, etc, etc, etc. It had to be fought for, and these people don't have a voice in the marketplaces where their goods are being sold.

Re:This speaks for itself.

[dafoomie]

China may or maynot be manipulating their currency but isn't it important to note that it positivelly impacts far more American's than it does negatively? That currency benefits ALL Americans, just step into WalMart and think about that $9 toaster or $49 tv.

A trade deficit as massive as ours is with China is never a good thing. Sure we're getting cheap electronics a lot cheaper, but how are you going to afford that $40 DVD player if you're out of a job? And with China keeping their currency low, it makes it almost impossible to export goods into their market, even if otherwise we had a 'competitive advantage'

Short term, yes. Long term?

[sterno]

But the problem is that in a globla economy, production of these items is a race to the bottom. The country that can produce the items for the cheapest wins. Money moves into china because they can make it cheaper than Taiwan or Japan. Then it moves to vietnam, then somewhere else.

The way you win this battle to the bottom is by keeping your costs as low as possible. If you pay people a pittance, give them no health care, retirement, etc, then you can make things cheaper. If they unionize or otherwise try to increase your costs, you move the operation to someplace cheaper.

This is a forumla for making the rich richer and the poor poorer in the long run. That's not good for anybody.

What? No Research before Buying?

[Dolemite_the_Wiz]

If this reporter had done his research he would have known BEFORE entering the store wether or not S-Video or JPEG disc would have worked or not on the Cheap-O DVD Players.

Let's take a look at the models he bought:

1) AMW-S99

http://www.a-mw.com/products/dvd/s99.htm

Nope. I don't see S-Video mentioned here.

2) Sylvania DVL 100C

http://www.funai-corp.com/02_images/dvl100c.pdf

This PDF could have told you that JPEG discs can't be played.

You get what you pay for. If you don't research the products before you buy, then it's your own fault.

Dolemite
_______________________

What a load of rot.

[kyz]

Globalising companies are not expanding to the third world to "send much needed money into the country". They are looking to exploit the quality-of-life and legislative differential between 1st and 3rd world countries. Corporations don't like anti-exploitation, safety laws, environmental protection laws -- it cuts potential profits.

Corporations only exist and only work towards making a profit for their owners. That is all they do. Ethics do not come into it. All ethical behaviour has to come from:

a) the people who directly control the corporation
b) the people who control the environment of the corporation (i.e. the government)

If you live in a 3rd world country, the only way your life will get better when the factory comes is if those in charge (your government, elected or not) demand support for you as a condition of building the factory.

If a government does not demand that corporation build houses, schools and hospitals as part of the factory deal, the corporation won't do it. It's not a charity. It's not an international development agency. It's a corporation. Corporations only exist to make profits for their owners.

The problem some third world countries are having is that they are run by tinpot dictators who will let the corporations rape and pillage their fertile lands as long as the corporation gives them a backhander or builds them a new mansion. I don't like to assign "blame" in these situations, because it's tricky. The corporation is only doing what corporations do best -- get the best possible deal for the cheapest price. The tinpot dictator was probably installed there by the US anyway, so the pitiful serfs are stuck with that until the US empire crumbles.

Slashdot and China just cracks me up

[Anonymous Coward]

I know that making sweeping generalizations based on no evidence whatsoever is a Slashdot tradition, so I take it with a grain of salt. But with worsening economic conditions in the US, it seems that we are seeing more and more resentful misinformation being repeated here. Sometimes it's India, sometimes it's China.

Well, as it happens, I *live* in China. I'm American, and I've lived and worked all over the world. And frankly speaking, when you guys talk about China, 99% of the time you sound like complete and utter morons, or worse yet, complete and utter biggoted racist morons. It depends on the post.

It seems, reading Slashdot (and other American news, too, actually, and even some European papers) that it's quite in vogue to bash China for a) illegally manipulating its currency, b) having slave-labor-like working conditions c) not respecting human rights.

I'm not even going to get into the notion of illegal currency manipulation. As annoying as not being able to freely trade RMB is for me, living here, the currency is China's and they can do whatever the hell they want with it. It always amuses me when we Americans cry "international law", given our track record. International law? What international law? See Iraq. And don't give me an BS about the IMF. We are the IMF, and given the way we're currently being raped by China economically, if we wanted to pull aid or threaten pulling aid or anything like that, we could. That we haven't simply means that it's not in our best interest at this point in time. The only thing close to interational law in the world is the UN, and we've let everyone know in no uncertain terms how much we respect it as a governing body. Or then there's the international war crimes tribunal in the hague which we refuse to support for fear that an American might be brought to trial there. But I digress.

As for slave labor, it's funny that my countrymen are so quick to forget their own history. I'm not even going to get into the actual, institutionalized slave labor that existed here. Let's look at paid workers. Back in the old days, when the US was the libertarian paradise that so many Slashdotters seem to want to go back to, we had child/slave labor, no minimum wage laws, sweat shops, no unions, etc, etc. We worked our butts off for almost no compensation and you can forget about a dental plan. Why? Because we were developing, but we called it something else -- the industrial revolution.

Rich and poor were incredibly polarized then -- the days of the rich yeoman farmer were long behind us, and great cities of the US like New York were built on the sweat of the poor and the oppression of the working class. Deny it all you want, but that's how it was.

Before some idiot starts spouting about how much more free than China the US is, take a good peek in your history books at what happened to the first union organizers in this country. Don't fool yourself, the US was then and is still a plutocracy, where the rich buy power and influence. It's sickening. Sure, we have rights, and I commend the spirit in which they were written, but ask any young African American being harassed by cops in the ghetto what sorts of rights he has.

I used to be a rich little sniveling white boy growing up in the burbs of Silicon Valley, spouting Libertarian rhetoric and talking about how any one, given enough resolve, can work his way up in this great country of ours. And then I went and checked out how the other half lives. Let me tell you, it's not pretty. And the poor are born poor and they die poor, and that's the way of it. Anyone who says otherwise hasn't been there, or at least hasn't bothered to look at the statistics. Did you know that socialist europe has more class mobility than the US?

China is dirt poor, but they are working their asses off to better themselves, just like we did. And one day, mark my words, they will be wealthy, just as we are. And the scarcity of resources on this planet will mean simply that

Feh.

[shepd]

>Globalising companies are not expanding to the third world to "send much needed money into the country"

True.

>They are looking to exploit the quality-of-life and legislative differential between 1st and 3rd world countries.

False. Why do I have to explain Chinese Labour Law to everyone here? No, Chinese law doesn't allow for 16 hour days (Article 36), 12 year old workers (Article 15), forced labour(Article 56) and 5 cents an hour (well, in general there is no minimum wage there, but it'd be a rare sight to find a 5 cent an hour worker).

They may be exploiting the quality of life there, but, as a massive choice, people there have chosen to work at factories than work on farms. The question nobody who wants to denounce globalisation ever wants to ask is Why? Why did they choose to work at a factory than work where they did before? Why? Chinese factories do not go to cities with guns and tell people to work or die. They offer a certain compensation for labour, and people choose to accept it.

>Corporations don't like anti-exploitation, safety laws, environmental protection laws -- it cuts potential profits.

True. However, as a generalisation, most people find a lot to dislike about many laws. So this is really applicable to all, not just corporations.

>Corporations only exist and only work towards making a profit for their owners. That is all they do. Ethics do not come into it.

True.

>All ethical behaviour has to come from:
>a) the people who directly control the corporation
>b) the people who control the environment of the corporation (i.e. the government)

False. You are missing c:

c) The employees working for the corporation.

The Chinese aren't the mindless automatons you may think they are. They have brains. They can reason their way out of situations they aren't happy with. There are no guns held to heads at Chinese factories.

>If you live in a 3rd world country, the only way your life will get better when the factory comes is if those in charge (your government, elected or not) demand support for you as a condition of building the factory.

Yes and no. But I'll take that and run with it:

Life certainly wasn't getting any better before the factory, so if you're suggesting it could, at all, possibly, get better because of the factory, so be it.

>If a government does not demand that corporation build houses, schools and hospitals as part of the factory deal, the corporation won't do it.

False. I'd provide a bunch more links, but I think you can clearly see what you're saying isn't true.

>It's not a charity.

True. Companies will build the hospitals, schools, etc, if they feel they can benefit from it. That's where your wallet (ie: vote) comes into play.

>The problem some third world countries are having is that they are run by tinpot dictators who will let the corporations rape and pillage their fertile lands as long as the corporation gives them a backhander or builds them a new mansion.

Now that is true, and I won't disagree.

However, only the people can fix that problem. No amount of money, wether it be a lack of it, or too much, is going to change that. If every country all of a sudden chose to quit buying Chinese tomorrow, China would not suddenly become a democracy.