Slashdot Mirror


High Tech Misery In China

theodp writes "Think you've got a bad job? Think again. You could be making keyboards for IBM, Microsoft, Dell, Lenovo and HP at Meitai Plastic and Electronics, a Chinese hardware factory. Prompted by the release of High Tech Misery in China by a human-rights group, a self-regulating body set up by tech companies will conduct an audit of working conditions at the factory. In return for take-home pay of 41 cents per hour, workers reportedly sit on hard wooden stools for 12-hour shifts, seven days a week. Overtime is mandatory, with workers being given on average two days off per month. While on the production line, workers are not allowed to raise their hands or heads, are given 1.1 seconds to snap each key into place, and are encouraged to 'actively monitor each other' to see if any company rules are being transgressed. They are also monitored by guards. Workers are fined if they break the rules, locked in the factory for four days per week, and sleep in crowded dormitories. Okay, it's not all bad news — they're hiring."

50 of 876 comments (clear)

  1. Film at 11... by KingAlanI · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Horrible working conditions in China, film at 11.
    Sad that this stuff is so common; let's see if it changes over time as the country develops

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    1. Re:Film at 11... by dintlu · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In the meantime, Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.

      There are plenty of good used electronics peripherals on craigslist and ebay.

    2. Re:Film at 11... by jcr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      let's see if it changes over time as the country develops

      It did in the USA, the UK, and every other country that went through a transition from a mostly agricultural to an industrial economy.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    3. Re:Film at 11... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It did in the USA, the UK, and every other country that went through a transition from a mostly agricultural to an industrial economy.

      Unfortunately, better working conditions aren't retroactive, and the possibility that things will be better in China in a century or so is of no help to the human beings being fucked over right now.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    4. Re:Film at 11... by jcr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't see any reason why it would take a century. Japan and Korea did it a lot faster than that.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    5. Re:Film at 11... by mcvos · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sad that this stuff is so common; let's see if it changes over time as the country develops

      I'm not sure how big that chance is, as long as union protest run the risk of being overrun with tanks. Let's face it, one of the reasons we've got it better is because workers have the right to vote and the freedom to unionise.

      A dictatorship may call itself socialist, but as long as the common worker has no power or freedom, the people in power have no incentive to do anything for them.

    6. Re:Film at 11... by w0mprat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Starting in Victorian England there was substantial labour reform to do away with child labour and improve working conditions. During the industrial revolution people had gotten the idea they could use abuse cheap and underpaid labour in new factories, and got away with it for a while, but this eventually lead to reform.

      Now while I find it plausible the similar scenario of reform may happen in China, I doubt it will happen soon. What has happened to western nations is not necessarily directly transferable to China. But I do believe things may improve, but clearly China's labour conditions are not sustainable, things will change one way or another.

      --
      After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
    7. Re:Film at 11... by digitig · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sad that this stuff is so common; let's see if it changes over time as the country develops

      Unfortunately, capitalism seems to have some characteristics of a pyramid scheme, and latecomers to the party don't seem to have much chance.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    8. Re:Film at 11... by spinkham · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I bought 4 IBM model M keyboards on Ebay 10 years ago, and fully intend to keep using them until I can get a neural implant.
      Buy quality, and buy it once.
      Buy crap, buy it new every year.

      --
      Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
    9. Re:Film at 11... by couchslug · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Unfortunately, better working conditions aren't retroactive, and the possibility that things will be better in China in a century or so is of no help to the human beings being fucked over right now."

      They are still doing vastly better than most Chinese through history. This is the price of progress, and considering Chinas condition in 1948 the country has made amazing progress.

      We cannot compete with them unless we drop our wages and join economic battle the old-fashioned way. There is nothing we can do they cannot do cheaper.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    10. Re:Film at 11... by rtb61 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Every country that has established exploitative labour has never just changed as the country 'er' the minority rich and greedy developed. It has always resulted in extreme violence and in modern times armed conflict. Trade laws need to be implemented that so that a tax is placed upon goods that are produced under conditions that are illegal in the country for whom the goods are intended, you can not have free trade without fair trade.

      The reality is the only way to allow conditions to improve peacefully in countries like China is to force the issue via legislation, either pay for better, less polluted and safer conditions, equal to what is mandated in your own country and the conditions under which you and your industries are forced to compete or, pay the tax equivalent.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  2. Fines... by Daemonax · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Foreign companies that utilize this type of thing should be hit with heavy penalties. This would also encourage them to check working conditions before signing a contract with a manufacturer.

    1. Re:Fines... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Do you want pointless tech gadgets so much you don't care about the consequences of purchasing it?

    2. Re:Fines... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How do I distinguish the $90 one from a humane factory from the $10 one that will be marked up to $90 simply to hide its sweatshop origin?

    3. Re:Fines... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Mod up. I'll believe the argument everything will cost magnitudes more once I can buy my sweatshop $2 NBA Baller Official Nike's for anything less than $100. They use Chinese sweatshops to increase profit not to lower consumer costs.

    4. Re:Fines... by justleavealonemmmkay · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is a dishonest argument. The price breakdown of the $10 item must be around $8 onshore (from product management and engineering to warehousing and retail), $1 for shipping and $1 for slave labour and parts.

      First, I cannot imagine that onshore blue collar work could not produce the item for $10 or less, considering the white collar counterpart cost $8. Economically, this is still a valid reason for offshoring, as your competition has a retail price per item of $10, while you'll be around $20 and bankrupt. But even if manufacturing onshore cost $80, your arguments fail to account for one thing: cost of living.

      If you were to pay the same wages to the Chinese slave as to the onshore unionized blue collar worker, he'd be living like a king. Heck, with their $5 A DAY they (barely) make it. Most probably for as long as they don't get ill, weak, indebted. Suppose they make 100 items a day (probably much more). If they received just 10c per item made, it would double their standards of living. While changing 1% of the retail price. If that buys a "Fair trade" label to the manufacturing company that is correctly publicized, many would buy that instead the keyboards with child blood on them.

      Bottom line: life in the third world is dirt cheap. The equivalent would be to have slaves onshore doing slave work for $500 full time job. The retail price would not magically double or triple, let alone almost decuplate if you paid living wages to the workers. (1)

      (1) I sense a Broken Window in this argument, but I can't make it make sense numerically.

  3. Compared to doing what? by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In return for take-home pay of 41 cents per hour, workers reportedly sit on hard wooden stools for 12-hour shifts, seven days a week. Overtime is mandatory, with workers being given on average two days off per month.

    The alternatives being what?
    Substinence farming or starving?

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
    1. Re:Compared to doing what? by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The alternatives being what?

      Make it easier to consume locally. Stop rigging the currency to be export-pushing.
           

    2. Re:Compared to doing what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And how much does 41 cents an hour buy over there? In the US, of course, 41 cents an hour would never be enough to support you, but Sally Struthers is always telling us that 41 cents will feed a starving kid in Africa for a whole month. Just getting the pay in dollars doesn't tell us much.

    3. Re:Compared to doing what? by gibson_81 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would say subsistence farming is much better than 41 cents/hour in a factory.

      Well, either the subsistence-farmers-turned-factory-workers disagree with you or they are unable to get any arable land for subsistence farming ...

    4. Re:Compared to doing what? by jcr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would say subsistence farming is much better than 41 cents/hour in a factory.

      Say it all you want, but the people who actually have to make that decision seem to have come to a different conclusion.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    5. Re:Compared to doing what? by schnikies79 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not everyone makes the decision, take for instance whole communities relocated by lake created by the three-gorges dam. Many of them were moved to areas so they could be factory workers. They did just fine (and were happier) living off the land.

      --
      Gone!
    6. Re:Compared to doing what? by electrosoccertux · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would say subsistence farming is much better than 41 cents/hour in a factory.

      Let them decide, they prefer to work apparently.

      Also keep in mind every country has gone through an industrial revolution.

      Western Industrial Revolution had the same horrors: Children working in factories 12 hours a day? Check. Children getting so tired they fall into machinery and die? Check. Grownups working 12 hours/day, 7 days/week? Check.

      The thing about China is theirs is going to be over and done with in about 25 years for a total of 35; as opposed to hanging around for 75-100 and morphing into a second industrial revolution.

      You forget to realize that even these conditions are far better than any Chinese would otherwise see. Running, clean water? Dependable food? Shelter to sleep in? They don't get that when they're farming 12 hours a day making barely enough food to survive on.

      The other thing-- in the last 20 years, "extreme poverty" has shrunk from 40% globally to 20%*. That's not your humanitarian aid at work, that's American consumption fueling fewer deaths due to water poisoning, hunger, etc. in third world countries/regions. Why would you take that away from them? Until just recently (with the onset of this recession) Chinese were STILL taking trains to the cities to find a new life, new work, and new pay. That's in spite of all these "horrible work conditions" (by our standards, that we erroneously think nobody would want to work under) all over the place. They're welcome to quit their job and return to farming, but I think you miss how bad they have it farming.

      This knowledge should cause us to stop and consider what we'd be doing before we start taxing trade with the Chinese.

      *Go check out "The Elephant and the Dragon: The Rise of India and China and What It Means for Us All" by Robyn Meredith. She covers all sorts of things like this and provides sound sources to back them up-- IIRC, there were about 30 pages at the back of this book with nothing but footnotes/sources for statistics like this one.

    7. Re:Compared to doing what? by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Say it all you want, but the people who actually have to make that decision seem to have come to a different conclusion.

      Yes, the people who decided to incarcerate people and force them to labor as slaves for the profit of the government definitely came to a different conclusion. Slave Labor is good for the government, so it must be good for the people!

      A lot of the consumer goods that you can buy at the dollar store or the Wal-Mart are made with straight up slave labor, not even the feel-good two-days-off-a-month forty-four cents a day kind of slavery either. The prison camp for your beliefs or just being inconvenient to society kind of slavery. But honestly, isn't it all slavery?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:Compared to doing what? by guyminuslife · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How quaint. You seem to have an odd notion that the people who work 12-hour shifts in horrible factories get to make meaningful decisions about their career paths. Never mind that if you're a subsistence farmer, the Chinese government can seize your land at any time. Or suddenly decide, "Hey, you guys, you're not farmers any more." And if you were born to parents who work in sweatshops...what are you going to do, go out and buy a dozen acres on $0.41/hour?

      --
      I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
    9. Re:Compared to doing what? by CodeBuster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Stop rigging the currency to be export-pushing.

      The United States has been pushing the Chinese government to do just that for years now. In fact, that was why Clinton opened up trade relations with China in the first place, as a carrot to encourage monetary and social policy changes (which has failed completely btw). Good luck convincing the thugs in charge of the Chinese Politburo to give up their fat profits made on the backs of their pool of slave labour. Whenever foreigners criticise them they respond with something like, "you must learn to respect our ways" and if one of their own citizens criticises them then they are thrown in prison and forgotten (indefinite detention, its not just a GITMO thing).

    10. Re:Compared to doing what? by neumayr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      According to http://www.xe.com/ucc/, 0.41USD about 2.80RMB, which bought you about two baozi (the only low-end food source I can remember the price of right now) in Shanghai a few years ago. Outside Shanghai they're sure to be a lot cheaper.
      I'd say you'd need six of those to feed you, your wife, and the one child you're allowed.
      As those people work 12 hours a day, they'd still have 24.60RMB left. Actually enough for some variance in the diet, provided their rent doesn't exceed, say, 500RMB per month.
      I'm pretty sure those worker's families have a, in a material sense, much better life than they could have by relying on subsistence farming, but of course they're giving up one family member for it, and there is no job security whatsoever. These factories often rely on a few customers, and are even more susceptible to market changes than those in developed countries, where no week goes by without one shutting down.

      --
      Truth arises more readily from error than from confusion. -Francis Bacon
  4. Regulation by perlhacker14 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What we are seeing here, my friends, is capitalism gone wild.

  5. Exactly two ways to avoid this stuff by rbrander · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1) Government regulation (and enforcement) setting minimum working conditions.

    2) Enthusiastic uptake of some kind of "no humans were exploited in the making of this product" sticker, in the free market.

    I've found it heartwarming at work that the younger staff are all hugely in favour of "fair trade" products that purportedly don't exploit poor farmers and farm labourers, mostly as applied to coffee and sugar products. The aggressively seek them out and we have people coming from floors around to our "fair trade only" coffee station. We older folks are "for" this stuff as long as you stick it under our noses, shame us a bit, and it doesn't cost *much* more.

    Which it doesn't, of course - that's the pathetic thing about these stories - the conditions in that factory, as opposed to conditions that might not pass muster here but at least wouldn't *disgust* you, are probably scraping $2 off the cost of the $60 "MS Egronomic 4000" keyboard that you could only pry from my cold, dead (non-RSI'd) fingers. I'd be happy to pay $65 if it came with such a sticker...the other $3 paying for the checking and enforcement of the rules from the sticker-issuing NGO.

  6. we need a trade embargo by spiffmastercow · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Okay, so here's the thing.. The rest of the world needs to refuse to do any sort of business with China until business practices are brought in line with at least a minimal respect for human life. It would help Chinese workers because they wouldn't have to endure this kind of shit, and it would help the developed world because our factories wouldn't have to try to compete with stuff produced in this way.

    1. Re:we need a trade embargo by Shajenko42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The US could do this, if China didn't have us under its collective thumb. We can't embargo anybody until we're no longer so deeply in debt to them.

    2. Re:we need a trade embargo by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      its not even about about inability to repay china loans.

      what has us by the balls is that we've GIVEN AWAY our manufacturing. manuf, today, IS FREEDOM. but we forgot that and so we suffer since we are no longer independant.

      a huge great nation like the US once MADE things. I go thru old electronics 'junk stores' and find many really old things that say MADE IN USA on them. the quality is still there to see and in fact, many people seek out the older US-made parts and devices.

      but we gave that way. we can't build things in the US anymore. we are DEPENDANT on china. we are stuck.

      I wonder if obama sees this? bush certainly didn't - he didn't lift a single finger to detach us from the stranglehold of china. if anything, we created MORE sweatheart deals with chinese manuf's over the last 8 years.

      formula for fixing the econ: rebuild our local manufacturing of electronic parts (goodbye chinese 'bad electrolytic capacitors'!), put americans back to work and regain some self respect in this country. stop throwing money at rich bankers, making them even richer. stop throwing money at the entertainment 'industry'. REBUILD AMERICAN MANUFACTURING. its the only way to break free of chinese economics.

      once the US leaves china (if that could ever happen) you'd see a whole bunch of changes happen in china. they'd have to!

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  7. Re:Damn it.. by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It cost you $2.99. What the heck do you think?

    --
    "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
  8. No, totalitarianism gone wild by swb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No, you're seeing totalitarianism gone wild. All of the shitty labor in China is backstopped by the government and its willingness to create political prisoners.

    What really sucked about the Olympics wasn't the smog or anything else, it was the media broadcasting the fake news that China is just another free country. And the west sucked it down.

  9. No surprises here by Dupple · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Capitalism can only work because it thrives on and creates the poor.

    We wouldn't be in the mess we're in without it.

    Call me a troll or flame me, but there has to be a better way than chasing the profit...

    Sustainability perhaps?

    --
    Watch those corners
    1. Re:No surprises here by jcr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Capitalism can only work because it thrives on and creates the poor.

      Thank you for that marxist flashback, you ignorant twat.

      Capitalism is the way out of poverty. Those countries that reject it inflict starvation on their people.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    2. Re:No surprises here by StormReaver · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Capitalism can only work because it thrives on and creates the poor."

      Capitalism works great most of the time, but can easily be abused to bring about situations like this. We hear about the fraction of a percent of abusive companies because it's news that sells. We don't hear so much about the greater than 99% of capitalist companies and individuals that provide good, sustainable products and services (for whatever reason).

      Seriously, do you think that anybody gives even a tiny little rat's ass that I created a small company's data entry and reporting infrastructure for a reasonable price and included full source code so they wouldn't be locked into me as a sole service provider? Does that sound like news that people will care to spend time or money knowing?

      The various news media have long since relied on sensationalism to make money. If you base your world view on what you hear/read from media outlets, it's almost impossible to view the world as anything other than corrupt and beyond redemption. There's a whole other world that doesn't get reported.

    3. Re:No surprises here by evilviper · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Capitalism can only work because it thrives on and creates the poor.

      There were no "poor" before capitalism? That's news. A thriving middle class is in fact a recent phenomenon, arising at the same time as capitalism.

      We wouldn't be in the mess we're in without it.

      No we wouldn't... In the same way that there wouldn't be plane crashes if there weren't any airplanes.

      Call me a troll or flame me, but there has to be a better way than chasing the profit...

      Sustainability perhaps?

      You're not a troll at all, you're just willfully ignorant, yet outspoken. Sort of the opposite end of the spectrum of Fox News.

      By all means, explain your system that works any better than the current system.

      "If there's a new way, I'll be the first in line...but it better work this time." -Megadeth

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    4. Re:No surprises here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, special investment vehicles, debt-backed borrowing, and other moronic financial maneuvers are what got us into this mess, and anyone with half a brain would have been able to realize that the bankers, the investor class, and Joe Sixpack were all deluding themselves into an abyss of debt and imaginary wealth. People that should have known better - that we trusted, wrongly, to know better - and evidently did not dug their own holes, top to bottom, from Wall Street to Main Street. Guess where they are now.

      Blame regulation all you want; garden variety irresponsibility and genuine ignorance are what got us where we are. Regulation can only deter and punish stupid people for doing stupid things, but they're still goddamn morons and they're still going to prove that fools and money are like oil and water. If a person doesn't know how the market works or has no idea where their money is going to go or where it's coming from each step of the way, they have no business participating in the financial system, much less running it.

      It's all well and good until mass idiocy pulls the rug out from under all of us, but if we wrote laws against Unconscionable Acts of Dumb you'd need a prison with its own zip code to handle it all. Laws are written and enforced under the assumption you can actually make an inroads against people doing stupid shit that negatively impacts the greater whole of society, but in times like this their efficacy in that endeavor becomes questionable.

    5. Re:No surprises here by Falconhell · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You simply ignore the fact that it works almost everywhere else neatly dont you? I guess you dont like the facts interfering with your faith.

      We re regulated, and our banks survived without a dollar from the taxpayer so far. How is it working out for the US- $100 billion so far!
      Yeh I can see how well that works.

      Libertarians are as delusional as the religious.

      Flat tax system, you must be joking.

      The only people whom benefit from a flat tax system are the rich.

  10. Re:Well at MY place, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The robot costs what it does, getting it delivered costs extra, electricity costs extra, having someone who can fix the machine if needed costs extra... And even automated robots need someone to give it parts, etc...

    All compared to a few dollars per day per human. I know I wouldn't buy robots there.

  11. Re:Automate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    However, there's no incentive to invest in such technology if the labor rates are low enough.

    IMHO, that's one of the key reasons in favor of a minimum wage - not because minimum wage helps workers directly (some workers do get paid more but others are out of a job) but because it forces technology to be developed that makes the work more efficient. A worker can be paid a lot more in an economy where pushing a couple buttons makes an entire cell phone than in an economy where a day of banging rocks together results in a few sharp pieces of rock to cut the skin off dead animals.

  12. Wrong, it is the capitalism by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Who the hell is supporting this? Dell, IBM, Microsoft... and by extension their customers (you and me).

    Blaming this on the Chinese while still exploiting things is bullshit.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:Wrong, it is the capitalism by cobraR478 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's true. However, the reason that those companies are able to do those things is because of the fact that the Chinese people don't have the necessary power to stop them. They don't have the right to freedom of speech and they don't have the ability to replace elected politicians with others. You can't call your system "capitalism" if you don't have those things. Just because an independent company is involved, doesn't mean its capitalism. That being said, this doesn't justify anything those companies (or we) do. Basically, the problem is that the Chinese government doesn't care about its own people, multi-national companies don't care about the Chinese people, and we (for the most part) don't care about the Chinese people.

  13. This explains why... by MarcoAtWork · · Score: 3, Insightful

    my 'original' microsoft natural keyboard (bought in 1994, still working just perfectly) cost me $250 or so from what I remember, and the latest natural keyboard 4000 I bought for the office was only $60...

    The 'original' says it's made in Mexico, I wonder when the production was moved... I also don't see why keyboards have to be so cheap, it's not like you change it every day: I can totally see myself using this keyboard for another 15 years easily (assuming that in 15 years I can find a ps/2-whatever converter, that is my only worry)

    --
    -- the cake is a lie
  14. History repeats it self. by DrYak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It did in the USA, the UK, and every other country that went through a transition from a mostly agricultural to an industrial economy.

    And by then, as the cost of labor raises with the working condition, instead of building the same hardware in better conditions, the big companies will relocate their production facilities somewhere else where the cost of producing the parts is even cheaper than everywhere else. Probably in Africa.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:History repeats it self. by Xiroth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And by then, as the cost of labor raises with the working condition, instead of building the same hardware in better conditions, the big companies will relocate their production facilities somewhere else where the cost of producing the parts is even cheaper than everywhere else. Probably in Africa.

      Bingo. So the process, over time, does in fact improve living quality worldwide, because it always creates employment among the poorest on Earth (as they are the ones that are cheapest to employ).

      Of course, it also decreases the quality of life in the richer countries by decreasing the amount of employment available in them. This is why I find anti-globalisation protesters so charmingly hilarious - what they are in fact arguing for is to employ fewer poor people and more rich people, which I'm pretty sure isn't what they think they're arguing for.

  15. I need practical sources of good places to shop. by jbn-o · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I prioritize the safety and health of humans above getting a $5 keyboard on NewEgg.com. I don't share your heartlessness which places profit above humanity. As a detail, it costs surprisingly little to make sure humans have a decent living, health care, potable water, food security, a safe place to live, and other things these keyboard assembly workers lack.

    My problem with paying more is that I have no reasonable assurance that the additional money will get to the workers. I don't trust "trickle down" economics but I'm willing to pay more for the products and services I use so that workers get better treatment. If I said to any distributor or manufacturer to charge me more they might do it. But I think they'll keep everything as it is and then pocket the additional money. Not one penny of my money would go toward improving the plight of abused workers anywhere along the chain that gets me my keyboards.

    To me, this is the hard part of an ethical sell on the public. Everyone has a pretty good idea of what a safe working environment is (it's why so many are appalled at the conditions described in TFA), and there's lots of people around the world who can go into well-researched detail to explain more on that (such as Charles Kernaghan's exemplary work; see "The Corporation" for more of his work. It's one of the best movies on this and its relationship to the larger picture of the problem with a system based on satisfying profit-seekers at all costs). As a result, when I watch what the corporate media doesn't want me to read or see, I get lots of talk about what to avoid.

    But I don't know of a simple, practical, efficient guide for the consumer looking for computer parts. I need to buy a few USB compatible-with-everything keyboards I can plug in and use without any additional software. Furthermore, I need to have a reasonable understanding that these keyboards were manufactured and shipped without abuse to the workers. Where do I get these?

  16. Exactly, it's economically feasible to be humane by George_Ou · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Reform happened because it became economically feasible, thanks to capital investment that increased the productivity of labor."

    We would like to think that we ended slavery and nasty labor conditions because we've grown more humane and ethical. The reality is that the wind sail put the galley slave out out commission because it was cheaper to buy and maintain the sails than it is to maintain the slaves. It's cheaper to use machines to use slaves or underpaid workers to mine.

    I always laugh at those star trek or scifi shows where some advanced race is using living slaves to work hard labor. It hadn't occurred to the writers that even in the complete absence of ethics, it just makes no sense to use humans to do brute labor.

  17. Rant your way... by carvalhao · · Score: 3, Insightful

    These kinds of comments that go along the line "we must stop this" and so on are so ignorant of other people's reality that get to the point of being disgusting.

    Believe it or not, people in countries other that yours are not stupid nor masochistic. And tend to choose what they believe it's best for them, no matter how different that may be from YOUR personal choices.

    The reality is that yes, working conditions are miserable. But they are not slaves. They may choose not to work in those factories. It is just that the alternatives are so bad (starving to death, for one... yes, that may seem incredible for you that feel STARVING after going 2 hours without a snack, but people DO starve to DEATH)that working in those conditions is actually acceptable!

    And what is your solution? Penalize the asses out of the companies that operate this way, so that it becomes unfeasable to maintain operation in those countries, condemning the locals to a fate they had chosen not to have because YOUR WELL FED ASS decided what is best for THEM!

    The sheer arrogance is unbelievable...