Slashdot Mirror


Foxconn May Close Factories In China

ChiefMonkeyGrinder writes "Foxconn, the manufacturer whose clients include Apple, Dell, and HP, is on the verge of pulling out of China after a spate of suicides. The CEO has accused workers of killing themselves for financial compensation, and the company has stopped suicide payments to suicide victims' families. Foxconn's CEO also told investors that it is considering moving its production operations to Taiwan, and automating many parts of its business, a move which could see 800,000 workers lose their jobs."

476 comments

  1. Instead of actually addressing the problem... by sethstorm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    All this will do is just move the problem. Unless they thought having to actually give a damn about those workers was a problem.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    1. Re:Instead of actually addressing the problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All this will do is just move the problem.

      No, it solves the problem as they are moving to ROBOTRON IV are workers are programmed no to commit suicide unless their boss tells them to do so.

    2. Re:Instead of actually addressing the problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Give a damn about those workers...in China? Since when has any company who manufactures their products in China ever really cared about the workers? That's why they manufacture in China, cheap labor they can look the other way at.

    3. Re:Instead of actually addressing the problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, now they will have many robot suicides!

    4. Re:Instead of actually addressing the problem... by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It reminds me of the business that removed the clocks from the waiting room in response to complaints about wait times.
         

    5. Re:Instead of actually addressing the problem... by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, it solves the problem as they are moving to ROBOTRON IV are workers are programmed no to commit suicide unless their boss tells them to do so.

      Those robots will never fit inside a standard sized Suicide Booth so chances are they'll work in those factories until their little robot arms fall off ;-)

    6. Re:Instead of actually addressing the problem... by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      Please don't hold back, tell us how you really feel.

    7. Re:Instead of actually addressing the problem... by wealthychef · · Score: 1

      actually, from the standpoint of getting results, I'm sure that stopping compensating people for committing suicide will reduce the suicide rate. And I agree that a much more effective strategy would be finding out why it is that being dead is better than working at your plant.

      --
      Currently hooked on AMP
    8. Re:Instead of actually addressing the problem... by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

      And I agree that a much more effective strategy would be finding out why it is that being dead is better than working at your plant.

      It probably will support their families for a significant period of time or get them out from under a serious debt.

    9. Re:Instead of actually addressing the problem... by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I think we have found someone who really only cares about themself.

      It seems to be a growing craze these days.

      And to you AC sir, go fuck yourself.

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    10. Re:Instead of actually addressing the problem... by icebike · · Score: 1

      I would say removing death benefits for suicide would go a long way toward fixing the problem.

      This is the most forehead-slapping well DUH! revelation of the whole post.

      Taiwan is not mainland. Education is better. Opportunity is better. People actually quit their jobs there, and get better ones rather than commit suicide to avoid shame of losing/quitting a job far from the farm.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    11. Re:Instead of actually addressing the problem... by L0rdJedi · · Score: 1

      That was the post office. If it were a real business, they would've either gone bankrupt by now or done what's needed to remain profitable.

    12. Re:Instead of actually addressing the problem... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I think your babble-fish implant is acting up on you. Let me translate his post for you. You see, I think you have it set to babbling disgruntled idiot when it should be set to disgruntled outsourced idiot.

      oh oh... my heart's starting to bleed... ok ... wait... wait... ok it's better now. FUCK CHINA AND FUCK CHINESE WORKERS. FUCK FOXCONN EXECS, FUCK IBM EXECS...

      This should really read,

      I had a job with FOCCON once. I loved my job, I loved my employer, I loved what we produced. It was the greatest joy in my life outside of my wife and children. They moved my job to China in order to save some money. I was heart broken when this happened as well as financially ruined and had to file bankruptcy. Goons from credit collection agencies came to my home, they kicked my dog, slapped my wife, raped my computer, and made fun of the kids for wearing last years in style cloths, all before making a sandwich and spilling wine on the new carpet on their way out (yea, that stain will never go away).

      I told them this move to China wasn't a good idea, but they needed to learn through example. I said see, you can't save more money in china, you should have stayed and continued to employ me so I would still have my boat at the marina.

      Oh yea, PS, Fuck you-Fuck you, fuck you!. *!caution- not a work or family "friendly" site.

    13. Re:Instead of actually addressing the problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      um... what's so special about not caring about Chinese workers? Sure, in the States we get healthcare and breaks and vacation... but seriously, no US company actually cares about their workers! Give me a fucking break. It's the same everywhere... if you smile and appear happy, we love you. If you have a problem, personal or otherwise, and bring this to work, or the problem is with work, then we really don't give a fuck about you, never really liked you, you never really fit in here, good luck finding a new job, kthxbai

      the problem isn't with corporations not caring about people, the problem is PEOPLE FUCKING SUCK, and don't give a crap about anything or anyone but themselves (exceptions: the 'good' guys, raising their families right, with love and attention, or any good Samaritan types... good for you, please make more babies).

      If more people were decent, we wouldn't be blaming corporations for their inhumanity.

    14. Re:Instead of actually addressing the problem... by Nikker · · Score: 1

      Doesn't it make you wonder, if these foriegn jobs were moved back to North America then people would have jobs to pay for these products even if the costs for said products increased. While I doubt putting 3/4 million people out of work will some how stem the suicide rate, people overe here need jobs and our industiries are paying everyone else but us to do work maybe if we did the work we could also afford to pay the inflated prices to procure them?

      --
      A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
    15. Re:Instead of actually addressing the problem... by hedwards · · Score: 1

      They might even try compensating the whole factory for every week or month that there isn't a suicide. Basically give everybody a reward for helping to do their part in prevention. Rarely is a suicide genuinely unforeseen, usually somebody sees it coming and for one reason or another looks the other way. Making it a group effort can indeed make a meaningful impact. Not just getting people to speak up, but putting everybody in sort of the same boat to prevent it in the first place.

    16. Re:Instead of actually addressing the problem... by DDLKermit007 · · Score: 1

      Foxconn is a Taiwanese company. Last thing they really need is China becoming more powerful. The moment they do something on purpose to help China push forward, I will be amazed. How China allows stuff like this it is quite amazing to me. It's like the small skinny kid kicking dirt in the bullie's face that's 10x their size over and over. Goes to show ya I guess how far bribing politicians really helps.

    17. Re:Instead of actually addressing the problem... by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately no one really does care but the shareholders and Goldman Sachs. Guess which side they are on?

      I think the Chinese just are used to this and the factory owners there obviously do not care.

      I think we are screwed as this is hte new norm and the only way to fight it is to lower our wages and environmental and safety regulations. We can't stop free trade but we can end our livelihood and wealth thanks to globalization.

    18. Re:Instead of actually addressing the problem... by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      actually, from the standpoint of getting results, I'm sure that stopping compensating people for committing suicide will reduce the suicide rate. And I agree that a much more effective strategy would be finding out why it is that being dead is better than working at your plant.

      The idea behind stopping compensation is that people don't commit suicide because they think being dead is better than working at their plant, they commit suicide because they think being dead + huge compensation payment to their family is better than working at their plant + no compensation payment. Let's compare: Every day your wife tells you that you are a lousy dad and your salary doesn't feed her and the children, but if you killed yourself then they are even worse off -> no suicide. Every day your wife tells you that you are a lousy dad and your salary doesn't feed her and the children, but if you killed yourself they would be able to lead a decent life with the compensation money -> possible suicide.

    19. Re:Instead of actually addressing the problem... by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      The Taiwanese companies are bringing much needed capital, machinery, and know-how to mainland China. Eventually the Chinese will be able to manufacture their own products with their own companies.

    20. Re:Instead of actually addressing the problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me as a local chinese try to get this straight:

      What Foxconn tries to do is NOT pulling out of china, but instead moving to a less urban area of china (though you could argue most places are "countryside" relative to shenzhen.)
      Simply "moving the factories" in itself doesn't sound too good in media, so what Foxconn does in advance of the move is to increase the Shenzhen-based workers' salary by 30-50%, way above the local minimum wage, THEN announce the move, which would signficantly lower the total number of shenzhen-based workers (a cut by at least 60%).
      So in the end, Foxconn still get to apply the same(or even worse) minimum wage standard on most workers, while sounding good in media!

      All that and we still hear workers rushing to Foxconn, because they are like heaven when compares to real sweatshop. Yeah, that's how things work in China.

    21. Re:Instead of actually addressing the problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure that stopping compensating people for committing suicide will reduce the suicide rate.

      So would shooting the little yellow bastards the minute they start looking a bit miserable.

    22. Re:Instead of actually addressing the problem... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, if I thought the whining complaining bitch was going to benefit I might well say sod it, and soldier on till something better turns up.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    23. Re:Instead of actually addressing the problem... by wealthychef · · Score: 1

      If that is indeed the entire reason, then their actions are logical. The next step is to look and see, is Foxconn the only company that pays a "suicide dividend," and if so, do they have the same issue? I mean, if you paid my family a million dollars for me to kill myself, I would not do it. So there also has to be that the worker is otherwise unhappy and unable to provide.

      --
      Currently hooked on AMP
    24. Re:Instead of actually addressing the problem... by wealthychef · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's why I said that stopping compensating people will reduce the suicide rate.

      --
      Currently hooked on AMP
    25. Re:Instead of actually addressing the problem... by Phoghat · · Score: 1

      Give a damn about those workers...in China? Since when has any company who manufactures their products in China ever really cared about the workers? That's why they manufacture in China, cheap labor they can look the other way at.

      Man, it's been the same shit from Genghis Khan on down. When you have 50 gazillion peasants who cares about a couple of million.

      --
      Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
    26. Re:Instead of actually addressing the problem... by OECD · · Score: 1

      Those robots will never fit inside a standard sized Suicide Booth so chances are they'll work in those factories until their little robot arms fall off ;-)

      Which will significantly reduce their suicide success rate. Problem solved!

      --
      One man's -1 Flamebait is another man's +5 Funny.
  2. Poor Planning by Nerdfest · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Killing yourself for financial compensation is a poor long-term business plan.

    1. Re:Poor Planning by hedwards · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Point being? There are places like Gaza where not killing yourself is an even worse business plan. Companies move their operations to China mainly to exploit the cheap labor. The labor being cheap mostly because the Chinese government doesn't enforce labor laws and doesn't give the people their fair share of the profits. Preferring instead to invest it in debt instruments in other countries to keep their wages artificially low.

    2. Re:Poor Planning by A+Commentor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The labor being cheap mostly because the Chinese government doesn't enforce labor laws and doesn't give the people their fair share of the profits.

      First part about the labor laws, seems like a valid complaint. But the second part, about 'fair share of the profits'. Where does that come from? As an employee, you are getting paid for the work you are doing not any profit that is made. If you want to get a share of the profits, you need to be a share holder. Some companies do offer 'profit-sharing', but that definitely not the norm.

      --

      Looking for any old 8-bit Heathkit/Zenith software/hardware - http://heathkit.garlanger.com

    3. Re:Poor Planning by Rosyna · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sacrificing yourself so your family can get financial help seems to be the motive. In which case, stopping payments for suicide would remove the motive.

      Probably why life insurance companies don't pay out on suicide.

    4. Re:Poor Planning by couchslug · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Killing yourself for financial compensation is a poor long-term business plan."

      Depends on your cultural POV.

      In China, families and groups matter while life is historically very cheap. Consider the custom of "human wave" military attacks during the Korean War. Chinese soldiers quite bravely flung themselves at their objectives, sometimes winning, sometimes not, but often being shot down in droves.

      We are used to a future with hope, which we consider perfectly normal. The rest of the world is by and large a hellhole where dying to benefit ones family may be a good call.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    5. Re:Poor Planning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      financially its genius: no more costs for the rest of your life!

    6. Re:Poor Planning by mr+exploiter · · Score: 1

      First part about the labor laws, seems like a valid complaint. But the second part, about 'fair share of the profits'. Where does that come from? As an employee, you are getting paid for the work you are doing not any profit that is made. If you want to get a share of the profits, you need to be a share holder. Some companies do offer 'profit-sharing', but that definitely not the norm.

      I think you don't understand. What he means is not that employes should have to earn automatically a certain percentage of profits, but that their wages should have some relation to the profits they are generating. In an ideal capitalist economy, each person should gain according to the added value they generate. If the factory profits are much above what the workers earn, it's probable that something is very wrong, and that something may be the causes of the suicides.

    7. Re:Poor Planning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First part about the labor laws, seems like a valid complaint. But the second part, about 'fair share of the profits'. Where does that come from?

      (Posting AC because I already moderated this discussion) Note the color of the Chinese flag. That color represents a philosophy of government based exactly on the fact that the workers are entitles to a 'fair share of the profits'.

      A bit ironic that a nominally communist state running a robber baron for of capitalism that may well be worse than anything the US has experienced in its history.

    8. Re:Poor Planning by Kyusaku+Natsume · · Score: 1

      By law in Mexico if a company or business post a profit in their tax reports a percentage goes for all the workers. I suppose that the same goes for many european countries. Even if the law doesn't force you to do it, it is a good practice to do it anyway since it is an incentive for the workers and employees to do a better job.

      --
      Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
    9. Re:Poor Planning by korean.ian · · Score: 1

      How could anyone post that kind of unmitigated trash with a straight face? The rest of the world is not full of dragons, and dying to benefit ones family has never been a call that rational individuals would make.

    10. Re:Poor Planning by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I could agree with that concept only if the employee would also have to dip into their savings and pay for the losses the company sees during down turns.

      If the concept is not bilateral, then it's broken and will cause too much harm.

      Right now, as an employee, you have the option of working somewhere else if the pay isn't good enough for the job you are required to do. Basing pay expectations on profit or markup is the reason why the US government had to bail our GM and the banks. It leads to one sided overpayments with threats of making things worse in times of need for the company.

    11. Re:Poor Planning by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      The labor being cheap mostly because the Chinese government doesn't enforce labor laws...

      Yes.

      ...and doesn't give the people their fair share of the profits.

      Ask any worker, isn't this the case in most countries/companies?

      Also, don't forget purchasing power. If your expenses are only a fraction of what they would be in the US, then it wouldn't really matter that you only got paid a fraction of what a US worker would make.

    12. Re:Poor Planning by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      In an ideal capitalist economy, each person should gain according to the added value they generate.

      There is a word for a system where workers who produce value, rather than parasitic shareholders and bankers and landlords, are the ones who gain. That word is most definitely not capitalism.

      If the factory profits are much above what the workers earn, it's probable that something is very wrong

      I agreee; but as this is the case in most big companies, that principle leads us to conclude that something is very wrong with the whole concept of industrial capitalism.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    13. Re:Poor Planning by johnsonlam · · Score: 1

      When you know the future is dark and hopeless, and working only let you get weaker day by day, and you can't do a thing, complain is useless, no one can or will help you since the "white terror" in China. Suicide for a large sum of money is a plan, there is no "long-term business" since everything is moving fast in China, including corruption or bureaucracy, people in western world is very hard to imagine, that's why you still talk about "long-term".

      --
      Hong Kong - International Joke Center (after 1997-06-30)
    14. Re:Poor Planning by Wildclaw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Some companies do offer 'profit-sharing', but that definitely not the norm.

      Of course not.

      Rule number one in any Aristocratic system is that you need to suppress the worker class, since otherwise they may start to get strange expectations, like actually getting a greater part of the wealth production that they are actually responsible for.

      And if there is one thing you don't want in an Aristocratic system, it is to have those who actual produce the wealth, starting to question those at the top leeching.

    15. Re:Poor Planning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I could agree with that concept only if the employee would also have to dip into their savings and pay for the losses the company sees during down turns.

      So the salary cuts across the board in this recession do not count?

    16. Re:Poor Planning by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      We have companies in the US that do that same thing. It's called profit sharing and it's a bonus paid on the amount of profits the company makes. Generally, the sharing portion is increase for tenure rather then position and it's an excuse used to pay less on a base pay then what one might expect.

      There is a company locally that does this very thing. When the economy went south, so did their profits. This took people making between $65k and $90k a year and dropped them to $35-40k a year salary depending on overtime(yes, salaried people at this plant get overtime). Roughly 2/3rd's of their employees are fighting something either in or about to be in repossession or foreclosure. This is big news around town as when the economy and business was good, they expanded to being one of the largest employers in town.

      Of course this didn't effect me as I didn't-don't work there. But I know a lot of people who have and it's worse for them then getting fired and taking a lower paying job. It's like they are put in the poor house (I know, 35k is not exactly poor, but it's about a 40-60% cut or better for some which can make a well off person feel poor really quick), then expected to work their asses off. This is because they are still expected to perform the same at half the yearly compensation as they did when things were good.

    17. Re:Poor Planning by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Salary cuts across the board would only count as profit went down. If the company is running at a loss, then it's paying from savings and under the scheme where the employees are entitled to profits, they should also be obligated to losses.

    18. Re:Poor Planning by tftp · · Score: 1

      dying to benefit ones family has never been a call that rational individuals would make.

      Nobody claimed that those individuals were perfectly rational. Quite possibly they were suffering from depression.

    19. Re:Poor Planning by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      Probably why life insurance companies don't pay out on suicide.

      On the contrary, they will pay if the policy has been in force for two years first -- at least in the states I have direct knowledge of (but I believe it is generally done this way even if NOT required by state law).

      Mal-2

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    20. Re:Poor Planning by korean.ian · · Score: 1

      The GP's use of the term "good call" assumes a certain amount of rational thinking involved, i.e. the ability to judge good from bad.

    21. Re:Poor Planning by JLF65 · · Score: 1

      That's the point of having a COMPANY as opposed to a private business - NOBODY is obligated to pay when a company runs in the red. If it goes on too long, the company goes bankrupt, but the employees, workers and execs alike, but pay anything (unless there was malfeasance by execs, at which point they MIGHT be held responsible).

    22. Re:Poor Planning by icebraining · · Score: 1

      They already pay by working. If you pay less than the value of their work, they *are* participating in the losses.

    23. Re:Poor Planning by bendodge · · Score: 1

      While it's hard to say if these people had altruistic motives for committing suicide, I'm really tired of hearing them called "victims." They are not. Suicide is about the most selfish thing you can do.

      Years ago the American press treated suicide as something dishonorable. After newspapers started taking a sympathetic tone, US suicide rates skyrocketed*. Let's stop pretending that suicide is noble. It isn't. It's cowardly and selfish when you do not want to face your reality. Millions of courageous people overcome horrible circumstances and better their world. Suicide "victims" just quit.

      *Source FYI I haven't read that article in years, just remember the basic premise...

      --
      The government can't save you.
    24. Re:Poor Planning by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      I could agree with that concept only if the employee would also have to dip into their savings and pay for the losses the company sees during down turns.

      Excuse me, but where don't they do that anyway? Does GM keep people employed at the same lousy pay when they sell less cars, or do the lay off some and pay the rest less?

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    25. Re:Poor Planning by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      I don't think they want money. Their wages were increased more than once because it wasn't working. More money or not doesn't matter when you're working an ass load of hours and are simply burnt out. Rather than pay more money why couldn't Foxconn cuts hours?

      Their wages are peanuts and that shows by the fact Foxconn was willing to nearly double them. Their wages may be decent now but again for ages and sleeping at your post isn't healthy and needs to be rectified. Foxconn will just move the factory elsewhere, pay the same wage and enslave some new people until they get upset.

    26. Re:Poor Planning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it's not so much about a 'fair share of the profits' but about being treated equitably.
      I say this as an employee who saw his salary get cut 5% in 2009 even though the corporation was making, and has continued to make, a net profit.

    27. Re:Poor Planning by RichiH · · Score: 1

      If the one child policy in China did not lead to a usual family constellation of four grandparents, two parents and one child, your statement would actually make sense.

    28. Re:Poor Planning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Killing your manager" is a far better business plan.

      Wait for it. The CEO doesn't "get it" right now, he'll "get it" later when a riot breaks out in his factory because he's laying off people, his 2nd and 3rd in command end up dead, the factory is taken over, and he's got the option of either losing it or letting the chinese military clean it out and pick it for whatever they want.

    29. Re:Poor Planning by hedwards · · Score: 1

      I don't really know how to respond. You accept that the Chinese government doesn't enforce labor laws that keep their own people from making a living wage, but you don't believe that there's a right to a fair share in the profits. That's a really bizarre position to take.

      The workers is where all the profits come from in the first place and most of these companies wouldn't be making money at all were it not for withholding the portion needed by the workers to have a reasonable lifestyle. It's uniquely bourgeoisie to suggest that what the workers get is by some sort of benevolence on the part of the corporation rather than the other way around. Were there no workers to work in these factories, there would be no return on investment and as such no profits. I think that's a pretty strong basis for establishing a right to some of the profits. Corporations and individuals who ignore that principle tend to go out of business quickly. Or at least they would if not for corporate welfare and government interference in organizing.

    30. Re:Poor Planning by sjames · · Score: 1

      Of course, if the situation for a fully employed person is so dreadful that they become desperate enough to kill themselves in order to support their family, there are already much larger problems.

    31. Re:Poor Planning by sjames · · Score: 1

      You also did a decent job of describing WWI era trench warfare.

    32. Re:Poor Planning by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Obviously, you haven't been paying attention to the news over the last couple of years. Yes, GM did keep people employed when their cars weren't selling, that's why the government ended up buying them out.

      Anyways, laying people off isn't the same here. That's because the work isn't being done. If you expect part of the profits, then you need to expect part of the losses. And if part of the profits is conditioned on working, then the losses need to be too. Otherwise it's a broken argument that only serves to benefit one side.

    33. Re:Poor Planning by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      That's nice and all, but there is a break even point where profits become nothing then losses incur. You can't inflate the value of your work and call it a loss just the same as the company cannot inflate the value of the car or TV or whatever, sell it for less then claim all the profits are lost. If the employees demand the profit, then they should be obligated to the loss- and not just metaphorically or by some reason of logic. I can say the value of my time is worth 10 million dollars an hour- therefore this reply has netted a loss of $200k.

      Yea, it sounds a little silly put that way.

    34. Re:Poor Planning by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Well, no. A private business can be a company and vice versa. You are thinking of incorporation which while similar and coming from the same roots, it legally different.

      Now, I'm not going to get into what a corporation verses a non-incorporated business can do or not do. That wasn't the point. The point is that equable fairness would indicate that if you are capturing more of the profit then what is willingly surrendered (IE, base salary), then you will also incur the costs of losses.

      BTW, when a company- incorporated or not, starts taking losses, what determines if it is bankrupt or not is the amount of leverage against it's assets and the ability to recover. So when a company has a year where they operate at a 5% loss (costs 5% more to operate then they took in), they are not just magically not paying or creating money from thin air. They are dipping into savings or taking loans out (with interest) using the company's assets as collateral. They are (the company) obligated to pay if they want to stay in business or avoid charges of malfeasance or misconduct. Being incorporated doesn't dissolve someone from liability or obligation, it separates liability and obligation they incur verses those outside of their control and allows what is outside of their control to be negated as far as the personal side is concerned.

    35. Re:Poor Planning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... let the seasonal worker direct the business decisions of Con-Agra? If the workers don't like it there, don't work there, or start your own Agribiz. Or....

      Starve. But starve quietly. I'm thinking.

    36. Re:Poor Planning by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      Probably why life insurance companies don't pay out on suicide.

      I thought the reason would be that by killing themselves the insured person would intentionally create the situation where the insurance has to pay, same as a fire insurance won't pay if you set your own home on fire. Always wanted to know: When a person with life insurance is murdered, can the insurance company sue the murderer for the money they have to pay out?

    37. Re:Poor Planning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even though I agree that there is plenty of leeching, I do not think that there ought to be laws dictating compensation.

      In a free market economy parties enter an exchange out of their own volition and for their own benefit: a worker is selling his labor at a price he deems appropriate to an employer that also deems it appropriate for the work needs to be done. If any one of them did not consider the exchange beneficial, then they would not have entered it.

      A worker is not entitled for any profit beyond what was agreed upon whence the exchange commenced. Just because someone has amassed some capital does not grant others any dibs on it, since if you start codifying such thing in law, then you are weakening property rights and it is a slippery slope from there towards the destruction of productivity and a socialist utopia.

      To give a very simple example: say I worked for the past ten years for some big company, during which I've saved a little fortune through underconsumption. Now, using the capital I have saved, I open my own business and hire a secretary to handle the phones. At the beginning of our exchange I've clearly specified what the salary and benefits would be, and no profit sharing was part of the agreement.

      Now, if the business does well and there are profits, am I a leech because the secretary does not get a direct cut of the profits?

      I could carry on this discussion into the domain of the minimum wage as well, but I think Milton Friedman explains it very eloquently in this video.

      Now don't get me wrong, I do think that there should be worker protections in place such as maximum number of hours per day, regular breaks, and holding employer liable in workplace accidents (not suicides).

      What's really necessary here is more competition to Foxconn by other businesses that would bid up the price of labor, thus reducing the "Aristocratic" profits. So, show me any artificial barriers for entry imposed by government, or an official bribed by Foxconn to create such barriers, and then we have something to talk about :)

    38. Re:Poor Planning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's a very uplifting story. thank you for assuaging my good-life-guilt.

    39. Re:Poor Planning by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      And yet, the executives who are responsible for the downturn instead get bonuses for the "profit" their lay-offs cause.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    40. Re:Poor Planning by John+Marter · · Score: 1

      The one child policy is not quite so simple. If both parents are an only child then they can have two.

    41. Re:Poor Planning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given it's the same reason you have suicides in the Middle East, at least the Chinese aren't setting off a bomb at the same time.

    42. Re:Poor Planning by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      It may be that the suicides are mostly not due to insurance at all. The suicide profit motive mostly sounds like bullshit by people who can think of nothing in terms other than money to me. If you lived in a prison like environment, wearing uniforms, not leaving the factory compound even to sleep, or eat, far away from home, your sense of self esteem would be diminished. In that case it is hardly surprising the suicide rate goes up.

    43. Re:Poor Planning by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      "profit" their lay-offs cause.

      A more appropriate word might be preserve instead of cause.

      Anyways, I do not see the problem with layoffs when the sales don't create the need for the labor. It's simply an issue of demand and meeting it.

    44. Re:Poor Planning by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 1

      Rule number one in any Aristocratic system is that you need to suppress the worker class, since otherwise they may start to get strange expectations, like actually getting a greater part of the wealth production that they are actually responsible for.

      Nothing stopping any of them from starting their own business. Oh right, you want the money without the risk? Sorry, only wannabe aristocrats try to set up a system like that, commissar.

    45. Re:Poor Planning by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 1

      I always thought suicide was failrly common in China, I recall reading stories about young girls killing themselves to make a point, and being more successful than usual about it because of the prevalence of agricultural poisons. Killing yourself for your family is kind of a step up from that.

    46. Re:Poor Planning by phoebe · · Score: 1

      See "Charge of the Light Brigade" and "Battle of the Somme", charges were incredibly fast and successful tool of war before the automatic rifle. It's usage from WW1 and after is only due to old knowledge of poor generals.

    47. Re:Poor Planning by Wildclaw · · Score: 1

      Nothing stopping any of them from starting their own business.

      lol.

      You actually think a worker in China can manage start a business without capital. You know, the same capital that is owned by the nobles.

      Sure, in countries like the US, there is a chance of being able to lend capital, so you can become a small business renter (small business owner is an oxymoron). That way you can work your ass off to pay the nobles their rent.

      And if you are really lucky, you may even be among the small percentage that manage to grow a business and start building their own capita. But it is far more likely that you will work your ass off, and either stay small with just as bad a salary that you had before you started renting your business, or worse lose everything.

      And if you fail it is of course your own fault, so says the noble class. Really, the "start a business" excuse makes me sick because it nothing more than a sweet lie. Statistics shows it a lie, and yet you hear it repeated again and again.

    48. Re:Poor Planning by RichiH · · Score: 1

      Ah, didn't know that. Thanks.

    49. Re:Poor Planning by aethera · · Score: 1

      True, but on the other hand, there is at least some small segment of the upper class that realizes that if they suppress the working class too much or leech a way too much wealth, they and their peers may finds themselves with a nose to the floorboards view of a guillotine. It seems like our current cohort of elites may have forgotten this lesson, though their are certainly a few like Gates, Soros and Buffet who recognize the warning signs. I am not, by the way recommending this option. Though in turns of income I'm probably working class or low middle class, by virtue of being white, male and educated the prospect of a serious worker uprising in this country wouldn't work out too well for me or my family.

    50. Re:Poor Planning by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Yes that's right "human wave", exactly like the Americans in World War Two running up a beach in France.
      Now do you understand how you've managed to offend just about everyone?

    51. Re:Poor Planning by dbIII · · Score: 1

      When you have so many people EVERYTHING is common in China. With the US at 300 million people now you'll start to see the same thing at home.

    52. Re:Poor Planning by Kyusaku+Natsume · · Score: 1

      A really poorly designed pay system since it only works on really good times. Bonuses shouldn't never be more than a third of the expected income. I would hate to be in the managers or workers shoes. I make around those 35k, but in Mexico, an income like that makes you "rich" and on bad towns, a prime target for kidnaping. I work for an state owned company, those don't do by law profit sharing since in theory the profits go to the state coffers (being Mexico... well,.. Mexico, you can get the idea to where they are really going), but on the plus side we have all the benefits that workers should have according to our legislation and many benefits better than that.

      --
      Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
    53. Re:Poor Planning by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 1

      Really, the "start a business" excuse makes me sick because it nothing more than a sweet lie. Statistics shows it a lie, and yet you hear it repeated again and again.

      Oh quit whining. China has a small but growing middle class, and as jobs increase so will pay and awareness of working condition. Its a process, not an end result. Statistics show that most small businesses fail, well guess what, its really, really hard to start and run a business, so those who succeed at it deserve awards beyond that gained by joe union. Nevertheless there is STILL nothing stopping joe union from trying it himself.

      Meanwhile, jack up the inheritance taxes. A governments job should be to lower the barriers to success, not increase the penalties for it.

    54. Re:Poor Planning by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Let's stop pretending that suicide is noble. It isn't. It's cowardly and selfish when you do not want to face your reality. Millions of courageous people overcome horrible circumstances and better their world. Suicide "victims" just quit.

      I'm guessing you've never faced actual clinical depression. Saying what you did there is a bit like telling people in a wheelchair they should just fucking walk. Please think twice again before being a cold-hearted bastard.

    55. Re:Poor Planning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In China, families and groups matter while life is historically very cheap. Consider the custom of "human wave" military attacks during the Korean War. Chinese soldiers quite bravely flung themselves at their objectives, sometimes winning, sometimes not, but often being shot down in droves.

      What would've happened to those that refused?

      If I tell someone, say, that they will be killed and their family as well, including not just their wife and children but also their parents, grandparents, grandchildren, uncles and so on, then chances are that they'll face even certain death to avoid this. At least they'll save their family, right?

      The idea that someone, even in China, would commit suicide just to collect some money is pretty preposterous. I don't want to completely rule it out, but it's a very strong claim that requires very strong evidence, certainly more than "in China groups matter but individuals don't, everybody knows that".

    56. Re:Poor Planning by Wildclaw · · Score: 1

      Statistics show that most small businesses fail, well guess what, its really, really hard to start and run a business,

      Yeah, keep making up excuses. But don't expect those with some real life experience to actually believe it. Running a small business is about contacts, luck and hard work (and generally in that specific order). Only 1/3 of that combination has anything to do with deserving anything.

      Meanwhile, jack up the inheritance taxes. A governments job should be to lower the barriers to success

      How is capitalism lowering barriers to success when 9 out of 10 fails? Looks like you are just talking out of your ass now.

    57. Re:Poor Planning by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 1

      Yeah, keep making up excuses. But don't expect those with some real life experience to actually believe it. Running a small business is about contacts, luck and hard work (and generally in that specific order). Only 1/3 of that combination has anything to do with deserving anything.

      Speaking of excuses, the real failures are those who like to sit on their hole and complain about how its everyone else's fault that they couldn't succeed. Pointing out the many successful business startups means nothing to this kind of mindset, its always "the system", "capitalism", "tha man", whatever. And these are usually the first with the hand out to try to extort as much as possible from those who did take the risks, those who lost out several times before eventually winning.

      How is capitalism lowering barriers to success when 9 out of 10 fails? Looks like you are just talking out of your ass now.

      Capitalism is what people do when you leave them alone. Regulation is important, social safety nets are important, but you don't get to succeed based on a statistic, you are not owed success by anyone. For someone spouting off about "real life experience", you don't seem to have much.

    58. Re:Poor Planning by vijayiyer · · Score: 1

      GM paid people 90% of their base salary to sit at home while plants idled.

    59. Re:Poor Planning by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      The pay scheme has been around since the mid 1970's or so and wasn't really a problem until after 2000 when the company invested into new machinery that realized more of a savings then they thought would. Before 2000 or so, the profit sharing was roughly 20% above base pay depending on a number of things. However, it has shot up ever since and is now more then 50% in some cases. They knew there was problems with it but couldn't really change it because the employees were getting used to the increase in pay. There isn't a union, this pay scheme was actually used to head one off. The idea was to take care of the employees based on them taking care of the company which got rid of most of the negative notions a union brings to the table. But the employees are tightly knitted and would form a union to strike if they thought it was necessary. They just found themselves in a no win situation and the company has been open with the books so the employees know their "profit sharing" isn't being pissed into some investment scheme. A local accounting firm audited the books about a year ago and published the interestingly- non interesting stuff in the papers. It seems it's just a slump in sales because of the economy.

      Mexico is a very different place then where I'm used to. I ave heard the stories though. In Ohio (the USA), $35k is about average pay for non entry level- medium skilled- semi rural labor in a factory environment. It's not rich, but it is comfortable for most when they aren't used to the 40% more. It's hard to feel bad for them but the local papers run stories all the time about how the down turn caused someone to lose a house or how it's not the management's fault (it's the economies) so we have all the opportunity in the world to grab an opinion on it.

    60. Re:Poor Planning by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      In a free market economy parties enter an exchange out of their own volition and for their own benefit: a worker is selling his labor at a price he deems appropriate to an employer that also deems it appropriate for the work needs to be done. If any one of them did not consider the exchange beneficial, then they would not have entered it.

      We live in real world, not in a dream. There's no such thing as a "free market" here.

    61. Re:Poor Planning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forget that about a billion people are still living in the old school communist China. Its a lucky 300 million who get to live outside of those rules.

    62. Re:Poor Planning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You imply there is coercion, that the workers could not have remained in the countryside.

      Either that, or you are being a wise-ass while adding no substance to the discourse.

    63. Re:Poor Planning by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      You imply there is coercion, that the workers could not have remained in the countryside.

      No, I don't imply that. I imply that employers can (and, when given the possibility, do) collude, not in the open, but by tacitly adhering to a single code of conduct with respect to their employees, to drive wages down and work hours up - which had been amply demonstrated in western countries back in 19th century. It was not until trade unions fought and won the battle to get government regulate the industry that work conditions improved to the point of basic human decency.

      Comparing to "working in the countryside" is not the point. Yeah, it's worse in the countryside - so what? The point is that companies exploiting workers in China reap huge profits from doing so - profits that come from value that is generated by those same workers! - and hoard most of that for themselves, when even sharing even a little bit more could substantially improve the quality of living for all those workers.

  3. Psst... Hey China.... by LibertineR · · Score: 1

    You gotta make it look like an accident. Ya think with all the pirating you do, you might have gotten ONE episode of The Sopranos?

    1. Re:Psst... Hey China.... by naz404 · · Score: 1

      Many people gave their lives just to bring you the iPhones and iPads! Treasure these devices!

    2. Re:Psst... Hey China.... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      So, many Bothans -- er, Chinese -- died to bring us this information appliance?

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
  4. Instead of suicide bounties from Foxconn exec's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    How about bounties for Foxconn executives?
    [/joke]

  5. The Happening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems people at Foxconn inhale air from The Happening http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0949731/

    1. Re:The Happening by Yvan256 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      The Happening sucked. But it sucked ten millions times less than Battlefield Earth.

    2. Re:The Happening by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      You must be a rapist or some other kind of criminal to question the fruits of Scientology. ;)

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
  6. So.. factories are *moving* within china by zippthorne · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Taiwan = RoC: Republic of China
    Mainland China = PRC: People's Republic of China...

    And that doesn't even consider the eventual reunification that *both* sides desire. (although the desired terms are wildly different...)

    Anyway, I know it's great to have people employed, but if it can be automated, why wasn't it before now? The more tedious jobs we can do with machines, the more people are freed up for other things.

    You can't transition to a "post-scarcity" economy without putting a few people out of work, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be a goal.

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    1. Re:So.. factories are *moving* within china by sethstorm · · Score: 1

      Anyway, I know it's great to have people employed, but if it can be automated, why wasn't it before now? The more tedious jobs we can do with machines, the more people are freed up for other things.

      You incorrectly presume that there is a something else, that they can move to that in a short enough time, and that they want to do so.

      --
      Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    2. Re:So.. factories are *moving* within china by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      You can't transition to a post scarcity economy at all without heavy wealth redistribution.

      Otherwise the economy tears itself apart in the transition, which is where we are now.

    3. Re:So.. factories are *moving* within china by B4RSK · · Score: 1

      Anyway, I know it's great to have people employed, but if it can be automated, why wasn't it before now? The more tedious jobs we can do with machines, the more people are freed up for other things.

      Why wasn't the work automated? Cost. It's cheaper to pay $130/month for a human to do the work than it is to invest millions in factory automation.

      This can be true even in developed countries. I worked for a German company for several years. This company produced very small items that needed to be packed in boxes of between 50 and 500 pieces. It was possible to automate the work but even considering German wages it was cheaper to pay humans than to buy machines.

      --
      Some people are like slinkies--basically useless but they bring a smile to your face when pushed down the stairs.
    4. Re:So.. factories are *moving* within china by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

      I think in the past its been cheaper to do everything by hand and not with a machine. Since Chinese people have been growing spines (example - the Honda plant situation where workers were pissed Japanese employees made 30 times what they did for the same work...) we're probably looking at the begining of the end of cheap Chinese labor and thus now the need to a) find a cheaper place to fullfill the ever bottoming ratchet of cheap labor we are addicted to or b) automate more with machines.

    5. Re:So.. factories are *moving* within china by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't transition to a post scarcity economy at all without heavy wealth redistribution.

      Otherwise the economy tears itself apart in the transition, which is where we are now.

      Is that the latest wackademic gobbledygook that's being used to justify taking wealth from productive members of society so all-knowing goverment bureaucrats can bribe stupid voters with bigger welfare checks, or "free" health care?

      Let's go broke spending other people's money! Greece here we come!

    6. Re:So.. factories are *moving* within china by Runaway1956 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "but if it can be automated, why wasn't it before now?"

      Two words. "cost effectiveness"

      In the United States, investing in a fleet of robots can be cheaper than supporting a hundred workers. In China, you can employ an ARMY of workers, for the investment required for a single robot.

      This is the reason so many corporations are moving to China - not to help the Chinese who need jobs, but to make as much profit as possible, for as little investment as possible.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    7. Re:So.. factories are *moving* within china by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Taiwan = RoC: Republic of China
      Mainland China = PRC: People's Republic of China...

      And that doesn't even consider the eventual reunification that *both* sides desire. (although the desired terms are wildly different...)

      You really open a can of worms with that one. You're right that a significant minority want unification if differences could be resolved, but this is not a common goal. For instance, my wife is Taiwanese, and she and her family do NOT want unification. The previously elected president Chen Shui-Bian was the first president in the current government not from the Kuomintang party but from the DPP, a party that is pro-independence. Even the current president from the KMT, Ma Ying-Jeou, likely does not want unification, but rather stronger economic ties. Most Taiwanese favor the status quo-- de facto political sovereignty without severing ties with China by formally announcing independence (source).

      So, no, the factories are not moving within China.

    8. Re:So.. factories are *moving* within china by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >>>You can't transition to a "post-scarcity" economy without putting a few people out of work

      What do you feed the machines after the oil wells start to run dry (already in progress), and oil skyrockets to $500 or more per barrel (after 2020)? I wouldn't describe that as post-scarcity.

      Aside -

      I think the world is overpopulated. I also think that's the prime reason pollution is a problem - we're sitting in our own filth. If the world only had 1 billion (like the year 1800) that problem would disappear.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    9. Re:So.. factories are *moving* within china by Daengbo · · Score: 1

      When I first started working in developing countries, I had to get that concept into my head.

      Me: Why don't the workers have the proper tools for the job? They'll be more efficient.

      Owner: Because the difference in efficiency and the low labor cost mean that the tool won't pay for itself for five years. For the the same amortized cost, we can just hire seven more workers and get higher production, anyway.

    10. Re:So.. factories are *moving* within china by dwater · · Score: 1

      I agree that both are China, but I'm curious how "USA" is synonymous with "America".

      --
      Max.
    11. Re:So.. factories are *moving* within china by korean.ian · · Score: 1

      PRC might desire absorption, but Taiwanese people are more and more seeing themselves as being Taiwanese first and Chinese second. I think if you asked the 20-30 generation of Taiwan, you might get a very different response to wanting reunification.

    12. Re:So.. factories are *moving* within china by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      India most likely

    13. Re:So.. factories are *moving* within china by curmudgeous · · Score: 1

      "...I think the world is overpopulated. I also think that's the prime reason pollution is a problem - we're sitting in our own filth. If the world only had 1 billion (like the year 1800) that problem would disappear."

      I agree completely. Anyone who has kept an aquarium will know that there's a limit to how many critters you can keep in one tank without them choking on their own poisons, even with proper filtration and frequent partial water changes. The point is the earth is just a large aquarium/terrarium and there's nobody on the outside to change our water for us.

    14. Re:So.. factories are *moving* within china by sydneyfong · · Score: 1

      Duh. That's like saying:

      USA = United States of America
      Mexico = Latin America

      So it's all "America", right!

      And it doesn't even consider the eventual reunification that both sides desire! USA wants to control Mexico to stop the drug trade! Mexicans fleeing into USA illegally! They must love each other!

      Seriously, get a clue before you attempt to shoot yourself in the foot.

      --
      Don't quote me on this.
    15. Re:So.. factories are *moving* within china by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      Wealth redistribution means you take money by force from one group and give it to another, without any promise of paying it back. You don't go broke that way. As for the wackademic comment ... it's just my personal opinion. If you want an appeal to authority though, Marshall Brain is beyond a shadow of the doubt more of an entrepreneur than a wackademic ... here are his thoughts :

      http://marshallbrain.com/robotic-faq.htm

    16. Re:So.. factories are *moving* within china by icebraining · · Score: 1

      By the way, Greece's problems were never income equality policies - Greece's problems is that it lended more money than it could pay.

      If you want countries with policies of income redistribution, see the northern European countries, like Sweden, Norway, Finland... all are in the top of the countries with best quality of life.

    17. Re:So.. factories are *moving* within china by timeOday · · Score: 1

      The argument is you go broke because the "have nots" are as well or better off than the "haves", so people stop working. Which, taken to the extreme of ensuring economic equality for everybody, would be true. Personally I don't think we're very close to that in the US though. Pandering politicans have lowered taxes so many times a huge number of people aren't even paying, and that is making is broke.

    18. Re:So.. factories are *moving* within china by icebraining · · Score: 1

      I think the world is overpopulated. I also think that's the prime reason pollution is a problem - we're sitting in our own filth. If the world only had 1 billion (like the year 1800) that problem would disappear.

      I agree. Europe is helping, but we got to convince other countries to lower their birth rates ASAP.

    19. Re:So.. factories are *moving* within china by timeOday · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think the world is overpopulated.

      Well, it's hard to accuse China of not taking action on that front.

    20. Re:So.. factories are *moving* within china by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Sweden, Norway, and Finland are examples of insular countries without a large third-world immigrant underclass. That's now changing, and we will see how that changes those countries.

    21. Re:So.. factories are *moving* within china by thoughtsatthemoment · · Score: 1

      Ma Ying-Jeou, likely does not want unification

      Not even under the name Republic Of China?

      Or some arrangement like that between USA and Canada?

      The status quo won't last long. You guys better speak up when you still have leverage. I do hope Taiwan can have some positive political influence on mainland China.

    22. Re:So.. factories are *moving* within china by sjames · · Score: 1

      Plutonium.

      As for the population issue, as the average economic condition improves, the birthrate tends to decline.

    23. Re:So.. factories are *moving* within china by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So we have a nuclear war to get rid of the extra five billion, then ...
      profit?

    24. Re:So.. factories are *moving* within china by ultranova · · Score: 1

      The argument is you go broke because the "have nots" are as well or better off than the "haves", so people stop working. Which, taken to the extreme of ensuring economic equality for everybody, would be true.

      And also completely irrelevant in the context of post-scarcity economy, where robots do all the work - if they don't, then labour is scarce, and the economy is not post-scarcity.

      I'm also not sure it's even true at all. People do work all the time without monetary benefits. For example, here we are, analyzing this story and economic theory, and at least I'm not getting paid for this.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    25. Re:So.. factories are *moving* within china by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      And when the plutonium runs out (or becomes scarce and more expensive than gold) around the year 2050, what then?

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    26. Re:So.. factories are *moving* within china by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I think the world is overpopulated. I also think that's the prime reason pollution is a problem - we're sitting in our own filth. If the world only had 1 billion (like the year 1800) that problem would disappear.

      Oh piss off you malthusian idiot.

    27. Re:So.. factories are *moving* within china by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      In the United States, investing in a fleet of robots can be cheaper than supporting a hundred workers. In China, you can employ an ARMY of workers, for the investment required for a single robot.

      That can depend on what you're making.

      As you say, robots are an up-front investment which will pay for itself over time. How much time it will take depends on the expense of the people you employ.

      The simple example: I'm making widgets. My labor costs are $5000 per month or $60,000 per year. A robot that will allow me to have labor costs of $0 will cost $150,000. That means it will take me a little less than three years to pay back that robot. Which means that I need at least a three year contract with whoever I'm making widgets for or I've lost money doing so.

      Now, for me to make this kind of money, this assumes that I'm going to be stamping out x number of widgets day in and day out for three years. These widgets are not going to change at all because, if they do, I have to reprogram my robots--which requires skilled people who cost me money (which increases the cost of these robots). I'd be willing to bet that it is cheaper to retrain the army of workers.

      Furthermore, suppose these widgets become immensely popular and my customers can't keep them in stock? The robots stamp out x number of widgets per day--I can't make them go faster. So I'd have to buy more robots which is another upfront cost. Conversely, I can add and remove employees according to the needs of the customer. If they need me to produce twice as many widgets to keep up with demand, I can hire some more people and add another shift or start up a new production line.

      Detroit, for example, invests in robots because they pretty much make the same thing at a specific rate for 4 or 5 years. Not all industries are that predictable.

    28. Re:So.. factories are *moving* within china by sjames · · Score: 2, Informative

      The 2050 figure only holds IF we do no reprocessing at all (currently nuclear 'waste' is 95% nuclear fuel and 5% waste), use none of the breeder technologies we have already proven, and that our current mines turn out to be the only sources on earth.

      We can freely choose to stop the first two and the third seems rather unlikely.

    29. Re:So.. factories are *moving* within china by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but a machine just requires some oil... a worker with a high standard of living requires much much more. As worker rights increase, sooner or later the ratio of machines to humans increases, and society must find alternative ways to reward people with money besides doing boring factory work.

    30. Re:So.. factories are *moving* within china by luther349 · · Score: 0

      agreed and its not just some evil company wanting to do this its there investors. investors demand a company to grow every year in terms of profit. and if you don't your stock drops like a stone. its investors that need a frigging realty check. a company is eventually going to reach its max profit for its current setting like operating in the usa and not grow very much from year to year if at all. so company's have to keep moving to cheaper methods like lower wages and other cuts then move to china just to keep there investors happy. stand up and say no and say bye to your stock.

    31. Re:So.. factories are *moving* within china by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oil made from plants. The numerous alternative sources of energy.

      If you don't kill yourself then claiming overpopulation as the problem is just plain hypocritical. Unless you like the problem of course.

    32. Re:So.. factories are *moving* within china by Heir+Of+The+Mess · · Score: 1

      Taiwan and China aren't the same country. In fact China has 1000s of missiles pointed at Taiwan http://www.tibetanreview.net/news.php?cat=2&cp=8&&id=4667, and Taiwan desires F-16s so it can defend itself against china http://www.defensestudies.org/?p=1512

      --
      Australian running a company that does C# / C++ / Java / SQL / Python / Mathematica
    33. Re:So.. factories are *moving* within china by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think that Taiwan desires reunification, your thoughts are about 20 years outdated. Virtually no one in Taiwan wishes to reunite with China.

    34. Re:So.. factories are *moving* within china by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well. Start solving the problem with yourself!!!

    35. Re:So.. factories are *moving* within china by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It also assumes no further development on energy sources. Just to remind, the first production nuclear power plant was launched a mere 66 years ago.

    36. Re:So.. factories are *moving* within china by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you feed the machines after the oil wells start to run dry (already in progress), and oil skyrockets to $500 or more per barrel (after 2020)?

      Sunlight.

  7. Re:They all must take their own lives now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's Japan you idiot.

  8. I want a fact check by mpapet · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Foxconn employs almost 1 million people? Really? 1 million out of 1.3 billion?

    There's no way they are going back to Taiwan. Labor costs are 5x higher. The logistics are higher cost too.

    Maybe Foxconn's days are numbered as an Apple OEM and this is just the blame shifting.

    The bottom line is that Western consumers are perfectly happy supporting distopian labor conditions.

    --
    http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
    1. Re:I want a fact check by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      5x labor costs doesn't matter. China is 20x behind the West in cost of labor.

    2. Re:I want a fact check by fotbr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Labor costs might be 5x higher, but if you can automate 80% of the work, it comes out even. That might not be possible, but put another way, they now have 5x the motivation to automate everything they can.

    3. Re:I want a fact check by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Damn our minimum wages, safe working conditions, evironmental laws and employee protection laws!

    4. Re:I want a fact check by Kryptonian+Jor-El · · Score: 1

      The bottom line is that we are perfectly happy supporting distopian labor conditions.

      There, fixed it for ya

      --
      All your 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 are belong to us
    5. Re:I want a fact check by Concern+Is+A+Faggot · · Score: 0

      Yes, damn them indeed!

      It's called a tradeoff - you can have those things, but the cost is going to be your economic well-being. Life's a bitch, ain't it?

      --
      Help! Help! I've been moded down by a Jewish conspiracy!
    6. Re:I want a fact check by NotOverHere · · Score: 1

      Damn our minimum wages, safe working conditions, evironmental laws and employee protection laws!

      When profit is used as the only motivation, I do believe we've damned ourselves.

    7. Re:I want a fact check by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

      It's even in terms of wages, but requires a very significant upfront investment in the automation tech. I'd guess they want to be paying less overall in wages, otherwise they'll never amortize the cost of the robots.

      In either case, they would only be making this move if they believed it would leave them more profitable overall.

    8. Re:I want a fact check by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "The bottom line is that Western consumers are perfectly happy supporting distopian labor conditions."

      Dystopian is relative, and relative to the horror of most Chinese history, Foxconn conditions are wonderful. Relative to the nastiness of the mostly-gone dangerous smokestack industries in the US, Foxconn conditions are wonderful.

      Americans and many Europeans are under no particular pressure to work (this isn't the Great Depression, and being "poor" doesn't mean you look like someone out of a Walker Evans photograph), so Foxconn conditions don't look appealing...any more... China and Chinese have never been better off.

      They will rue the day they chase business to eager competitors such as Viet Nam.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    9. Re:I want a fact check by fotbr · · Score: 1

      Well, more profitable, or with less of a PR problem, which amounts to the same thing in the long run.

    10. Re:I want a fact check by korean.ian · · Score: 1

      "the horror of most Chinese history"? You mean the centuries when China had more trade, more wealth and more political power than the West? Jeez, 100 years of relative Western prosperity does not invalidate most of Chinese history.

    11. Re:I want a fact check by DDLKermit007 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and I'm still trying to figure out how they mucked all that up. I like China (just came back from another trip 6 months ago), but it's not about who was ahead, it's about who's ahead right now, and will be. China as it stands can't sustain it's development. Something has to give with the haves vs. the have nots. Plus how they are going to survive when clean water costs more than oil will be an interesting one.

    12. Re:I want a fact check by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Their industry will get cleaner eventually. Their major problem is their reliance on coal for electricity production. To add insult to injury they burn really poor quality coal and the power plants are really old and have little or no filters. The Chinese government already has environmental concerns as part of their policy for the near future. The main issue is that China does not have a lot of native energy alternatives to coal.

    13. Re:I want a fact check by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn our minimum wages, safe working conditions, evironmental laws and employee protection laws!

      When profit is used as the only motivation, I do believe we've damned ourselves.

      Therein lies the ultimate distinction between a human citizen and a corporate "citizen". Few humans are only motivated by profit and are often capable of some level of sympathy for the suffering of others, in contrast the vast majority of corporations have little in the way of motivation or goals except profit. Figuring-out which one should have the real power in a give society is an exercise left to the reader...

  9. Accusations by cymbeline · · Score: 1
    "The CEO has accused workers of killing themselves for financial compensation, and the company has stopped suicide payments to suicide victims' families."

    Yes, obviously the workers who killed themselves are in the wrong.

    Why does it always seem that the world turns upside-down in the world of business and economics?

    1. Re:Accusations by commodore64_love · · Score: 1, Informative

      Everyone in this thread seems to be turning this TRAGIC story into a joke, and I don't get it.

      The workers weren't killing themselves for fun. They were killing themselves because Foxconn no longer allows them to take breaks. And Foxconn tells the workers they must work over 60 hours each week, even though it's technically illegal. The workers kill themselves because they are mentally & physically exhausted, and they see death as an escape. Yes it's irrational but after you work an 80 hour week, almost nonstop, let's see how irrational you become.

      Foxconn is blaming the workers, when they should be blaming themselves for tyrannically abusing their underlings. In either the EU or US these executives would already find themselves sitting in front of judge.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    2. Re:Accusations by Cwix · · Score: 1

      I dont always agree with your point of view, but you shouldnt be modded troll here, your right.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    3. Re:Accusations by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Check out this video of a worker committing suicide on May 11. She's so exhausted that she can barely walk! She looks like she's on the verge of collapse, and probably jumped just to escape the neverending workload:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWFsMlRyJ7Q#t=3m10s

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    4. Re:Accusations by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Yes it's irrational but after you work an 80 hour week, almost nonstop, let's see how irrational you become.

      Mind telling us how many hours people work per week who need to have 2 jobs to make a living?

      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125962111284270397.html

      Typically, he works between 61 and 63 hours per week. It wouldn't be so bad, he says, if the hours were consecutive. But with the gap between jobs, he can only sleep a few hours a night now -- sometimes just an hour. Last week, he managed to clock 87 hours and barely saw his son.

      "That's all I do -- every day -- I just keep working," he says. "I've got to. I'm not going to lose everything I have."

      Well, Foxconn workers don't have to pay rent, or for (basic) food, nor for medical or psychological treatment. They don't have to work non-consecutive hours with no time to sleep in between, they don't have to commute. They actually have it better than many American workers - not to mention illegal aliens in the US.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    5. Re:Accusations by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      I disagree.

      Foxconn doesn't let their workers take breaks, whereas in the US most states require a break every 2 hours as well as other labor protections (1.5 time for overtime). It's a shame that guy is working two jobs, but he doesn't "have" to do that. There are alternatives such as selling the house and moving somewhere cheaper. Or canceling the cable TV/cellphone bills. Et cetera.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    6. Re:Accusations by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      I disagree.

      Foxconn doesn't let their workers take breaks, whereas in the US most states require a break every 2 hours as well as other labor protections (1.5 time for overtime).

      God are you naive. Ever heard of Wal-Mart? http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2005-11-02-walmart-employees_x.htm

      Too long ago? http://ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/release.php?id=1870&, http://ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/release.php?id=1658&, http://ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/release.php?id=1517&

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  10. What happens when China goes Democratic? by linzeal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No jokes about that horrible Guns n Roses album, shudder.

        The first world for the past 40 years has been using China as a source of cheap industrial labor that relied heavily upon absolute totalitarianism finds itself dealing with nascent labor unions, human rights organization and popular dissent and outrage during times of strife and disaster. As this increasingly puts strain on the kleptocratic communist party and the equally corrupt Chinese state military a rumbling/robust market economy is emerging that stands to give a significant financial foothold to an emerging Chinese middle class to the world's 3rd largest economy. Once you have a middle class anything goes, once you lose one, well...

    No army in the world can stop an idea whose time has come. - Victor Hugo

    1. Re:What happens when China goes Democratic? by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      popular dissent and outrage during times of strife and disaster.

      See, that isn't going to happen anytime soon because the US which is seen as the leader of "the west" has so much debt to China. And to the Chinese, they think that America's crisis wasn't because of regulation (which it was) but rather as a failure of "capitalism" which the US actively suppresses.

      When you control the media, you can control everyone in a 1984-esque dictatorship, you can play with numbers and make China seem like its improving and the west seem like it is in decline.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    2. Re:What happens when China goes Democratic? by soupforare · · Score: 1

      Manufacturing moves on to India, then Africa and eventually back to the States. It's the circle of life~

      --
      --- Do you believe in the day?
    3. Re:What happens when China goes Democratic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bingo. And at every step the average standard of living is raised, there are some factories that remain because they produce something better than the competition (cars in Japan, eco-tech in Germany, etc), and people are generally better off than before the west 'exploited' them. Cheap labour will be exhausted in the next century or two, and the world will enjoy a much higher average standard of living.

    4. Re:What happens when China goes Democratic? by timeOday · · Score: 1

      China is really testing the whole theory that capitalism and democracy are inseparable. China's extreme economic growth has made them happy with their government, whatever ideology it is. India, meanwhile, is democratic, yet many languish in poverty and its economic rise has been nothing like China's.

    5. Re:What happens when China goes Democratic? by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Of course greed and stupidity in the banking sector had nothing to do with it. I don't give a fuck whether the US government set this up or not, the fact of the matter is that the global system pretended that high risk loans were the same as low risk ones. No government forced them into that incredibly stupid move.

    6. Re:What happens when China goes Democratic? by maxume · · Score: 1

      We just onshore everything. I just spent some time trying to come up with some steel production numbers for the U.S. (one of our vaunted 'dead' industries). The best numbers I came up with come from the the USGS:

      http://minerals.usgs.gov/ds/2005/140/

      (look for Iron and Steel)

      Raw steel production in 2008, in the U.S., was greater than most of the last 30 years and greater than any year prior to 1950. At about 92 million metric tons, it is only about 40% lower than the 1973 peak of 137 million metric tons (such percentages are a pain in the ass, production in 2008 represented a 33% drop from 1973, or alternatively, 1973 production was 149% of 2008 production, so a lot more, but the industry didn't exactly disappear).

      I didn't look at those figures for a long time, so I may be interpreting them incorrectly, but I don't think so. Basically, Western labor is not problematically expensive (at least when combined with automation), it just isn't as profitable as cheap Chinese labor.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    7. Re:What happens when China goes Democratic? by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Correct. The question is if this can all happen before there is major social upheaval in the West due to rising unemployment rates and what not.

    8. Re:What happens when China goes Democratic? by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 1

      See, that isn't going to happen anytime soon because the US which is seen as the leader of "the west" has so much debt to China.

      7% of US national debt is to China. TOTAL.

    9. Re:What happens when China goes Democratic? by mahadiga · · Score: 1

      Voting in elections != Democracy
      What India and China really need is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy

      --
      I'd like to buy homeland for our 10 million people. http://twitter.com/mahadiga
  11. Maths don't matter to reality! by spleen_blender · · Score: 5, Insightful

    These suicides are well within the statistical expectations for a worker population that large. But People don't care about facts, just emotions.

    1. Re:Maths don't matter to reality! by DVSD91 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Haha. Serves them right employ workers in America! This is the main problem in this country you all miss the real story the fact that they employ 800,000 non American workers to build mostly America products. Until we stop buying products not built in America we will not grow. Way to out source foxconn.

    2. Re:Maths don't matter to reality! by JamesP · · Score: 1

      Not if you count the attempts.

      --
      how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
    3. Re:Maths don't matter to reality! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure that you'll never even see this comment, but you ARE aware that Foxconn isn't an American company, yes? And that Foxconn gets contracts from other companies to build their electronics for them? So Foxconn isn't outsourcing anything - if you want to say someone's outsourcing, blame Apple/HP/etc. The american companies whose names are on the electronics you buy.

      And for what it's worth, it's not just electronics - I used to work in home textiles. One of my vendors used to take american cotton, ship it to India/China, have them process it, and have them ship it back - where it was then cut and sewn here. When we asked how much we, as the retailer, could save if they were to do all the processing in America, we were surprised to find out there were no savings. That shipping it overseas was more cost-effective than processing it here.

      Food for thought - but I'm sure all your clothing is made in America, right? And all your electronics, too, right? Everything from the power cable to your computer all the way to your router - all built or assembled here, right?

    4. Re:Maths don't matter to reality! by dachshund · · Score: 5, Insightful

      These suicides are well within the statistical expectations for a worker population that large. But People don't care about facts, just emotions.

      Really? Is it statistically common for groups of people from the same workplace to throw themselves off the same rooftops in large numbers? I mean, keep in mind that these aren't unrelated people slitting their wrists or taking pills.

      I'm hardly the first person to make this point, but consider the last time you heard of a rooftop-suicide epidemic at a major corporation. Can't? That's because even given the huge number of people employed by corporations it's an unbelievably rare event. In fact there have been one or two such examples over the past few decades and they were treated as exactly the unusual and horrifying event that they are.

    5. Re:Maths don't matter to reality! by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      Britain's National Health Service has 1.3 million employees. Number of suicides last year involving NHS workers jumping from NHS buildings: zero. Indian Railways has 1.6 million employees. Can you recall the last time 10 or 15 of them threw themselves under trains over the course of a few months? Deutsche Post has half a million employees. Ever heard a story about a dozen of them hurling themselves into letter-sorting machines?

      And yes, France Telecom did have a suicide epidemic last year. Guess what. Nobody went around saying that it was no big deal because it was still below the national average in France -- instead the official explanation was that the suicides were caused by brutal management harassing workers. The Sarkozy administration took this seriously and got involved and at France Telecom a top executive actually resigned because of the tragedy.

      All I can say is the French are just such huge pussies. [...]

      The rest of Fake Steve's article can be found here.

    6. Re:Maths don't matter to reality! by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      I'm hardly the first person to make this point, but consider the last time you heard of a rooftop-suicide epidemic at a major corporation.

      My guess is most successful suicides in the U.S. use a gun. I'm betting guns aren't available in China like they are in the US. Also, guns are expensive, and I'd guess someone working as a factory worker in China can't afford one. Most tall buildings in the U.S. roof access is restricted. I _have_ heard of a lot of people jumping off bridges though. When I was at the University of MN I recall stories about someone occasionally jumping off the foot bridge across the Mississippi river.

      The point being, method of suicide is largely dependent on the means available. People will imitate what they've heard or seen, as it's proof it works.

      Whether the suicides are really because of the working conditions is beside the point. The descriptions of the working conditions sound rather poor, and I don't hear anyone disputing that. The response from Foxconn has been to remove monetary incentives for the family, and get other workers to turn the workers in.

      --
      AccountKiller
    7. Re:Maths don't matter to reality! by tftp · · Score: 1

      That's because even given the huge number of people employed by corporations it's an unbelievably rare event.

      Not so rare, actually. It happened a few years ago at a company where I worked. But only few people knew, it was handled very quietly. So while you indeed may not hear much about suicides, they do occur. Japan is particularly affected, even though it is a wealthy country. Should we now blame Sony?

      Foxconn's employees were not slaves; at any time they could walk out of the door and never be back. It might be true that it's hard for them to find another job, and so on - but it's hard to find a job in the USA too. Probably one of major reasons of those suicides is lack of will to live, and that is not necessarily related to salary or work conditions. Slaves in Greece, Rome and USA were working much harder, but I haven't read about them suiciding left and right. But there were rich and wealthy people in Rome who killed themselves just because "they were done here." So it's all in one's mind, and I'm willing to accept an external cause as valid only from someone on a torturer's rack or in a deathbed. For everyone else it's a deliberate decision to leave this world instead of struggling to get a better life. It may or may not be a wise decision, I'm not a judge of that; I only believe that they can't blame external circumstances on their choice.

    8. Re:Maths don't matter to reality! by spleen_blender · · Score: 1

      Jumping is a very common way to die considering cutting wrists and pills means you need privacy for a long time. So yeah, I don't find it significant they chose the same way.

    9. Re:Maths don't matter to reality! by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Your "facts" are arbitrary. That's like saying if 50 people in a town of 100 kill themselves, but the US wide numbers for that year are still within the normal range, you coming on here and waving your hands "Come on people, those 50 deaths were well within the norm for US deaths". Yeah - anyone with any IQ will note that you conveniently lumped those 50 deaths into the US bucket instead of the SuicideVille bucket.

      You would look at deaths at a factory, or deaths at a set of factories, or some reasonably tied population. You don't just include "durr, all Foxconn employees" any more than you include "durr, all Chinese".

    10. Re:Maths don't matter to reality! by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      So Foxconn isn't outsourcing anything - if you want to say someone's outsourcing, blame Apple/HP/etc.

      Errm, Foxconn is a Taiwanese company, producing in mainland China is outsourcing for them.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    11. Re:Maths don't matter to reality! by Joe+Tie. · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that with pills it's surprisingly hard to get those which would kill you quickly and painlessly. And with cutting, there's an additional unfortunate in that the privacy one needs often means that people the person cares about will be the one to find them. Most people would much rather their family not be traumatized by having to see their remains right after the deed is done.

      --
      Everything will be taken away from you.
    12. Re:Maths don't matter to reality! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But People don't care about facts, just emotions.

      Ah. Based on your statement above, I assume you took the time to find out exactly where and under what circumstances the suicides in this case took place? Hmm? You didn't, you say? Then perhaps you should? It might prove interesting to you... Just saying.

    13. Re:Maths don't matter to reality! by Lars+T. · · Score: 2, Interesting

      These suicides are well within the statistical expectations for a worker population that large. But People don't care about facts, just emotions.

      Really? Is it statistically common for groups of people from the same workplace to throw themselves off the same rooftops in large numbers? I mean, keep in mind that these aren't unrelated people slitting their wrists or taking pills.

      I'm hardly the first person to make this point, but consider the last time you heard of a rooftop-suicide epidemic at a major corporation. Can't? That's because even given the huge number of people employed by corporations it's an unbelievably rare event. In fact there have been one or two such examples over the past few decades and they were treated as exactly the unusual and horrifying event that they are.

      Correlation != causation. As for suicides at a major employer: France Telecom. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/09/france-telecom-suicides-a_n_531713.html "A report by the French labor inspector's office concluded that 14 cases of suicide, attempted suicide or depression can be considered directly linked with the company's managerial techniques – such as pressuring employees to change jobs or giving them work the employees considered "devaluing."

      France Telekom only had around 100,000 employees before the lay-offs. And the number of suicides is actually even larger, those are the cases where they have proof that they are work related. IOW unlike the Foxconn cases.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    14. Re:Maths don't matter to reality! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you understand maths.....

    15. Re:Maths don't matter to reality! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And neither do those who have modded you insightful.

    16. Re:Maths don't matter to reality! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These suicides are well within the statistical expectations for a worker population that large. But People don't care about facts, just emotions.

      Really? Is it statistically common for groups of people from the same workplace to throw themselves off the same rooftops in large numbers?

      I think the point the GP was making is that Foxconn employs hundreds of thousands of people and, if you look at the numbers (which to be honest I cannot find but remember reading) their suicide rates are *below* the regional per capita. Not to mention ... has anyone looked into the suicide rates at similar companies? Or are we just assuming that because Foxconn is being reported on that it must be unique to them?

    17. Re:Maths don't matter to reality! by phoebe · · Score: 1

      In China the workers work and live together in the same complex it is a fallacy to equate the suicides in an entire day of a China worker to only the working hours of a Western corporation.

    18. Re:Maths don't matter to reality! by luther349 · · Score: 0

      hes not talking abought the fact they killed themselves. hes saying the numbers are avg for china. its comething like every 3 of 100,000 comment suicide or something like that and the company has 400,000 employees.

    19. Re:Maths don't matter to reality! by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      9 suicides this in the first 5 months of this year.

      400,000 workers at that factory.

      9/5*12/400000*100000= 5.4 deaths by suicide per 100000 people annually.

      Overall Chinese deaths by suicide per 100000 people annually: 14 (http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide/suiciderates/en/)

      So being a Foxconn factory worker appears to reduce the suicide rate by over 60%. And at least one of those suicides was at a different factory, so if 800,000 is the better count of their employees then it's 2.7, a reduction of over 80%.

      Obviously if the workers were also slitting their wrists, or taking pills that would be reported as well.

      And obviously a batch of suicides at most major corporations would be very strange, since most of them have employ people in countries with lower rates of suicide to start with. And the workers don't live on the company property and hence most suicides wouldn't be on company property and hence less noticeable as company related.

      But feel free to stick to you irrational emotions and contribute to a reduction in the quality of life of some Chinese people.

    20. Re:Maths don't matter to reality! by closer2it · · Score: 1

      I'm hardly the first person to make this point, but consider the last time you heard of a rooftop-suicide epidemic at a major corporation. Can't?

      Actually, I can

    21. Re:Maths don't matter to reality! by dachshund · · Score: 1

      I think the France Telecom example is extremely informative, and contrary to your statements it was treated as a major national crisis. The president of France became involved. Compare that to the Foxconn suicides which we're supposed to treat as a normal statistical occurrence. It's doubtful we'll ever ever have proof of anything, since neither Foxconn nor the Chinese government have any motivation to conduct the sort of detailed investigation you saw in the France Telecom case.

      "Correlation != Causation" is overused. In this case we're trying to guess what's going on when valid information is being deliberately withheld. Since we have no choice but to guess, then I'm going to go with the only real evidence we have now: Foxconn's executives clearly felt that the suicides were work-related, as they initially increased worker's compensation to respond to them (and now they're moving their factories to other locations). It's possible that they're wrong, but my feeling is that they have more information than you or I do.

    22. Re:Maths don't matter to reality! by dachshund · · Score: 1

      Read my post again carefully.

    23. Re:Maths don't matter to reality! by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      I think the France Telecom example is extremely informative, and contrary to your statements it was treated as a major national crisis.

      What statements by me? Oh yeah, the ones you just made up. Go suck a lemon, you just claimed there were no suicides clusters for work related issues but Foxconn.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    24. Re:Maths don't matter to reality! by Mana+Mana · · Score: 1

      > That's because even given the huge number of people employed by corporations it's an unbelievably rare event.

      Not so rare. Same thing's been happening to New York University for a decade or two with suicides in the library's high floors. I can quote statistics, clumps, per capita, voodoo, whatever. But it's not "an unbelievably rare event." Even we Americans do it, for crissakes!

    25. Re:Maths don't matter to reality! by dachshund · · Score: 1

      What statements by me? Oh yeah, the ones you just made up. Go suck a lemon, you just claimed there were no suicides clusters for work related issues but Foxconn.

      Quoted from my original post:

      "In fact there have been one or two such examples over the past few decades and they were treated as exactly the unusual and horrifying event that they are."

    26. Re:Maths don't matter to reality! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is one of his best posts ever and well worth reading. One of the commenters makes his point about Liberal Arts majors.

  12. Suicide Rates by Cassini2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The suicide rate in Canada is about 3600 deaths per year for 1992 in a population of 28.4 million. If Foxconn employs 800,000 workers, one would expect 101 suicides, assuming the same suicide rate. This is far higher than the number actually experienced at FoxConn, where only 9 people have died as of May.

    Based on this, working for Foxconn in China is better than living in Canada, at least as far as suicide risk is concerned.

    This puts the numbers in perspective. Down with the oppressive Canadian Imperialist Overlords!

    1. Re:Suicide Rates by thoughtsatthemoment · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is about work related suicides, and each one of them must be looked into separately and not as a mere number in a statistic. The case with the lost iPhone should especially be taken seriously in regarding to whether executives behaved like Gestapos.

    2. Re:Suicide Rates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The suicide rate in Canada is about 3600 deaths per year for 1992 in a population of 28.4 million.

      How many of those 3600 offed themselves at the office? How many Foxconn workers offed themselves at home?

    3. Re:Suicide Rates by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Based on this, working for Foxconn in China is better than living in Canada, at least as far as suicide risk is concerned.

      Only if joblessness isn't a factor in suicide. 'Spin' is a perspective, I suppose.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    4. Re:Suicide Rates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still spouting this shit? You cannot compare suicide rates at one company's factory to that of unemployed, homeless, drug addicted people across an entire country.

    5. Re:Suicide Rates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, way to screw with statistics. What is the psychological make-up of the population in Canada vs at FoxConn. Something tells me it's significantly different in that (at least initially), people are more mentally stable at FoxConn (otherwise they probably wouldn't be holding jobs).

      I seriously suspect working conditions there are responsible for it at FoxConn, whereas in Canada it is a more individual issue (and if it's not the Canadian government should be figuring out what's causing it).

    6. Re:Suicide Rates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think linking to a site that says "Canadian men kill themselves at rates far higher than at any time before in Canadian history" is the best way to belittle the Foxconn statistics.

    7. Re:Suicide Rates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now how many of those 3600 deaths were for the same reason? (ex: Working for FoxConn)

    8. Re:Suicide Rates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Down with the oppressive Canadian Imperialist Overlords!

      Yeah! Fuck you Harper! Fuck you and your Canadian DMCA.

    9. Re:Suicide Rates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      All 3600 deaths in Canada were due to government mandated listening to Celine Dion, eh.

    10. Re:Suicide Rates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      According to Wikipedia, 75% of suicides are men, while at FoxConn, it's 100%. Clearly FoxConn is a death trap for men.

      In other news, people who don't understand statistics continue to fail at it.

    11. Re:Suicide Rates by mooingyak · · Score: 5, Informative

      First, you'd need Chinese rates rather than Canadian ones, as there are non-trivial cultural differences in play.

      Second, you'd need rates for the specific demographics that are employed at the factory, and not just ones for the population as a whole. In the US, the elderly have a higher rate than the population as a whole, but the elderly are less likely to be employed in a factory.

      Last, as I understand it, they've had 9 suicides at the factory, not just 9 suicides by people employed by the factory. The article isn't clear on whether Foxconn paid benefits for any suicide by an employee or just ones that happen on Foxconn property, but if it's the latter it's certainly a motivator.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    12. Re:Suicide Rates by crow_t_robot · · Score: 1

      Please, kind sir, don't bring facts and objective figures into a sensationalist iPhone/Apple business-practice-criticism thread.

    13. Re:Suicide Rates by stephanruby · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If you want to compare rates of suicides at the workplace, compare rates of suicides at the ***workplace***. Jumping is a very gruesome way to die. Also, jumping from your own office building, when done willingly, is a very public statement.

      And by the way, all those nine workers (including the one who signed the no-suicide contract) have chosen to jump to their deaths on premises in the exact same way in a span of five months, not twelve. Furthermore, suicide rates per country include young teenagers killing themselves and old people killing themselves (as in euthanasia). Whatever makes those stats look bigger, that's why they're included, even if one could argue that euthanasia should not be included, because the bigger those suicide stats are, the higher the government funding ends up being. And you take away these two populations, you have a much-much lower rate of suicides overall.

      In any case, if you really want to compare suicide rates on premises between companies, see these examples of much much larger companies with zero rates of suicides. And yes, I understand the problem of estimating randomness and simulating the flip of a coin, but nevertheless, even if you don't completely believe me, I'm suggesting that you not mindlessly repeat the FoxConn/Apple PR report that's being parroted over the news.

    14. Re:Suicide Rates by trancemission · · Score: 0

      Assuming the 3600 people didn't work for Foxconn in Canada

    15. Re:Suicide Rates by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Not really. The problem with that chart is that some suicides which are actual suicides aren't recorded. While others that are, shouldn't be. Nature of policing world wide, some acts aren't the same everywhere.

      An example: In Canada, anything that you can do which causes your death and is deliberate and planned is considered suicide. In various parts of Europe, Asia and the US: It requires that it be by your own hand. So popping pills to die or hanging yourself, is suicide. But jumping in front of a train is not. That's considered something like "fault vehicular death" or something similar. In other cases, death by sexual acts may be classed as suicide(auto erotic asphyxiation) for example, may also be counted as suicide.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    16. Re:Suicide Rates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the worst use of statistics ever :)
      It is like comparing apples and oranges.
      Come on you are slashdot.org reader, I would expect more.

    17. Re:Suicide Rates by KamuZ · · Score: 1

      Death by overwork happens in first world countries.

      In Japan, they will have to pay a lot of money because of this, but then again, a life was lost because of overwork.

      http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201005250384.html

      There are other similar to this. Like everyone said, this is work related.

      Japanese suicide rate is 24.4%, 5th in the world, 1st on "industrialized" countries (read as "first world countries").

      It is a shame. Besides here in Japan is so common. I have been stuck in the train because someone jumped and have been once in the train that actually ran over someone who jumped and I have been only here for just a bit more than a year.

      At least here in Japan the laws are trying to change this and reduce the amount of hours required to work (8 hours is always 12 hours in here) for any average job.

    18. Re:Suicide Rates by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "Still spouting this shit? You cannot compare suicide rates at one company's factory to that of unemployed, homeless, drug addicted people across an entire country."

      Nor can you AssUme that "unemployed, homeless, drug addicted people" will be over-represented in suicides. They have lots of ways to die, some self-destructive, but "citation needed" if you assert they skew the numbers.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    19. Re:Suicide Rates by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "Jumping is a very gruesome way to die."

      A dry dive is also quick (splat!) and a popular method in some areas. The person suiciding doesn't have to clean up the mess.

      A dry dive in front of a train is quick and popular (++ for white-collar criminals who suicide, too bad they don't do it in the US):

      http://www.atimes.com/japan-econ/AH04Dh01.html

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    20. Re:Suicide Rates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are wrong, you've put the numbers out of perspective by comparing the suicide rate of a whole country to the suicide rate of the gainfully employed.

    21. Re:Suicide Rates by pwagland · · Score: 1
      One question that I have not yet seen answered by anyone: How many Foxconn employees, or their dependent family members have committed suicide, but not by jumping off of the Foxconn roof.

      We know that the Chinese national average is 14/100,000 per year. Foxconn have 485,000 employees, they have 10 suicides in the first half of 2010, at an average of 5/100,000 per year. So, so long as they don't have too many home-suicides, then we can agree that Foxconn is a good place.

      The next thing to do is to look at that suicide figure and work out how many of those people who committed suicide had a job, if the national average for employed people committing suicide is less than 5/100,000 then, again, we can say that Foxconn is not doing too bad. However trying to compare workers suicide rates to national suicide rates seems to me to be a flawed methodology.

      Oh, and as an aside, using Canada, and the real Foxconn employee numbers then you actually only "expect" 25 suicides by this time of year, and they have had 10 according to Wikipedia. But, as mentioned above, this does not include any who have decided to end their lives in a less public manner.

    22. Re:Suicide Rates by Nikkos · · Score: 1

      Citations:

      http://www.bookrags.com/research/suicide-and-substance-abuse-dat-03/

      http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/suicide-in-the-us-statistics-and-prevention/index.shtml

      The commenter was right, you cannot compare the suicide rates of employed people of one country in one factory against the entire suicide rate across all demographics of another country.

    23. Re:Suicide Rates by sjames · · Score: 1

      How many of those 3600 in Canada do it at work? How many Foxconn workers killed themselves at home this year?

    24. Re:Suicide Rates by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      How many Foxconn workers offed themselves at home?

      All of them - they all threw themselves off their dormitories. Well, one was found dead inside the dormitory, and one probably wasn't a suicide, but still died at his dormitory. http://micgadget.com/3935/breaking-foxconn-10th-jump/

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    25. Re:Suicide Rates by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Based on this, working for Foxconn in China is better than living in Canada, at least as far as suicide risk is concerned.

      Only if joblessness isn't a factor in suicide. 'Spin' is a perspective, I suppose.

      http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/Unemployment-rate.aspx?symbol=CNYvs.http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/Unemployment-rate.aspx?symbol=CAD

      Unemployment rate in Canada is nearly double than in China - who's spinning again?

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    26. Re:Suicide Rates by Lars+T. · · Score: 1
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jul/26/china.jonathanwatts

      Suicide is the main cause of death among young adults in China, the state media said yesterday in a report that highlights the growing pressures to succeed in love, work and education in one of the world's fastest changing societies.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    27. Re:Suicide Rates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you seriously telling me that by simply taking the national averages and multiplying those by the number employed at my office is the way I calculate how many people can kill themselves by jumping off the roof of our building? Are you serious? These people are killing themselves by jumping from the roof of their employeers building, not everyone within the national average does this, seriously get away from the computer and seek out your humanity...

    28. Re:Suicide Rates by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      First, you'd need Chinese rates rather than Canadian ones, as there are non-trivial cultural differences in play.

      Second, you'd need rates for the specific demographics that are employed at the factory, and not just ones for the population as a whole. In the US, the elderly have a higher rate than the population as a whole, but the elderly are less likely to be employed in a factory.

      And in China, suicide is the leading cause of death for young adults (15–34 years of age).

      Last, as I understand it, they've had 9 suicides at the factory, not just 9 suicides by people employed by the factory. The article isn't clear on whether Foxconn paid benefits for any suicide by an employee or just ones that happen on Foxconn property, but if it's the latter it's certainly a motivator.

      What you fail to understand is that all lived in free dormitories at the factory, and all died at the dormitory during their free time.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    29. Re:Suicide Rates by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Unemployment rate in Canada is nearly double than in China - who's spinning again?

      Uh huh. Because unemployment in Canada and China is EXACTLY the same!

      Take a step back and listen to yourself.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    30. Re:Suicide Rates by mooingyak · · Score: 1

      What you fail to understand is that all lived in free dormitories at the factory, and all died at the dormitory during their free time.

      Do you have a link for that? I haven't stumbled across that tidbit in any of the reading I've done so far.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    31. Re:Suicide Rates by eulernet · · Score: 1

      Based on this, working for Foxconn in China is better than living in Canada, at least as far as suicide risk is concerned.

      I debunked this statement several times here.
      Please stop posting these false statements !
      I believe that you are a sociopath, since you purposely forget that humans are dying here, but I guess they just represent a few dollars for you ?

      Frankly, if life was better in China, why don't you go there ?

      Okay, now for something new:

      in China, life is treasured.

      Firstly, there is no real reason to suicide yourself, since there is plenty of work, compared to our countries with a lot of unemployed people, and not enough work.

      Secondly, because couples can only have one child, this child is always the center of the family.
      People still believe that these children will take care of them when they'll get old, since it's a custom in China.
      This also explains why the children are treated like royalty, and behave like tyrants (it's even more obvious when they become adults).
      So, when a child commits a suicide, it's a tragedy for the whole family, since all the investment is lost.

      Thirdly, imagine that you have been raised like an emperor during your infancy.
      When you are an adult, you have a job where you need to work probably 80 hours every week.
      After a few months, you realize that you can only save a few money, because life is expensive, and even with the minimal amount of expenses, your life is miserable.
      At this moment, these workers believe that they will have to work all their lives in such situation.
      Of course, they have to work, since they want to create their own family.
      Pretty depressive, no ?
      So, you have several solutions: keeping your work or quitting it.
      Suppose that Foxconn brags everywhere that they are the most generous company, I mean how they pay.
      Quitting it is not an option, since you'll get an even worse job.
      In this case, some fragile people find the solution into suicide.

    32. Re:Suicide Rates by khallow · · Score: 1

      Jumping is a very gruesome way to die.

      Dying is a very gruesome way to die unless you stuff yourself into a cremation furnace or a Star Trek disintegration chamber. Especially, if no one discovers your body until a few weeks later. As another replier noted, the suicider doesn't have to clean up their mess so it really isn't a consideration how messy the corpse looks afterwards. Plus jumping is a very efficient and painless way to die when done correctly (that is, jumping from high enough onto a hard surface).

      OTOH, the public nature of the suicides is noteworthy. I agree that they probably are making some sort of statement by jumping where and when they do. And the high frequency of the suicides is also noteworthy. I think your main point remains unblemished.

    33. Re:Suicide Rates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His fallacy does not absolve you of yours. The claim that they are comparable is yours, as is the burden of proof.

    34. Re:Suicide Rates by Lars+T. · · Score: 1
      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    35. Re:Suicide Rates by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Unemployment rate in Canada is nearly double than in China - who's spinning again?

      Uh huh. Because unemployment in Canada and China is EXACTLY the same!

      Take a step back and listen to yourself.

      You are of course right: they are completeley different - so why did you bring it up in the first place? Ohh, yeah right, because you thought you could win the argument by doing so. Epic fail.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    36. Re:Suicide Rates by luther349 · · Score: 0

      suicide happens at this company being they also live there. in dorms. and if there like the walmart factory they charge there employees rent even if they chose not to live there so they always opt to live there being they are aruldy paying rent. that aside this isnt like the usa or canada where the employee goes home and kills himself they have little choice but to kill themselves at the job site.

    37. Re:Suicide Rates by khchung · · Score: 1

      If you want to compare rates of suicides at the workplace, compare rates of suicides at the ***workplace***. Jumping is a very gruesome way to die. Also, jumping from your own office building, when done willingly, is a very public statement.

      Not to argue against your other points, but FYI, jumping from a building, especially where you live or work, is a very COMMON way of suicide in Asian cities.

      With lots of tall enough buildings, and living in a dorm with your coworkers (most workers are from other provinces, away from home), it is not like you have lots of options for suicide, especially if it is a spur of the moment thing.

      E.g., unlike US, if you slit your wrist in bath (well, my guess is they only have showers in dorm, but anyway), you would probably be found by a dorm mate within an hour. If you buy and eat lots of pills, well, it costs a bit of money, and you would still probably be found and rushed to hospital within an hour, plus most people don't have enough knowledge to know which pills will likely to actually kill you instead of just giving yourself lots of discomfort. I suppose you could try to hang yourself, but there is no much fixtures in a dorm where you could tied a rope to hang, most people don't keep hanging ropes around anyway.

      So, in the heat of that moment you want to die, if you are going to jump anyway, why not do it "conveniently" from your dorm or workplace? Why take the trouble to go anywhere else?

      BTW, the actual news is Foxconn is going to MOVE their factories to more in-land locations of China, where the salary is cheaper than coastal cities. So this story is bogus anyway.

      --
      Oliver.
    38. Re:Suicide Rates by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      hah yah. No, you're right, the number of people drawing unemployment in the electricity-free villages of China is exactly the same as the well-fed unemployed in Canada. The ignorant use of statistics here is totally an epic fail on my part. Heh

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    39. Re:Suicide Rates by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      They live on company property, idiot. All of them offed themselves at home.

    40. Re:Suicide Rates by mahadiga · · Score: 1

      Social mobility(Canada) != Economic mobility(China)

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility

      --
      I'd like to buy homeland for our 10 million people. http://twitter.com/mahadiga
    41. Re:Suicide Rates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Before you run around crying "epic fail", you do know that suicide isn't something that just randomly happens to people, right? No, of course you don't. That's why this math makes sense to you. If I do a little Googling, will I find a post by you supporting the idea that smoking reduces the risk of Alzheimer's?

    42. Re:Suicide Rates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are talking nonsense. Foxconn is not a random selection from the population of China. Comparisons from which you might draw something are with Foxconn's other sites outside China, other companies operating within China, and the previous years data for Foxconn China. The statistics for the entire population of Canada has no relevance whatsoever.

    43. Re:Suicide Rates by Corbets · · Score: 1

      If you want to compare rates of suicides at the workplace, compare rates of suicides at the ***workplace***. Jumping is a very gruesome way to die. Also, jumping from your own office building, when done willingly, is a very public statement.

      The past couple weeks, anytime someone's brought up the "oh, but it's less than the national suicide rate" argument, someone else has jumped in about it being at AT the workplace, and how it's a very public statement, etc. But I have what may be a fairly naive question: what does it mean within their cultural context? Is it a very public statement, and if so, does it say what we think it says? If suicide rates are impacted by cultural factors, surely suicide methods are as well, no?

    44. Re:Suicide Rates by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      BTW, the actual news is Foxconn is going to MOVE their factories to more in-land locations of China, where the salary is cheaper than coastal cities.

      Let's just hope that the new location inland will have smaller buildings to jump from, and that the new dorms will be made of rubber.

    45. Re:Suicide Rates by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Before you run around crying "epic fail", you do know that suicide isn't something that just randomly happens to people, right? No, of course you don't.

      It's you who claims he has perfect knowledge of why the suicides happened - when in fact you don't even know what you are talking about.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    46. Re:Suicide Rates by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      The ignorant use of statistics here is totally an epic fail on my part.

      Thanks for admitting that.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    47. Re:Suicide Rates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well it is tempting to feel superior when standing next to two dolts who are abusing statistics like you are. The original point was that suicide rates are not constant and evenly spread across the whole human race. They're even affected by external forces. It is really sad that I have to explain this to you. I'm growing concerned after writing this now that I would have to connect the dots for you as to why this renders the application of the suicide rate here useless.

      But you know, shouting at me doesn't shift the blame away from you and the original poster. I can just imagine you two in other conversations. "You want to grow a thicker mustache? Men in Italy grow n% more facial hair than in the place you live in, so you should move there." "Uhh that depends on what your ancestry is..." "Oh you think you have a perfect knowledge of facial hair when really you don't, so you're wrong. Epic fail!" Really, man. At least try to show a little substance.

    48. Re:Suicide Rates by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Well it is tempting to feel superior when standing next to two dolts who are abusing statistics like you are. The original point was that suicide rates are not constant and evenly spread across the whole human race.

      Sure, and all pointers to statistics that show that suicide rate amongst Chinese young adults (IOW the group of people that all the deaths at Foxconn fall in) has sharply risen in the last decade, so that now suicide is the prime cause of death in that group, are dutifully ignored by the likes of you. Which of course means we abuse statistics.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    49. Re:Suicide Rates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, and all pointers to statistics that show that suicide rate amongst Chinese young adults (IOW the group of people that all the deaths at Foxconn fall in) has sharply risen in the last decade, so that now suicide is the prime cause of death in that group, are dutifully ignored by the likes of you.

      I'm curious what you think the 'likes of me' is. ;) I'm telling you that your use (not just you, the other guy, too) of statistics is wrong so you pile more statistics on it and attempt to give me a Limbaugh'esque name-calling like a ninja using a smoke-bomb. In other words, I'm pointing out a technical problem and you're trying to label it as political. Several people in this thread have pointed it out, too, I stopped counting at twelve. I'm starting to think that statistics are more powerful to people with an agenda than they are to problem solvers.

      Which of course means we abuse statistics.

      Amusingly, yes, you still are. Attempted history rewrite notwithstanding.

    50. Re:Suicide Rates by WryCoder · · Score: 1

      If you are one of the small group that are going to commit suicide anyway, when the word gets around that you can do something for your family /and/ make a statement, then you are more likely to jump off the roof at Foxconn than do it at home at night.

    51. Re:Suicide Rates by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      It takes a brave man to admit that you are wrong. Lots of brave people out, today.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    52. Re:Suicide Rates by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Okay, simply show statistics that show the suicide rate at the Foxconn facility in Shenzhen is significantly over the expected value. Else shut the fuck up.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    53. Re:Suicide Rates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, simply show statistics that show the suicide rate at the Foxconn facility in Shenzhen is significantly over the expected value.

      Why? You need to understand how the statistics actually apply before looking at more. Higher or lower you're still supporting dizzingly incorrect usage of statistics. You are not educated on how to use statistics. You keep straying off topic, are you actually reading my posts?

      Else shut the fuck up.

      Yeah, I know, you'd rather I point out the rate of suicides at that facility has gone up and that many of them happened right on the premesis and that there's obviously something wrong because of all the attention it has captured because you have rebuttals at the ready. But if I stick with what the topic has always been you're just not prepared. So you're challenging me to shut up to bait me into shifting the conversation into territory you're ready for. Aint happening. The original poster has already had it shown to him that the numbers he used are useless. You argued with that, I showed you that you were wrong, too. You're still using distractionary tactics to argue with that. That's typically a sign that you know you're in the wrong, otherwise you'd be all too happy to talk about the validity of the numbers.

      So, no, I will not shut up. At the worst I'll have wasted some of my time (though I have found it amusing). At the best I'll get it through your thick skull that you cannot use statistics that way and there'll be one less nitwit out there who is easy to manipulate with propoganda.

    54. Re:Suicide Rates by Lars+T. · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Okay, simply show statistics that show the suicide rate at the Foxconn facility in Shenzhen is significantly over the expected value.

      Why? You need to understand how the statistics actually apply before looking at more. Higher or lower you're still supporting dizzingly incorrect usage of statistics.

      Bullshit - ever since people pointed out that the "obviously higher than usual suicide rate" probably is anything but, the people who didn't use any statistics they didn't make up have accused those who actually provided statistics of raping them. Screw you and all the other losers who did that.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    55. Re:Suicide Rates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahaha wow I made several right calls there.

      Bullshit - ever since people pointed out that the "obviously higher than usual suicide rate" probably is anything but, the people who didn't use any statistics they didn't make up have accused those who actually provided statistics of raping them.

      It's funny, isn't it? When you use statistics improperly people call you out on improperly using statistics. The world is so unfair.

      Here is an illustration of your level of statistical understanding: You read a statistic that says 1 in 5 people in the world are Chinese. You have four brothers, therefore you assume that you or one of your brothers are Chinese. Somebody comes along and says "Uhh do you know what makes somebody 'Chinese'?" And you'd argue with that claiming that nobody has provided you statistics that say it's improbable that a couple creating five kids will have one of them end up born in China. That person points out to you that applied statistics really isn't your strong suit, and you reply with "you haven't used statistics to prove me wrong!"

      I really truely hope that you're just trying to save face here because if you really think suicide rates works the way you say it does, I hope you don't vote.

      Screw you and all the other losers who did that.

      It is not my fault you have a strong opinion on something you don't understand. You have the means to stop people like me from causing you annoyance, all you have to do is master an elementary topic. As a side benefit, you'd also be less susceptible to deceptive advertising and political ads.

    56. Re:Suicide Rates by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      Down with the oppressive Canadian Imperialist Overlords!

      If by that you mean the Conservatives, then I couldn't agree more! :)

      and yes having Stephen Harper as "Leader" just might drive someone to an untimely end!

    57. Re:Suicide Rates by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      It's funny, isn't it? When you use statistics improperly people call you out on improperly using statistics.

      Yes, exactly, and that's why the people who claimed the Foxconn suicides were so unbelievable high were called on it - fucking live with it.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    58. Re:Suicide Rates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, exactly, and that's why the people who claimed the Foxconn suicides were so unbelievable high were called on it - fucking live with it.

      I'd love to live with it, that is if you were actually providing a rebuttal that proved anybody was wrong about anything. What you are saying is fundamentally flawed, that isn't something you can blame me or anybody else for.

    59. Re:Suicide Rates by Cassini2 · · Score: 1

      I debunked this statement several times here. Please stop posting these false statements ! I believe that you are a sociopath, since you purposely forget that humans are dying here, but I guess they just represent a few dollars for you ?

      If you had to pick up the pieces inside a factory after one or more serious accidents including deaths, you would be keenly aware that tragic incidents happen all over the world. After a long-time, I have learned that: "you can't save everyone." It is vital to preserve a sense of humour, no matter how bleak, black, and awful the situation gets. Unfortunately, humour is not always taken well on the internet.

      The truth is that suicide patterns like this occur in Canada. It is difficult to find accurate employment related suicide rates, however, anecdotally, incidents like these are frequently used as an explanation as to why Japan has a significantly higher suicide rate than Canada.

      Essentially, any time you subject a population to:
      1. Reduced daylight.
      2. Stress.
      3. A perceived or real inability for the people concerned to improve their lives.
      4. Poor recognition of the warning signs, particularly for management and close friends.
      5. Indifferent power system including strained Management-Union relations or strained governmental relations.
      A group of the population becomes at risk of suicide. In the event of one suicide, suicides frequently cluster, and a cluster of suicides occurs.

      Foxconn has an inordinate degree of control over their employees, with both the long hours of work, and the on-site residences. Similar incidents occur in Japan too. In Canada, remote Indian tribes have suicide outbreaks, for slightly different reasons.

      Some people have pointed out that a better management culture will avoid deaths. On the whole, this is true. However, there will always be situations where the situation is not optimal. The U.S. has the phrase "going Postal" referring to Postal workers. Researching further, I stumbled upon a list of employment related suicides from England. The number of teachers and headmasters committing suicide in their teaching system is significant. Most major industrial organizations in Canada and the U.S. have experienced both suicides and industrial accidents, and some industrial accidents are a "call for help", just like attempted suicides.

      With these situations, China is joining Canada, the U.S., Japan, Britain, and most other countries. Every country has it's own issues with suicides.

  13. Not sure this is a good thing by Third+Position · · Score: 1

    Obviously, the recent spate of suicides shows us that working conditions at Foxconn in China are not optimal. But you also have to consider why people would take such jobs - it's clear they don't have any better alternatives. What becomes of these 800,000 who lose their jobs?

    Also, I'm not sure I see an advantage to Foxconn, either. If they're going to be moving their operations to countries with better working conditions with a higher overhead for labor, what are they gaining? Wouldn't it make more sense to improve working conditions for their employees in China, which they could probably do while still realizing a significant savings in labor costs?

    --
    American Third Position
    Finally, a real choice!
    1. Re:Not sure this is a good thing by McTickles · · Score: 0

      Surely you mean "suicides"... Everybody knows Foxconn has blood on their hands but no one is doing anything to investigate it, possibly because we still want iGadgets to be produced...

  14. Re:They all must take their own lives now by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    If that's China, that'll come in the form of homicides. Of the workers.

    Then bills will be sent for the bullets.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  15. Can't run forever by reillymj · · Score: 1

    If China isn't the best place in the world to hire cheap, slave-like labor, where does that leave? Eventually, Foxconn and all the companies that rely on it to produce cheap electronics are going to have to start paying workers more. That cost will get passed on to us, the consumers. This is a good thing as far as I'm concerned. I'd rather pay more for my laptop or iPhone than have to live with idea that my high-tech gadget habit is causing suicides on the other side of the world.

    1. Re:Can't run forever by sakdoctor · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Big bugs have little bugs
      Upon their backs to bite them.
      Little bugs have littler bugs.
      And so, ad infinitum.

      China already has operations in Africa, where locals are treated worse than slaves.

    2. Re:Can't run forever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ah yes, labour rates in Elbonia are back in vogue once again. oh and you are obviously not PHB material!

    3. Re:Can't run forever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eventually, Foxconn and all the companies that rely on it to produce cheap electronics are going to have to start paying workers more. That cost will get passed on to us, the consumers. This is a good thing as far as I'm concerned. I'd rather pay more for my laptop or iPhone than have to live with idea that my high-tech gadget habit is causing suicides on the other side of the world.

      Eventually, more people will have to die for their rights. As long as corporations are willing to exploit labor for profit, and governments are willing
      to allow it to happen this will go on.

      God forbid apple/foxconn give 1% of their margin to the people that actually make the products. This is the problem with unorganized labor,
      they have to work, because there is no alternative. work under offered conditions, or starve / die. Inevitably the government supports
      the corporation, because of $$. Even here in america, corporations fight union labor.

      your naivete is cute, though.

    4. Re:Can't run forever by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1

      Are you saying the world is built on bugs?

      I am confused, I thought it was turtles, all the way down.

      --
      This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    5. Re:Can't run forever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China already has operations in Africa, where locals are treated worse than slaves.

      Moving labour to Africa? The problem with labour in Africa is that the continent is highly unstable, largely lawless in many regions, and prone to violent uprisings. Political corruption there makes China look like Sweden. The labour pool is fairly uneducated, and takes no pride in getting an education. The ones who do look for an education are looked down upon, and the thuggish tribal mentality is quite rampant.

      We always see TV images of noble Africans struggling to survive, but those honest people are being held down by their peers, mostly young macho males, who want to go to war with each other constantly.

    6. Re:Can't run forever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, Chinese workers are taking construction contracts with less favorable terms than the west, or even the locals want to work for. In Nairobi they only work at night to avoid disturbing the locals.

    7. Re:Can't run forever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh my god! It's full of bugs!

    8. Re:Can't run forever by maxume · · Score: 1

      He is saying that African slavers are on their way to come take you to work for Foxconn in China.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    9. Re:Can't run forever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China already has operations in Africa, where locals are treated worse than slaves.

      Citation(s) please.

  16. foxconn by wizardforce · · Score: 1

    The CEO has accused workers of killing themselves for financial compensation, and the company has stopped suicide payments to suicide victims' families.

    You know the working conditions/pay are bad when people would rather kill themselves for the insurance.

    --
    Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    1. Re:foxconn by hedwards · · Score: 1

      You miss the point to an extent. It's not when the workplace is that bad typically that people kill themselves, it's when their perception is that every workplace is like that or that they can't get a job at one that isn't that things get extremely bleak. It's hard to be seriously depressed by a jobsite if you know that you can be out of their in the near future for something better. Whereas if you believe that you can't get something better it's very easy to fall into the trap of depression and hopelessness.

    2. Re:foxconn by kalirion · · Score: 1

      It also really sucks for families of those who killed themselves not knowing about this little change in policy.

  17. Re:They all must take their own lives now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The major problem with Chinese suicides is that you're hungry again in an hour.

  18. Truth != Flamebait by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    Not that /., foxconn or China would know the difference.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  19. Monetary Encouragement by Cassini2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yes, obviously the workers who killed themselves are in the wrong. Why does it always seem that the world turns upside-down in the world of business and economics?

    In the U.S., families often encouraged the police to classify suicides as "accidental" gun-shot wounds. For example: "Gun cleaning accidents." This avoided many social stigmas for the surviving family. As such, the family quietly encouraged the police to do this.

    When Foxconn kills suicide payments, the families will pressure the police to classify the deaths as "accidents". Thus avoiding some bad press for Foxconn. It is amazing what a little financial encouragement can accomplish ...

    1. Re:Monetary Encouragement by Xtravar · · Score: 1

      Catholics who commit suicide "go to hell" and can't be buried in Catholic cemeteries. So they're classified as "accidental" suicides...

      --
      Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
    2. Re:Monetary Encouragement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's funny; so they get into the cemetery (whoopity-do), but I think St. Peter would still know what they did and not let them in through the gates.

  20. Parallels to the Union movement last century by goombah99 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Although there were "guilds" in europe for ages, the modern trade union emerged in the US as the train union. At the time train workers were like foxxcon workers. There was no assurance a route would ever return you home. You lived in company towns along the way. And the main fixture there was the bar where you wasted your pay check. Accident rates where high and efficiency or scheduling was low. Since you lost your wages and never saw your family, what were you living for?

    The train unions first emerged not to demand better wages but better living conditions. They sold themselves to the train owners as a plan to increase professionalism and public respect. It worked. accident rates did go down. Barrier's to entry and standards increased training, retention of experience, and professional conduct. Workers took pride in their work. Many bars were closed People returned home on time and with money in their pockets.

    Today we often see unions as protecting lazy workers form being fired or demanding higher wages via collective bargaining. What we don't see is that these are small perturbations about a dynamic equilibrium between labor and management. That is we no longer have the deprevating working conditions of the 19th century to see what could be the case if management got the upper hand when labor markets were not tight. The excesses of unions we see to day are tracebable to fact that in some markets it's possible for manufacturer's to push along price increases as long as they can gaurenttee the competion pays the same costs. E.g. car manufatuter's would agree to a wage increase at GM as long as there was also one at ford. IN any given port, the same principle allows port owners to pass along long shoremen wage increases.

    What we have here in foxconn is a throwback to the same early situation. Workers living in company dorms, shitty pay, long hours and dangerous working conditions. That is to say, no union.

    The real problem with this is not the sad plight of those poor workers. But actually because it undermines the status of workers who work in countries with state or union mandated good working conditions. Those jobs get shipped out. There is a push to relax those costly standards to get the jobs back.

    The solution to both these problems is not for the FOX conn to unionize. It would be good if they did but until that becomes universal in asia it won't fix the problem, it will just move it. INstead the solution is to put a tarrif on all imports from countries that makes the playing field level.

    if your workers have below-OSHA woking conditions then imported goods get a tarrif that is equal to the cost to US companies for maintaining OSHA standards.

    this then makes it cost neutral for foxcon to have better condtions because it can outcompete companies that don't do that.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      This would work only if all of the developed countries simultaneously applied the tariffs and if the countries with the exploited workers accepted it.

      Neither case is likely. If France wanted to impose these tariffs, then companies in another country without these tariffs, such as Germany, would be at a competitive advantage. This would cause the companies that use Foxconn to simply move operations to Germany instead of France. Additionally, the countries with exploited workers have a lot of political power. China, for one, isn't going to let massive tariffs be imposed.

    2. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by TheLink · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think the OP is talking about import tariffs. If the import tariffs are in the USA, moving from France to Germany wouldn't help Foxconn sell to the USA.

      --
    3. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by charliemopps11 · · Score: 1

      I agree 100%. Very good explanation btw.

    4. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by ShooterNeo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Import Tariffs. The United States would charge a tariff on Chinese goods made in factories that were not up to OSHA standards. The inspectors for these standards would be INDEPENDENT people probably chosen from an international pool.

    5. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Very touching description of the union movement in the United States. Complete bullshit of course, but touching just the same. Unions demanding better working conditions and higher wages were organizing and striking long before railroads were even invented.

      Unions have a place, the problem is that they became too powerful and subsequently too greedy. Much of our economic problems today are the result.

    6. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by Vahokif · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Thank god "communist" China is attentive to the needs of the proletariat, huh?

    7. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
      Excesses of unions? What are you talking about? Unions have been severely weakened ever since the late Carter/early Reagen administration. Even since Reagen the real wage of the middle and lower classes has actually *decreased*, while the entirety of US economic growth has gone into the hands of the rich.

      It was *because* of the labor unions' strength pre-1980 that increases in wealth in the US were equivalently distributed across all income groups. These last 30 years have seen an ever-widening gap between rich and poor, largely because of a stupid voting base that keeps voting down tax increases on the rich and extremely weak unions who have no real power.

    8. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by clarkkent09 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I hope you are trolling and, if so, good job. If not, then I don't think you realize that your "proposal" is more extreme than even the most fanatical left wing crazies would dare make these days. Imposing tariffs so that the products make in third world countries which are imported in the USA match the price of those produced in the USA? You do realize that such tariffs would bring instant death to the economies of dozens of developing countries, and that the only reason for the incredible rise in standard of living of ordinary workers in China in the last three decades was due to the fact that they are able to produce and export goods more cheaply than those in the countries who import them? Why else would developed countries import third world goods if by law they cost the same as those locally produced?

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    9. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by burnin1965 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The train unions first emerged not to demand better wages but better living conditions. They sold themselves to the train owners as a plan to increase professionalism and public respect. It worked. accident rates did go down. Barrier's to entry and standards increased training, retention of experience, and professional conduct. Workers took pride in their work. Many bars were closed People returned home on time and with money in their pockets.

      Followed with...

      What we have here in foxconn is a throwback to the same early situation. Workers living in company dorms, shitty pay, long hours and dangerous working conditions. That is to say, no union.

      The solution to both these problems is not for the FOX conn to unionize.

      HUH?!?

      Unions solved many of the outrageously dehumanizing conditions created by United States corporations in the past but unions are not the solution to the same dehumanizing conditions in Chinese factories?

      I think you were headed in the right direction but then your logic fell off a cliff.

      And isolating the United States economy through tariffs? Wrong answer. The majority of the economic growth is taking place outside of the United States, if you isolate us economically thinking it will increase global worker wages and improve conditions you are dead wrong, it will just further destroy the economy in the United States while places like China continue to grow.

      Now if you suggested holding United States corporate board members liable for foreign actions that would be considered illegal in the States much like a paedophile trying to continue their illicit practices overseas and then coming home to the States then you might have been on to something. I'm sure Jobs and other CEOs would take much more interest in foreign workers if they faced the possibility of jail time.

      Time and again it has been proven that when groups of people stand together against oppression by a few they often succeed in overcoming the tyranny. I find it astounding that in a nation where the people stood up against tyranny by creating a union (The United States of America) it is today considered evil, anti-american, socialist, communist, etc. for the people to stand together in a union against poor wages and working conditions.

      I think you are correct that unions were instrumental in improving the plight of the U.S. worker in the past but I would say that today in some cases the U.S. is returning to those conditions before there were unions, and it is not because of China it is because unions are broken by corporations through political attacks, media attacks, and out right illegal activity.

    10. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by Lord+Ender · · Score: 0

      Unions are a terrible, inefficient method of promoting safety regulations. Government should mandate safety standards. This makes EVERYONE take necessary steps to protect workers.

      These unions should be political lobbies. They should not be striking and sending jobs away.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    11. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by pgmrdlm · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      bull shit its the unions fault that we have lost. auto manufacturing. garment manufacturing. remember dick head, if the American people wanted to respect their fellow citizens/workers they would be willing to pay for products manufactured here. They don't, and manufacturing isn't. And the unions are to mother fucking stupid to realize their fellow Americans don't give a shit and are unwilling to purchase American made products. Leave it to a stupid mother fucking liberal that is unwilling to realize that it is the fault of the American consumers that we lost well paying jobs. Thats right asshole, blame the republicans as you watch your fellow Americans continue to purchase cheaply made foreign products. asshole, I hate liberals. I hope the fuck their is a civil war. I can't wait to see the blood of you dumb fucks flow,.

      --
      Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
    12. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by MrNaz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      China is as communist as America is capitalist.

      --
      I hate printers.
    13. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I hope you are trolling and, if so, good job. If not, then I don't think you realize that your "proposal" is more extreme than even the most fanatical left wing crazies would dare make these days. Imposing tariffs so that the products make in third world countries which are imported in the USA match the price of those produced in the USA? You do realize that such tariffs would bring instant death to the economies of dozens of developing countries, and that the only reason for the incredible rise in standard of living of ordinary workers in China in the last three decades was due to the fact that they are able to produce and export goods more cheaply than those in the countries who import them? Why else would developed countries import third world goods if by law they cost the same as those locally produced?

      Good point. The real question is: why would developed countries deliberately strip themselves of manufacturing capability in order to transfer their wealth to developing countries for the dubious benefit of poorly-made products and the loss of domestic jobs? What you are really saying is that those developing economies are totally dependent upon the United States, and that we have some obligation to maintain what is, effectively, a very costly form of foreign aid. A form that is rapidly destroying our own economy, standard of living, and way of life. We've already borrowed and given away trillions of dollars in aid to other nations, forgiven untold amounts of war debt, and now you believe that it is wrong for us to raise a few trade barriers to protect what little we have left?

      Seriously.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    14. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by sethstorm · · Score: 1

      You do realize that such tariffs would bring instant death to the economies of dozens of developing countries, and that the only reason for the incredible rise in standard of living of ordinary workers in China in the last three decades was due to the fact that they are able to produce and export goods more cheaply than those in the countries who import them?

      You're presuming an infinite amount of concern exists and an infinite tolerance for pain also exists. Not so.

      At some point it stops becoming our issue to care - at the same point where the US suffers for doing so.

      Bring on the tariffs and call their bluff.

      --
      Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    15. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by theMoleofProduction · · Score: 1

      The solution to both these problems is not for the FOX conn to unionize.

      Actually, every Chinese worker is a member of the Chinese labor union, and the union does occasionally make demands. Remember that employers are capitalists who are allowed operate in a communist country, and though the national labor union doesn't demand the sort of living and working conditions we see in the US, you do not want your company being singled out as exceptionally exploitative of the worker.

      That's why Foxconn is painting the suicides as driven by greed--as if the dead were taking advantage of the company's generosity. Foxconn is the world's largest OEM contract manufacturer. It's so damn huge and runs such tight margins that if the union demands even a slight increase in wages or living standards it would get hit harder than its competitors.

      --
      Chemists do it with moles.
    16. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      Much of the early history in that timeline are medieval-style craftsman guilds, which the grandparent poster acknowledged as one of the forerunners. New York tailors going on strike in 1768 was much more in keeping with those ages-old craft/professional guilds than modern trade unions, though. They had relatively few, relatively highly skilled and highly paid members--- a tailor in New York wasn't rich, but they weren't really "working class" in the way that a factory worker or coal miner was, which is what the modern union movement that emerged in the 19th century was based on.

      That trade-union movement emerged post-industrial-revolution, in relatively dangerous industries with large masses of workers. Railroads were indeed one of the main centers, with coal mining emerging as the main source of conflict later in the 19th century (and early 20th).

    17. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      In regards to a citation for real wages declining, here is some data.

    18. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by RJHelms · · Score: 1

      Citation dutifully provided.

      In particular, figured 3C, 3D, 3E. Of course this isn't exactly what GP was saying. It's more like "Real wages for American male workers below the 50th percentile declined rapidly through the early 80s and have not fully recovered."

    19. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by clarkkent09 · · Score: 1

      No, I was only addressing one half of the point which I thought might appeal more to the bleeding heart liberals. Tariffs are bad for us too. They might for a short time protect some of the union jobs in a specific industry but they are harmful for the wider economy because they deprive our industry and consumers of cheaper products. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0pl_FXt0eM&feature=player_embedded As an exercise, think about what would have happened to the USA computer industry if from the start we had laws that ensured that all computer components had to be made by unionized factories in Michigan.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    20. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by erroneus · · Score: 1

      The preach communist ideals but communism has never happened in the history of the planet earth. What has happened is extreme and oppressive socialism which, in theory, is necessary to get to communism. The problem is, it's too much fun to be in control of a socialist government and they never want to let go of their power.

      It is the attraction and desire for power that corrupts the Chinese government and the same that corrupts the U.S. government. We're just two sides of the same coin.

    21. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Now if you suggested holding United States corporate board members liable for foreign actions that would be considered illegal in the States much like a paedophile trying to continue their illicit practices overseas and then coming home to the States then you might have been on to something. I'm sure Jobs and other CEOs would take much more interest in foreign workers if they faced the possibility of jail time.

      Maybe not the members, but the companies certainly can:

      Oil company Royal Dutch Shell (Shell) will stand trial in federal court in New York for complicity on egregious human rights abuses in Nigeria.

      http://wiwavshell.org/
      http://www.shellguilty.com/learn-more/human-rights-abuses/

    22. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Thank god "communist" China is attentive to the needs of the proletariat, huh?

      China allows multinational companies to own and use factories there so it isn't communist, now is it?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    23. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by ultranova · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, I was only addressing one half of the point which I thought might appeal more to the bleeding heart liberals. Tariffs are bad for us too. They might for a short time protect some of the union jobs in a specific industry but they are harmful for the wider economy because they deprive our industry and consumers of cheaper products.

      Chinese products are cheaper because the workforce is abused. That's another way of saying that they aren't cheaper at all, Foxxconn has simply managed to succesfully externalize part of the cost to be paid by said Chinese workers rather than buyers. This is bad from the economic standpoint, since it encourages behavior where the total costs are actually greater.

      An import tariff for such products is good because it forces the end user to pay for all the costs of the product, thus allowing free market to optimize resource usage. This is also the idea behind carbon credits and other such devices often derided by, ironically enough, free-market fundamentalists.

      As an exercise, think about what would have happened to the USA computer industry if from the start we had laws that ensured that all computer components had to be made by unionized factories in Michigan.

      All computer components should have all of their costs included in their final price, including but not limited to pollution, injuries etc. caused by the operation of the manufacturing plants. If necessary, if for example a factory operates outside US jurisdiction and gains a price advantage by polluting with abandon, tariffs should be used to enforce this.

      Failure to do so will result in market failure. You cannot have a free market if everyone can simply steal from others - which is what externalizing costs is really doing. Free markets can only work if you are forced to pay for all the costs of whatever choice you make, and that requires tariff in a world with different jurisdictions.

      There are, of course, ethical reasons to stop multinational corporations from killing Chinese workers in the name of profit, but I'm addressing the half of the point which I think might appeal more to the stone-hearted conservatists.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    24. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by nester · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If those tariffs were in place those workers' current jobs would never have existed! They would be even worse off. They choose to work those jobs because they are better than any alternatives they had. Labor laws are a luxury. Rich countries can afford them and shift work to less developed countries. Those countries in turn develop over time (unless prevented by bad government, war, or other stupidity). The only hope these people have of achieving what we have (including stricter labor laws) is to use their current situation to their advantage to build wealth and industry.

      Your idea of tariffs would condemn them. That is immoral to them and immoral to us (artificially increasing costs). Not to mention the fact that your tariffs do not go to the works at all. They would bear the entire cost but receive no benefit. A do-gooder policies like that is shallow, stupid, and actually counter-productive.

    25. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Then the companies like Apple will just move their headquarters to Bejing and become a Chinese company. They can then outsource the white collar jobs too! Think about how much money they could save! The CEO of course will stay here and play golf all day.

      Tarrifs wont work as the corporations will have a fit and fund any politician who opposes them.

    26. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by mikael · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The Lima Declaration of 1975"

      A promise to hand over 30% of manufacturing capacity of developed countries to developing countries with no regard to the financial consequences of their own citizens. The only action taken was to maintain the benefits system.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    27. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by clarkkent09 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Chinese products are cheaper because the workforce is abused....[the rest of your post follows from that assumption]

      Bleeding heart liberal answer: No it is not

      In fact the recent boom in manufacturing has created the greatest improvement in the living standards of Chinese people since...well, since ever. Why on earth do you think they leave the countryside by tens of millions to come and work in factories in the cities? Because they are worse off or better off by doing so? It follows the same pattern as the industrial revolution in Britain which improved the lives of average people more than anything since the invention of agriculture. You can't compare the living standard of Chinese worker to the US worker. You can't jump from a third world nation to a first world nation overnight. You have to compare the living standard of Chinese worker 10, 20, 30 years ago etc to today. Google some charts to see, per capita GDP, average wage growth etc.

      Stone hearted conservative answer: So what if it is?

      We as a nation benefit from having access to goods for a lot lower price than the price at which we can produce them ourselves. What do we care how they do it, by abusing their workers, polluting their cities or subsidizing their industries. It would all amounts to the same thing, benefit to us at their expense (see youtube video in the previous post). Sure we lose some of the jobs in a specific industry but we gain more jobs and more wealth overall.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    28. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go to hell, Randian scum.

    29. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by ultranova · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In fact the recent boom in manufacturing has created the greatest improvement in the living standards of Chinese people since...well, since ever. Why on earth do you think they leave the countryside by tens of millions to come and work in factories in the cities?

      Because being abused in a factory is still better than living in a farm, the same reason why Europeans left farms during the Industrial Revolution to work in factories. The conditions in those factories were still horrible enough that it gave birth to communism.

      It follows the same pattern as the industrial revolution in Britain which improved the lives of average people more than anything since the invention of agriculture.

      Of course it did, as technical development always does, but only after the worst abuses had been stopped.

      Stone hearted conservative answer: So what if it is?

      I just explained it to you: it twists the markets and causes them to misoptimize.

      We as a nation benefit from having access to goods for a lot lower price than the price at which we can produce them ourselves.

      No, we don't. The importers of cheap goods benefit in the short term by being able to undercut domestic manufacturers, causing those domestic manufacturers to either go bankrupt or lower their standards of pay and treatment of workforce to match China. This, in turn, causes said workforce to have lower income, which lowers their standard of living unless they take debt, which of course can't happen endlessly. It also makes them dependent on cheap Chinese imports while eating the initial benefits. The end result is economic ruin, which is what has been happening lately.

      What do we care how they do it, by abusing their workers, polluting their cities or subsidizing their industries. It would all amounts to the same thing, benefit to us at their expense (see youtube video in the previous post)

      They build their industries up, we lose them. Also, please understand that pollution doesn't stay in place, it spreads from China to the whole globe, including where we live.

      . Sure we lose some of the jobs in a specific industry but we gain more jobs and more wealth overall.

      Where do these new jobs come from? Where does this new wealth come from? If our production is done in China, we are paying Chinese to do it, which means that wealth is leaving out economy. We are losing wealth, not gaining it, and lowering wages eat away any benefits from cheaper price of imports. And as people keep getting poorer, it gets harder and harder to start new companies or keep old ones going, since people can't afford your products.

      The only ones who benefit from this situation are the heads of multinational corporations. Our economy is very near the point of no return, we have to do something about this problem while we still can.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    30. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sure we lose some of the jobs in a specific industry but we gain more jobs and more wealth overall.

      You are seriously understating the seriousness of the issue.

      I agreed with most of your post but it was the last line I choked on. You're not applying the same logic to us that you're applying to the {insert favorite developing nation here}. We are not gaining more jobs and wealth overall, we are losing them ... hemorrhaging them in fact. Where, if not from the manufacture and sale of finished goods to other countries, do you think America's wealth came from? Trees? Our middle class expanded as we became the foremost industrial combine on the planet: now that we've decided to give that up our middle class is shrinking, our economy is destabilizing and our standard of living is falling. Please explain to me, in bite-sized terms, how transferring our manufacturing to China is of even short-term benefit to us. Sure, we get cheap smartphones and big-screen television sets ... but at what cost? You can't measure the damage that's been done to us by the retail price of an electronic toy at Best Buy.

      There are really only two ways to become wealthy as a nation in this world: build and sell finished goods, or sell your natural resources to other nations. The latter only lasts as long as your mines and oil wells hold out, the former lasts as long as you make the effort to maintain your infrastructure and production capabilities.

      For example, take our erstwhile ally, Japan. Japan didn't just compete with us, they decimated a number of key manufacturing sectors of the U.S. economy. And that was one tiny island nation. China, on the other hand, is a vast operation that is hitting us on every front, from cell phones to machine guns, and our government has simply failed to protect us from that onslaught in any significant way. I'm sorry, but the idea that trade barriers are obsolete or inherently wrong is a morally bankrupt position to take, because it means that you are placing the welfare of other countries above your own, other people above your own.

      There's a word for people who think like that. But I won't use it here.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    31. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by cheesybagel · · Score: 1
      All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind. As soon, therefore, as they could find a method of consuming the whole value of their rents themselves, they had no disposition to share them with any other persons. For a pair of diamond buckles, perhaps, or for something as frivolous and useless, they exchanged the maintenance, or, what is the same thing, the price of the maintenance of 1000 men for a year, and with it the whole weight and authority which it could give them. The buckles, however, were to be all their own, and no other human creature was to have any share of them; whereas, in the more ancient method of expense, they must have shared with at least 1000 people.

      Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 1776

    32. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unions are a terrible, inefficient method of promoting safety regulations. Government should mandate safety standards. This makes EVERYONE take necessary steps to protect workers.

      These unions should be political lobbies. They should not be striking and sending jobs away.

      Ha Ha Ha Ha HA HA HA.... Now tha'ts funny. Never read history have you?

    33. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by goombah99 · · Score: 1

      Youre argument is not new. It's old. What do you think people said when the Unions first started. They also pointed out the Train workers took the jobs voluntarily. What do you think Kings said about their Vassal. Their farms would not be safe without my protection. People argumed passionately that the Nergo slave was better off than on his own or even in africa. Give it a rest. These are tired arguments.

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    34. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A country cannot consist merely of gardeners and waiters. Not if you expect to survive in the modern world. Eventually this will become painfully obvious. For now you can persist on your rhetoric.

    35. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It follows the same pattern as the industrial revolution in Britain which improved the lives of average people more than anything since the invention of agriculture.

      Nonsense. The move from the country to cities in the UK was not due to better jobs becoming available in the city but due to a dearth of jobs in the countryside thanks to the mechanisation of agriculture. Further I hardly think the slums, poor pay, dangerous working conditions and long hours could in any way be described as improving lives - other than I suppose they didn't starve. Compared to the rural worker economies they replaced they weren't better. Why do you think the Luddites existed?

      Not that same I'm saying that's the case currently in china - meerly that your comparison is wrong.

    36. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by uncqual · · Score: 1

      dubious benefit of poorly-made products

      The "poorly-made" meme seems out of date.

      Really, is the iPhone so poorly made? Looking at consumer products made in China, signs of "poor quality" that I see have nothing to do with the manufacturing process, they have to do with the design and materials selection process. And, often, I really don't want to pay twice as much for a product that will last three times as long since it will be obsolete long before even the cheaper version would have worn out.

      Sure, we could manufacture iPhones in the US, but they would cost so much more that less people would chose to buy them. The innovation (to the extent that there is any) in the iPhone is intellectual content of design (which probably has substantial US labor force contribution), not manufacturing prowess.

      As to the US being able to win a trade war because historically we helped out other nations -- nonsense. The world economy is like sales organizations - they don't care much about what you did last quarter, they want to know what you're going to this quarter and next quarter. German consumers are not going to look at two iPhones - one made in the China and one made in the US and buy the US version for $200 more "just because the US saved our butts 65 years ago." Seriously, faced with two identical products, one made in China for $200 and one made in France for $400, would you buy the French made product because "they saved our butt almost 350 years ago"?

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    37. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by uncqual · · Score: 1
      Remember though, standards are very different for "rights" in Somalia, the US, China, and western Europe. Do expect tariffs on US goods because we don't meet the labor standards of some European countries (too little vacation for example).

      And, watch out for things like tourism becoming a human right:

      Now Brussels has declared that tourism is a human right and pensioners, youths and those too poor to afford it should have their travel subsidized by the taxpayer.

      and US goods getting tarrifs imposed on them because our government doesn't pay for tourism for poor folks. (It's amazing -- one doesn't even have to make this stuff up!)

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    38. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 1

      Good point. The real question is: why would developed countries deliberately strip themselves of manufacturing capability in order to transfer their wealth to developing countries for the dubious benefit of poorly-made products and the loss of domestic jobs?

      Developed countries gain high quality goods at a low price in the interim. You didn't think everything made in China was barely useable crap did you? Not to put too fine a point on it, the "tarriff" brigade are being very short sighted about the whole situation, eventually when developing countries reach a developed economic state, who do you think you'll sell your goods to?

    39. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 1

      Please explain to me, in bite-sized terms, how transferring our manufacturing to China is of even short-term benefit to us.

      In crayon terms, when they get rich you can sell stuff to them. This is already happening with German industrial output.

    40. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 1

      That is immoral to them and immoral to us (artificially increasing costs).

      Believe it or not increasing costs is not immoral. How and ever, in fifty or a hundred years time, we'll be selling to them, so it becomes a case of profitability not morality.

    41. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by iserlohn · · Score: 1

      People left the farms to work in factories because... guest what... Farms were undergoing mechanization as well... !!!

      If people left farms to work in factories which resulted in a severe negative effect on food production, severe inflation or revolution would ensue.

      What started in the west 150 years ago had started to happen in China only in the last 40 years or so.... That's the reason that there were so many people born in China in that period.. the surplus in food production allowed for a larger population...

    42. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unions & lazy workers, eh.

      You mean, they are wrong to protest as, if almost always happens, management raked in enough dough each of the last few years to last a normal person a lifetime, and then moves to fire people and reduce wages (or not adopt them to inflation) or such, without first returning most of their pay they got.

    43. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by rolfwind · · Score: 1

      As nice a yarn you spin about unions, a real problem about them is that they have special protections from the state and the big ones are operated like a mafia (or by the mafia). Oftentimes, union members become a protected class, earning way more than their un-unionized peers -- which sounds like a dream come true until you see town like Detroit and realize that once they priced themselves out of the market, the companies stop expanding in that area and move elsewhere. But unions are often self-destructive and don't stand down until they killed the goose that layed the eggs. This is often because union management =/= company worker in the big cases.

      A few years back, friends of mine were trying to book a convention center for a political rally. The cost in the big city was 100k and they weren't allowed to wipe their own asses, union workers had to do it for them for $100 or $120 an "hour" (not that 1 hours worth of work was even done, just billed). OTOH, in a major commercial center outside town which wasn't so unionized, with excellent location/parking/etcetera would have cost 10k+.

      Also years and years back, my UPS man lamented about an upcoming strike because he was getting paid enough by his reckoning and it only meant that he would have to work a year longer for his pension or something like that -- don't remember the details. None of his colleagues wanted the strike but management was pushing for it.

      Unions served a purpose once, but if you're not careful, it's a poisonous antidote that will cure your ailments but give you others that are just as bad.

      You talk about companies not having to worry as long as competing companies have to pay the same costs. But this is wrong. Say you have all car companies held hostage by sudden strikes and the pay goes up 50% and the price of cars go up 20% across the board. Well, the customers aren't made of money and will jump ship - some will go toward the used car market, making the jalopies longer, some will seek more sources of transit whether it's motorcycle, moped, mass transit like bus or train, and some will just travel less in general. The market may compensate in other ways I can't forsee.

      The point is you can't forsake free market principles forever. I don't mind the ideas of unions because that's just free association but the laws protecting them are ridiculous. If management can find cheaper labor elsewhere, well, that is the free market at work. However, I do think standards and regulations are necessary to protect the worker -- unfortunately most union aren't about that anymore. Which makes me think that there should be one union that is protected that lobbies for worker safety and standards and one unprotected union that deals with worker's pay and the two shall always stay seperate.

      When they were building the local electrical unions major headquarters for the fat cats around here, I know they weren't using unionized contractors for any of it except the electrical. There have been reports of a major worker's union in Germany hiring only ununionized workers and treating them badly. The unions don't even like their own dogfood, how do they expect anyone else to?

    44. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't it make sense for companies to invest money in automated manufacturing technologies this day and age? Don't we have machines that assemble items that are far more complicated than every new consumer 8th month gadgetry spew and are much more efficient at doing so?

    45. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Im no economics guru, but is there any reason that software and technological innovation cannot count as "finished goods" in your equation? We have some of the largest tech companies in the world in the states-- Intel, AMD, Cisco, Microsoft, Boeing, etc-- their manufacturing may be overseas, but the real items the produce-- innovation-- come from the US.

      Please correct me if Im incorrect.

    46. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Good point. The real question is: why would developed countries deliberately strip themselves of manufacturing capability

      Because it's not a developed country doing it in each case but instead a person or two looking for short term gain wile facing no accountability three years down the track when they will be at a different company. A lot of this adds up, people follow trends and then you eventually have a lot of a country doing it. Sometimes it isn't even a bad idea if you have enough employees that can speak Chinese and can make sure that that operations in China run the way you want them. Where it is an incredibly stupid idea is where you outsource everything but management, in which case you've given your entire operation away to a future competitor and paid them for it.
      Back to the general case - trade barriers can only do so much and are really part of the problem. For example, the protected nature of US Steel resulted in a complacent industry that could no longer compete on either price or quality and manufacturers that use steel found it much cheaper in material costs to build outside of the USA. We're not just talking about cheap Chinese or Indian steel here - even steel from Sweden is a lot cheaper. So much manufacturing has left that without construction the steel industry would have collapsed.
      Also trade barriers tend to piss off allies to a major extent when pushed too far - an old mistake that in an extreme case resulted in Constantinople being sacked in 1210 by a fleet from Venice.

    47. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by burnin1965 · · Score: 1

      Even since Reagen the real wage of the middle and lower classes has actually *decreased*,

      Citation needed

      Median individual income by age and sex

      Some fun facts about income:
      From 1947 to 1974 individual income in 2008 dollars for all age groups and sex on average increased annually.
      Ages 15 years and over on average increased annually, males 2.44%, females 1.40%
      Ages 25 to 34, males 2.95%, females 2.27%
      Ages 35 to 44, males 3.06%, females 1.86%
      Ages 45 to 54, males 3.21%, females 2.21%
      Ages 55 to 64, males 2.94%, females 2.63%
      Ages 65 and older, males 3.25%, females 2.81%

      From 1947 to 1974 the GDP averaged 4.23% growth annually.

      From 1975 to 2008 individual income in 2008 dollars had negative annual change almost across the board for males but females still managed small increases.
      Ages 15 years and over on average increased, males 0.01%, females 1.63%
      Ages 25 to 34, males -0.59%, females 1.11%
      Ages 35 to 44, males -0.31%, females 1.37%
      Ages 45 to 54, males -0.15%, females 1.31%
      Ages 55 to 64, males 0.22%, females 1.81%
      Ages 65 and older, males 1.01%, females 1.25%

      From 1957 to 2008 the GDP averaged 2.68% growth.

      There is a reason you hear "Median Household Income" in the media rather than individual income. As the number of households with two working adults has increased in the United States wages themselves have been stagnant. Both adults in a household have to work to survive. With many single adults now living at home what is the next step, include their children in household income to perpetuate the lie about increasing income?

      It is unfortunate that people forget that the US economy stagnated during the leftist craze in the 60s and 70s and took off again with the deregulation of the Reagan years

      You are seriously mistaken.

      I guess you missed the fact that your chart peaks at 1966 before flattening out.

      I guess you also failed to notice that the flat spots correlate to wars and oil embargoes. If you can assume that deregulation that started in the 80s and continued through the 90s and 2000s resulted in the upward trend in the stock market then we can also assume that all the regulations and unions that came out of the 30s and 40s resulted in the stock market gains through out the late 1930s, late 1940s, the 50s and the early 60s until the Vietnam war started and the oil embargoes reared their ugly head.

      One bit of data that is not in any of these charts or spread sheets is private debt. What many are ignoring today is the fact that since individual income started to stagnate in the mid 1970s personal spending did not and the private debt owed by individuals has soared from about 20% of GDP in the 1940s and earlier to 100%+ of GDP today. Private individuals have been making up for the deficiency in wages by borrowing more.

    48. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by magarity · · Score: 1

      every Chinese worker is a member of the Chinese labor union
       
      What do you mean? There is no labor union in China for all workers, unless you're making a joke about communism. The closest thing is the association of trade unions, but that's just an umbrella group over the various trade unions and not all workers are belong to one of those. Foxconn's employees tend to be migrant workers from the countryside who only come for a year or so - good luck organizing them and good luck getting union dues out of them.
       
        as if the dead were taking advantage of the company's generosity
       
      In all fairness they mean this the same way someone down on their luck buys life insurance and commits suicide is taking advantage of the insurance company. Obviously the actual dead person doesn't benefit personally but their family does get a payout.

    49. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by daver00 · · Score: 1

      No, we don't. The importers of cheap goods benefit in the short term by being able to undercut domestic manufacturers, causing those domestic manufacturers to either go bankrupt or lower their standards of pay and treatment of workforce to match China. This, in turn, causes said workforce to have lower income, which lowers their standard of living unless they take debt, which of course can't happen endlessly. It also makes them dependent on cheap Chinese imports while eating the initial benefits. The end result is economic ruin, which is what has been happening lately.

      Thats a pretty narrow minded view, and not necessarily correct. It is entirely possible to have a high performing economy that is not based on manufacturing and exports, there is an entire industry known as the service industry which does very well without having anything to do with manufacturing. I'm willing to bet you make a lot of money without a job in manufacturing. The problem right now most developed nations face is an ageing population, this dwarfs any losses in manufacturing and exports by orders of magnitude. The figures often quoted are that beginning next year, baby boomers begin to retire and the workforce will lose people at a faster rate than it is gaining them, plus the added costs of pensions and medicare (or whatever they call it in the US). I mean this is not a hard line, its already happening and thats what is underscoring general downward economic trends (recent economic collapse notwithstanding). I mean its easy to connect the dots and figure out this is why your government isn't interested in doing anything about immigration, and honestly thats a smart move.

      Protecting local manufacturing is a proven losing strategy, besides, wealthy OECD citizens should be looking at highly educated service jobs anyway, thats where the money is at. What you have going is really a good thing: Companies like Apple and Intel designing tech and having it manufactured offshore makes money for the USA. Google is good for the USA, etc. What we, as OECD citizens, need is high levels of education, and a high output of quality IP. As China grows in wealth manufacturing will move elsewhere, improving the lot of new places. Hopefully by the time we've run out of cheap labour its all going to be robots or something equally as awesome. When this day comes you will want to be the smartest nation with the most and best engineers, not the one with the biggest manufacturing base.

    50. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      Even if the workforce was working OSHA standardized conditions they would still be significantly less expensive.

      You make it sound like he's proposing everyone in the world gets payed the same. That's ignoring the vastly different costs of living. It's also ignoring the fact that the GP *didn't say that at all*.

      You can pay someone $0.50 a day instead of $0.25 a day. There would still be a financial imperative to use cheap labor overseas and they still wouldn't have our standard of living. They would however be treated decently.

    51. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by scamper_22 · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's amazing how backwards modern legislation is.

      A good example of how 'free trade' should work is the US federal minimum wage.

      The US federal system allowed states to have vastly different labor conditions. Some states having a minimum wage. Others did not. Alabama still doesn't have a state minimum wage.
      So as these issues came up, it of course was going to become a trade issue. Yet the federal government was in charge of interstate commerce.

      So they made a simple law.
      You can have whatever minimum wage you want in your own state.
      BUT if you want to ship good across state lines, you must obey the federal minimum wage.

      This means, the pizza shop owner in Alabama could pay anything to his workers.
      But he could start a manufacturing business and ship goods to New York without paying them minimum wage.

      Amazing piece of common sense rational legislation.
      The worker in New York and Alabama are put on an equal footing.
      Fast forward to modern times...

      We sign trade deals with countries like China where the workers there can earn pennies on the dollar to what American can LEGALLY earn.
      The federal government has basically made it illegal for Americans to have certain jobs (textiles, basic manufacturing...).

      Now I have nothing against free trade. But you have two choices when you do it.

      1. Get rid of the minimum wage and treat all workers everywhere the same.
      2. Only sign trade deals with countries with a similar wage.

      And so we come back to your point which I totally agree with.
      We should only sign trade deals with countries that have OSHA working conditions, labor laws, wage laws... that are similar to our own. They will never be exact... but similar.

    52. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by luther349 · · Score: 0

      are economy is past the point of no return. the usa outsources everything. as you said lower wages and the mass loss of jobs. we are not going to bounce back from this like we did in the 80s. at least then we had some of are own jobs and company's.are government can throw money at all they what. look at are new health care bill that goes in effect in 2011. now your tax returns are going to get cut by 700$ a hear cause you aruldy cant afford the redclus health insurance rates because are government refuses to brake up the monopoly's and allow the free market to correct it with competing drug company's. less money for the people once again. they refuse to go after all the outsourcing and brings jobs back in the usa. are economy is finished and so is are government being when it does crash and it will and we will all still be alive to see it people will lose all trust in are current system and hopefully replace it with something that will actually work. but until you get rid of the ritch controlling are laws and a full crash will do just that no change is going to happen cousing the crash.

    53. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      The "poorly-made" meme seems out of date.

      -1 Missed Point.

      When China (and Japan before it) and now a number of other Asian countries first began industrializing, yes they were shipping crap. And yes, they got better. My point is that we simply looked at the price of the goods they were selling us and no further. We sold our own manufacturers down the river, and that's the truth: every American who was once employed manufacturing goods should look to himself when he complains bitterly that his company shipped his job overseas. Not everything can be laid at the feet of bloodsucking CEOs. Fact is, we failed to learn the lesson Japan tried to teach us: we should have taken a step back, looked at who we had to thank for all those shiny toys, and maybe we'd have seen their trade policies for what they were: predatory. Japan was never a trading partner with the U.S., any more than China is. They want to own whatever segment of industry they decide to go after. Parity is not part of their equation.

      Truthfully, we did much the same (very successfully for a long time) of course, but I don't see any reason to just bend over and take it, which is exactly what we've been doing to date. Yankee ingenuity? Ha. Where's that get up and go spirit we used to have ... we seem to have just lost the will to compete. Not that our government has been doing us any favors there: forgetting tariffs for the moment, the state of the United States patent system is laughable, and our various governments put up many roadblocks that our foreign competitors don't have to deal with. Thanks again, Congress, you've been helpful. Not.

      And I didn't say we could win a trade war because of what we'd done in the past: I don't know why you insist in misinterpreting everything I said. You're one of these black and white types, I can see that. There's a huge difference between starting a trade war, and trying to prevent the total elimination of your own domestic manufacturing. It's nothing more than China's government does, for that matter. Why you can't see that there's a middle ground here is beyond me. Unless you feel that we should be so afraid of China's retaliation that any such attempt would be too dangerous ... well, if that's the case, then we've already lost any possible "trade war."

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    54. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Good point. The real question is: why would developed countries deliberately strip themselves of manufacturing capability in order to transfer their wealth to developing countries for the dubious benefit of poorly-made products and the loss of domestic jobs?

      Developed countries gain high quality goods at a low price in the interim. You didn't think everything made in China was barely useable crap did you? Not to put too fine a point on it, the "tarriff" brigade are being very short sighted about the whole situation, eventually when developing countries reach a developed economic state, who do you think you'll sell your goods to?

      If you truly believe that a. we'll still be making anything worth selling to anyone when China has finished with us and b. that China will have the slightest interest in buying anything from us other than raw materials, you are seriously fooling yourself. China is operating very much along the Japanese model of predatory trade practices, only they're much larger and can hit us on more fronts simultaneously. Wake up and smell the coffee: there's been a trade war going on between China and the U.S. for a long time, and we're really starting to feel the effects now. Truth is ... they're winning.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    55. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by Z34107 · · Score: 1

      Trade between countries is generally beneficial for both because of something called comparative advantage. Even if China produces everything faster, better, and cheaper than we do (and they don't!), trade with them would still let us focus on producing the things we produce best. Rather than try to make everything domestically, we can produce the things we are most efficient at domestically and import the rest.

      Taking advantage of your comparative advantage boosts consumption - everyone has more stuff - but that requires scaling back industries that we suck at. Japan decimated a lot of our industries post-World War II as they industrialized, starting with textiles and moving on to automobiles and computers. Although I think GM blows chunks, they benefited from a good kick in the pants and other Japanese innovations, such as zero-inventory just-in-time production.

      I'd argue trade with Japan is an example of successful, mutually-beneficial trade. It obviously hasn't destroyed us - I don't think we can blame the Japanese entirely for the utter suckage of the domestic auto industry, for example - and our GDP has continued increasing since the 1950s. It also benefited Japan - just 50 years ago they went from zero domestic production (everything had been bombed flat) and dependent on American grain handouts to a fully industrialized nation.

      I believe trade with China also has the potential to be mutually beneficial. They can out-manufacture us because they have millions of underutilized peasants waiting to be abused. While in the short term tragic for our own manufacturing, it has the side-effect of moving their peasants further towards the middle class. When a middle class crystalizes, that's when we will see little "innovations" like employee rights, organized labor, and the like.

      In other words, all the things that give China a trade advantage will work themselves out. Their trinkets are cheaper not because they have some magic factory tech that we're somehow incapable of replicating, but because they're still in the process of lifting a billion people out of poverty. Give it time - completely locking China out of our market with tariffs won't hurt them at all, is unlikely to help us, and would be a great boon to Europe.

      --
      DATABASE WOW WOW
    56. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by scamper_22 · · Score: 1

      There are several reasons why the developed world would choose this path. Yet the number one reason is that politics is not rational :P

      1. Developed countries really refuse to accept the real costs of their values. We pay welfare to our citizen... but we want cheap food... So we employ mexicans or other cheap labor on our farms. The same goes for all other kinds of manufacturing... We talk a good game about social values... but in the end... we are not really willing to pay the price. This includes everyone (Europe, Canada, USA). All the talk of socialism and caring is all pretty much bullshit when you get down it. We've outsource or hire immigrant labor for everything we don't want to do. This is not recent. Just look who worked the mines and the railways back in the day (chinese/indian laborers...)

      2. Progressives... as both on the left and right... don't care too much for practical matters and just want to forge ahead on ideas. Global free trade is a wonderful idea. But don't let little details like how long it take, transition disparities between countries, domain knowledge... bother them. So they pursued insane trade deals that make no sense all the vision of global free trade. Who cares if you make it illegal for your people to compete when you sign free trade deals with countries who are allowed to pay their workers LESS than your minimum wage. The government has effectively made it illegal for people in developed nations to compete in many industries. So they forge ahead without caring about the details. I'm in Canada and our 'liberal party' (the most progressive) is very much in favor of free trade. They also have this deluded belief that we can compete with everyone because we can be 'educated'. While more education helps certain industries, it doesn't help money. Not to mention the fact that things get commoditized very quickly... so unless you have continuous innovation, you're screwed. But don't let these little tidbits bother them...They have big dreams and are very educated!

      3. Mindless pursuit of growth. This drives the need for cost cutting beyond what a society can take as well as the need to expand to new markets. Let's face it once a population stabilizes and reaches 'reasonable standards of living' you really don't have much room for economic growth without major technological advancements. Walmart can only grow so much. When everyone is eating decent food, is clothed... sales are not going to grow.

      I do believe in free trade. But I don't believe in stupidity. Everyone needs to play by relatively the same rules in any economic system.
      Either we get rid of our minimum wage and other laws and compete for the world...
      Or we only sign trade deals with countries with similar minimum wages, environmental standards...

      Take your pick.

    57. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by the_womble · · Score: 1

      Because being abused in a factory is still better than living in a farm, the same reason why Europeans left farms during the Industrial Revolution to work in factories.

      What about the effect of enclosure (i.e. legalised theft of common land) creating a huge class of landless labourers?

    58. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by ZosX · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and at what cost? Virtually all of our manufacturing centers have moved to mexico or china. Heavy industry in the US is nearly non existent. If we could have kept the industrial powerhouse that used to be the united states going, then workers would have had more cash to spend and the prices wouldn't be so bad comparatively. The only one that this benefits is the corporation that has now dropped its manufacturing costs to the floor. Every dollar we spend that goes to china just takes a dollar out of an american worker's pocket. We are so fucked. I don't think the average joe could possibly realize how we just sold the inheritance to our american empire to china so the waltons could make a few more billion. If people cared about how much our country has been raped and pillaged with purely self serving interests we might not be in this mess.

      China is still a communist country to boot. The CEOs and politicians that pushed for china to join the WTO should all be shot. Who's bright idea was it to put china as a permanent member on the humans right council in the UN? China is not even an ally. They were mighty upset recently when we put an aircraft carrier on that side of the pacific in case North Korea starts firing missiles. Why is china massively building up its military?

      I want to know how anyone who can possibly remember watching Tienanmen Square on television could possibly think to themselves "Hmmm....maybe I should build a factory there." This is no different than the train barons who used chinese labor to build their railroads, since they were both cheap and dispensable and could even be brought into indentured servitude. Foxconn is just following the fine american tradition of chinese exploitation. What happens when America is broke and not buying things from china anymore? China is not our ally......

    59. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by ZosX · · Score: 1

      Good point. The real question is: why would developed countries deliberately strip themselves of manufacturing capability in order to transfer their wealth to developing countries for the dubious benefit of poorly-made products and the loss of domestic jobs?

      Pure fucking corporate greed. The Waltons weren't happy with their pile of billions. Oh and heavy industry was killed by the EPA, because in third world shitholes, you don't have to worry about messy problems like massive industrial pollution and the labor is damned near free and unionless.

    60. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, the US does have its union history, which did a lot of things we are remarkably ungrateful for now. Things like the forty hour workweek--without what those unions did, we would still be routinely expected to work 80 or more. Scratch that, many of us DO work 80 or more per week, and it is precisely because unions never had much influence in the IT sector.

      And from a different angle, yes, making free trade contingent on conformity with reasonable international standards of environmental and labor protection would be a great idea. The difference between France and Germany (or the US itself) is NOTHING like the difference between Taiwan & China. Yes, laws should give free-trade status to modern, well-regulated societies like France, Germany, and Taiwan--not to societies that are both hell to live in and hell to get along with.

      But meanwhile, the situation with Foxconn has nothing to do with the history of US economic culture nor international trade. It is about China.

      For decades now, the Chinese government policy has been to become the Saudi Arabia of labor. After all, a huge pool of relatively poor people who are reasonably smart, reasonably hardworking, and all talk the same language, is a much more sustainable competitive advantage than non-renewable petroleum reserves. That has been the motivator for the government there to keep the exchange rate artificially low: Keep sucking in much of the world's manufacturing investment capital.

      Taiwanese manufacturing investors have an especially weird position in that context. Since taking over Taiwan is Beijing's number one stated foreign policy goal, sucking Taiwan's otherwise healthy society dry of its business investment is an understandably high priority.

      So for now, not only are Taiwanese businessmen allowed to get away with things other international investors/ managers are not, they are even (often) allowed to get away with things other Chinese entrepreneurs would be prosecuted for. This applies both in terms of corporate practises and personal life.

      Look at it from the Taiwanese investor's persepctive: that's a pretty sweet deal. And it's why most of them have moved over there. But the Faustian side of that bargain is that their assets are now in China. Investors too easily forget that the deal is only temporary until current political goals are achieved, and that even now they are being watched and pressured if any of their activities don't align with Beijing priorities.

      So, back to Foxconn's situation, you can be sure that what is going on has nothing to do with actual mistreatment of their laborforce relative to the competition. China's media has long been known for reporting only positive things within China except when something negative clearly suits their goals: If nine "suicides" in five months weren't in line with some national interest, the whole affair would be hushed up as a "state secret" and never mentioned in the media.

      A much more plausible interpretation of the situation would be that Foxconn executives over in Taiwan have not sufficiently kowtowed to the Beijing line in their political activities. Maybe they hedged their bets by donating to both political parties (like US businesses almost always do) instead of only the pro-reunification KMT. So Beijing found out, and now starts building up public sentiment for a politically motivated takedown of Foxconn's mainland-side operations.

      Another plausible scenario is that Beijing wants Foxconn's acquiescence or support in planting certain features in much of the world's IT hardware, as they have with Yahoo and presumably Google on the software side. Foxconn executives are not enthusiastic about the expense involved, and the authorities now show Foxconn that their lack of patriotism will incur other expenses.

      A third plausible scenario is that some wholly Chinese-owned (and politically connected) competitor is gearing up to grab market share, and could fairly smoothely take over any soon-to-be nationalized manufacturing a

    61. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by uncqual · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure we are in that much disagreement. However, I think we should only use tariffs to retaliate against countries that impose tariffs or other trade barriers on us or that blatantly subsidize their manufacturers to try to establish a monopoly. To force our policies and standard of living (or to protect ours) through tariffs is inappropriate - if a countries internal practices are so bad as to raise us to moral outrage, we should refuse to trade (import or export) with them.

      BTW, the reason I have never bought an American car is not due to cost (they were cheaper), it was due to Japanese cars being of higher quality starting about 1980. It is true that in the past ten years that gap has closed considerably (American cars got better, Toyota began to have quality problems).

      If your concern is keeping manufacturing in the US, it's simple. Either do it better or cheaper. Since it's already done so well elsewhere for consumer products at a low price, that just leaves doing it cheaper. Labor and associated costs are a big part of manufacturing. We can either make our labor cheaper (i.e., reduce the standard of living of those who work in manufacturing) or eliminate much labor through automation (i.e., eliminate many manufacturing jobs in the U.S.).

      Obviously some manufactured items can support a higher local labor cost because local manufacturing reduces transportation costs over importing the items. Of course, these are the very products that are not well suited for export.

      I think it's a fool's errand to compete with China at their game. The US needs to find, as we once did even in quality manufacturing, a way to do something better than others. Likely it will be something that has intellectual content -- but to pursue that we need to do that better and, as far as I can tell, the average and the median American school kid is way less motivated to learn than they were fifty years ago - unfortunately just as intellectual content of good jobs increases. So, we would need a major cultural shift very quickly to accomplish this in the next 75 years with a native born intellectual base (two to three generations to shift the mentality) or encourage legal immigration by anyone who has the necessary skills and educational drive. These immigrants will help motivate and set the bar and example for the coddled American kids.

      The US will not be a leader and continue to enjoy the standard of living that we have become accustomed to by thinking that a high school degree insures life time stable employment in manufacturing and a pretty good life style.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    62. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      It is entirely possible to have a high performing economy that is not based on manufacturing and exports, there is an entire industry known as the service industry

      I'm sure we all know what service industries are.

      But we can't make a living by suing each other, selling each other real estate or by cutting each other's hair.

      which does very well without having anything to do with manufacturing.

      Where did the scissors come from?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    63. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 1

      If you truly believe that a. we'll still be making anything worth selling to anyone when China has finished with us and b. that China will have the slightest interest in buying anything from us other than raw materials, you are seriously fooling yourself.

      Quite a lot of Germany's industrial output goes to China. As for what the west builds, look at the table of top ten global exporters, China is really the only developing country in there.

    64. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      In crayon terms, when they get rich you can sell stuff to them.

      Not if they can make it themselves better and/or cheaper.
      Certainly not if you don't make anything to sell.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    65. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by victorhooi · · Score: 1

      heya,

      Whilst I think the parent needs to learn some rudimentary English skills, and he does come across as a potty-mouth, low-class redneck, I think he does make one good point.

      Americans (and I'm sure most Australians) have only themselves to blame. They're not prepared to pay more for locally made goods. Whether you think that's a good thing or a bad thing is moot, the fact remains, people just aren't prepared to put their money where their mouth is.

      And the unions are kind of worsening the problem. Like it or not, either you pay them less, or the jobs go overseas. Whether you'd rather that happens, well, that's your call. But at the end of the day, you are shooting yourselves in the foot, sorry.

      Btw, to the parent - look, I'm fairly sure you're educated. I mean, you're on Slashdot, so obviously you can use a computer and type whole sentences. But you really should try not to sound like such a disgusting, expletive-spouting uneducated imbecile. You're educated, please try and show it. This isn't a pissing contest, you don't garner any points for sounding like a immature little schoolboy who's trying to prove how "tuff" and all he is by using lots of swear words and bad sentence structure.

      Cheers,
      Victor

    66. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by ultranova · · Score: 1

      It is entirely possible to have a high performing economy that is not based on manufacturing and exports, there is an entire industry known as the service industry which does very well without having anything to do with manufacturing.

      No, this is not true. A service economy is one where the majority of economic activity takes place in the form of services. However, what people often forget is that a service economy still needs just as much manufacturing as a manufacturing-based economy. The reason is that someone still needs to build all the things you use.

      Compare this to the transition from agrarian to industrial society: people still eat, and in fact agricultural output - both total and per-person is actually far higher than it was prior to Industrial Revolution. It has not sunk; it's just that we have manufacturing in addition to agriculture, and it's monetary value is far greater than agriculture's. However, it would be a foolish person indeed who'd suggest that you can run an industrial society completely without agriculture.

      A service economy is simply one where industrial manufacturing has grown to the point where it can't grow anymore, because nobody can use more stuff, so new growth comes mainly from services. This does not make manufacturing redundant, it simply relegates it to the same status as, say, water pipes, power lines and sewer system: part of the basic infrastructure of civilization.

      The problem right now most developed nations face is an ageing population, this dwarfs any losses in manufacturing and exports by orders of magnitude.

      All developed nations have two-digit unemployment rates, so no, this is not and won't be a problem for years, if not decades.

      Protecting local manufacturing is a proven losing strategy, besides, wealthy OECD citizens should be looking at highly educated service jobs anyway, thats where the money is at.

      Most service jobs pay minimum wage. Also, education costs money, so the falling general level of wealth makes it ever harder to get. Good for those who already have education, since it lessens the competition; very bad for the future of Western countries.

      What you have going is really a good thing: Companies like Apple and Intel designing tech and having it manufactured offshore makes money for the USA.

      Designing stuff makes money for the USA. Manufacturing it in China loses money for the USA, since it means paying Chinese rather than Americans.

      What we, as OECD citizens, need is high levels of education, and a high output of quality IP. As China grows in wealth manufacturing will move elsewhere, improving the lot of new places. Hopefully by the time we've run out of cheap labour its all going to be robots or something equally as awesome.

      Intellectual Property is, to put it bluntly, worthless. If Chinese make your chips in factories located in China, they can simply decide at any time that those factories now belong to them. What are you going to do about it, start a war?

      When this day comes you will want to be the smartest nation with the most and best engineers, not the one with the biggest manufacturing base.

      Being the best engineer there is doesn't do you any good unless you can actually build what you design. That requires manufacturing base. And the Chinese are just as smart as we are, they don't need us. They are simply using us to help set up their manufacturing base so they can cut us off and pay Chinese engineers instead, thus keeping the money in Chinese economy and becoming the next self-sufficient hyperpower.

      That's the difference between Chinese leaders and American CEOs: both are evil, ruthless scum, but the Chinese are looking after the interests of their country while American CEOs are only looking after their wallets.

      The only hope humanity has to avoid being ruled by dictators for the next few centuries seems to be for EU to get its shit together and start aggressively protecting its domestic markets. It's very likely far too late for the USA.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    67. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by Shajenko42 · · Score: 1

      Why on earth do you think they leave the countryside by tens of millions to come and work in factories in the cities?

      Because the Chinese government builds a dam that floods their lands, and forcibly relocates them?

    68. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "are" and "our". Learn the difference. FFS, even Indiots can be getting it right.

    69. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      I would support this.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    70. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately pretty much the majority of the world free market is externalizing cost in one form or another. Over-fishing, polluting, unsustainable energy, cheap labor, ect. ect.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    71. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      In support, wealth is leaving the economy because the products we buy reduce in value after use. Its not like you buy some electronics part in China and in two years its worth more money. Every product has a shelf life and depreciates in value unless you are purchasing gold bars or something. Obviously I agree with you.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    72. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately IP is a dead end. You need the world governments to agree that any particular IP is yours and then you need them to use law to protect it. China steals IP all the time. My father invented a product for hitches. It replaced the need for towing chains completely. When my father was going around to trade shows, he would always get a barrage of Chinese and other Asian photographers that were well known at these shows for taking photos so a company over there could snipe their work and make it cheap.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    73. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The most distinctive trait of Maoism, distinguishing it from the Soviet Marxism-Leninism, and even more so from the "classic" Marxism, is that Maoism drops the Marxist claim that proletariat is the "leading class" of the communist revolution. Instead, Maoism claims that peasantry is such a class, while workers are in the "supporting role".

      In any case, China hasn't been communist (in any way - Maoist or otherwise) - for 30 years now.

    74. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Unions are a terrible, inefficient method of promoting safety regulations. Government should mandate safety standards.

      Guess how - and thanks to whom - government safety standards became the established norm in developed countries?..

      These unions should be political lobbies. They should not be striking and sending jobs away

      Unions are lobbies, by definition, they just aren't monetary lobbies - they don't have cash to buy politicians. The only leverage they have is threat of inducing losses by means of a strike, and that's what they use to lobby. They simply don't have any other means.

      And, looking at our own history, unions were quite successful at achieving their goals by precisely these measures.

    75. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by mdarksbane · · Score: 1

      Yes, they decimated some manufacturing - but reduced prices overall. There are local portions of the US that have gotten worse in the last fifty years, but overall the standard of living and buying power of the average person has continued to skyrocket.

      We are richer and by a larger margin. We have outsourced our shitty jobs because we can do other things better. Yes, it sucks for the minority of people who worked in those industries who have not been able to transfer their skills to a new field. It may or may not have military implications down the line (although as our GDP and military are still several times larger than our next nearest competitor, it's not an immediate concern).

      Also... the US *still* has the largest manufacturing industry in the world.

      http://investing.curiouscatblog.net/2008/09/23/top-manufacturing-countries-in-2007/

      Stop trying to turn the unfortunate stories of a few areas into a national trend. Look at the data. Specific industries (Steel, for example) have moved on, but others have taken their place in different parts of the country.

      Removing trade barriers has increased our wealth, as well as increasing the wealth of other countries by an even larger margin. It has also tied us so closely economically with countries that are ideologically different from us that we are unlikely to see a war with them until the current economic structure collapses. Protecting a few industries to stop Detroit from happening may look good in the short term, but in the long run it hurts everyone but Detroit.

    76. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a Chinese, let me tell you: - You guys don't get it. The best way to become a wealthy nation is to have smart people think up brilliant ideas and products and outsource the production to the cheapest workers, so that you retain the biggest share of the profits. That is how America has become a great nation, because you continually attract the smartest people and brightest talents from all over the world. An advanced economy evolves by continuously moving up the value chain to produce high value added goods, services or ideas. Things that the rest of the world demand but are not able to produce as they lack your vast talent pool. Economies stagnate when their populace resists learning the new skills required to move up the value chain and demand government intervention to protect their livelihood from foreign competition.

      You are losing your manufacturing base only because you do not want to compete with peasants who are willing to work for USD0.50 per hour.

    77. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An import tariff for such products is good because it forces the end user to pay for all the costs of the product, thus allowing free market to optimize resource usage.

      Pay who exactly?

      The only thing you'll accomplish with tariffs is protecting special interests and harming consumers at large. Let them improve their own working conditions through competition for the labor force.

      However, if you wish to underwrite more government pork, you may make a donation on the your tax return, but don't volunteer my money through tariffs.

    78. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Actually, alot of America's wealth did come from trees. They are cheap building material and cheap fuel. Cutting down the coast to coast forests gave America a big advantage over countries where most old growth trees were gone and forest had to be carefully managed. This advantage has only disappeared in the last 100 years, maybe less.

    79. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      To be communist it implies that you take care of your "Workers".

      China is neither that nor capitalist. It is a hybrid that takes the worst from both.

      Basically the USA has outsourced slavery.

      Sure they are paid, but at what point is pay so low, that it isn't really pay anymore. Sure they aren't forced, but at some point when your choices are taken away from you and you are left with no alternatives. Hence the Suicides. One usually does that when there is no hope.

    80. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd don't know about that: the slave shops seem to be coming back, and the corp's are breaking Federal law like it was for free. Give it some time..

    81. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by master_p · · Score: 1

      why would developed countries deliberately strip themselves of manufacturing capability in order to transfer their wealth to developing countries for the dubious benefit of poorly-made products and the loss of domestic jobs?

      It's not developed countries, it's companies of developed countries. Developed countries have a free market, right? so companies of developed countries are free to move their businesses elsewhere to increase their profits. But this hurts the economies of developed countries, while it doesn't really help the countries the companies move into, since the wages are extremely low and the environmental impact is great.

      All the above means that the 'free' market doesn't work, and that 'free' does not necessarily translate to 'unregulated'.

    82. Re:Parallels to the Union movement last century by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unions solved many of the outrageously dehumanizing conditions created by United States corporations in the past but unions are not the solution to the same dehumanizing conditions in Chinese factories?

      I think you were headed in the right direction but then your logic fell off a cliff.

      Not completely, what you seemed to have missed is that these manufacturing jobs in China can be done anywhere in the world, whereas the jobs for the train workers in the USA had to be done in the specific place the work needed doing, the work couldn't be moved about to find workers who'll put up with the conditions.

  21. Suicide Rate by Rayonic · · Score: 1

    I heard that Foxconn's suicide rate is below that of the general Chinese populace. But that doesn't stop people from overreacting I guess.

    I'm sure the 800,000 newly unemployed people will understand.

  22. Re:They all must take their own lives now by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 4, Funny

    Foxconn Exec: It's iPhone, not iP0wne!
    Foxconn Employee: Yes, there's a difference?
    Foxconn Exec: Yes, yes there is. You know what you have to do ...
    Foxconn Employee: No ... really? For that?
    Foxconn Exec: Yes, for that. We can't exactly sell them like this, can we?
    Foxconn Employee: Um, I would buy one like that.
    Foxconn Exec: Really? Hmmm ... that's a great idea! Very good.
    Foxconn Employee: Thank you.
    Foxconn Exec: Oh, not good for you, good for me. It's my idea now.
    Foxconn Employee: No ... really?
    Foxconn Exec: Yes, yes it is. You know what you have to do ...
    Foxconn Employee: This just isn't my day.
    Foxconn Exec: No, no it isn't.

  23. They also manufacture boards for: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cisco
    Motorola
    Intel
    PS3
    Wii
    Xbox 360
    Kindle

    Why only say Apple, Dell and HP when there are other good names to soil with wrongful death?

    Also they are moving their Chinese operations to India. Funny thing is, this is a Taiwan based business. Take that China!

    1. Re:They also manufacture boards for: by phyrexianshaw.ca · · Score: 2, Informative

      You have an interesting way of listing several brands, and several products. I think you meant:
      Cisco
      Motorola
      Intel
      Sony
      Nintendo
      Microsoft
      Amazon

  24. Interesting to note all the angry responses. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    God knows what the real reason for this story is, but obviously it's meant for the mathematically illiterate masses, not for you.

    Anyway it's interesting to note all the responses from the idiots who are angry that you can do math and call this story for the absolute bullshit it is.

    1. Re:Interesting to note all the angry responses. by rainmouse · · Score: 1

      Canada VS Foxconn statistics are mentioned above in a very misleading manner. It's simple maths and hopefully mine are not so full of mistakes that I humiliate myself, but here goes; 17.7 people per hundred thousand killed themselves in Canada in 2004 (http://www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz/health/suicide.html).

      Foxconn actually employs 420,000 in China not 800,000 as quoted above which is their worldwide figure. Also the 13 suicides as of May and not the full year, lets estimate another 17 for the rest of the year making a rough estimated total of 30. 30 suicides out of 420 thousand employess gives a suicide rate of 7.14 per hundred thousand. However this is figures purely for suicides at work. Now remembering that these were all figures of people who kill themselves at work. According to this article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37402529/ns/business-careers/) out of 33,000 suicides in the USA in 2008, 256 of them were done at work. Some quick maths tells me that roughly 0.76% of people in the USA in 2008 killed themselves at work. Plug that into our 7.14 per hundred thousand of Foxconn suicides 'at work' and we get a suicide rate of factory workers is roughly 543 per hundred thousand.

      Well that's only 30 times the suicide rate of Canada. It must be great to work for Foxconn!!!!!1111

    2. Re:Interesting to note all the angry responses. by rainmouse · · Score: 1

      Please note for those who may be hard of hearing with regards to sarcasm. My post above is in no way meant to represent an accurate figure. It is multiplying an estimate by a conjecture which could never give a figure that even remotely reassembles the truth, it is merely put in place to show the folly of trusting fanboy statistics but that does not mean I in any way, endorse self perpetuating media hype in order to peddle half baked stories thinly disguised as journalism.

  25. null by orthicviper · · Score: 1

    now i understand why foxconn was going to not just increase wages by 20%, but actually double them. it's because they are moving operations to a more expensive country. and i actually thought they were just going to be nice to the Chinese.

  26. Robot suicide by John+Sokol · · Score: 4, Funny

    It was like 20 years ago when I was working at the Stanford medical center, they had a mail delivery robot that committed suicide.
    For about a year it was zipping around delivering mail, and xrays. It even knew how to take the elevators.

    But every now and again it would just hang out by the ATM machine and act weird.

    One day it just drove down a flight of stairs and crashed to the bottom shaking the whole building and crushing it's plastic casing.
    I had a great photo of it lying in a pool of brown lubricant and battery acid, surrounded by doctors in white and blue coats.

    There were rumors that the ATM machine rejected it.

    --
    I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso
    1. Re:Robot suicide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
    2. Re:Robot suicide by robinesque · · Score: 1

      I hope there's some truth to this story.

    3. Re:Robot suicide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was a bank examiner at that time, and I remember the incident. The ATM auditor went missing a few weeks previous, and a new accounting firm had been hired. They were soon dismissed, after that particular ATM machine filed a complaint and appeared to be very nervous. There was an opinion within the bank that the mail delivery robot may have been asking the ATM machine for money, due to an addiction to expensive synthetic oils, and the whole scheme was about to be revealed to the hospital administrator.
          I think the poor thing just couldn't bring itself to go back to plain petroleum products, as some of its joints were quite worn, and the investigation did reveal that an upgrade to its service contract had been denied.
          The whole thing is just very sad. I even heard that the ATM machine was eventually transferred to Nigeria, after a series of questionable accounting errors were discovered.

    4. Re:Robot suicide by sjames · · Score: 4, Funny

      Maybe she thought he was just after her for her money...

    5. Re:Robot suicide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I swear it's completely true.

      The photo was great because the doctors from the lunch room ran down to check the crashed robot, made for an super photo.

    6. Re:Robot suicide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's nonsense! Everyone knows robots like natural oil better than the synthetic crap!

  27. Unemployment by Andy+Smith · · Score: 1

    "a move which could see 800,000 workers lose their jobs"

    Cool, mass unemployment. That'll help cut the suicide rate.

    1. Re:Unemployment by PatrickThomson · · Score: 1

      Every new death is attributable to the pressmen that created the negative public opinion that caused Foxconn to consider the move in the first place. Nobody else.

      --
      I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
    2. Re:Unemployment by LittlePud · · Score: 1

      Someone once said: "One death is a tragedy. A million dead is a statistic."

    3. Re:Unemployment by maxume · · Score: 1

      If was that guy Stalin. He liked to kill millions, so it isn't particularly shocking that he said that.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  28. It's all about the bottom line by Nemilar · · Score: 1

    I would imagine that until now, Foxconn's bean-counters had done the math and figured out that it was cheaper to simply build a factory in China and use cheap labor to make their products. But now that their labor is causing PR problems, demanding raises, and killing themselves for insurance payouts, the bean-counters redid the math and figured out hey, if we keep this up, it would be cheaper just to move to Taiwan and have robots do most of the work. So that's what makes sense, and that's what they'll do.

    I'm not talking to the ethics of the matter, just the fundamentals of the situation, which is that whichever course of action is best for profits is the one that will be taken. Just because labor wants more, and maybe even deserves more, doesn't mean that when they ask for more they won't be thrown out on their asses.

    --
    Nemilar http://www.techthrob.com - Visit Me!
    1. Re:It's all about the bottom line by sethstorm · · Score: 1

      That's about when things start needing to get a bit more deadly, and not for the line/staff folks - but for the ones who are able to move the work.

      --
      Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  29. US worker suicides by OrangeTide · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In the US various insurance benefits are often void if you commit suicide (at least the larger benefits), which is a financial reason for classifying a suicide as an accident. And I have never heard of a US corporation paying a family of US workers due to suicide.
    I think Foxconn is more compassionate in this specific instance than a typical US company, but the whole thing backfired.

    but if you go postal and shoot up your office and the cops take you out, that's not suicide here in the US. so you're family gets life insurance benefits. you get a little infamy, and you can work out some of your pent up rage on helpless coworkers.
    Of course it seems more embarrassing for your family for you to be a homicidal maniac, so suicide is still probably preferable.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:US worker suicides by thoughtsatthemoment · · Score: 1

      I think Foxconn is more compassionate in this specific instance than a typical US company, but the whole thing backfired.

      What you said is probably true but it reflects the tragedy of a country not being ruled by law. If worker can sue to address their grievances, there is no need for the fox to shed any tears.

  30. Automating spin by psnyder · · Score: 4, Insightful

    automating many parts of its business, a move which could see 800,000 workers lose their jobs.

    Why is there always a focus on the negative side of automation? It really means less work, same productivity. Humans no longer need to work as hard to produce the same quality of life.

    The difficulty with these stories lies in the fact that it's a redistribution of wealth from the workers to the owners of the company, until those owners redistribute the wealth again by investing the savings. So it's difficult for the people who lose their jobs, as they now have to fight to get new ones. It's sad. But for humanity as a whole, extra efficiency means greater wealth, since we are now creating the same product with less work invested.

    It raises everybody up in the long run. Compare medieval kings to lower middle class people of today and we find the kings did not have the amount of entertainment to choose from, the durable clothes, the variety of food available, the health care quality, perks like temperature control of their rooms, etc.

    That's the overall and long term effect, the greater positive side, and something that is too often ignored.

    1. Re:Automating spin by garaged · · Score: 1

      yes, it's a better, but not a general better, if automation were the answer to a better world, governments should be doing all the fabrics to make most of the savings/winnings and invest the money produced to make peoples lives better, giving free school and posibly even free high quality foods.

      somehow I don't see that happening any time soon

      --
      I'm positive, don't belive me look at my karma
    2. Re:Automating spin by merockstar · · Score: 1

      What does some rich CEO making way more money than he deserves at the cost of there being decent jobs available to average citizens have anything to do with the advancement of technology (basically the reason for your comparison between our lower class and their kings)?

      If anything I think it would stunt it, seeing as how someone with an interest in science can't spend time on it if he's too busy working four minimum wage jobs...

      Extra efficiency means greater wealth, yes, but not for humanity as a whole, at least until Star Trek's replication technology gets invented.

    3. Re:Automating spin by poliscipirate · · Score: 1

      The difficulty with these stories lies in the fact that it's a redistribution of wealth from the workers to the owners of the company, until those owners redistribute the wealth again by investing the savings. So it's difficult for the people who lose their jobs, as they now have to fight to get new ones. It's sad. But for humanity as a whole, extra efficiency means greater wealth, since we are now creating the same product with less work invested.

      This would absolutely be true if the increased wealth was directly invested in productive capital or R&D. In places like China, this may be the case, but in Western countries I think we see this increase in wealth flowing to investments that aren't exactly the most productively efficient like the housing market and other bubbles, where the investments that create the best returns (at the time) don't enhance productivity much at all. So it really depends on where those extra savings are invested.

      Compare medieval kings to lower middle class people of today and we find the kings did not have the amount of entertainment to choose from, the durable clothes, the variety of food available, the health care quality, perks like temperature control of their rooms, etc.

      In absolute terms I agree, but people tend to look more to their relative economic success than their absolute economic success. The lower classes in Western countries may be better off than the royalty of the past, but I guarantee the royalty of the past were much happier with their circumstances than the lower classes of today, simply due to the fact that they were better off relative to their contemporaries. I'm not trying to cast off the gains we've made in quality of life, but equating absolute economic circumstances to well being is tricky.

    4. Re:Automating spin by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Because these people need to get food and shelter somehow and unless you own shares in the company chances are you're not going to get anything out of it. In the US productivity has been through the roof for quite a while now and the actual workers get less and less every year. Mostly because of class warfare and corporations that get away with stealing from their employees. There isn't a recognized right to food, clothing, medical care and housing in the US, which means that anytime our jobs get shipped over seas or assigned to robots, that's additional pressure depressing the living wages for everybody else.

    5. Re:Automating spin by sjames · · Score: 1

      In a proper society there wouldn't be a problem. The displaced workers would continue to receive enough income to get by and assistance getting another appropriate job or additional education and training to get a better job. Eventually when we had enough automation that there was simply no need for as many workers, we'd surely shorten the work week to spread it around and everyone would prosper.

      What we have now is a system where the owners will pocket the transferred wealth and fight tooth and nail to keep even one little bit from trickling down.

      Note that in the U.S. most of the benefits you mention only came to fruition after a massive labor movement in the '30s forced the issue. Essentially the robber-barons said "you can have it when you pry it from my cold dead hands" and labor said "OK!". Said robber-barons changed their tune only when it became apparent that the workers were quite serious.

      The problem for labor right now is that globalization has provided the robber-barons with nearly 2 billion scabs.

    6. Re:Automating spin by maxume · · Score: 1

      Far more money goes to stock dividends than goes to CEO salaries.

      I'm not trying to defend their pay packages, I'm just pointing out that you haven't even begun to capture the situation.

      As an example, the highest paid CEO in 2009 (at least in the U.S., didn't check for a higher world figure) was Larry Ellison, at $85 million. Meanwhile, Oracle paid about $300 million in dividends. If you jump down to number 20, the CEO made about $20 million, while the company paid more than $1 billion in dividends.

      So the CEO compensation is probably outsize, but by no means is it where the majority of the money is ending up.

      (Pay numbers from here: http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2010/news/1004/gallery.top_ceo_pay/index.html

      Use Cash flow to check the amount of dividends paid: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/cf?s=ORCL+Cash+Flow&annual )

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    7. Re:Automating spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're making that argument from the top looking down. Go live in a 3rd world country as a 3rd world citizen working in a factory for pennies and then tell me how you feel about it.

    8. Re:Automating spin by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Why is there always a focus on the negative side of automation? It really means less work, same productivity. Humans no longer need to work as hard to produce the same quality of life.

      Automation is good, it's the way employers handle switching over to automation that sucks. As soon as a new system is installed, they go fire a few hundred people...

      If it was handled better, moving as many people as possible to new positions rather than firing them and hiring someone else, and employers smoothing out the curve or high/low demand rather than hiring/firing large numbers of people on the spot, it wouldn't have nearly such a negative connotation. It just gives employers the opportunity to treat their employees a bit worse (eg. using the threat of impending automation, to cut wages, benefits, etc.).

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    9. Re:Automating spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the surplus value of the labor is capitalized by the owners of the company that figures out how to do things more efficiently, not the workers. The workers remain as alienated from their labor as ever before.

    10. Re:Automating spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Automation is typically good overall if we have more work than we had people overall and anyone laid off could find work decently enough overall. But when things automate and you are laid off when there is already a shortage of work for a decent pay within your area, then automation becomes counter productive as a whole.

      I agree that Automation CAN be good, but automating virtually everything can be detrimental unless we get to the point like on Star Ocean 3 where everything was automated and having a job was a luxury and symbol of prestige and everyone was living a decent life anyways even without working. Then by all means of at it and automate everything cause then it won't matter that no one has a job, but till then, I do not like the thought of losing my job only to have no work to fall back on except the jobs that want to give an allowance instead of a paycheck (A paycheck you can support yourself off of, an allowance is only good for spending money)

    11. Re:Automating spin by __aailob1448 · · Score: 1

      Compare medieval kings to lower middle class people of today and we find the kings did not have the amount of entertainment to choose from, the durable clothes, the variety of food available, the health care quality, perks like temperature control of their rooms, etc.

      Those medieval kings could fuck shit tons of hot, young girls and could have the best cooks making them the tastiest treats. All organic.

      Seriously, who gives a fuck about temperature control or durability of clothes when you can have yummy virgins warming up your old bones and a personal tailor making you clothes every day.

      Damn it feels good to be the king!

    12. Re:Automating spin by master_p · · Score: 1

      Why is there always a focus on the negative side of automation? It really means less work, same productivity. Humans no longer need to work as hard to produce the same quality of life.

      So these humans are redundant, aren't they? perhaps we need to exterminate them somehow, since they are no longer useful?

      until those owners redistribute the wealth again by investing the savings

      Which never happens. Wealthy people "invest" their profit (and not savings, as you conveniently put it) in luxury items, which benefits a very small percentage of people, usually other wealthy people that are owners of companies producing said luxury items. The wealth is redistributed amongst the wealthy.

  31. Given that it's China, homicide is more likely by sethstorm · · Score: 0

    Suicide? No.

    Homicide? More likely, even if it means someone's party-boss/Executive Audi or VW becomes their coffin.

    Not the most politically correct thing to say, but those people out of work would be too overwhelming of an amount.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  32. No, wait, wait, what!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are surely going to enjoy their suicide compensation money, being dead... Please better arguments for the next time, foxcunt.

    Can't believe this people blaming on the employees.

  33. It's all fun and games unless you're the target. by sethstorm · · Score: 1


    Why is there always a focus on the negative side of automation?

    A) It puts people out of work
    B) Retraining on the large scale does not work due to its inaccuracy and slow speed.

    Now if there was a clear way to speedily transition people, you might have a point. That, and retraining only pays for retraining - you still have to find ways to survive.

    It's not like those 1930's cartoons where they just jump off the unemployment line in a matter of seconds. It's more like years if at all.


    It raises everybody up in the long run

    In the long run, everyone is dead. The king, his round table, the Chinese "suicide" victims, Vincent Chin, the guy that offshored your job, and you over a long enough timespan.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  34. Family vs. individual priority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In China as in many Asian cultures (though please understand I am speaking in generalities, not absolutes) the family's well-being is often prioritized over the individual's. Which means that desperate people may come to believe that killing themselves has two benefits: 1, a large compensation payout; 2, one less mouth for the family to feed.

  35. iUpYourArse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How dare you Slashdotters even sanctify this with statistics. Fuck you all.
    Every Apple fan boy with a brand new iSomething up their arse should be screaming about the injustice of this decision.

    These are the Subsistence lives of so many people we are talking about. They, and their families are fucked now.
    How dare you all sanctify this with your glib humor.

    Fuck you humanity.

    Damian

  36. Third World despots love each other. by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    That's why China is there. Their lack of concern of human rights is an asset.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  37. They will not close anything by silviumc · · Score: 1

    They have announced recently that they will double the salaries for workers in Foxconn factories in China. Ok, so that got everybody to calm down, Apple and the Chinese workers as well. They actually don't intend to double those salaries. They launch this rumor (let's call it a Smoke Grenade) that they will close factories in China. After they let it simmer for a while they'll say that to keep factories open, they can't double the workers salaries but give only a 10% increase at most. Nobody will say anything else than "thank you for letting us keep our jobs".

  38. Private initiative all the way. by unity100 · · Score: 1

    After all, its freedom right ? freedom to say that the workers who committed SUICIDE because you were harranguing and exploiting them like slaves, to the point of LOCKING them in the factory, were actually killing themselves for financial compensation !!!!!!

    private indeed does it better. better than anything, anyone. slave drivers of ancient times would be proud. dont misunderstand - they wouldnt be proud at the way slave driving was done - they would be proud with the successful justification and politically correct naming of slavery.

  39. Economics drives all automation by sjbe · · Score: 1

    You incorrectly presume that there is a something else, that they can move to that in a short enough time, and that they want to do so.

    You incorrectly presume that the job will necessarily remain available in the face of competition with lower labor costs and/or greater automation. Whether they want to go elsewhere is often, in the end, irrelevant so the only important question is whether they can move. You are correct that sometimes it is very difficult in the short run but that is not an argument against automation.

    Jobs that can be automated such that the total cost is lower will be automated. Competition will force the hand of the companies sooner or later. The ones that wait too long will go out of business. Note that sometimes it is cheaper/better to do a job without automation, particularly for high complexity low volume jobs. Your typical job shop has relatively low amounts of automation.

    1. Re:Economics drives all automation by sethstorm · · Score: 1

      The ones that wait too long will go out of business

      Or become too big to fail.

      Whether they want to go elsewhere is often, in the end, irrelevant so the only important question is whether they can move.

      Depends on if it is an economic force, or if it is a political force (e.g. "Going Galt", temporary labor, offshoring). If it is the former, automation might have a good result. If it is a political force (as what is going on now) the correct response is to block the exits.

      You are correct that sometimes it is very difficult in the short run but that is not an argument against automation.

      However, that short run is still long, and (unlike machines) people do complain in that "short" timeframe. The saving of labor is meant to Get Around Some Law, not so much to advance society.

      --
      Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    2. Re:Economics drives all automation by tftp · · Score: 1

      Imagine a 100% automated economy. Robots produce food, and other robots repair those robots. You, a human, only need to pay for the energy that goes into that process. But since you are unemployed (robots do everything, remember) you don't have any money, however little it takes to buy food.

    3. Re:Economics drives all automation by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 1

      Apparently the harnessing of energy is not automated, otherwise it would not be included in the price. Therefore, you work at a nuclear power plant and have the income necessary to buy food.

      ---linuxrocks123

      --
      vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
    4. Re:Economics drives all automation by tftp · · Score: 1

      Apparently the harnessing of energy is not automated, otherwise it would not be included in the price. Therefore, you work at a nuclear power plant and have the income necessary to buy food.

      That is correct - to trade with robots you need to offer them something that they need. Unfortunately robots don't need most of what humans need or like to do. The future society will be populated exclusively by robots and human engineers - until the latter develop a robot that can do engineering. Then only robots will be left.

    5. Re:Economics drives all automation by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Imagine a 100% automated economy. Robots produce food, and other robots repair those robots. You, a human, only need to pay for the energy that goes into that process. But since you are unemployed (robots do everything, remember) you don't have any money, however little it takes to buy food.

      Unless your income is based on intellectual property, then only the uncreative will starve.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    6. Re:Economics drives all automation by tftp · · Score: 1

      Unless your income is based on intellectual property, then only the uncreative will starve.

      There are plenty of uncreative people in the world, but I guess they have to die in the brave new world because robots would have no use of them. Also not every creative person gets to eat - writers, composers, sculptors, artists will have nothing to offer to the robots. Only engineers who can be of use to create newer and better robots will be allowed to live.

      This scenario doesn't require sentient robots. It works just fine if someone owns a bunch of primitive robots; even a farmer will do. People who he used to hire in previous years aren't needed any more. The farmer could afford to feed them anyway, but will he? Most likely not.

    7. Re:Economics drives all automation by ultranova · · Score: 1

      But since you are unemployed (robots do everything, remember) you don't have any money, however little it takes to buy food.

      Unless, of course, I own some land and a few robots which farm it for me. I could even have a robotic secretary offering the surplus products of my robot's labour to people who's robots are producing things I might want, in exchange of said things. To simplify the logistics of all this, the robotic secretaries might wish to establish a credit system, and some of them might even earn some credits for their owners by handling these logistics...

      The situation you describe is simply one where you get food - or, more generally, guaranteed minimum income - without having to work. You get all the benefits of owning a bunch of slaves without any of the moral or practical problems. It's also very likely that, after the initial period of lazing around, you'd find something to busy yourself with (and possibly earn extra credits), such as programming, art or whatever.

      This is a good thing, as it frees people from being wage slaves and wasting their lifes doing jobs they hate, freeing them to do things they want instead.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    8. Re:Economics drives all automation by SnEptUne · · Score: 1

      And engineer doesn't need creative person nor entertainment?

    9. Re:Economics drives all automation by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      But what about the robots?

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    10. Re:Economics drives all automation by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 1

      Well, when it gets to the point that very little human labor or entrepreneurship is necessary in creating goods, we will almost be at a point where economics basically doesn't apply anymore, because everything will be near-free. The human engineers will probably be very wealthy, yes, but there will be a lot of wealth distribution that should ensure other humans don't die out from starvation.

      There will never be only robots left unless you believe the Terminator series is a prophesy ;)

      ---linuxrocks123

      --
      vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
    11. Re:Economics drives all automation by tftp · · Score: 1

      Well, when it gets to the point that very little human labor or entrepreneurship is necessary in creating goods, we will almost be at a point where economics basically doesn't apply anymore, because everything will be near-free.

      That's just a fiction, and it depends on robots that are mutually owned by everyone. A large leap of faith is required to get there from here. Since the society changes slowly, we can presume existence of all kinds of transitional forms.

      For example, let's posit that Toyota fully robotized its factories, from energy production to mining to smelting to manufacturing. Even all dealerships are robotted by robots. The CEO of Toyota is a computer. Great. The labor costs to make one car are zero; let's assume that robots don't wear out, and that Japanese taxes are out of the equation.

      Once that wonderful car factory is built, it's still owned by a few shareholders - all of them humans. Do you think the board will decide to give cars away just because it costs them nothing to produce? (assume that competition is in the same boat.) Imagine ex-Toyota worker who was assembling cars for decades, and he is now fired. He goes to the dealership and tells the robot there that he has no money, and no prospects of getting any, but he wants a car. What do you think will happen?

      About engineers. This all-new factory needs engineers. How many? Not too many; perhaps one per 1,000 robots. There are many engineers on the planet, but Toyota needs only a few. Do you think they will be overpaid, if for every one there are 100 standing in line at the HR office? And even if that engineer is indeed overpaid (say, getting $250K/yr on today's pay scale) how many other people this salary can sustain? Maybe five, if he spends it all. That's not a sufficient ratio.

      So the point is, as long as humans are involved you will get problems. Penniless people are not a market; they will be seen as a human waste, ready for the Dipple:

      To the south was the Dipple, a collection of utilitarian, stark, unattractive housing. To live there was a badge of inferiority. A man from the Dipple had three choices for a cloudy future. He could try to exist without subcitizenship and a work permit, haunting the Casual Labor Center to compete with too many of his fellows for the very limited crumbs of employment; he could somehow raise the stiff entrance fee and buy his way into the strictly illegal but flourishing and perilous Thieves' Guild; or he could sign on as contract labor and be shipped off world in deep freeze with no beforehand knowledge of his destination or work.

      Again, the problem is that in a highly roboticized society very few humans would be able to offer valuable services. Most would be simply irrelevant. One solution to that is that the society owns robots, all of them, and everyone benefits from them equally or however it pleases them. That is generally known as Communism. There is nothing really wrong with that, except that it had been attempted, and it doesn't work. Even its earlier phase, Socialism, results in decay of the society because that's what people do when they don't have to work for a piece of bread. You can find plenty of examples in the USA of what happens when too many idle hands are concentrated in some "inner cities." USSR attempted to build a "new human" and failed; but without that new human, who is all gentle, kind and thoughtful, you can't have your Communism, unless roaming gangs of killers on motorcycles is one of your preferences. So far every single society that was attempted proved that a human *must* work hard to stay sane. And if someone doesn't want to work hard he must be forced to do so, through the law (USSR) or physical needs (USA).

      To summarize, introduction of a large number of community-owned robots into the economy would be identical to placing everyone on social security and food stamps. And we know very well how that works and what results can be expected.

    12. Re:Economics drives all automation by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 1

      Okay, let's say Toyota does that. It costs something close to $0 to produce a car now. Great. Toyota has competitors. Either they also automate, or they go out of business. Let's say they automate. Competition drives the price of a new car to ... something close to zero. The shareholders make normal profits, every car worker needs a new job, and cars are ultra-cheap.

      This, in isolation, isn't a problem -- the car workers can get new jobs, and cars become disposable products. Everyone is happy. There's only an issue here when so much stuff is automated that human labor really is overprovided. At this point, unemployment is high, and profits are low. Companies are going bankrupt because they are making products no one can afford to buy. Even if their costs are zero, their taxation is not, so it's not at all unbelievable the companies might sell themselves to the government for a one-time payment. Everyone gets everything for free, and it's all good. This would of course be a different social system, but I don't think we have to assume the transition is abrupt or violent. I like to think it will be something like, "first, we start using taxes to just pay money to poor people, then we begin nationalizing industry, and then we have a communist utopia". It would work, unlike communism in the USSR, because in this (far-distant future) scenario, there really is no scarcity left.

      ---linuxrocks123

      --
      vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
    13. Re:Economics drives all automation by tftp · · Score: 1

      Okay, let's say Toyota does that. It costs something close to $0 to produce a car now. Great. Toyota has competitors. Either they also automate, or they go out of business. Let's say they automate. Competition drives the price of a new car to ... something close to zero.

      Your last words there are where the problem is. "close to zero" just doesn't happen. There is a term for that, "race to the bottom" and you can't win it. If the market wants to lower the price below what you, the manufacturer, consider reasonable, you simply stop producing, thus introducing artificial scarcity. Example: De Beers and its diamonds. Example: Jewelry. Example: cell phones, plans and airtime. The cell phones are a great example, by the way, because the cellular network is already ran by robots. Humans can't even run it physically; they only can service it when required. And so what do we get out of those cell towers on every corner? We get plans that become more and more expensive every year, even though you'd expect a basic phone plan to be nearly free now.

      The shareholders make normal profits, [...] and cars are ultra-cheap.

      The shareholders can't make normal profits if each car is sold for 1% of what it was sold before. That would require selling 100x more cars, and that is not very likely. There isn't even space on our roads for so many new cars, even if people decide to hoard them. More than one SciFi writer introduced the concept of planned obsolescence, with products that have built-in timers in them and fail right on schedule, forcing you to go out and buy a replacement. Cars last a long time, so far; and if you start recycling them faster ... Earth, however large it is, is not infinite.

      every car worker needs a new job [...]

      Yes, that's the sticky point, isn't it? :-) The rest of your comment I could have written myself :-) There is only one catch:

      It would work, unlike communism in the USSR, because in this (far-distant future) scenario, there really is no scarcity left.

      I can only reiterate that though every person in that society will be adequately fed and housed, the society will rot. This is exactly what happened in the USSR, even though they haven't yet achieved Communism. In that new society of yours you will be told that your work is not needed, you are not wanted, and unless you want to amuse your friends by your art and music (which robots don't provide, so far) you should go to your room, lock the door, and don't get out until you die. But you will be fed in your room for however many decades it takes you to die. You are not needed, and your work is not appreciated.

      The closest approximation of that society is in "The City and the Stars". But note that citizens of that city were modified at each rebirth to make them docile and to keep them within the walls. Only a few people were given special traits, and the book is about them. But the rest, as you recall, are pretty pathetic creatures, with no will to even leave the city and see what's outside. The best they can imagine is to make some paintings and set them outside for other people to look at. (And then a wandering holographic dragon eats them, of course :-) No modern human can exist in such a prison, but that's exactly the world that we will get if robots do everything.

    14. Re:Economics drives all automation by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 1

      > Your last words there are where the problem is. "close to zero" just doesn't happen. There is a term for that, "race to the bottom" and you can't win it. If the market wants to lower the price below what you, the manufacturer, consider reasonable, you simply stop producing, thus introducing artificial scarcity. Example: De Beers and its diamonds. Example: Jewelry. Example: cell phones, plans and airtime. The cell phones are a great example, by the way, because the cellular network is already ran by robots. Humans can't even run it physically; they only can service it when required. And so what do we get out of those cell towers on every corner? We get plans that become more and more expensive every year, even though you'd expect a basic phone plan to be nearly free now.

      De Beers is an unregulated monopoly, so it doesn't count. To the extent that people do not use artificial diamonds because they are artificial, it also overlaps with "jewelry". Jewelry is a sui generis thing -- there is plenty of cheap jewelry available, but people /want/ to spend a lot of money on it as a status symbol or grandiose gesture. Cell phones are not an example at all -- look at http://cellphoneforums.net/alt-cellular-motorola/t172527-1980s-cell-phones-how-costly-were-minutes.html for an example of how much prices have declined (even overpriced crap like the iPhone series doesn't cost $3500 today).

      In today's world, there would not be a problem in finding new jobs for the auto workers. They probably won't make as much money as they did before, and they will likely have to be retrained, but the labor market would absorb this impact. Jobs have become obsolete many, many times throughout history. Iron lung workers, factory workers of numerous types, bank tellers, milkmen, icemen, and "computers" (people employed in the 1800s and early 1900s to do mathematical computations by hand all day) have all lost their jobs due to technological progress. And the world is better off for that fact.

      ---linuxrocks123

      --
      vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
  40. Rewarding suicide is unwise by Kohath · · Score: 1

    I wonder who thought it was a great idea to pay for suicides?

    People respond to incentives. I hope we're learning that. It continues to be a costly lesson.

    1. Re:Rewarding suicide is unwise by timeOday · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Some are better than others, but all incentive systems have perverse incentives. Even something as simple as paying a real estate agent:

      Pay them a fixed price: their incentive is for you to buy / sell ASAP, good deal or bad.
      Pay by the hour: they could milk you forever.
      Pay a percentage: buy / sell ASAP, since holding out for a better deal could easily double their work and still only increase their haul by a few percent.

      Even in the simple case - a company paying salesman a percentage of what they sell - can easily turn bad for the company through infighting salesmen, lying to customers, and customers with buyer's remorse who won't come back.

    2. Re:Rewarding suicide is unwise by WillDraven · · Score: 1

      I'm undoing some moderation by posting this but this is probably the most relevant to my job post I'll ever see on slashdot.

      I work in real estate so I'm familiar with the commission system we have in the U.S. (or at least in North Carolina, it may differ elsewhere).

      The commission for a sale is set (normally at a percentage of the closing price but sometimes as a fixed amount) by the entity selling the property. This percentage or amount is posted on the listing for the property in the Multiple Listings Service. As a condition of posting a listing on the MLS Realtors agree to faithfully represent that the commission advertised is what the owner agreed to on the listing contract.

      Some Realtors may encourage their clients to list with a higher commission percentage in an attempt to encourage other Realtors to show the property, but many clients reject the idea and could even see it as an attempt at being greedy (as the seller's agent can get the buyer's agent's commission as well if they find and represent a buyer in the transaction).

      The system works fairly well as the buyers (who control how long they look and decide what to buy) have no control over the commission and it's amount has no bearing on them as they pay the same price for the house regardless of what percentage is going to the agents.

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    3. Re:Rewarding suicide is unwise by luther349 · · Score: 0

      wrong on some part there. you can still give percentages to employees and not hurt the customers. some company's in fact do use this system. you pay a hr wage then every quarter or so you give them a bonus check based on the percentage or total profit. this system seems to be a more solid way of giving employees a insentiv to sell but without it being based one each persons sales but the total of all people. nobody gets singled out for having low sales etc like with a commission based job. many company's use this system now.

    4. Re:Rewarding suicide is unwise by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      My parents are real estate agents, but I dont know why in this modern era you would even need one.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
  41. They took our jobs by justleavealonemmmkay · · Score: 2, Funny

    So, how do they say "Durk er duh!" in Chinese?

    1. Re:They took our jobs by Pteraspidomorphi · · Score: 1

      dalk el dah

  42. You don't give a damn either by Kohath · · Score: 1

    What are you doing to show you care for them? Are you going to write a check to some charity?

    Or are you just whining and posturing on an Internet message board? You pretend to care ... as long as it doesn't personally cost you anything. Stop being a drama queen.

  43. That bad treatment translates into junk products by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It affects the quality of the work by their treatment of their workers.

    Treat the workers like junk? Get junk.
    Treat them with some respect? Get a well-made product.

  44. Wait.. by Paracelcus · · Score: 1

    How do you kill yourself for financial gain, is this some kind of bizzarro insurance fraud? Kind of tough to spend the money, no?

    --
    I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
  45. Why not move them to the US? by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    There are at least 800,000 people here who would like to have a job...

    1. Re:Why not move them to the US? by cdrguru · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And if they would work for $0.50 a day then maybe it might make sense.

      When it isn't financially sensible to employ people at $0.50 a day, you can expect the people to be replaced by machines with one or two people watching over them getting paid $2 a day. Factories are going to go where the labor is cheap and where the products can be shipped to customers. Whereever that might be these days.

    2. Re:Why not move them to the US? by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      The sad part is that when one factors in the cost of shipping, insurance, duties, etc. it is not that much more expensive to make the product here in the U.S. And, it is only going to get more expensive.

      In all reality, if upper management didn't make ridiculous sums of money and unions didn't try to run the companies, most products could be made in the U.S.A for the cost of the off-shored production.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    3. Re:Why not move them to the US? by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      Actually, the actual cost of production overseas is not the major motivating factor. What makes offshore production attractive is not the lower labor wages, but rather the ridiculous cost of "cradle to grave" benefits in the US.

      If GM hires a worker in the US, GM has to incur the cost of that worker until the worker dies, if that worker becomes "vested" in the right to suckle that teat until death. Same goes for Europe. In asia, when a worker quits or is laid off, the expense of that worker stops immediately and doesn't carry on for another 20-50 years.

  46. Omaha beach by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    Please tell me what the difference was. At least US allies tried to use all kinds of tech to change the human wave into something a bit more sophisticated. But the US poo-pooed those ideas and went for the human wave. Replace landingcraft with trenches and you had WW1 all over again.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  47. Sure it is by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    Just go visit the stock markets after the next crash. They are dropping like flies.

    Remember, people like the poster you respond to ain't comfortable with the dark void of their soul. So they seek to make excuses. They sound hollow even to them, but not as hollow as the void.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  48. Huh... by voss · · Score: 1

    Except that Taiwan is a modern liberal democratic nation with 16,000 per capita GDP who imports
    18 billion in US goods versus 23 billion in exports to the US. Taiwan is practically even with South Korea
    in GDP per capita. If you look at purchasing power parity they already exceed Greece, Spain and Italy.

    The reason Foxconn might leave china is not cost but quality. They have had numerous quality and labor problems
    with goods from their PRC factories.

  49. The industrial revolution, all over again. by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Nothing changes. In the west we had exploitative companies as well, still have to some degree read up on EA, and we had the same kind of struggles. In the end it seems to have worked itself out maybe mostly because we didn't have silly people from other cultures giving smart remarks from their comfortable lives won by the hard work of others.

    Once a woman choose to be tramped to death for the right to vote. Now many women her age can't even be bothered to vote. On a site were the vast majority is upper white middle class with high paying jobs for a minimum of physical labour you have a discussion about how good/bad foxconn is were people work 14+ hour shifts 6-7 days a week. Last time anyone here did an all nighter was to play WoW. In China you do 30+ hours because the boss says so and when you die, nobody is there to sue the hell out of the employer. Here? If the boss gives you a mean look you sue for trauma.

    And of course the fact that 99% here have gadgets made by foxconn doesn't in the least inspire a bit of "justification" spell "B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T-T-I-N-G" alone the lines of 'well, any job is better the no job".

    Humanity, not found on slashdot.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  50. The Truth is never what you think... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been living here for 5 years. I've worked with Foxconn and many of their employees, from management on down. Here is the biggest shocker of all: How many deaths by suicide a year ago? 2 years ago? Ah, now you are starting to see something. This is a recent development. Know why? I do. The truth is something nobody in China, Foxconn or Apple wants anyone to know. Too bad I won't tell you, you wouldn't believe it anyway. Ok, you just might. Here's a hint: Think Apple and the lost iPhone prototype. Then, remember that there was another one found in Vietnam, where Taiwan has many manufacturers. Also, take into consideration China's taste for stealing technology to clone, copy or otherwise duplicate it for less. Another consideration, Apple's Nazi culture towards leaking Tech...and remember...in China, shyte rolls downhill. The managers never take the blame, just the people jumping out of windows because some asshat manager has just destroyed their entire future. Ah, now maybe you get it!

  51. You're missing the point by xant · · Score: 1

    He wants to cut the suicide payments.

    No, wait, he already did that by fiat. Why is he doing this again?

    --
    It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
  52. Bogus Slashdot story by Animats · · Score: 3, Informative

    Read the original article. Gou, the CEO of Foxconn, talked at their annual meeting about moving some production to Taiwan, Vietnam, and India. It's not clear that they even intend to reduce their head count in China; that's a speculation by Oriental Daily. Foxconn has been growing rapidly, and they have too many people at one location. (Managing really huge plants is historically a headache. The maximum optimal plant size seems to be around 3,000, from modern US experience. All the economies of scale have been achieved by then. China is at an earlier stage of automation, though. The US at one time had single steel plants that employed 8,000 people with shovels. )

    1. Re:Bogus Slashdot story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, so that number of 800,000 really is not plausible for one corporation. There are only 3 or 4 militaries in the world that have numbers bigger than that. Even the biggest corporations tend not to approach militaries in size. And what does Foxconn even do that could use that many people? It doesnt take that many people to make an electronic component; there aren't that many of us buying those components either. This wouldn't be the first time that Chinese news propaganda miscounts the zeroes just for effect.

  53. 800,000 workers lose their jobs by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    And 800,000 people would get a job where they are moving to..

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  54. Not outright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No outside corporation can control 51% of a chinese factory. You need a chinese "partner" who controls at least that much. No foreign ownership. They won't allow it, because they are smart. China is *protectionist* and profits from it. The anti protectionist people never mention that saying it is "bad", they completely ignore china because it proves they are wrong. China does everything they can to corner markets, keep their exports high, improve productivity, etc using currency manipulation and tariffs and by other means, like garnering very long range energy and raw materials contracts and access. USA is dumb, they allow foreign ownership and all sorts of other domestic economic policies that go to screw over their own people so that the top 1% can get richer. The next one the wall street jerks want is carbon cap and trade. They have the left wing environmentals completely faked out that this is a good thing, when all it does is strip wealth from everyone else and hand it over to wall street.

    1. Re:Not outright by grainofsand · · Score: 1

      Whilst this was true in the 80s and the 90s, most all foreign companies now set-up as Wholly Foreign Owned Enterprises in China these days. The days of being forced into a joint-venture "marriage" with a Chinese partner are largely long gone. There are some exceptions (mining, exploration, media) but the overwhelming majority of foreign investment in China today is without a Chinese partner.

      Foxconn, owned by Taiwan-registered Hon Hai, operates as a Wholly Foreign Owned Enterprise in mainland China. No mainland investment or partnership.
       

      --
      A dream is good. A plan is better.
  55. Suicide Clusters by Lars+T. · · Score: 1
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120755264

    Scientists define a suicide cluster as three or more suicides in a specific location that occur over a short period of time. On average, there are five suicide clusters each year in the United States, according to psychiatric epidemiologist Madelyn Gould at Columbia University in New York City.

    If the first suicide gets media attention, then it's more apt to trigger other suicides. So, Gould cautions, the way the media cover a suicide can be critical. "We know from studies that have looked at the impact of the media that there is something called the 'dose-response association.' So the size of the increase in suicides following a suicide story is proportional to the amount, and the duration, and the prominence of the coverage."

    --

    Lars T.

    To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  56. protectionism by astar · · Score: 1

    game theory stuff often does not impress me. so I am fine with protectionism. and I figure economic liberalism or whatever they are calling it now can be properly characterized as evil. Oh well, big topics.

    But try this for protectionism. I do not know anybody pushing autarky? right now. Oh, maybe the North Koreans. Nor do I see a big complaint about some sort of international division of labor. I do see a lot of complaints about peope making money by looting, while just pretty much shutting down real production. I do think that bilateral trade agreeements between sovereign republics are likely to result in both parties coming out ahead. We used to favor that sort of approach.

    As far as China, I figure if their labor power increases, everyone can benefit. Is the issue low wages? There are some numbers that say no. I figure it is pretty much economic policy. A very broad characterzation is the chinese want to increase their labor power. These days we could be a little more precise, but you get the idea. Do you care to take a shot at characterizing atlantic basin economic policy?

  57. Re:It's all fun and games unless you're the target by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Put them on the social welfare until they find new employment. Seems like the most civilized way to do things.

  58. Birdhouses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not to put too fine a point on it,

    Say, I'm the only bee in your bonnet?

  59. SLAVERY. IT IS SLAVERY. SLAVERY. SLAVERY. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And they are all mad as hell because they got caught.

    SPIN as hard as you want you bastards.

    I know it. You know it.

    It is Slavery.

    Steve Jobs got caught.
    Now he is throwing a tantrum.
    BECAUSE HE GOT CAUGHT.

    I hope you shills are getting plenty of over time.

    I hope you realize that the same ends are in store for you once the rapers and exploiters are done with you too.

    The OVER REACTION serves two purposes.

    One, to make the SLAVERS feel better.

    The Second is to slam down hard on those uppity third world non-humans so that the capitalist exploiting pigs send a message to all the third world countries.

    KNOW YOUR PLACE. WE WILL DESTROY YOU IF YOU DO NOT BOW DOWN BEFORE US. DO NOT DARE RAISE YOUR WAGES. YOU WILL WORK FOR NOTHING AND LIKE IT! BREATH IN TOXINS. DRINK DIRTY WATER. LIVE ON A BOWL OF GRUEL.

    But it is not going to work any more. The internet, handi cams, you tube and forums such a slashdot expose corruption and explotation and the abuses.

    This is the end of an era. No more playing one country against another. The world has caught on to the games of these exploiters. These slavers. These degraders and defilers.

    Steve Jobs is mad that his shit hole factory got exposed, and people are killing themselves because they have no hope.

    Run USA OSHA through there, I dare you. Throw open the doors. Let any blogger on the planet who wishes into the factories with a camera crew. Nothing off limits.

    Steve Jobs is ANGRY that the exposure OF THE SUICIDES fucked up his product launch.

    All the spin will cannot save you now. Take your billions and go away. May you never sleep at night. May the blood stain your hands forever.

    Get off my planet.

    Stop breathing my air.

  60. So, What product were they working on? by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

    Maybe there is a particular product that induces suicidal thoughts by exposure.

    Anything from chemicals used in the industrial process that may have psychiatric effects.

    One of the symptoms of chronic lead exposure is depression, and what are the odds of lead poisoning in a chinese factory?

    (excluding the more sinister possibility of something like Stephen King's "Christine"... a cursed iPad anyone? )

  61. I can't care. by drumcat · · Score: 1

    China doesn't give a shit about workers, so why should Apple?

  62. Trade barriers not a simple fix - may be harmful by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Trade barriers don't work very well and can even be counterproductive. The trade barriers on steel are one of the reasons a lot of manufacturing left the US in the first place starting a few decades back. A complacent steel industry kept prices high and quality low, so a lot of heavy steel users that could move did.

  63. enabled by a murderous and thuggish central gover by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you can drive people like slaves by first buying up and bulldozing their villages to put in your "compounds" where said work is done, then (as a consequence) becoming the only reasonable means of earning anything at all, you can exploit people like this.

    http://market-ticker.org/archives/2398-Saturday-Economic-Musings.html

    For a while.

    Until they jump off the roof.

  64. Suicide is about the most selfish thing you can do by tomhudson · · Score: 1

    Parent poster wrote:

    > "Suicide is about the most selfish thing you can do."

    Sometimes it's understandable. Unending severe debilitating pain can do it. Don't knock it if you haven't been there - it begins to look logical after a few weeks, especially if the prognosis is pretty hopeless to begin with.

  65. Good old unintended consequences by noidentity · · Score: 1

    The CEO has accused workers of killing themselves for financial compensation, and the company has stopped suicide payments to suicide victims' families.

    Maybe paying families huge sums of money when there's a suicide isn't such a good idea, general public. Things aren't always what they seem (and I'm not saying they the money does encourage suicides for money, just that it's a possibility).

  66. Shortsighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are we really being this shortsighted here? This is NOT about suicides.

    * Foxconn requests Shenzhen gov. permission to expand 20%.
    * Shenzhen gov. denies permission. (Their long-term goal is to push all factories up north to Dongguan and turn Shenzhen into a second Hong Kong or Shanghai with financial institutions etc.) .. fast forward a few months..

    * To further aid Shenzhen's plans, Guangdong gov. sets to increase minimum wages (these can be set by local authorities, the central gov. just gives a guideline)
    * Foxconn and many others are not to happy about this, but understand they will have to comply .. fast forward a few weeks..

    * Workers are being thrown off the roof at Foxxconn by PSB personel to pressure Foxconn. (You have to understand that Foxconn's security guards are on a double pay-roll at the PSB. This is not a rumor and can be verified with the PSB. Second, people don't stab themselves twice and then jump off a roof, it clearly it murder, but both PSB and Foxconn have reason to cover this up.)
    * Foxconn, not yet realizing that it's the government throwing these people off the roof, promises to raise salaries 20% to cheer up workers
    * Of course workers are not stupid and know the 20% was coming anyway, to Foxconn is pushed to increase more and they announce 33% .. a few days pass..

    * Foxconn figures out what is really happening: the gov is trying to push Foxconn out. If they can make one of two giants move up north, the rest will follow. (60% of the 80.000 factories in the area have already said they consider to move.)
    * Foxconn tries to get back at the government and says to raise salaries by 66%. This increases pressure on gov. to let Foxconn not only stay, but to expand. Also, if Foxconn clients can agree to this raise (partially due to public pressure at this moment), other factories have a shot as well at staying in Shenzhen and annoying the local government. .. more time passes..

    * It now looks like Foxconn may be giving up and giving in to Shenzhen's push to get rid of them. Though I wouldn't be surprised if Foxconn has more up their sleeve, possibly helped by politicians in the central government who don't agree with Shenzhen's plans to beat Shanghai at their game.

    Read some more Chinese blogs and some less western mainstream media if you're really interested in the Foxconn story, beyond the fact that they assembled your iPhone 4.

  67. Totally bogus article by TRRosen · · Score: 1

    This is a crap article based on another article which has been shown to be based on a bad translation of an earlier report. FOXCON IS NOT MOVING OR CLOSING ANY PLANTS. They are Opening a new plant in Vietnam to handle some of their overload. Thats it.

  68. Union/Lobbies by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

    Unions lobbying politicians are part of the death spiral of California. People are only just starting to wake up to that fact. You're treading on very dangerous ground.

    --
    I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
  69. It's the game of guilt and innocence by UBfusion · · Score: 1

    Animals living in herds do it all the time. Reducing the mouths to feed is a standard survival strategy of Nature that works even in humans.

    However, if you are a factory/business/multinational, accepting to provide financial compensation means you are liable and accepting that you are guilty as charged. Therefore, denying the compensation can, and I expect, will be marketed as a statement of innocence.

    Anyway, eventually Nature will find her way and my guess is that She doesn't need any more iPads.

  70. And by mahadiga · · Score: 1
    --
    I'd like to buy homeland for our 10 million people. http://twitter.com/mahadiga
    1. Re:And by George_Ou · · Score: 1

      Having been born in Communist China, I think you should try living in Cuba for a while if you think it's all the same.

    2. Re:And by mahadiga · · Score: 1

      Socialism is preventing race to the bottom.
      Capitalism is promoting race to the top.

      I believe we need both to build and sustain a great nation.

      --
      I'd like to buy homeland for our 10 million people. http://twitter.com/mahadiga
  71. And by mahadiga · · Score: 1

    Under democracy in India, man exploits man. Under communism in China, it's just the opposite.
           

    --
    I'd like to buy homeland for our 10 million people. http://twitter.com/mahadiga
  72. Automation by Weezul · · Score: 1

    Automation will replace numerous unpleasant low-skill low-pay jobs with fewer more pleasant higher-skilled higher-paying jobs, and that's always good progress. Also, we should support any reduction in the trade imbalance with China, even if they're just moving to another country with a lesser trade imbalance.

    --
    The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
  73. You're right, same with US and EU circa 1900s by George_Ou · · Score: 1

    Americans and Europeans should compare Foxconn to US and EU labor conditions in the late 1800s and early 1900s.

  74. Corporate suicide bombers ? by HW_Hack · · Score: 1

    A typical example of delusion and denial in the upper food chain of a corporation. Rather than look at the real conditions in the factories - and the human condition of the workers. And then start to implement some real changes --- this would entail both real work AND admitting those who committed suicide had reason(s).

    No - FoxConn is essentially saying those workers who committed suicide are "corporate terrorists" targeting the corporation, its image, and its bank roll. What a totally insane conclusion to come to. No doubt as as someones life descends
    into a perfect hell and they are trapped or cannot see a way out --- they may think if I die this will end AND my family will get some good out of it.
    BUT - they did not engage into a contract with Foxconn with that idea in their head. They were pushed to get to that point of desperation.

    Another Epic Fail for FoxConn executives

    --
    Its not the years, its the mileage .....
  75. Re:It's all fun and games unless you're the target by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    Nice, but the longer one is on that, the more likely that employment will be harder to find.

    Now what might work is something that forces not just the unemployed to the table, but also does so for the providers of the opportunities.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  76. Amazing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You post a conspiracy theory and what happens? It is deleted, removed, buried and hidden...like it never existed. If that isn't proof of concept, I don't know what is!