8 Comments


  1. ·

    I’ve been thinking of this a bunch too. The story was sort of on my radar before I saw Mr. Daisey’s show. (At the time I saw the show, I thought ‘this is a This American Life story just waiting to happen,’ I don’t mind saying.) There was also a several minute spot on Foxconn I happened to see on the Daily Show a week or so ago.

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-16-2012/fear-factory

    As a forever Mac user, a step below Daisey in fanboy status but nevertheless practically committed to the whole Apple thing, I REALLY wish Cupertino would step up and become a real leader in addressing the problems Mike highlights.

    It seems the time is as ripe as it’s ever been for it, but it could only happen if it could be done profitably. But the right story (as the marketers love to say) could really sell it: Macs have always been a bit more money for a lot better computer*–now they’re a bit more-more money for a lot better computer AND a cleaner conscience.

    Why not, Apple? I’m buying.

    *arguably

  2. Dan Woods
    ·

    I would definitely pay a premium for Humanely manufactured Apple Goods, as long as they are still made to Apple’s current quality standards.

    HP products however, well, just look at the TouchPad and Cheap Printers. They aren’t worth the List price, let alone the suffering the workers have to go through to get the product to us.

    Products with poor after-sales support, that are only designed to last a few months are what really cheapens the value of these workers efforts.

  3. Scott Squire
    ·

    I wonder about the difference, there on the ground among the folks who manufacture the stuff in China, between the crappy stuff and the better quality stuff.

    Does the experience differ significantly? Apple vs HP (or some of that wicked-cheap off brand junk, more to the point). The business model at this end is different, but is one automatically more profitable?

    I just bought a pair of rubber boots for my kid. Bogs. They were like three times as expensive as the cheaper ones, four feet away on the store’s shelf. Both are made in China.

    Does my paying more (for what I believe is a better product) afford any kind of assurance that the folks who made the product toil under more humane conditions than the folks making the one I didn’t buy?

    That’s the illusory hope Daisey’s talking about. It serves our ‘needs’ so well.

  4. Scot Hacker
    ·

    Well, besides the money, the other factor is ramp-up time. Nowhere in the U.S. can a factory hire 2,000 new workers overnight, or come anywhere close to meeting the numbers of devices America “needs.” It’s a good thought experiment, but those jobs aren’t coming back to the U.S. The only hope is for us to apply pressure for humane working conditions, and to keep the heat on. If we look away (as we always have), capitalism will win every time. “Fiduciary responsibility to our shareholders” and all that.

  5. Paul
    ·

    Gresham’s law. An economic principle which states that “bad”, or less-valuable, currency will cause well valued or “good” currency to leave the market (hoarding, profit taking). Or, if both currencies are mandated to exist in the same market, the entire market will suffer devaluation because of the introduction of “bad” currency.

    There are people applying this principle to ethics in business. When the new business valuation benchmark is short-term, high-yield profit, and a successful model is introduced to the market that validates the economics (without an ethical component as a regulator), then that new market principle will come to dominate the market. Subsequently making long-term “slow”-yield business models unprofitable, or constrained to specific niches in the greater new market. As there is no demand for ethics in the greater business model – only profit – regulating the growth of your business by using ethical principles (responsibility to community, employees, regional economics) is suicide….OR…a recipe for strong local-only businesses. This phenomenon is also a reason to consider a debate on the issue of using the word “free” when discussing market economies. Does “free” demand freedom from any regulation?…or does “free” imply the greater freedom of humanity to create modes of interaction?…which, of course, are all subject to the constraints of consensus and compromise (regulations). Does a free market really exist? If not…why can’t a market be constrained by social ethical concerns that can only be expressed in the wider society in the form of laws? Unless we believe that business owners can be convinced of the wisdom of ethical behavior in all transactions, and act accordingly.

  6. Scot Hacker
    ·

    Extremely well said Paul. To me, a truly free market – with no regulations and where greed always trumps ethics – is a description of the most nightmarish world I can imagine. Do not want.

  7. Paul
    ·

    I wish there was a reasonable ear in the political spectrum that would consider things like resource nationalization and price caps, or a legal framework to require all products sold in the US to be made under US conditions for the workers…throughout the supply/resource chain. Including the source minerals that go into components.

    Recently overheard in a café – delivered by someone who was extremely well baked (not me): “…when the Americans can finally turn Milton Freedman into Joseph Goebbels, we’ll have gotten somewhere…” Note: I live in the same city with the EU Investment bank, the EU Economic Council, and the EU Central Bank Committee (the Euro group). This guy was wearing the admin banker’s uniform – his tie could pay for a month of my kid’s school tuition. Conclusion: occupy, occupy, occupy – the message is sinking in.

  8. Scot Hacker
    ·

    This blog needs a “Like” button for comments like that.

Leave a Reply