—I’M USING ALL CAPS TO CLARIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS HOW BKDC RESPONDED TO MY IDEA (ABOVE):
bwahaha - sounds so….civilized (in a very non-capitalist capitalist way) until you stop and think that you wouldn’t pay $1500 for the same device. You all (sometimes me too) demand better. Better prices, that is, and no ‘sane’ company/CEO is going to commit suicide by not trying to ‘make you happy’ and give you just that - more for less.
Netflix is being killed for a couple dollars more but you DEMAND better? pfff…try putting DVDs in envelopes for 8 bucks / day or whatever for a few hours of your life first.
Go in front of Walmart -demand you pay more for what they sell. Better yet, why not buy from a mom & pop store (10-30% more expensive) instead. Oh, they’ve been killed by Wallmart you already.
Go ask Apple to raise the prices AND pay the workers in China triple what they get now.
Go and demand that investors stop expecting 10-50% profits year to year on their portfolio TODAY.
You do all that after you demand a voluntary salary cut.
shame, anyone? — citizen kerry (via azspot)
KERRY HERE:
Please, help me understand why Apple, which managed to revolutionize the music industry, couldn’t also revolutionize labor conditions overseas? I heard this sentiment from several people yesterday so I’m hoping someone can explain.
I’m not arguing that we triple wages at Foxconn. I’m wondering why Apple couldn’t implement safer working conditions, hexyl-hydride-free environments (before reports of irreparable nerve damage), a humane work day (8 hours?), and/or allow third-party inspectors to conduct safety verifications.
I get your point that CEOs are driven by a need to please shareholders and that means being ruthless about keeping costs low. And I know that well-meaning liberals (like me!) have, in the past, called for better working conditions (read=more expensive labor costs) which had the unintended consequence of causing factories to move to cheaper parts of the world. And suddenly, all those people who’d taken factory jobs—because the choice was between working there or going hungry—were staring once again, at hunger. I understand that being the judge of “what’s best for people” isn’t always so simple. I even understand that on a macro-economic level, sweatshops can lift people out of poverty. (See: the American garment industry.)
But I don’t understand why we can’t we aim a little higher than allowing our corporations to “routinely abuse, poison, and exploit” their overseas workers (to use Mike Daisey’s phrasing)? And the onus is on companies like Apple because they’re the industry leaders. If we live in a globalized world, why aren’t there global standards for work safety?
What am I missing? I’d be grateful for any illumination you have time to share. I’m actually looking into “how to buy clothes ethically” and this Apple detour has provided a great deal of insight.
