As long as companies Apple are not legally responsible for their supply chain in front of developed countries’ courts nothing will change. In Switzerland a law that would have changed this was recently rejected. Hopefully another country makes the first step.
I’d really be curious to see how far we could push this.
Cobalt is an essential part of lithium-ion batteries. 70% of the world’s cobalt is mined in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, much of it in forced conditions.
So I guess we have three options: go without lithium-ion batteries, enforce a minimum standard of labor conditions in the DRC by any means necessary, or just try not to think about it too much. Is it any wonder that we picked door number 3?
It is a very simple and clear difference, yet it is a common tactic for a debater to change the narrative and manipulate the argument away to prove some other point.
Honestly, you remind me of “Thank you for smoking”. I will not be surprised if this is how lobbying or CCP’s campaigns work.
Weird that you make up your own source and counter it as if the person you were replying to had used it, then go on about how they use sleazy debating tactics. I think there's a proverb about a kettle that might apply.
Both talk about people being forced to mine. Not they're poor and need to eat. Debt bondage, bogus criminal charges then sent to the mines to work as prisoners, or just straight up forced to at gun point by militias/gangs. You know, actual forced labour.
Thanks for those sources. Yep, those examples are more in par with the case at hand.
To answer the original post then, education is key: "knowledge is power, power is responsibility".
The issue here is that Apple is employing tactics with lobbying, PR, marketing (sort of brainwashing) to make you "try not to think about it too much", so yeah it is "no wonder people pick door number 3". The hypocrisy that fuels the hype and demand for its brand is what consumers should be aware of.
As austhrow alluded to, I was indeed alluding to actual forced/child labor in the DR Congo.
I would invite you to peruse my comment history (perhaps via the search functionality) if you really think I’m a shill for either Apple or the CCP. I would be even more outspoken about the issue were it not for the often-aggressive moderation of “nationalistic flame war” that I’ve seen on HN. But the truth is that none of our hands are clean given the complexity of global supply chains, the resource curse, and the apathetic attitude of the developed world towards human rights issues in general.
... or, we could nudge companies to go to LFP batteries, which can be made without cobalt, and have much better safety. It takes a lot more to make them blow up.
The energy density's a bit lower though, but not so low you can't make a Model 3 with it for the Chinese market...
That doesn’t really scale. Minerals are where they are in the earth’s crust, and at some point we need to go to DR Congo if we want enough cobalt to go around. Especially if we want stuff like electric cars.
And that’s just one example of one mineral. There is the notion of the “resource curse” —countries rich in natural resources often stay poor because why develop a modern economy when you can just become a warlord and force children to mine diamonds or cobalt for you? The flip side of this is the part where we in the developed world don’t like to think too much about where these basic resources come from.
Out toppling a democratically elected government that threatened US investors' profit margins.
I'm pretty sure they're stirring up trouble in xinjiang also. Pitting ethnic minorities in hard to defend mountainous border regions against central government is a standard divide and conquer empire tactic. The British Empire used it a lot in Asia, for instance.
You usually cannot "topple" a rogue regime, unlike a civil government.
Dictators almost always have secret police, and domestic espionage agencies in every corner.
This is why I do not subscribe to notion that Western spies are trying to stage revolutions in repressive regimes for a simple reason that they can not.
They failed in Venezuela recently but that didn't stop them from trying. There was a democratic Senator who ascribed the failure to Trump's incompetence.
Most of Latin America had had a US backed coup at some point in its history. Many very successful. Pinochet, etc.
Except that the spooks failed even when it came to unseating Noriega because they had to call in the military to stage an invasion.
The only two cases that I’m aware of where the US clandestinely toppled a foreign government were Chile and Iran - and apparently even the Iranian operation was mostly driven by the British secret service. And by all accounts, Chile was more of a nudge than a push.
A downstream issue with importing the product of forced labor into the US is that US manufacturing markets, business (small & medium in particular), labor, & markets affected by finance are distorted. The argument that an influx of cheap foreign goods & cheap labor costs are good for the economy does not properly consider the long term & strategic costs of hollowing out large markets where the USA once lead the world as well as the poverty/blight incurred by former middle-class communities.
I grew up in Hawaii, which used to have a large sugar cane industry. I found it strange that the sugar cane was shipped to the mainland, to be processed, then packaged, shipped back, & sold to the consumer in Hawaii. The value added was effectively removed the local market, which created a monopoly for H,C,&S to buy land, have authority over water rights, allowing them to break treaties & promises to the citizens of the islands. There were also celebrated things that occurred due to the sugar industry, such as importing many people of different ethnicities to work in the plantations.
Today, Hawaii has highly prized land, which is expensive, & many families living there for generations who do not make much money. With few employable industries (government & tourism being the largest employers), the economy is vulnerable to Black Swan events, such as the Covid lockdowns.
> A downstream issue with importing the product of forced labor into the US is that US manufacturing markets, business (small & medium in particular), labor, & markets affected by finance are distorted. The argument that an influx of cheap foreign goods are good for the economy does not properly consider the long term & strategic costs of hollowing out large markets where the USA once lead the world.
That's potentially a very valuable point politically: Those complaining about unfair competition from China and those concerned about human rights can find common cause, and maybe enough support to pass such a bill.
'American workers should not have to compete with slave labor!'
> 'American workers should not have to compete with slave labor!'
That's a powerful point! This is a big issue that will affect our lives & the lives of generations to come.
Not to mention National Security issues & living in safe/strong neighborhoods. There are many reasons to promote ethical behavior & transparency with suppliers, on par with US standards. Ensuring that suppliers are ethical also disincentives industry/labor from leaving the US, as labor & compliance costs will be equalized.
> Ensuring that suppliers are ethical also disincentives industry/labor from leaving the US, as labor & compliance costs will be equalized.
We want lower-paying jobs to leave, to be replaced by higher paying jobs. I think the focus should be on the latter: improve people's skill and productivity, and make sure that people can make the transition from the old jobs to the new, including a proper social safety net to see them through.
I agree that we should improve skill & productivity. The best way to create wealth & knowledge is to create a market for small & medium businesses. Employees can gain skills & learn about the industry to create their own businesses, which further evolves the market & creates more jobs & opportunity for advancement. Education with auto-didactic learning, tax law, & practical business is important, to help people reach the next level of wealth.
There's probably effective & ineffective ways of promoting citizens' interests with local, national, & international business; however if we care about our neighbors & our values as a country, we should invest in our neighbors who share these values.
Foe the sake of argument I put it rather bluntly: I don't think this happened by accident but on purpose. There is simply no way to end up in a situation where you use forced labor by accident. Poverty and forced labor are just the other side of wealth and freedom. Same coin. Someone has to to pay the price. Earth's ressources are limited and if not shared you'll end up where we currently are.
Some examples. Some might be good others less. But I want to convey something.
Your freedom to kill people is limited to zero to ensure their right to live.
Our freedom to pollute the environment is limited by nature's ability to compensate.
My freedom to watch the latest shows for free is limited by e.g. Netflix to earn some money.
You are free to by e.g. Apple stuff. But you know... seems to limite quite some people's freedom.
I'm not free to live by the sea. To expensive.
I say therfore freedom of choice does not translate to freedom bit it is often confused to be the latter
The other thing is simply inflation.
Too much money around and you have it. Kind of offer and demand out of balance. For any given state of the earth's economy there is a perfect amount of money to keep everthing going. That means the amount of money is finite. If the economy growth the amount of money can grow as well (what you described). But is is still finite unless you want to have inflation. But if this money is disproportinally distributed you have the rich and the poor. Being rich requires poverty somewhere else.
This reminds me of a piece of local history I recently learned in my hometown (Northeast FL).
In the late 1800s, a number of slave families traveled down-river from Georgia after being emancipated and homesteaded in my area on the St. Johns River. As property values increased and they started being taxed more heavily on their (mostly waterfront) land, many of these families (whose patriarchs were mostly illiterate and not at all business-savvy) ended up selling to (i.e. getting taken advantage of by) housing developers, basically losing their identity and heritage.
The story isn't necessarily a direct parallel, but the pattern reminds me of the "milkshake" scene from the movie There Will Be Blood. People shouldn't have to worry about their basic livelihood and property being stripped away by anything other than perhaps a natural disaster of some kind.
> People shouldn't have to worry about their basic livelihood and property being stripped away by anything other than perhaps a natural disaster of some kind.
This is a very interesting point. I'm not sure what to think of it. Maybe it needs a bit more complexity. After all the exploitation of disadvantaged minority owners is seen as hopefully almost universally bad, whereas using eminent domain to create a park/hospital/bus-stop/townhouse might be a good thing. Yet tyranny of the majority is also problem. (And of course it's hyperdimensional interlocking turtles in every direction philosophically.)
NIMBY-ism that happens in growing cities - so basically in all of them, since urbanization and migration to urban areas, and urban revival is going on - is seen as usually bad. Yet usually the problem is that any new development puts additional burden on the incumbents. (Eg. as population and population density grows there will be more people, more traffic, more big houses blocking out the sun, god forbid even more diversity too.) Which is a very similar in certain aspects. (A community trying to set themselves and their circumstances in stone. And we know people pretty much prefer stability.)
Land Value Tax comes up a lot to fight NIMBY-ism, but that's again a kind of tyranny of the majority. (If you have a small plot of land, let's say a garden, or a small grocery store in the middle of the city, LVT would probably force you to sell or develop it.)
However, at the same time we see that - for example in California - raising taxes on property is very much frowned upon. Sure, we know they have a very big financial interest in keeping housing prices going up and keeping taxes down.
...
So after all this rambling, probably what I'm trying to say is that the right to self-determination is important on many levels, but it naturally implies the conflict between those levels. Individual vs. group interests.
I have a friend from Ibiza who described the same problem of vastly disproportionate income opportunity for locals compared to the price of real estate. For them, moving out from the home means leaving the island.
Keep in mind part of the demographic you are talking to here- (mostly) high salaried tech and the elite. Does this affect them? They will happily ignore these issues as long as they keep on getting their shiny iPhones and Macs.
It's a shame that a country as rich as Switzerland is unwilling to do that first step. I think that would have been a good way to start making corporations take responsibility.
The majority of the population was actually willing to do this, as it was a referendum that captured 50.3% of the vote. But it also had to capture a majority of the cantons in the country, which it did not do. And so the initiative failed.
The USA still allows prison slave labor, so good luck with that.
Examples: [1]
Whole Foods – This organic supermarket buys artisan cheeses and fishes from companies that employ inmates.
McDonald’s – Certain McDonald store items such as cutlery and containers were made in prison. Prisoners also sew their employee uniforms, and they only make a few cents an hour from it.
Target – Since the early 2000s, Target has relied on suppliers that are known to use prison labor.
IBM – Apparently, inmates from Lockhart Prison in Texas manufacture this tech giant’s circuit boards.
Texas Instruments – Like IBM, their circuit boards are also made by prisoners. They even got a new factory assembly room specially made for inmate laborers.
Boeing – A subcontractor of Boeing was found to have used inmates to cut airplane components. Unsurprisingly, the prisoners only get paid less than a quarter of the usual wage for such type of work.
Nordstrom – The company was once under fire for selling jeans made by inmates. They have since stopped the practice though, and have promised not to use involuntary labor of any kind again.
Intel – Like other tech giants in this list, Intel has also outsourced labor from prison. Some of their computer parts were made in a prison manufacturing facility.
Walmart – Despite pledging not to sell products made by prisoners, some of the retail giant’s subcontractors were using prison labor to dispose of customer returns and excess inventory.
Victoria’s Secret – The top American underwear designer was paying inmates peanuts to make their expensive lingerie.
AT&T – Rather than outsource their call centers to other English-speaking countries, AT&T hired prisoners instead. The problem is, they only receive $2 an hour for a job that usually pays $15.
British Petroleum (BP) – In 2010, BP hired Louisiana inmates to clean up an oil spill. They received no payment from it.
Starbucks – We all know that Starbucks employees make little hourly. But the prisoners who make the packaged coffee sold in their stores make even much less money. They only receive as little as 23 cents an hour.
Microsoft – In the 1990s, Microsoft made a conscious decision to hire prisoners to pack their software and mouse. A spokesperson at that time even claimed that the company sees nothing wrong about it.
Honda Motor Company – The Japanese car company hires inmates from Ohio Mansfield Correctional Institution to make some of its car parts. As expected, the company paid them next to nothing.
Macy’s – Like Walmart and Target, this retail giant also uses prison labor to save on its operating costs.
Sprint – Following the footsteps of its competitor, AT&T, Sprint also staffs its call centers with underpaid inmates.
Nintendo – To pack their Game Boys, Nintendo hired a subcontractor who, in turn, hires prisoners at deplorable rates.
JC Penney – Since the 90s, JC Penney has used prison labor for its clothing line. Female inmates used to sew leisurewear sold in their stores, and more recently, prisoners from Tennessee are making jeans for them.
Wendy’s – As part of its cost-cutting measures, Wendy’s uses prison labor to process beef for their hamburgers.
I am surprised by today's lack of ethics discernment - there is big a difference.
Prison labor is compensating for crimes committed against society and other people, while uyghur labor is direct discrimination against an entire minority without probable cause.
If they happen to commit terrorism, then yes, those specific individuals' forced labor is justified as debt, but right now they are just labeled as "enemies of the state" because they threaten CCP's interests. This is much like what happened with Nazi Germany or the USSR, even the controversial US Japanese internment camps.
In the original thread it was mentioned that Apple fans are brainwashed by the brand, it is obvious from the responses here that this is clearly working...
How does some private company getting labor for 10c an hour benefit anyone but them? It's "compensating" for jack shit. You might have a point if they had to pay minimum wage for each employee to the government to be used on social services.
and the incentive for private prisons to not even try to behave as a "correctional" facilities, since your revenue is tied to having more criminals, not less.
Your argument assumes the non-Chinese justice system in question is actually just in its enforcement of the laws and fair in its sentencing.
If that system is the US, we can question those assumptions along a few lines:
- racial bias in enforcement and sentencing
- inhumane prison terms in general
- unjust laws e.g. the war on drugs
- the failure of the society to provide entire classes of people with sufficient non-criminal routes out of poverty and despair
I doubt anyone in this thread is arguing that forced labor would be ok anywhere. But hypocrisy is its own destructive force in the world, and there’s a weird meme in Western culture whereby unsavory behavior in China is somehow a sign of evil while the West is somehow more pure. The respective body counts and the number of people in jail (absolute and per-capita) make this highly questionable.
The article is talking about something very specific.
Muslims being forced into labor camps against their will.
The US has it's share of problems - nobody sane would deny that. But, what the US does do that the CCP does not is allow the open discourse of it's problems, and to change it's policies if people agree.
Even the very numbers that come from the CCP regarding their prison population are extremely suspect - they do not allow independent auditing, and we discover new slave labor camps like the ones in this article nearly every other day it seems. Flatly, the numbers put forth by the CCP are not to be trusted because the CCP has done nothing to make the numbers trustworthy.
Bringing things up from the US' past, nearly a century ago or longer, or equivocating paid voluntary prison labor with mandatory forced labor based on religion is flatly wrong.
I think you're being earnest so I'll dive into this thread for a few more minutes before I go back to work. Because I'm being earnest too:
If the West wants to influence internal China policy, it needs either a clear moral high ground for Chinese citizens to refer to, or clear economic upper hand. It doesn't have the latter right now (maybe never will again), and as this thread demonstrates, it doesn't have the former either.
Re: open discourse and changeable policies, China policies are more changeable than you would gather from the cartoon picture in Western media. They change constantly, in response not only to public opinion (as expressed on the internet these days), but also in response to continual internal debate within the CCP.
The US, for all its waving of the "free speech" banner, is only as changeable as the culture allows. Right now, for example, there would be no hope of reforming either prisons or e.g. a climate policy that might destroy civilization itself, because ~50% of US culture believes those aren't necessary.
Also note that open discourse is only allowed to a certain extent, as seen in surveillance and countermeasures against protests and organizers of any kind, from 1776 until the present day. So we can't in reality claim to be a society of free discourse when it comes to threats against the status quo, perceived or otherwise.
Prison labor in the US is only voluntary if people choose it over labor outside of prison. The fact that people sometimes choose it over staring at a wall for decades (and, one can imagine, being harassed by prison staff for not making the place more profitable) doesn't make it voluntary.
And finally re: Muslims being forced into labor camps against their will. It was not a century ago that the West dealt with its Muslim-extremism problem by bombing cities and weddings, and causing the economic collapse of entire countries. You want leverage over Chinese policy, you need to address this first.
This is laojiao, not laogai, these people haven’t been convicted of any crimes and this is administrative punishment for unharmonious but not criminal behavior and thoughts.
The west is held responsible for Chinese behavior by the Chinese themselves. Notice how China was criticizing the west for taking advantage of recycling contracts in China with terms that were too good to be true, and eventually were found to basically be dumping in China. Likewise, as you say, this is our responsible as well: we must make sure that we operating with Chinese businesses with acceptable labor practices.
Bottom line: China has forced a million Muslims into slave labor camps simply because they are Muslim... But you want to focus on how the US doesn't pay enough for voluntary prison labor.
> what the US does do that the CCP does not is allow the open discourse of it's problems, and to change it's policies if people agree
If this is true in practice, then the US prison labor problem is much more tractable than trying to fix an issue in a far off land where they don't allow open discourse. It wouldn't be a disaster if Americans focused their attention on their many domestic issues first, which they have direct control over. But currently there is very little open discourse in the US about prison labor, especially compared to the amount of discourse about Xinjiang.
This doesn't excuse China for the things they are doing wrong.
The US doesn't need to be perfect before US citizens can decry Religious Slave Labor Camps in China, that the CCP denies exist despite overwhelming evidence that continues to flourish.
I think you've lost sight of the original context of this thread. Here's the top comment:
> As long as companies Apple are not legally responsible for their supply chain in front of developed countries’ courts nothing will change.
Of course Americans can and should decry Chinese slave labour camps, but you've just finished explaining why the American slave labour issue is a lot easier to address and deal with, so if they can't get that one sorted out I don't have high hopes for their chances of enforcing legal responsibility when dealing with China.
Some people believe as long as the US underpays prisoners convicted of crimes, the CCP gets carte blanche to imprison a million people because of their religion, and force them into labor camps.
Or did I misread this entire thread?
And making companies like Apple legally responsible for their supply chain labor will do nothing to stem the flurry of actual slave labor camps seemingly sprouting up all over China.
Chinese companies will continue to use the free labor and compete on an uneven global playing field, so long as the CCP sees a benefit.
Sure thing. The most recent comment in this thread not made by one of us was by quicklime, and ended with this line:
> [The lack of open discourse about America's prison slavery problem] doesn't excuse China for the things they are doing wrong.
The one immediately prior to that was by mike_h and started with this:
> I doubt anyone in this thread is arguing that forced labor would be ok anywhere.
I'm not sure how you read either of those statements and extracted "the CCP gets carte blanche to imprison a million people because of their religion, and force them into labor camps".
>> The US doesn't need to be perfect before US citizens can decry Religious Slave Labor Camps in China
> Oh, yes, it does. Surely not perfect, but much better, or at least not as bad.
The country that was founded on the principal of religious freedom, by people that fled religious persecution, and felt so strongly as to list religious freedom as item number one in their list of human rights, does not need to be "much better" to call out religious slave labor camps.
>The country that was founded on the principal of religious freedom, by people that fled religious persecution, and felt so strongly as to list religious freedom as item number one in their list of human rights, does not need to be "much better" to call out religious slave labor camps.
"The country that founded on the principal of religious freedom" is nationalistic trite, like "land of the free" (which ended slavery later than other western countries, gave poor, blacks, and women the vote later, has 25% of the world's prison population, and so on), and "home of the brave" (where the Army is professional and the majority of the population had never had the chance to fight in any war or suffer any war domestically for over a century, so one wonders how/what this "braveness" is measured with and against).
First, what the country was "founded on" means little. What the country has historically did and up to now does (warred, enslaved, invaded, occupied, strong-armed, intimidated, etc.) matters more.
Second, the fact that a country was founded by religious hardcores literally thrown out of Europe for being such, and that they wanted "religious freedom" in their new dwellings so as to they not kill each other, doesn't give it any special moral high ground. Heck, if it was up to any of the religious sects that ended up there, the others would be illegal (the US still has the most fundamentalist religious people in the West, which when they had the upper hand were ok with forcing their will as law on anything from abortions to music releases). But they needed "religious freedom" because none of them had the power over all the other denominations (all Christian at the time, mostly variations of protestantism), and thus they made a virtue out of necessity.
Not to mention that they still managed all together to opress the blacks (nuff said), the native americans ("trail of tears"), the early Chinese, Irish, etc immigrants, and so on...
So effectively you are arguing that since the US did bad things in the past, China should be allowed to imprison millions based on their religion alone?
No, effectively I'm arguing that the US should check its own hypocrisy before pointing fingers, especially if it does it selectively (doesn't matter when allies / we do it), hypocritically, and as part of a power play/trade war. (Also, it wasn't "in the past", the US does bad things continuously. W. Bush, Obama -more of the same-, and Trump presidencies weren't in some distant past...)
How about both China and the US stop fucking over with millions, and people don't "patriotically" only point fingers to the other, and give their home team a pass (with much less, and much tamer, criticism, whereas it should be even more vigorous, it being their own domain?).
Nobody is giving the US a "pass". All of our problems are out in the open for everyone to see and comment on, US Citizens or foreigners alike! That's part of what makes the US so unique.
Regardless, no issue any country has domestically is going to excuse Religious Slave Labor Camps in China. That's wrong no matter where you live or who you are. People like to throw Hitler around too easily... but this is exactly what the Nazis did... imprison and exterminate entire populations of "undesirables" based solely on religion.
Arguing the US needs to shut it's mouth because it has some domestic issues doesn't fly...
I agree. The attempts to change the subject to the U.S. are classic whataboutist arguments, and transparently weak ones. It's hard to imagine what's wrong with your points that you would be downvoted.
>Prison labor is compensating for crimes committed against society and other people
Strange how this "just" system getting inmates "compensating for crimes committed against society and other people", ended up with 25% of the world's prison population in a country with a mere 4% of the world's population.
Not to mention this 25% seems also racially targeted - predominantly blacks and latinos...
Prison slave labor was instituted in the US as a substitute for chattel slavery, and criminalization of Black lives immediately matured around it. It’s certainly a lot less visibly oriented around race relations and a lot more couched in a legalistic framework that fits our system and culture, but there’s a direct line from antebellum slavery to the modern prison system.
We manage to imprison 4x as many people per capita compared to China.
Think of every bad thing you think and have been told about the big bad CCP and then think that we manage to imprison at 4x their rate. What does that make us?
> Prison labor is compensating for crimes committed against society and other people
But the prisoners didn’t commit crimes against “society” they committed them against particular people. Why not force the inmate into indentured servitude under the injured party rather than an opportunistic third party like Walmart?
There is a big difference between slave/forced labor and paying for cheap labor.
Majority of your examples state something along the lines of "paying inmates peanuts to make expensive things"... which literally is not the definition of slave labor.
The article is about literal Chinese Slave Labor camps. There is no comparison with any of the things in your list.
Most people would also agree, providing a purpose - jobs, training and skills to inmates is a net win for everyone involved, and is a core component in rehabilitation - directly combating rescindance.
Oh yeah, these companies are totally doing this for the public good and not just simply exploiting cheap labor. And considering how hard it is for an ex con to get a job, I doubt this has any major impact on recidivism.
Except they did when they said “ Most people would also agree, providing a purpose - jobs, training and skills to inmates is a net win for everyone involved, and is a core component in rehabilitation - directly combating rescindance.”
I’m not down playing the Chinese labor camps, I’m taking issue with claiming the prison labor in the US is some moral good. It’s exploiting people, not attempting to rehabilitating them.
Yes, you can indeed continue to move the goal posts, but acknowledge we're far into the weeds and even further from what the article focused on - Religious Slave Labor Camps in China.
Why aren't inmates paid a "fair" wage? Well, that's up for debate and I think I'd enjoy hearing pros and cons.
Some cons I could think of are:
* These are inmates, serving a sentence as punishment for a crime they were convicted of.
* Most of their living expenses are already provided.
* Alternatives include doing nothing all day instead of a job.
* If inmate labor cost what non-inmate labor costs, why would anyone hire inmates?
* The labor programs are largely voluntary.
* The money earned is used as a reward for participation, good behavior, and showing a willingness to work and get along with other inmates. Misbehave and you don't get to work, and don't earn money.
Now maybe it is time to step up some sort of minimum wage for inmates... but that doesn't distract from atrocities the CCP is committing in present day.
> * These are inmates, serving a sentence as punishment for a crime they were convicted of.
If the gaol sentence is their punishment, why are they being penalised further by reduced wages?
> * If inmate labor cost what non-inmate labor costs, why would anyone hire inmates?
Government-backed incentives. It's in everyone's best interests for people convicted of crimes to have a path back on to the straight-and-narrow. Investing in reducing recidivism is far better value for money than almost any other anti-crime measures.
> * The labor programs are largely voluntary. [...] Alternatives include doing nothing all day instead of a job.
I’m not the one moving the goal post, I remain steadfast that they are being exploited and every time I point this out you give a slightly different reason as to why they are not. First it was the two systems (China vs US) are vastly different, then it was the convict leasing was ended, then it was voluntary (except when it isn’t), then it was at least they get paid, then it was well they are criminals so they deserve it.
That is a debate worth having - but calling cheaply paid prison labor "Slave Labor", or equivocating it to Chinese Forced Labor Camps is disingenuous and dishonest.
They are flatly not the same, even if you believe it's debatably exploitive.
> The practice peaked around 1880, was formally outlawed by the last state (Alabama) in 1928, and persisted in various forms until it was abolished by President Franklin D. Roosevelt via Francis Biddle's "Circular 3591" of December 12, 1941.
You use something that was ended (because people thought it was wrong!) nearly a century ago as supporting evidence for what exactly?
Convict Leasing is different, and people felt strongly enough that it was bad that the laws were changed (nearly 100 years ago!).
Now the prisoners can get paid some wages in return for labor, in a mostly voluntary labor system.
Unlike the CCP, every inmate had a trial and was found guilty of some crime, and is now repaying their debt to society - as it were.
What did the million Muslims in the article get convicted of in China? Being Muslims? What about the Uyghurs? So now they are slaves for the rest of their lives...
“The article is about literal Chinese Slave Labor camps”
Actually it’s not... did you read it?
The central allegation is that a few thousand Xinjiang Muslims were offered employment possibly in exchange for political indoctrination.
There’s a side allegation that prisoners are also being put to work in factories. There’s no allegation let alone evidence that this is without compensation. And the pennies offered in US prisons hardly count, and certainly don’t absolve the US justice system of the conflict of interest one can allege upon seeing how profitable it is for localities to throw people in jail.
> “The article is about literal Chinese Slave Labor camps”
> > Actually it’s not... did you read it?
Yes, but apparently you did not. Here's the quote:
> Xinjiang, in the far reaches of Western China bordering Afghanistan, Pakistan and other Muslim-majority countries, is facing a brutal crackdown by China’s government, which has placed more than a million Muslims in concentration camps or forced them to work in factories making everything from cotton to soft drinks to electronics.
Trying to spin this off as some sort of voluntary job thing is extremely disingenuous. Almost as disingenuous as trying to spin paid prison labor in the US as slave labor.
Did you know how such a whole number of one million come to be? Apparently eight persons were asked about their heresay and then someone extend the result to the whole population of xinjiang..
Simply do a quick search for Xinjiang forced labor; you will find endless reports from the world's most credible sources. What is your basis for saying it's debatable?
You argue every point, but what do you think should be done?
Nope, that is not the distinguishing factor. Historically, money was used as an incentive for slave labor done especially well. That does not prevent it from being slavery.
I take issue with describing it as "voluntary", when the alternative is a longer prison sentence. It is paid a pittance, and is effectively involuntary.
"Even though, in a lot of cases, it is technically voluntary, there can be serious consequences for people who refuse to work or who advocate for better working conditions because a lot of prisoners use working as a way of having their sentences reduced."
In that section of the article they are discussing labor internal to the prison, specifically maintenance and daily chores. Yes, it is true, while in prison you do not have a choice but to participate in that kind of labor and refusal will not help you be released early for "good behavior" or anything similar.
External labor, the kind discussed here - contracted by a 3rd party for money - is voluntary.
Modern slavery in the US often works by bringing people in from another country, requiring them to pay for lodging and food at a "company store," and paying low enough wages that their debt steadily increases. Then you hold their passports and tell them they can't leave until they're paid up.
It's illegal, of course, because it's literally slavery despite the window-dressing of money changing hands. But the slaves are vulnerable and don't necessarily know it's illegal, or they're threatened.
What do you think should be done about Xinjiang? Do you believe the U.S. and Americans will do nothing simply because it has issues with prisons (so different that they are practically unrelated)?
Recently, Apple's supplier, Wistron faced revolt after treating workers unfairly here in India. And India is not really the most shining example of protecting our workers from unfair and harsh working conditions. So, if such treatments don't fly here, I don't think they will fly anywhere else. The kind of labor expectation that these companies have after their stints in China is ethically incompatible with most other countries. So, I can't see the condition improving in the near future, companies will continue chasing profits at all cost and China will remain the most fertile ground to do that.
Note that immediately after this become public, Apple put Wistron on probation refusing to award them any more work and requiring them to resolve the issues.
Governments really need to do the heavy lifting though because apart from refusing to hand over money/work they are very limited in what they can do.
I respectfully disagree. The only heavy lifting that governments need is to hold Apple and their executives criminally responsible. Apple has shown ruthless effectiveness in tracking down leakers and prosecuting them. But making sure the workers who are making their parts and assembling their devices aren't slaves or being abused is a bridge too far for the richest company in the world?
I don't believe it. It's Apple's responsibility, and if achieving such a goal in some backwater is too difficult then maybe it shouldn't have been doing business there in the first place.
They do publish an annual Supplier Responsibility Report. It's been a while since I read it, but they've definitely found and punished misbehaving suppliers.
I think I remember one instance where underage workers were discovered and Apple forced the supplier to finance their higher education. In another they found a false wall had been installed in a factory to conceal hazardously stored chemicals and, again if memory serves, immediately terminated the supplier's contract.
According to HN search this is the only comment in over 600 that mentions this page. Beyond the marketing text, the PDFs at the bottom cover thousands of pages of supplier guidelines, government filings, lists of suppliers, audit results, etc.
Take with as large a grain of salt as you'd like, but at least it is a primary source on the topic. Apple naturally will be tightlipped during their investigation of these incidents, but I'm curious how they will be covered in their subsequent publications.
Hmm, I was not putting the blame on Apple here, rather Wistron. While indirectly, Apple may be responsible for Wistron's behavior, most of the fault lies with Wistron and how they are used to treat their employees as disposable, while chasing higher margins.
> Note that immediately after this become public, Apple put Wistron on probation refusing to award them any more work and requiring them to resolve the issues.
Apple is currently incentivized to stay naive about the labor conditions of their manufacturing partners. As long as they can maintain ignorance, it's difficult to hold them accountable. We should demand better from a company as massive and profitable as Apple.
They deserve credit for changing behavior, but their policy should be proactive not reactive. This ought to be embedded into their branding such that they profit from their stance on human rights while also making it a desirable marketing point for competitors. (And surely they can afford to)
Traditionally slavery was an alternative to death for the conquered. I'm morbidly curious what the effects of all Western corporations banning slave labor would be. I doubt it would result in liberation. Would working conditions for the slaves worsen when they worked for local, lower-margin factories instead? I can't imagine them improving.
I have little faith in legal remedies to liberate slaves. Arming them seems the only long-term effective solution. Otherwise the man with the gun will order the slave back to work the second the man in the wig isn't looking. And the man in the wig will remain silent, to avoid revealing his impotence.
Slave labor is inefficient, so perhaps the best way is to topple inefficient slave societies through full-spectrum competition, from military to economic. This pressure incentivizes efficient human resource utilization.
One thing's for sure: Individual Westerner guilt over whether to buy the next iPhone will add zero value.
Having spent several years in Chinese supply chain activities, the factories building iPhones, XBoxes etc. Are some of the nicest ones around. Clean, large campuses with organized activities for workers etc.
There are several tiers of factories below that, with worse worker accommodations, Longer working hours, worse working conditions. Some of the smaller, poorer factories will provide little in terms of personal protective equipment, ergonomics, and make stuff for the local, African and South Asian markets where there’s little pressure on companies to have a “clean” supply chain. These workers would go there.
That sounds to me like "if we don't let our suppliers use child labor, those children's families will starve" argumentation.
We in the west are complicit in the use of child and slave labor when we buy products produced in this manner, but because it happens on the other side of the globe and is cheaper that way, we turn a blind eye.
The solution is not to ignore the issue. The solution is to draw a line in the sand and say "this is unacceptable, clean up your act or no deal", and for that to be backed by international trade agreements. It is up to us, as the lucrative market they wish to sell to, to make these demands.
Full transparency and accountability in all supply lines is a must. It should not be possible to hide behind "a supplier did this, we're not responsible".
I hope we'll see a move to more local production, instead of shipping stuff around the globe like crazy. It makes no sense for me in Europe to have my clothes produced in Asia, when we have world-class textile and garment production right here, with better environmental control and worker's rights.
> perhaps the best way is to topple inefficient slave societies through full-spectrum competition, from military to economic. This pressure incentivizes efficient human resource utilization.
Isn’t that what’s already happening though? One might even say that this neoliberalist take is precisely what brought about the current situation. For producers in the market to be competitive, they must (over)optimize for profit. One of the best ways to do that is by reducing cost. One of the best ways to reduce cost is by employing cheaper labor (“efficient human resource utilization”, you said), and to do that, tech companies must outsource to manufacturers located in poor countries with weak state institutions where the transacting parties can get away with slavery.
Wouldn’t a UBI effectively lower costs of labor and undermine the circumstances of forced work? It’d be a UBI in the developed region and not in the foreign country.
Humans envy wealth not justified by the generous hunter archetype, who shares his kill's meat with the tribe. Humans also lust to devour chips and candy until their teeth rot and their hearts explode. A three-pound brain comes with legacy firmware. Vulnerabilities should be patched in the next 10,000-year release. Please hold.
Tribal politics are mediated by emotion, settled by sex and violence, and recorded in genes. Unfelt but underlying is the telos of life: to accelerate the heat death of the universe and achieve a more perfectly-uniform field of lifeless subatomic dust. Inspiring! If God is the universe, then life is the cancer She dies of.
So if you really hate God, become Elon Musk and advance humanity along the Kardashev Scale. Which brings us to what international pressure really is: the race up the Kardashev ladder. Those left behind enjoy a century of humiliation, as China discovered when the European nations forcibly opened her ports for business in classically-rapey colonial fashion. If forcible anachronism is a form of societal slavery, then this was a liberation of the Chinese peasant, who now owns a cell phone and several outfits.
Later Mao attempted his Great Leap Forward, but gave up on it before meeting the fate of Pol Pot, whose supreme ideological commitment weakened Cambodia so badly that Vietnam invaded. Thus the threat of invasion checks the degree of enslavement feasible. Of course, it rarely comes to that. Even Communists can be reasonable.
> Isn’t that what’s already happening though?
China should be enjoying her Asian tiger rise in per capita GDP, and filling the vacuum left by the USA's receding thalassocracy. However, it's always possible to overplay a good hand, and it appears Xi did exactly that. If he's replaced by moderate after Deng's heart, it will be partly due to the pressure Trump put on China, in a reversal of the USA's prior indulgence. Not that Trump is doing much on an absolute scale, but relatively, it's a dramatic shift. Mostly though, it's China's own fault. Burning all her international goodwill to hoard COVID19 PPE will prove very expensive, among other shenanigans.
Just because I make a factual historical observation, doesn't make me a neoliberal. Slave societies are an extreme case. I doubt China could be described as one at her current levels of forced labor.
> For producers in the market to be competitive, they must (over)optimize for profit. One of the best ways to do that is by reducing cost. One of the best ways to reduce cost is by employing cheaper labor (“efficient human resource utilization”, you said), and to do that, tech companies must outsource to manufacturers located in poor countries with weak state institutions where the transacting parties can get away with slavery.
Here's where you're right: Tribal politics represent the genetic feedback system, and they dislike arbitrary wealth because of its damaging distortion of genetic fitness feedback. The market economy makes wealth a much less arbitrary signal of genetic fitness, but it is nowhere near a replacement for tribal politics. Unless you think Bill Gates should get all the California girls...
That's why successful societies balance the interests of the rich against the interests of the commoners.
However, I wouldn't call China a "poor country with weak state institutions". If their slaves are outcompeting our free skilled tech workers, there's a simple solution for that: Slap a tariff on it. This move will garner enough popularity to guarantee a crowd of adoring iPhone assembly technicians in front of the golden statue of yourself you erect with the proceeds.
Cedant arma togae: the man in the wig is not powerless. The man in the wig simply doesn't care about slaves. The man in the wig does, however, care about the opinions of the electorate (in a democracy), and so Westerner guilt may actually be useful.
Wow. A troglodyte on HN manages to get top votes by vomiting an incredibly incoherent spew of libertarianism, marxism, reactionary nationalism and militant western chauvinism. All of this in reaction to an article about slave labor going into every fanboy's favorite screen. Who woulda thunk it.
A lot of things you say are right: If Western civ actually held to its neoliberal values then things would cost more. Slave labor is inefficient (although it's more efficient and apparently more acceptable than executing people like they did during the Cultural Revolution).
But on what planet do you live where the only solution is armed violence? First of all, that's just not possible. Even in America, the idea that because we have guns we are able to stand up against oppressive government is nothing more than a wet dream fantasy of the far right. In China? Uighurs are going to arm up and stand to the CCP? Are you out of your mind? If that looked like anything, it would look like Islamic terrorism.
You and I in America, and the people in Hong Kong, and the Uighurs, are not in a "slave society", we are in a corporation. And our issues are not going to be cured by taking up small arms against nuclear states that act as part of that corporations, even if millions of us are armed. The only thing going on here is a battle for scarce resources, disguised as a bunch of ideologies.
Look, the UAE and Saudi Arabia have trillions of dollars they could spend to build up a Palestinian state rebuild Syria or help the Uighurs, but what do they do? Make arms deals with Israel and America and China. And logically they're doing what they need to do. There is no world in which your fantasy of small arms and liberation of slaves is a remote possibility.
The only possibility is people owning their own local resources. And not sharing them as marxists, either.
There are very few, if any, levers that we can pull from the West at this point to promulgate that strategy. We can't bomb the railway lines into the Uighur camps, as we should have in WWII, because it would cause a nuclear war. We can cut off trade, and encourage people not to trade with bad actors, that's about it. Everything else is just a wanker fantasy.
I didn't say arming slaves was good. I said it was the only effective long-term solution to the problem of liberating slaves. The consensus here is anti-slavery, so I accepted that premise.
The USA does permit minimum wage workers to purchase cheap pistols, which is probably why its police aren't brave enough to lock them down. Sometimes those workers even upset a predetermined election.
I do not support prisons. On average, it is better to be the slave of an individual and work for him than it is to be the slave of a state and live in a cage full of predators. Although of course I would rather be imprisoned for life in modern Scandinavia than serve 10 years of "indentured servitude" in Plantation America.
Since doing good starts from home, I suggest you liberate your extended family's children from compulsory labor. Let us know how that goes...
I'm not Chinese.. sorry if I was too rude... Agree that slavery is just hidden now and called by a different name.. it's sad, America with it's literally unlimited resources can do much better for it's own citizens, but it's too divided on class and uses race problems to divert attention from the real problem that the lower classes are screwed over in every possible way.. I think if the politicians there were a little less corrupt it would have been so much more nicer for regular folk..
No problem. Regarding realness, you might want to compare the number of years it takes to move between socioeconomic classes in America versus the number of years it takes to evolve a distinct race of humans.
Unity is a fine sentiment. Lions are unanimously in favor of lions laying down with lambs. If it hasn't worked yet, that only shows the weakness of our faith. Give until it hurts! Thank you Jesus!
Sorry, I was channeling a televangelist there. I don't know what possessed me.
What bothers me is there are so many fun immigration combinations that never get any press. Where's the lobby for unlimited Chinese immigration into Japan? Can you imagine the Godzilla movies we'd get out of that? What has Japan done for us lately, besides Dark Souls? A new national trauma is just the thing to refresh that fatalistic warrior muse.
If the Chinese and Japanese can't coexist, despite belonging to the same race and often being mutually indistinguishable, then who can?
Doing time in Scandinavia amounts to living for free in a socialist utopia. You call working in the US "indentured servitude"? Really? If so, it's a very nice kind of slavery, where lots of us can buy houses and many idiots have the time to stand in line for a PS5. If you took away the societal whim to buy the latest shoes / rims / playstations (which I think is temporary and only based on cheap credit) then you have a massively productive economy and still one of the highest living standards in the world. In spite of the obvious inequalities. The answer isn't to tear down the system, it's to get better education to more people so they stop trying to tear down the system, and start trying to make the system work better for them.
I’ve decided to leave the Apple ecosystem in 2021. But the problem is not isolated to Apple. In fact, I’d be surprised if other, cheaper products aren’t quite a bit worse.
Is there an electronics company that does a better job? (That’s not a rhetorical question.)
Sadly true. Years ago, I watched a brutal documentary on a mine where the life expectancy of the workers was insanely short. Their primary industrial clients were electronics manufacturers. I don’t know what I can do, though, as programming is my living.
I like the suggestion of always buying used goods. But obviously, a secondary market still encourages the primary market. It’s not a perfect solution.
Apple is one of the better ones in a sea of really bad. It's a low bar and certainly doesn't mean Apple is perfect. There might be some boutique phone makers who claim to be better like Librem or Fairphone, but because they have fewer resources than the big players it's much harder for them to really know.
And if you dig into the mining side of the rare earths, worker conditions drop quickly.
This is the big problem. Few of these companies have the resources to verify their supply chain is free of abuse. The smaller companies likely have even less control over their supply chain.
And supply chains aren’t necessarily constants. They can flip overnight when some distant vendor lights the contract on fire after the audit is complete by switching to a cheaper source, pocketing the difference. The most newsworthy instances often involve steel and catastrophic failure. People in this comment section saying that Apple executives should be held criminally liable have a very naive understanding of how long the tentacles of the supply chain go for anything made with more than a few raw materials.
Fairphone have dozens of suppliers in China, some of them indirect, and they say in their own literature they can't directly vouch for every company in their supply chain.
They're in exactly the same boat as Apple. IMHO this is about China, not any one company.
Oh absolutely, they work very hard on this and deserver a lot of credit for it, but then so do Apple. They have some of the strictest policies and most thorough inspections in the industry and this still keeps happening to them.
I don't think it's comparable no. The effort put by Fairphone to build an ethical tech company is not comparable with what apple have been doing.
There's a lot of information on their website and it's worth to have a look: https://www.fairphone.com/en/impact
Repair is only a factor because it contributes to device longevity, but iPhones have the longest average device lifetimes in the industry by a long way. In theory they could make it even longer but it's a relatively marginal issue in environmental terms. I agree there are other reasons that make it desirable as well and every little helps, but the fact remains iPhones have industry leading overall environmental impact.
“..researchers found that brand, an intangible property, is more important than repairability or memory size in extending the life of a product.”[0]
The article found that Apple phones last on average a year longer than Samsung’s.
The average for all smartphones is estimated as from 2 to 3 years, but bear in mind that includes many Apple devices, so non Apple devices must average the low end of that.[2]
> but iPhones have the longest average device lifetimes in the industry by a long way
After iPhones are not supported anymore they turn into bricks. This typically happens in 5 years, which is not too bad, but it's far from being perfect. Why should a smartphone be supported for much shorter than laptops? Remember: reduce, reuse, recycle, in this order.
Librem 5 GNU/Linux phone has a lifetime support with updates.
> After iPhones are not supported anymore they turn into bricks.
Where on Earth do you get that from? My iPhone 3GS could still connect to the App Store after 7 years. My wife’s iPhone 6 from 2014 just got a patch in November.
Look, I’m not going to assume bad faith, maybe you really believe this or thought it seemed true to you. When your preconceptions turn out to be this dramatically contrary to the actual facts, I seriously suggest you take a look at what it is about those preconceptions that is leading you so far away from reality.
I see comments like this all the time. Apple devices have built in redundancy, yet in fact they have industry leading device support and lifetimes. Apple is an arch polluter, yet over here in reality they have the highest environmental rating from Greenpeace of any major smartphone vendor. Where do people like you get this stuff, and why? What is it that’s motivating you to say these things that are so clearly wrong and we easily disproved?
> My iPhone 3GS could still connect to the App Store after 7 years.
Connection to App Store does not mean it's actually supported with patches or secure to use. I would call it "a brick".
> My wife’s iPhone 6 from 2014 just got a patch in November.
But the new OS is not going to be installed anymore (according to the link above). Any technical reasons for that, apart from the planned obsolescence?
> Look, I’m not going to assume bad faith, maybe you really believe this or thought it seemed true to you. When your preconceptions turn out to be this dramatically contrary to the actual facts, I seriously suggest you take a look at what it is about those preconceptions that is leading you so far away from reality.
Thank you, I am also assuming good faith and so could you please provide evidence for your claims? For how long do security updates typically come and for how long the OS is updated to new versions? Anecdotes are not enough on HN.
> industry leading device support and lifetimes
In the industry of planned obsolescence 5 years support becomes a gold standard praised by fanboys. But in reality it is very short and leads to nature pollution. I see no reason not to support devices forever or let the community support them when they are too old. Apple does neither of those.
> things that are so clearly wrong and we easily disproved?
Your words are very strong yet you give no (reliable) disprove.
You simply should not use a smartphone without security updates. It's as good as a brick in this case. (Or maybe never use Internet and Bluetooth on it).
So which OS or phone are you going to go with? Google only guarantees 3 years of support. Fairphone 2’s last OS update was 14 months ago, there’s no way that’s up to date with security issues so their track record is looking pretty dicey. After all they’re dependent on Google as well. Even if they do eventually get another update there’s no way a 14 month gap between security patches is acceptable. Fairphone only actually guarantee 2 years of support anyway.
So what phone do you use that can beat the iPhone 6 with 6 years of regular patches?
Apple has official repair locations all over the planet and they stock parts long after products are discontinued. Yes it kinda sucks that they killed third party repair but having an official location with official parts is actually more useful than being able to do it yourself but not being able to get parts.
For my pixel 2, while there were no technical restrictions preventing me from replacing the broken camera, the screen was glued in in a way making it very difficult to open without smashing. There were also no places to buy the camera other than what seemed to be cameras stripped out of broken/stolen pixel 2s.
> while there were no technical restrictions preventing me from replacing the broken camera, the screen was glued in in a way making it very difficult to open without smashing.
You just presented a technical restriction, didn't you?
> but having an official location with official parts is actually more useful than being able to do it yourself but not being able to get parts.
I disagree. This is not so much about DIY-repairs, but about a free market for third-party repairs, without which Apple can force people to pay as much as they want.
Did you read the link? It's manufactured in the US. The other version of Librem 5 which is made in China and assembled in US costs $800: https://puri.sm/products/librem-5.
Honestly i never felt the ecosystem to be that great, its just the same shit others are doing in a walled garden way. I am sure you will be fine finding your own stack
Would you consider only buying a used/refurbished phone/computer? Obviously it’s not scalable to the masses, but not putting any money in Apple’s pocket directly
I fault companies like Apple for doing business with companies who do these things.
But I'm not sure if anything changes if local governments aren't interested in stopping it (or actually support it) either.
Markets don't care about human rights... and if the local government supports this (in this case China, but other places too). I don't see how this ever changes.
It changes by holding companies like Apple accountable. They are the largest company in the world for goodness sake. Their audits when so little as a picture of a manual gets leaked are incredibly thorough, yet when it comes to literal slavery they're unable to reign it in? If we were to hold executives liable for acting as slavers then it would be miraculous how quickly corporate leadership would suddenly be interested in the well being of their fellow man.
> We talk about slavery, that ended with state actions. I'm not sure China cares, and accordingly the practice will continue.
You're correct, but there's another angle to this than ending the practice: moral complicity.
An individual in the antebellum south couldn't reasonably end the institution of slavery in the US, but he could have taken actions that affected the degree he was personally complicit. If he owned and profited from slavery, he was clearly complicit. If he did but had a change of heart and manumitted them, he's far less so. If he became an abolitionist and did his best to avoid supporting slaveholders or the products of slavery, he's hardly complicit at all.
If Apple chooses to deal with companies that use forced labor (or chooses to look the other way), it's complicit, and that means it's customers are too (to a lesser degree).
The issue is arising from China potentially forcing Uighur people to find jobs 'on their own' lest they be held indefinitely in concentration camps. You can't audit that. You ask every worker and see if they say 'yes' or 'no' to the question "are you working here of your own free will" and see which ones say no with this threat looming over them.
But even if that's true, there's no law of nature that compels Apple to buy from suppliers located in China or locate its operations there. It could cut ties and pull out (and Apple's one of the few companies with the resources to build up new supply chains elsewhere), or it could direct its suppliers to setup new factories outside of China to supply its needs in an easily auditable way.
It may even be easier than that. As far as I can tell, this "Lens Technology" company makes phone cover glass, and Apple already deals with Corning to make other glass components, and I'm sure they'd like the business. It looks like none of their Gorilla Glass factories are inside China.
Right, I'm not disputing that there will always be someone horrible willing to do that. What I'm saying is that large American companies and their executives should be held legally responsible if that gets into their supply chain.
If a Sword of Damocles is hovering continuously above their head in the form of criminal punishment then they would have no choice but to think twice about off shoring to a region where it is "conveniently" difficult to enforce basic labor rights. My point is that purposeful ignorance as a defense is unacceptable.
> What I don’t understand is why companies want to be associated with these suppliers. Honestly the cost difference can’t be that big.
because ultimately the great majority of their customers do not care, as simple as that. They might care about local issues, wedge issues, but ethical and moral concerns in another country? not so much. Big luxury brands such as Apple pour billions in PR and marketing because they live or die by the reputation. The day their customers start caring more about it, things might change.
I just want to add, that I'm no way trying to diminish Apple's achievements when it comes to technology, product integration and creating remarkable ecosystems. I cannot think of another manufacturer that nailed that much in so little time. I think that Apple Silicon is game changer. But yes, they are a luxury brand.
I think even more than that they simply do not have a choice. Yes, it sucks that Apple's suppliers are unethical, but what am I supposed to do if I want to Snapchat my girlfriend or talk to my friends, or have a phone that is compatible with itunes/apple music? If my choice is between Apple and Google, how do I know that Google's ethics are any better? Am I supposed to spend hours and hours of my life investigating whether one is marginally more ethical than the other?
We simply have to stop making consumers responsible and accountable for every unethical thing a company does. Why is the status quo that every company is evil and that's ok? You'll see AMEX commercials imploring you to "shop local" during the pandemic but where is their relief for small business? Why is it my responsibility to save them but business as usual for those that want to exploit me?
> because ultimately the great majority of their customers do not care, as simple as that. They might care about local issues, wedge issues, but ethical and moral concerns in another country? not so much. Big luxury brands such as Apple pour billions in PR and marketing because they live or die by the reputation. The day their customers start caring more about it, things might change.
It's worth noting that one of the main reasons consumers "don't care" is the market is structured in a way to literally numb them to these issues. It makes it difficult to even learn about these issues (in relation to particular products), have that knowledge when making a purchasing decision, and take action against it (all competitors may be doing the same thing). The PR you mentioned also plays a part.
To give an slightly different example: Xinjiang produces a lot of cotton, and, IIRC, some of it is produced through forced labor. How am I supposed to show I care by avoiding that cotton? I can't, because it's pretty much impossible for me to know if a particular shirt I'm buying is made from that cotton or not, and it might actually be impossible for anyone to know without a very expensive and time consuming investigation.
If Apple put up big signs in it's stores saying "iPhones are made with forced labor," with compelling product storytelling about the forced labor practices involved, I think you'd Apple's sales drop as consumers show they do care. But that's not going to happen, all the market incentives are to obscure that kind of information.
Cost is part of it, but the other big piece is logistics. As we learned early in the year, Apple is moving manufacturing outside of China, but it takes time. Something like the iPhone is made in an industrial area where many of the part manufacturers are next to each other. This lets various parts be easily sourced and delivered. So when Apple wants to move to a new country, the end goal has to be to move the entire complex, and not just a piece. That takes time.
> While I question his motives, it’s kinda weird that Trump of all people seems to be the only one who is openly critical of China.
You fell into Trumps distortion field. Many are critical of China, but the difference is what to do about it. Trumps idea was to go it alone with tariffs, rhetoric, and go after things like TikTok. IMO, that's not a plan or a real policy.
If it were in the US you'd certainly see it in the news.
In China and other places just getting close to a factory can at times be difficult and crappy working conditions are sadly just assumed to be a fact :(
Trump's criticism of China I don't think intersects anywhere close to caring about the treatment of Chinese citizens... or anyone really.
Just a random anecdote, I'm American and work in the US. Trump personally approved the acquisition of a company I worked for and appeared with the CEO and talked about how all the great jobs that would come of it ... before the acquisition was official they laid most everyone off.
Part of it is that I think people generally understand that Apple doesn't go into a supplier contract negotiation and say, "Ok, how many slaves do we get in this deal?"
While they ultimately bear responsibility for their supply chain, it's easy to see how this stuff can happen without direct knowledge. What we need to do is pay attention to Apple's response and then act accordingly.
There's a Netflix documentary about the garlic industry where among other concerns journalists reveal that peeled garlic from China is the product of prison slave labor. Many of the prisoners work their hands raw and continue to cut garlic ends with their teeth. Prisoners have a daily quota with punishment for not meeting it.
I haven't come across peeled garlic that wasn't from China or was unlabeled. So, I stopped buying it entirely.
Netflix show "Rotten", Season 1, Episode "Garlic Breath". It's been a hotly contested episode. I haven't seen any debate about the peeled garlic, though.
I think the reason for saying forced labor was to distinguish it from chattel slavery (what most people think of when they see the word slavery), not downplaying the actions of this supplier.
To the tune of Childish Gambinos "This is America": This is globalism
This was always the point of offloading to other countries. Less regulations, lower wages, less powerful workers and workers unions, and higher profit margins. Ross Perot was right but nobody listened to him. Apple isnt unique, and this isnt the first time. Its systemic.
So tired of the trope of accusing anybody critical of globalism of being an isolationist. Protectionism is a valid and needed (to a certain degree) approach for all nation states, ours included.
You seem to want to kill flies with nuclear weapons.
The vast majority of third world workers benefit from free trade and freely choose the jobs it produces.
Protectionism sentences people far poorer than you to far worse economic lives. Taking away Apple assembly jobs doesn’t increase third world wages or worker protections, it makes them worse. Those workers are consigned to work back in brutal rural jobs that not only pay less but are far more dangerous.
Globalism is how the third world living standards catch up.
> The vast majority of third world workers benefit from free trade and freely choose the jobs it produces.
Source? Especially for the second statement.
They don't benefit from free trade, free trade is the reason why they are exploited and their countries kept in poverty. And how can you say that they freely choose their jobs if the only alternative they have to ridicolous wages and low safety jobs is to starve?
Third world workers don’t have to work for first world manufacturers like Apple, they can keep doing the jobs they already have.
The reason they don’t is their existing jobs are far worse, typically far more difficult and dangerous farm jobs.That’s why when Foxconn used to post new iPhone assembly jobs, Chinese would line up by thousands because an Apple assembly job is a ticket out of poverty.
So if first world manufacturers left, your reducing third world workers choices back to the lower paying, much worse work they had before.
Too lazy to Google but India used protectionism because it wanted to do its own thing after independence and keep the evil western corporation away. By the end of 1980's India was almost bankrupt and had to get loans from IMF one of the condition was to open up the economy. India's poverty rate started to fall down after the economy opened up.
My countries government should understand the implications of the policies it impliments, including the impact on people in other countries, but my governments first concern shouldn't be those other peoples, it should be it's own citizens! For those who seriously try to understand this topic, the implication you aren't talking about (and a myriad more) is that due to this we can expect the first world standards/wealth to decrease in response. Of course there are those who then respond "good! about time!" or some equivalent, but I digress.
The mental gymanstics I see being performed in comments here boggles the mind, but I am thankful at least to have a refresher on all the kinds of responses I need to be prepared to rebute. Lets restate them as prereq for responding to them: (on globalism)
It increases the wealth of poor people in other countries
It offers more employment opportunities for said people
It increases the wealth of the third world in general
It's not globalism, it's the companies who participate in it and aren't heald accountable.
You had a "protectionist" president and how did that work out?
It's not globalisms fault, it's capitalisms fault.
Globalism as a term is a "racist dog whistle" and an "antisemitic conspiratorial buzzword"
So far, none of these are particularly well thought out or presented, and suffer obvious weaknesses. I'm not sure if I feel like taking the time currently to dissect them each right now, but they will go in the todo list.
> My countries government should understand the implications of the policies it impliments, including the impact on people in other countries, but my governments first concern shouldn't be those other peoples, it should be it's own citizens!
The people in other countries are human beings with exactly the same value and rights as I have. The responsible thing to do is to do both. Just like my responsibility is to both take care of my family and my community and the world, all at once. If I sacrifice one, I'm irresponsible and failing. I would be (and sometimes am) ashamed that my government fails at those responsibilities.
The parent assumes a zero-sum tradeoff, but that's not how trade, peace, and freedom work - they benefit everyone. Thankfully, I have great solutions internationally. Globalization and the democratic world order have been the most successful international policies by orders of magnitude. Name any point in history, any approach to international trade or international relations, that has yielded the success of the post-WWII era? Not only in economics, but in peace and freedom.
We need to do better. What better option do you offer, that will improve the lives of the next generation
> The people in other countries are human beings with exactly the same value and rights as I have.
This is untrue. I am very much a believer in individual rights as set forth in the decleration of independence, so on a philosophical level to an extent I agree, but the to say people in other countries have the same rights as a citizen of the empire is just silly.
> The parent assumes a zero-sum tradeoff, but that's not how trade, peace, and freedom work - they benefit everyone.
This is at best a naive approach to what peace is in the reality of current machaviellian globalism. As Tacitus said: "To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire, and where they make a desert, they call it peace."
> The responsible thing to do is to do both.
Like when on an airplane in an emergency, you should put the ogygen on yourself first. To just ignore my point and say, "well, but it is better" doesn't address the issue. There are all kinds of complications with proping up third worlds, but I'll get to that in a second.
> (other commenter) Free trade increases the standard of living of all participants, including both the third and first world, so I’m having trouble understanding your point.
The point is that not only is this not true, but there are a vast array of costs being ignored. (when I say this isn't true, I have listened to plenty of pro-globalist/pro-free-traders talk about how America and other first world countries are just going to have to get used to the idea that their wealth is going to decrease as it equalizes out globally, of course what they don't say is that the elite a supranational and won't be affected for the most part)
So many people here seem to be pretending it's either complete free-trade, or complete isolationism, which not only isn't true, just proves my point that it is abused as a cudgel whenever the topic comes up, but doesn't stand up to any decent level of scrutiny, and is just a strawman fallacy. A great example of this is how the former British empire and later the American empire decided that that would rather have dictators they could influence and control rather than nationalists take power in the third world. Have you seen, in reality, what free trade has done in the case of Cuba, Panama, Honduras, Nicaragua, Mexico, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic just for a small list of examples? Massive amounts of death and destruction, later papered over by dictators friendly to IMF and globalist corporations. This is what I mean when I quote Tacitus about them making a desert and calling it peace. More on the IMF, being a great example, promising to lift a people out of poverty, when in reality what they do is embroil a country into debt and servitude while corrupting the political and elite class into aquiscence. So the companies get what they want, the IMF gets what they want, and the elite of a country get rich... and the poor people continue to suffer...
but at least they got a few more jobs at the resulting factories so they could buy a few more cokes with their marginally higher chattel-like slave wages... and can now pretend to have exited third world status, despite the continued blowback from those "interventions" leaking onto the global stage. I've only touched on a handful in South America, but if we wanted to we could talk about Africa, or SE Asia, etc. who have all suffered similar fates.
I want to say can't believe this is the state of discourse on the topic, but I can. One of the things that woke me up about it is just this kind of response... how any even modicum of criticism of globalism and free-trade is met with a myriad of half-retorts and white-washing, while completely ignoring or mischaracterizing the valid at least for consideration arguments against it. I don't even have to get into details like the ~700k manufacturing jobs lost since the implimentation of NAFTA, or the trade good deficit chart since then to criticize these arguments, and citing some narrowly defined "law" such as comparative advantage that fails to take into account other factors doesn't change that. One just has to look at Mexico post-NAFTA to see how theory doesn't match reality.
Yall need to go read Smedley Butlers "War is a Racket", because make no mistake, globalistic free-trade as it exists today was built on a backbone of war, corruption, death and destruction. So think on that as you defend it.
Another Tacitus quote while I'm at it: "No doubt, there was peace after all this, but it was a peace stained with blood."
> I have listened to plenty of pro-globalist/pro-free-traders talk about how America and other first world countries are just going to have to get used to the idea that their wealth is going to decrease as it equalizes out globally
Anyone who says this doesn’t understand free trade, even if they advocate it.
And US/Western anti-communist policies of supporting friendly dictators has nothing to do with allowing citizens freedom to trade. Again the same politicians often can support two different policies, one invaluable and one abhorrent, with no physical requirement that they are linked.
And US manufacturing post NAFTA has been stronger than ever, so stop repeating that old saw. If you thought NAFTA would create gumdrops rain showers and candy coated roads in Mexico, you are mistaken. NAFTA brought many better jobs to Mexico, but it can’t solve the war on drugs, bring back circular migration, eliminate governmental corruption, or reduce the stifling influence of the Catholic Church.
And while Smedleys book is a classic, free trade isn’t responsible for mercantilism, they are literally polar opposite philosophies. Mercantilism is the use of government resources and restrictions to support a small set of favored businesses, while free trade dictates a level playing field for all participants.
And wake me up when you can think of a coherent criticism of the law of comparative advantage. It’s been a bedrock of economics for over two hundred years because it’s critics have never been able to disprove it and it’s massive benefits.
> And wake me up when you can think of a coherent criticism of the law of comparative advantage.
In exchange I would like you to tell me exactly how in the world you can claim "US manufacturing post NAFTA has been stronger than ever". I've heard about the benifits to consumer prices sure, and that a certain amount of manufacturing has returned due to robotization, but even if that is factored in I'm a bit confused as to how this claim is even close to reality.
1. CA assumes particpating consumers and businesses have knowledge of location of lowest cost, which isn't always true.
2. CA ignores transport costs which can easily offset the raw CA numbers.
3. CA fails to factor in lack of or monopoly on economies of scale.
4. CA also fails to factor in rates of inflation, subsidies, lack of or high import controls etc.
5. It fails to take into account non-price factors such as brand loyalty, item quality, etc.
6. Exchange rates can undermine raw CA numbers.
7. CA ignores IP legal issues mostly surrounding R&D investment.
8. CA still fails to take into account second and third teir effects needed to institute CA. So as I referenced before, Guatemala as an example, had to have a coup performed against it first, with massive amounts of suffering and theft from people to pave a way for the "free-trade" state needed for CA to come into effect. That loss of life and wealth as a prereq isn't factored in.
One correction to your previous citizen of the world comment, the US Bill of Rights lists rights for all people, not just US Citizens (outside specific voting rights).
Ok, US manufacturing has nearly doubled in actual value since 1990.
It doesn’t employ as many people, but that’s progress. Making more stuff with fewer people is the only way to grow wages over the long run.
The law of comparative advantage has remained an economic bedrock because none of the criticisms you cribbed from a web page have stood up outside of exceedingly narrow circumstances.
1. Producers always have a very good idea of their costs and where they are lower. Minor Exceptions don’t make a difference, a market doesn’t have to be perfectly efficient to be efficient.
2. Producers know transport costs, that’s a trivial calculation. Clearly CA works better the lower transportation costs are, and it’s harder the higher they are. But if you have free trade in gravel, it doesn’t rebut CA that gravel is frequently too cheap and heavy to transport, so while African gravel can be produced cheaper it’s not going to be shipped to America.
3. Monopolies and economies of scale just drive costs/pricing. Again it’s costs that drive CA, so not rebutting anything.
4. CA takes into account all costs, even such as tariffs. Protectionism is a way of eliminating the magical benefits of CA by increasing the costs of foreign goods and services to local levels or higher. So now the local economy is burdened with all the low value work that could have been cheaply exported, and has fewer resources for the most productive and valuable work.
1-7, really none of are coherent arguments against CA, it’s as if you don’t even understand how it works. An economic participant never needs perfect knowledge of costs, exchange rates, etc to enter into profitable transactions. For one example, interest and exchange rates are easy to hedge for relatively long periods. If you find a significantly cheaper assembler in China, hedging is just one of your costs, and if exchange rates move against you in such a huge amount that Chinese assembly becomes too expensive you simply move assembly when your hedges expire.
And 8) is just a rant about Guatemala. Whatever government runs Guatemala, the benefits of CA are available if it allows free trade. If Guatemalan workers can improve their living standards by taking on another countries low value work at a lower cost, both will benefit.
Free trade increases the standard of living of all participants, including both the third and first world, so I’m having trouble understanding your point.
Go read up about comparative advantage to understand the true benefits of free trade.
Or ask yourself, if you were a lawyer billing $200 an hour for your services, and had a secretary costing you $20/hour doing your typing, would you fire them if you could type twice as fast as them? Would spending part of your work hours on less valuable work make you wealthier or poorer?
How does exporting dirty industry and dangerous jobs to a place where they are less regulated serve humanity?
Let me change your analogy because it is completely unrepresentative of the externalities involved in manufacturing.
Say you own a business that happens to produce a bunch of toxic waste that requires dangerous handling, and special payment to dispose of. You don’t want your employees to do it because it’s requires a specially trained employee and having them around increases you workers comp insurance significantly, and they also want hazard pay as a result of their training. Buuut you can go down the street and hire Jo from the corner to take it off your hands for $50. He doesn’t care how dangerous it is, he just needs money for heroin. You can just report that you didn’t produce the waste he’s taking and nobody will be the wiser.
Should you hire Jo to take care of it, or handle it yourself? You understand the danger, know how to handle the material, and have the means to dispose of it in an equitable way to everyone. Would hiring Jo be right, simply because he’d be $50 poorer if I didn’t hire him?
What if my business didn’t produce toxic waste? What if Jo isn’t a heroin addict but instead a poor third world person who lives a subsistence level life?
Should I be prevented from offering Jo a better, higher paying assembly job because a small group of sleazy manufacturers use his country to escape environmental regulations?
Apple isn’t outsourcing assembly to escape environmental regulations. It’s offering better paying jobs that are lifting chinese and Indian workers out of poverty, while also reducing the cost of their products. That makes them more affordable to a wider audience. Apple, workers and consumers win, because free trade benefits all parties.
Environmental controls can only be implemented at the national and international level. If China doesn’t implement them, it’s not the fault of US companies.
If you make leading edge batteries that produce lots of toxic waste as a byproduct, the US will require you institute expensive controls/cleaning processes to prevent it from leaking into the environment.
But if China doesn’t have similar controls, making those batteries will be cheaper in China. If the US maker doesn’t go to China to make their batteries, they will lose marketshare to companies that do, or more likely Chinese companies.
If the US bans Chinese made batteries over environmental reasons, it makes US made electric cars uncompetitive and we lose sales and jobs to Chinese and European car makers.
So it’s never free trade at fault, it’s lack of international cooperation on environmental policies. If Chinese made products had to meet a base set of environmental manufacturing standards to be sold in Europe AND North America, they’d comply or lose 90% of their sales.
But the problem is that your arguments are often used disingenuously by labor unions whose actual agenda is protectionist policies to raise manufacturing costs in the third world to protect their members from competition. They really want to impose US level minimum wages in third world nations, which would be a disaster given they don’t have the capital and skills to support them. A backwards policy that hurts us too by protecting low value jobs we should be advancing out of.
>What if my business didn’t produce hazardous waste.
Then it wouldn’t be a good fit for an analogy regarding the externalities of globalism.
> Environmental controls can only be implemented at the national and international level.
False. Apple could have actually applied their own internal standards that they market, and shareholders could also have standards(lol).
>if the US bans Chinese batteries, it makes US made cars uncompetitive
You don’t say, this has been a tad condescending my dude. That said, aren’t batteries kind of an ironic choice given that Tesla built its gigafactory here? Which kinda illustrates what bugs me about the realities of globalism, most of the time regulations on industry predominantly increase start-up costs. Having dealt with both OSHA and the EPA extensively in the manufacturing sector, the marginal cost of compliance was typically low, but only once the process was set up.
>so it’s never free trade at fault, it’s lack of international cooperation on environmental policies.
I’m mostly with you here, I place a great deal of the blame on corrupt politicians in the West. But I disagree that it’s not the fault of free trade. Free trade is an animal and globalism is its handler. Globalism in the west has failed to rein in the beast that is the free market. Leaders pay plenty of lip service to the human cost of things and the environment. But as the dominant species on the planet we should be striving to prevent rising cultures from making the same mistakes that cultures who have already lifted themselves up made. Our planet can’t take us all following the same path.
I strongly believe and advocate that Western countries should band together and form a trade union based on occupational safety and environmental protection. Because until they do that, I see all of the liberal grandstanding about saving the environment and wanting things made safely as nothing but fraud. These departments do little but shift the damage somewhere else, and I care not at all where the person getting cancer from the mine is from, or who pours chemicals into the water. I care that it happens at all.
>your arguments are made disingenuously by labor unions.
Well I’m really not sure if it’s important that they make it disingenuously, but I will certainly agree that enforcing minimum wage in other countries is ridiculous. And I’m all for offshoring when it’s a good fit, but if a product is sold in a country it should be manufactured following the same environmental and occupational safety regulations as the country in which it is to be sold. I’m 100% for bringing up poorer countries, but we should be strongly disincentivizing avoiding automation in favor of loosely regulated human capital. I’ve watched many manufacturing businesses get killed in the US as a result of these sorts of regulations, and it’s horrifying to me. It’s super sad to see a US manufacturing sector business die from the proverbial straw, knowing that it will be replaced with a business in another country doing things considerably worse.
So I have a kind of rule about regulation that I also advocate.
If a regulation of a given industry creates a burden, then policy should be adopted to offset that burden either through trade policy(tariffs/duties,ideally as a block of developed nations) or through domestic policy(subsidies or grants to help bring them to compliance).
I disagree that only western countries should be advancing out of these jobs. Human kind as a whole should be advancing out of as many of them as we can, and many times we have the means to do so, but it’s cheaper just to be happy with our community advancing past these jobs.
I wouldn't call that a good sign of leadership. That's more an act of shutting everyone else off from access to technology.
Instead, a good leader will help lift others. Take Microsoft Research. For a long time, they were a leader in scientific publications in CS, with many awards. Compare that to Apple, and imho any sign of "leadership" is completely non-existent in comparison.
Why should we consider any moral stance, by any for-profit corporation, as anything other than marketing?
The real problem, as I see it, is that individuals see their relationships to corporations as anything other than transactional. Strange things happen when people adopt a company’s marketing effort into their personal identity.
Instead, we should be looking at corporations objectively and deciding whether their incentives align with our own. Keep our identities with other individuals, not with corporations and branding.
Someone should calculate how much energy an iPhone uses for rendering that page (or any other on their website). I bet reducing that would make a difference environmentally.
I agree, but globalism has on the whole improved the human condition by a lot. The vast majority of people aren’t middle-class citizens of developed countries. Like everything, balance is key.
Indeed. Without the outsourcing, they would still be in those same conditions, but earning less. Now there is external money coming into their economy.
Instead of blaming globalism, maybe one should make companies responsible for their external effects? As in, lawfully responsible, to be tried as if they did it themselves. Like pollution, using other companies to do their unethical biddings etc (child or slave labor for instance).
Why not just ban outsourcing to countries with poor labor laws? The commonly stated purpose of the U.S. outsourcing to China was to 1. help lift it out of poverty and 2. bring it democracy through capitalism.
Goal #1 has been largely achieved and Goal #2 has been an epic failure. The U.S. should completely phase out outsourcing to China over the next decade. This would drive a huge acceleration of automated manufacturing in the U.S. which is the future anyway.
Companies like Apple could move all manufacturing to the U.S. over a decade if they wanted to. They have the money and the technology. But they're currently addicted to cheap (and unethical) labor. They're unlikely quit on their own, as long as U.S. law enables their addiction.
It also spreads wealth. China lifted more people out of poverty than any nation in history, because of globalisation.
Are you saying poverty is less important than workers rights?
Economies develop. This is part of it. You’ve just had a “protectionist” President, US is worse off by almost every measure... as a counter example to your “protectionism is needed”
>You’ve just had a “protectionist” President, US is worse off by almost every measure... as a counter example to your “protectionism is needed”
That is not a counter-example to anything AFAICT. We didn't have a 'protectionist' President. We had an incompetent President, who faked to be a protectionist.
Citation, with inflation adjustments. Please provide.
Why is the US passing stimulus packages if it’s going so well?
(To further my point was that growth a hang over from the globalist President? Or a result of the protectionist one? Did it continue throughout the 4 years? I already know the answer, but just pointing out the flaw in your point for you so you don’t need to find it)
> You’ve just had a “protectionist” President, US is worse off by almost every measure...
Could we get some citations to back this up? It seems too soon to even evaluate all of the effects of the (soon to be) previous administrations policies.
But as a discussion point, Trump moved to end the postal subsidies China enjoyed which made it cheaper for us to have something shipped from there than to buy locally. How does this hurt the US?
That’s a single policy. Perhaps that’s a good one?
Imagine a world where China and the U.S. were on better terms, start of the health crisis China helped provide huge amounts Of PPE required. Drs and epidemiologists from China with experience could have helped drs in the US. Instead they were coming off the back of a trade war over soy beans and hiding information from each other.
Globalisation has effects that expand beyond the economy.
As for citations: the US has just passed the second, largest stimulus package in its history beating or the first from a couple of months back. Are we’re ignoring this gorilla so much that people need citations?
> As for citations: the US has just passed the second, largest stimulus package in its history beating or the first from a couple of months back. Are we’re ignoring this gorilla so much that people need citations?
I'm going to push back on the tenuous link between the US being protectionist and the stimulus package. It's not like protectionist policies directly led to the economic problems the US - and a lot of the world - are experiencing thus requiring the stimulus package.
Your argument is that if the trade war didn't happen China would have been far more likely to help us. That's not an unreasonable argument but even if they did do that how would that have prevented the economic damages caused by all of the lockdowns the US - and China - went through?
A reasonable argument could also be made that even if the trade war didn't happen China would not have done what you described anyway. China and the US have always had a tumultuous relationship. Plus let's not forget the panicked free-for-all when it came to PPE during the early days of the pandemic which many, many countries participated in.
So I would say the US's bungled response to the early days of the pandemic are what lead to the stimulus package, not any sort of protectionist policies. If the US were on better terms with China perhaps it would have been slightly less severe due to Chinese supplied masks during the shortage and all that; but given how difficult its been to make people wear masks in general I'm not so sure.
> I'm going to push back on the tenuous link between the US being protectionist and the stimulus package. It's not like protectionist policies directly led to the economic problems the US - and a lot of the world - are experiencing thus requiring the stimulus package.
The trade war didn't improve the US economy. COVID actually squeezed the Stockmarket up (as interest rates hit 0 or negative) from stimulus (around the world).
I think you are probably right that it wasn't protectionist policies directly. But the US governments "Me, and Mine" (America First) approach has wilfully ignored good advice, policy and approach that has lead to its current situation.
It wasn't a bungled response to early days... it's consistent bungling from the first day until right this minute. (A pandemic with no generally available vaccine, wide spread infection, and no nationally coordinated mitigation = bungling, whatever excuses you make about US gov structure etc...).
China and US have always had a tumultuous relationship exactly because they don't try to resolve it, they see each other as rivals, and a threat.
To me it's two fold:
- The US would not have a relationship say similar to Britain/US because of the fundamental differences and problems with CCP's behavior
- Vis a vis the CCP's habitual covering up of anything embarrassing and Xi's / CCPs singular focus on maintaining and growing their own power. see COVID, SARs and the many examples from business to free speech & 'press.'
It's circularly not possible.
CCPs behavior must fundamentally change, (or scarily the US becomes like CCP)
The hiding was squarely on CCP. Maybe you could argue if COVID popped up in US first it would have been the same.
But if the tables were turned I don't believe there would be any attempts to hide facts and not offer support beyond Trump's own incompetence and pathological personality disorder wishing it would 'magically go away' so he could get elected again.
--
And to the parent parent there are plenty of facts both ways but it's impossible to separate effects of policy from the HUGE negative pain caused by Trump's abdication of responsibility. Trump has undeniably left us in a horrible place, far greater than any gains from policy.
The shoe IS on the other foot, and the US DID hide the facts. Their administration purposefully suppressed CDC information and pursued a herd immunity strategy without expressing it. You can't say "beyond trumps own incompetence and personality" without also saying "without Xi's incompetence and personality"... I don't think that is intellectually fair.
I'm happy to criticise china for the things it could do better:
- It's fast approach to full blown dictatorship, the death of the party, the rise of Xi
- Or its suppression/persecution of people actually trying to improve things for the Chinese people (Wuhan reporters, Rights activists etc)
But "Forced labour"... while developed nations like the US have prison labour? Persecution of Uighers, while Guantanamo is still a thing. Fix the things in your own back yard, which you have control over then from the moral high ground try and fix further abroad, otherwise no one (including the Chinese) pay no attention to what they see as just agg-prop. HN loves to jump on the latest china bashing and just make excuses/justifications US based domestic problems
Every single China thread on HN turns into a false equivalence 'no the US has far worse history / false whataboutism'
A couple Trump political appointees attempted to do that. The system worked and the US didn't jail the NYTimes and the press for reporting the facts. Their stupidly half assed political crap didn't work and they lost the election.
I wouldn't call Xi incompetent but instead scarily so. The power of Trump versus Xi & CCP are not even in the same ballpark
It's pointless to engage but sometimes I can't help it
You are right, but it's because people are generally not willing to enter a proper debate on the issues in China. Take the Uigher issue, it is ALWAYS reported with a lack of context.
No mention of the bombings, the mass killing events, the huge domestic terrorism issue it has caused China for the last 20 years. Instead we just get reports of China "randomly" persecuting these people for seemingly no reason.
When you have people showing up at one of the largest train stations[0] in the country openly representing an ethnic minority and randomly stabbing men, woman and children of Han decent... what is the correct government response?
This isn't even the debate that we have. We don't ask this question at all, we instead publish photos of prisons, and reeducation camps, but no one ever seems to ask "Why is china doing this?" because the assumption that Western Media would like you to make is "Because they are just evil communists".
It would be like reporting on Guantanamo as an "off shore prison where America kidnaps people from foreign countries and keeps them there for no reason, most have never even been the the US" --- There would be uproar if news was reported that way. But when it's China, everyone is happy to have their blinders on, and not understand or explore the full context of a difficult issue.
There are plenty of terrorist attacks in the US too, from the wiki below China does have a few years with big numbers but the US page doesn't include a bunch of mass shootings by far right white MAGA and single white men wackos.
And despite those numbers the US isn't rounding up millions of our own citizens into 're-education camps.' I'm sure the 'whatabout' is the stupid wars in the middle east which are undoubtedly horrible and should fairly be condemned (and definitely are). But the US is not waging an ethnic genocide on our own citizens.
That's a straw man. They're saying that hundreds of millions of Chinese people (and others around the world) have risen out of poverty because of globalism. You're only giving credit for the negative impacts of globalism, and in kind of a duplicitous manner.
I am not sure I understand this argument. The article states the "laborers" in question are given a choice as follows: submit to unpaid forced labor else go to a CCP reeducation camp. Nowhere is it stated those subjected to this choice have the opportunity to take advantage of rising living standards.
I agree “forced work” or slavery should be stopped. But go and visit these factories in China... the people are their voluntarily... because their alternative is worse than those conditions.
Like I said economies develop, China should improve its workers rights laws, and slowly it has and will.
We should avoid and remove slavery. Agree.
But using developing countries as an example of why developed countries should be more protectionist at exactly the point in time where the US tried that and lost out on almost every front is insane and disconnected from reality
Mostly agree but highly doubt if China would change the worker rights laws. Actually they do not need change since they already got a good one (including 40 hour work week and overtime pay), but it's rarely enforced by local governments.
As the saying in China goes: "Government Policy, Peoples' Anti-Policy". If the government don't police the laws, then they aren't really laws.
Working conditions in a lot of Chinese companies are terrible in comparison to US/EU counterparts. Any evidence you need is just look at how much a Chinese company will change things if they hire a "westerner" (just for that westerner mind you)... It's ridiculous, China can and should do better.
True, but really if they hire a foreigner, that must be a different position that natives are not capable of. If you are a native and asking something even legal according the law (like double payment for working in weekend), your boss could fire you and there're plenty of people want that job. Also suing that company for wrongful termination takes much time and effort, many blue collar workers even do not know how to do it. With all being said, the working condition is getting better comparing that decades ago, but it's not because of government, it's only because the economy are growing and it takes more money to hire people.
I don’t vote for a president to achieve global fairness. I vote for one who will make my life the best. If that’s not great for Chinese peasants that’s not the US President’s problem. China should develop its economy, but the US should not have allowed its corporations to have given China such a huge leg up in doing so.
Isn't it just 1 parameter: cheaper?
This kind of work is outsourcing anyway. So I think all the things you mention there have no impact, since it all wouldn't matter when the price would be the same.
I think “this is capitalism/liberalism” is a better way to call it out.
I am tired of the globalism/isolationism dichotomy that gets thrown around too, but there are good reasons to criticize attributing all of these problems to globalism. For one, “globalism” is commonly used as a racist dog whistle, and is a popular antisemitic conspiratorial buzzword. Second, calling out globalism as the root of the problem leaves out the fact that it’s capitalism that drives the need for globalism, not globalism existing just for the sake of globalism.
"Forced Labor" is an active form of "Slavery". "Detention" is a passive form of "Slavery".
So the choice at hand is Slavery vs, Slavery.
A note to the pedantic among us: I did not say "Chattel Slavery", "Modern Slavery", or any other modifiers. The Cambridge English dictionary defines slavery as "The activity of legally owning other people who are forced to work for or obey you" and "The condition of being legally owned by someone else and forced to work for or obey them".
I think we can safely say that this case applies, specifically because, in that country, this system of activity is "Legal".
This argument is at best equivocating. Being in prison is not the same thing as being a slave, and by suggesting that they are the same thing, you do more harm than good.
The existence of prisons are not going away, but we can do away with profiteering off of prison labor easily.
But it's not really something they can do (and the Trump administration knows this), so this is probably just routine Apple bashing while everyone else also uses China and probably cares a lot less about their supply chain as long as they get their product after ample QC.
Here are a few things Apple doesn’t take serious action on (that would be expected of a rich company) and/or completely ignores as if it’s not a problem:
* Human rights preservation in its supply chain
* Improving the repairability/serviceability of its products by third party entities so they can have longer useful lives
* True end-to-end encryption of all data on iCloud and its online services
I hate how American (and European) companies will virtue signal with commercials and campaigns (Apple and Nike come to mind) toting their ESG credentials but then will be doing stuff like this. People fall for it and it really pisses me off. Welcome to marketing.
It’s also crazy to me that China isn’t facing more severe backlash for the treatment of the Uyghurs. It’s reprehensible and disgusting.
>I hate how American (and European) companies will virtue signal with commercials and campaigns (Apple and Nike come to mind) toting their ESG credentials but then will be doing stuff like this
What exactly did Apple do? The hired a contractor, and they just found out that contractor is using slave labor, so now they are investigating. The last time they found out a contractor was using slave labor, they severed the relationship.
I'm not sure what else you'd expect them to do exactly.
I would expect one of the largest and most powerful companies in the world that is always virtue signaling to have their supply chain 100% slave free. That is not a big ask.
The relationship between Apple and its suppliers is, ultimately, antagonistic. Apple wants to maximise units of work per dollar, their suppliers want to maximise dollars per unit of work. This creates an incentive for suppliers to cheat.
This makes the situation way, way more complex than “Apple needs to audit its supply chain”. While true, any such audit is going to be actively sabotaged by the suppliers. This will include actions like hiding workers, forcing them to lie, or moving them strategically between production lines to hide the truth.
I don’t mean to defend Apple here. I’m not sure what stops them creating their own businesses in China and Vietnam and elsewhere, where they directly hire the workers. Why does Apple outsource this stuff in the first place? Perhaps that’s the standard we should be holding them to.
It's a pretty big ask actually. They have 1000s of suppliers. I'm sure their vetting process is pretty thorough already, and then they act swiftly when they find out something was missed. Feel reasonable to me.
It's amazing how Apple is able to maintain and enforce such strict quality and secrecy amongst their suppliers, yet they seem to fail often when it comes to labor and human rights violations.
I don't think it's a coincidence. There's a clear lack of effort here, or at least not on par with their other ones.
Rather than people falling for it, they have pretty much the same incentives as the corporations. They like virtue signaling, when its costs are negligible and the externalities fall on others, but they don’t sacrifice cheap goods for some pretty lies.
I am a proponent of ESG but (to me at least) it doesn’t appear there is a standardized method of calculation for metrics and things like forced labor (Nike, Apple) or pandering to a govt by censoring (NBA, Google) aren’t being captured. I could be off as I haven’t studied it that much. Everyone can agree what GAAP net income is but calculating ESG metrics is much more subjective.
Uyghurs is a bipartisan issue not just a Trump thing (although it does play to his hand). Biden mentioned it a few times and I think even once in a debate.
I was going to mention Kaepernick but decided not to to avoid the knee jerk downvotes. I agree but wouldn’t have used such strong language. It’s such a ridiculous double standard and I have friends that eat up the Kaerpernick marketing without thinking about it. I agree with Kaepernick’s message but the fact that Nike is backing him with that message is such a joke.
I'm amazed the world isn't taking more action on China. Its quite sad really, 20 years ago, any one of the headlines from this year would have prompted sanctions and denunciations...
> I'm amazed the world isn't taking more action on China. Its quite sad really, 20 years ago, any one of the headlines from this year would have prompted sanctions and denunciations...
I don't think so. Nothing happened with Tibet, or after the Tiananmen Square event AFAIK.
20 years ago, the people that signed all the trade deals with countries such as China claimed it would lead to improving democracy and human rights there, obviously, it didn't, People's Republic of China has never been more autocratic. Ethical and moral concerns should have been addressed when China joined the WTO in 2001, irregardless China's political structure. China got a very good deal, western industrials as well, but at what human cost?
I wasn't interested in economy at the time, but I still remember clearly debates on talkshows between human rights advocates and people pushing trade deals and their arguments, it was a time where you could still publicly talk about the situation in Tibet. Today? Nobody would even dare.
Tiananmen was at least met with lasting arms embargo, both from the EU and US...
I think the expectation for many (myself included) was that as living standards rose, the Chinese people would demand democratic reform (rule of law, justice for all, some say in decisions and leadership). China (or rather the ccp) has successfully avoided that so far.
Now its flexing that power and people like me, who expected natural change, are forced to re-evaluate.
>The greatest explosion of personal freedoms that the Chinese people have experienced in the past 4,000 years has taken place in the last 40 years
There's some slide back in some categories from Hu Jintao era, but overall things are progressing. The west fixates on the 1% of extra bad when it's been mostly great.
>what human cost?
800m uplifted from poverty, a few million minorities gets shafted, to be crass: the cost was/is negligible all things considered. Post 90s China bad, but mostly good. Overwhelming good compared to others with similar starting positions and much better development conditions, i.e. China had some of the most onerous WTO accession protocols and sanctions that held back her development.
I worked in China under Chinese rule, there's frustrations, but it was mostly fine. Know / related to many Chinese nationals, spectrum from FLG practitioners to purged officials. From rich coastal provinces to poor inland ones. China's a stressful place, everyone bitches about how things are, the loudest from their multi million dollar tier1 condos. But almost no one wants to go back to Mao days, except the FLG practitioner because they missed ideological purity of the old party. People can sing whatever, and if you believe the recent Harvard surveys, they sing mostly good things. The fact that they're singing in the first place is unparalleled freedom compared to Mao times where private speech got you fucked, i.e. what the Uyghurs are going through now, which is to say 99% of the country has moved past that. It's an unambiguous improvement. First ever civil code just passed this year as well.
It's only been 30 years, about how long it took Taiwan/Korea to liberalize, except things take longer when you have 1.4B people and antagonism from global superpower. Taiwan/Korean dictatorship got unambiguous and sustained US support. Under Xi, it's 2 steps forward and 1 step back. Realistically it's is 5 steps forward and 1 step back, but west likes to paint that 1 step as a chasm.
> a few million minorities gets shafted, to be crass: the cost was/is negligible
That is the difference between a society of freedom and human rights, and mob rule. Someone else's benefits have nothing to do with the horrors suffered by people in Tibet and Xinjiang. Each one of those people is as important as you or me.
>Each one of those people is as important as you or me.
Yeah they are.
The reality is also that frontier territories have been historically spared the harsh repressions rest of country / populus went through postwar like cultural revolution, great leap forward, strict family planning etc, simply by virtue of being too far. Enter infrastructure and billions in spent on connectivity. Secessionism had to be reign in eventually, and current systems has as much carrots as sticks. Also carrots that was not available to a much poorer China. There's a reason why disproportionate resources are diverted to Tibet and XJ for development. Carrots that freedom + human rights countries typically do not extend to their own repressed minorities. Indigenous camps in Canada still don't have clean water, because voters in democracies do not want to give carrots when virtue signalling is sufficient. CCP doesn't have to listen to majority Han reee about spending money on minorities. Last time I calculated enough money poured into XJ to cut every Uygure a 200K RMB / 30K USD check.
The fundamental issue is carrots are not enough, you cannot pay people to secularize/sinicize/integrate. You have to indoctrinate, not just future generations, but also current. This is not endorsement of the policies. Merely it is predictable next step with new Chinese capabilities, further made inevitable by salafist terrorism fermented by blowback of foreign policy decisions of USSR/West/ME and other geopolitical factors. Things would be very different in a world without mujahideens inspiring drama in XJ or CIA fucking around with Tibet or general US pivot to Asia or current great powers competition. This is why CCP is obsessed with with foreign meddling. Nevermind that Tibet/XJ is 2/3 of Chinese land and contain vast security benefits. More relevant to "as important as you or me", these minorities are _more_ important than the average Han. Security is paramount state responsibility, more so in an authoritarian one because there is no one else to shift blame. And even then blame is no replacement for overwhelmingly excessive counter-terrorism response where possible. Incidentally why XJ is getting the full measure while Tibet gets half. That's baseline populist expectation, CCP is adding the carrots when the people scream for sticks. A democratic China would just lockup the Uyghurs and Tibetans in perennial prison industrial complexes like US or sequester them away in generation ghettos like France. An imperial China would actually genocide them. Trivially. That's the dynamic of in a capitalist ethnostate with "problematic" minorities. What currently exists is not the best timeline, but it's also not remotely the worst for security logic, which again, trumps all other considerations. Incidentally, this applied to HK, and will apply to Taiwan.
What a depressing world you must live in. In reality, the news is pretty good: Freedom has expanded dramatically. Freedom was expanding in China until Xi took over, with many working and planning for democracy. A local downturn isn't at all 'inevitable'; we can easily turn it around.
Freedom has expanded dramatically in the U.S. too. Minorities such as Catholics, Jews, Mormons, Irish, Italians, Germans (once reviled!) and more are now unquestioned members of society. Women went from an oppressed majority to full members of the workplace, expanding participation in government, etc. Few would dream now of suggesting women shouldn't work - something that was a norm a couple of generations ago. LGTBQ+ people's rights have expanded: They can marry, they don't lose their jobs over it, they can serve openly in the military and in government.
African-Americans enjoy far more rights: Obama was elected, as was Kamala Harris. Education has expanded; discrimination is socially unacceptable - no politician would survive using certain language. Law enforcement abuse of African-Americans is widely seen as a problem. Even Republicans voted to remove Confederate names from military bases.
We still have a long way to go, including for African-Americans, women in the workplace, LGBTQ+, Muslims, and more. But to suggest oppression is inevitable is just ignorant; it denies the facts. One wonders why some people seem to want it to be true?
> the republic of China has never been more autocratic
This is a more nuanced issue than it might seem in some ways though. I have some first hand experience since many of my coworkers are native Chinese living in different parts of China.
Trade has enabled the growth of a previously non-existent middle class in China and they have started to assert political power in ways not immediately apparent to Westerners.
One example is the "Beijing smog" that everyone knows about. The Chinese middle class are becoming unwilling to tolerate the total environmental devastation that was the norm two decades ago. They have put a lot of pressure on the CCP to keep the air cleaner and as a result many dirty industries like iron casting have had a huge number of restrictions put on them in the last 5 years. I would consider this a direct result of the political willpower of the Chinese people.
In my experience though, the reason things like the treatment of the Uyghurs or Tibetans have not changed is simply because the average Chinese person does not care or wish to rock the boat.
Before you finger wag about that, consider the American treatment of South American migrants that has come into the spotlight in the last 4 years. I would say that the reason it has not changed has the same root cause. The average American does not care, or silently approves and thus there is not enough pressure on the ruling party to produce change.
We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. That would include using the site for intellectual curiosity rather than flamewar or political battle, avoiding personal attacks, and everything else that's here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
> Before you finger wag about that, consider the American treatment of South American migrants that has come into the spotlight in the last 4 years.
South American migrants are treat fine, just not those who break in illegally (we can agree to differ if that's fair or not). I'm sorry but this is just not comparable to a possible genocide of the Uyghurs.
> I'm amazed the world isn't taking more action on China. Its quite sad really, 20 years ago, any one of the headlines from this year would have prompted sanctions and denunciations...
Why would world politicians take any actions against China when so many of them do have a finger in the honeypot themselves?
Invalidate stock shares* of all companies who made untold billions on China, and you will see that a huge double digit of Western politicians will go broke overnight.
The one sole reason the West was so eager to jump on the China train unlike any other broke harebrained communist country was because China went from the start to openly bribing Western elites.
Yeah, but what does it mean?
To revoke ownership of the company from its owners? Who then gets to own the company and why?
Or does it mean the company should cease to exist, and all employees should be fired immediately? We should deny honest people from getting their salaries?
But owning shares mean owning a part of a company? Does that mean that when a company’s shares are invalidated, then the company is now worth zero, and anybody can buy it for a penny? Are the owners forced to sell everything for a penny, or they are allowed to choose, when to sell and at what price?
Why would the price be different from current stock price?
> But owning shares mean owning a part of a company? Does that mean that when a company’s shares are invalidated, then the company is now worth zero, and anybody can buy it for a penny? Are the owners forced to sell everything for a penny, or they are allowed to choose, when to sell and at what price?
In real life, bankruptcy usually ends up essentially invalidating the shares of a company. Depending on the method of bankruptcy, the company continues to exist, but the owners of the existing shares loose any claim to anything. If "invalidate stock shares" of a public company became some kind of sanction for improper behavior, it would probably be coupled with some kind of process to transfer ownership?
Invalidating all shares in a company without further process to reallocate ownership is an interesting hypothetical. I suppose the organization would become something like abandoned property and escheat to the government.
> The one sole reason the West was so eager to jump on the China train unlike any other broke harebrained communist country was because China went from the start to openly bribing Western elites.
This is very accurate. Recent example is the implied Biden family in CCP's pocket [1][2].
It becomes really inconvenient when you have outsourced so much of your manufacturing there. Who is going to make your stuff then? (Maybe something we should have thought of before this, but then China took a turn towards more authoritarian under the current CCP chairman.)
China is now itself outsourcing to cheaper countries, because Chinese labor has become expensive. Supply chains become flexible when the incentives are there. I think the Trump tariffs were on the right track, but for the wrong reasons.
The problem is that Europe has no appetite for any sort of confrontation. Their leadership in peace and climate initiatives mask how little they're willing to do to address issues which have a potential body-bag cost. They have poured hundreds of billions of dollars every year into a dictatorship with no accountability and its military. And shifting all that industrial capacity out of Europe certainly made it look greener, with all the smoke out of sight.
If China becomes militarily stronger and Xi's domestic position weakens, war will be his first resort. If Taiwan had to be defended, there will be very little help coming from Europe.
I've been pleased with how the EU has made progress with Iran. Maybe that plus brexit, Russia and refugees has been too much for them. We'll see I guess.
Against the largest consumer/retail market in world? Not going to happen at the country level and risk reciprocal economic restrictions.
Only way to get china to change is have people vote with their wallets and refuse to buy Chinese made stuff but at the end of the day people just don't care and just want cheap stuff.
If you gave someone a choice between $100 IPhone made by slave child labor and $1000 IPhone that was made humane conditions at fair wages, i am willing to bet more than 75% of people take the $100 IPhone.
I will buy the phone made by slave child labour because the only reason they exist is because economy, if they make money, at least their next generation can live a better life. It is not likely that without a factory they will study and go to college like you would think. The alternative to a bad choice may be a worse choice, not a better choice.
I have to state a fact that there is no child labour in China. Were their child labour before? Maybe some. My uncle left home when he was 14 to work in a factory. 40-50 years ago. Nowadays, the earliest age you can find real jobs is probably 16. So no, you don't find a child labour made iPhone. But if there is child labour somewhere, you either find a not-worst-case solution or you get him out of there. And you have to think from his point of view, understand his circumstances.
We let China get too big without modernizing/democratizing. Massive foreign policy failure by the western world. Now they appear too big to reign in and everyone (except maybe the US) is scared of them and just wants to play nice.
We "let" them get too big? They are an ancient society who have had millions of inhabitants for centuries. They were already big, huge in fact. In the wake of Mao, however, they have a one party communist system that exterminated it's intellectual and critical class decades ago. Hard to see what could've been done during the Cold War, we tried the domino theory which was a colossal failure in Korea and Vietnam and Laos.
We let them get too big economically. We let them into the western world trading economy under the hope that they would normalize into a western-like democracy with liberal ideals. That has obviously failed.
As an Asian, this is a reason that I start to become disillusioned with "the world community". Their missionary zeal has not diminished. It just transformed from religion into political ideology.
There are alternatives outside of so called "western-like democracy with liberal ideals".
There's sadly a pretty long history of the international community ignoring atrocities as long as they're contained within a country. The answer to "why won't we recognize <genocide>?" is usually "because the victims were from the same country as the perpetrators".
There is genocide going on against Muslims, and the US would typically denounce religious genocide. The current president seems more concerned with watching Fox and pardoning his friends than handling Muslim rights issues.
It's the issue with using China manufacturing at all, although, even if Apple moved production to the US, chances are they'd still be facing forced labor allegations since they'd still need to get shipments from China for parts that can't be made in the US.
I don't think so. Even if you just get shipments for the rare earth materials that aren't present in first-world American countries, Apple would need to do the same supply chain audits all the way from shipment to mining, and they'd still be accused of using slave labor since apparently these audits don't work and using China at all introduces slave labor into your supply chain.
For now it still makes sense to do last-leg manufacturing in China since moving to the US has no benefits from a PR standpoint (due to the reasons above) and has huge negatives with needing to import the raw materials instead of just shipping the final product from China -> Alaska -> Continental US customers.
Maybe not in your circles, but Americans are sick of everything being made in China and Apple could afford to do it here if there were public pressure for them to do so.
That human rights situation in China is horrible. But I am worries things like that could actually be used to justify WWIII. Which would be even more horrible.
If they just made their computers in the US like they used to they could have both, but that would mean giving up the lucrative arrangement of only paying Chinese wages but charging US prices.
I wouldn't believe anything that any Western MSMs write about China; they are basically zero credibility given the amount of fake news that they put out. It also doesn't take much critical thinking to realize the narrative that they have been pushing to the general public.
It's cute that so many HN readers consider this accusation to be true. However I'd like to remind you that China and USA are engaged in a modern edition of Cold War. I'd argue it's naïve to think that such reports can't possibly be part of this war.
It is wreckless to compare the Chinese media -- which is controlled and censored by the CCP -- to the US media which the government has little/no control or punishment over what they publish. At worst, Western media has bias from those in the media, not the government itself.
Westerners bring up this lack of overt government control as some kind of end-all, be-all argument. Realistically it doesn't matter, practically speaking. The bias is there regardless. Didn't stop people reporting about WMDs in Iraq, isn't stopping the flurry of misinformation about China currently, etc. The comparison is completely fair
^^ I read both US and Chinese media. It's mind boggling how BOTH sides try to draw a bad picture of the other side, usually with baseless accusations. The media has definitely become a political weapon. Sad that many people don't realize this. I took all these kind of articles, from both sides, with a grain of salt.
And yet Tim Cook has the cheek to get 'woke'. Apple could easily afford to build everything in a country that isn't an awful dictatorship running concentration camps and still earn obscene profits.
And yet they still somehow maintain this aura of being the 'good guys'...
Apple's supply chain is more than 1,000 companies. Do you really think Apple has the expertise and personnel to replicate what 1,000 companies have spent decades mastering? Not likely.
No company on earth has ever been able to make a smartphone entirely themselves, and no company ever will, although i'd like to be proven wrong.
> Apple's supply chain is more than 1,000 companies. Do you really think Apple has the expertise and personnel to replicate what 1,000 companies have spent decades mastering? Not likely.
As one of the richest corporations on the planet which always smugly tells everyone how nice they are and how much they respect people?
Yes, fuck yes. They're not a mom and pop shop. They're a corporation that finds millions to lobby governments against making your electronics repairable. They can redirect those to paying the manufacturing workers directly.
One of the reasons Jobs cited as being an important factor for locating in China is the availability of skilled labor. It would have taken them years to hire enough industrial engineers to handle the scope and scale and volume that the iPhone required in the US, if they could even manage it at all, but only weeks to do so in China.
The supply chain is also important. One person who worked in Shenzhen commented that, as a manufacturer, if you suddenly discover you need a certain kind or size or shape or length of screw, you can have a shipment at your door the same day, because the factory that produces a thousand different kinds of screws is just down the road.
To move to the US, they'd either have to replicate most of that manufacturing in the US, which would take decades and be extremely expensive, or deal with a week of latency every time they need a new or different part as they get it shipped from China anyway, making most of this process moot.
Yes, Apple should do something about this issue, and yes it's horrible to imagine them profiting off this with their "nice guy" image, but keep in mind that if they did this and increased the cost of the iPhone, other companies wouldn't, and it would put Apple at a huge disadvantage.
One thing we've seen over the last century of western civilization is that cheaper wins over better. Cheaper toasters that don't last, cheaper fridges that break down after their three-year warranty is up, cheaper laptops that come infected with bloatware and adware. If Apple refused to manufacture in China because of forced labour issues, then they'd lose out on sales to companies who kept benefitting from it, because consumers, as a whole, just don't give a shit.
I mean, if anyone cared about what it takes to provide them with cheap products, they'd be enraged that Jeff Bezos is the richest man in the world even though the workers that run his company are subsisting on food stamps and burnout quotas.
That said, Apple is working on moving production to India, and I'd wager that the more they can do that and expand their operations there, the less and less they'll deal with China for manufacturing, but right now no one who manufactures electronics in large volumes can do so without involving China.
In the meantime, they can work on cutting this supplier out of their supply chain; the article is talking about only one of their suppliers, though a long-term supplier, and not actually people working for Apple or manufacturing iPhones directly, so hopefully they can draw a line in the sand and force Lens to either stop using forced labour or lose the contracts.
You’re going to get cherry picked apart for this, but as someone who has ran supply chains, been apart of product dev that involved early hardware design & dev and the necessary chain dev to build that design, you hit the nail on the head.
Everyone wants a bad guy here, and apples logo with the billions behind it enable people to easily assign blame to that logo (not that they shouldn’t). But what’s forgotten is the massively complex “stack”, if you will, that brings everything together. Just saying “oh this billion dollar company is terrible!” Is being lazy and doesn’t contribute to a solution, all it does it make people feel entitled and validated because it doesn’t take much real thought.
The real problem at root is human/consumer behavior. Turning a logo into a fitting evil character borrowed from childhood cartoon narratives is not real.
> The real problem at root is human/consumer behavior. Turning a logo into a fitting evil character borrowed from childhood cartoon narratives is not real.
If the real problem is human/consumer behavior, then any real solution requires changing how humans/consumers behave.
A coordinated campaign to spoil good-will in any company that uses forced labor is an attempt at changing how humans/consumers behave, no?
I think that's a very unfair assessment of my original comment and very dismissive.
Do not make the mistake of thinking everybody who criticises a company like apple is naive as to the complexities and difficulties around supply chains at scale. I certain don't.
Having literally worked for one of apple's suppliers who they bankrupted to bring the process in-house I have given this probably a lot more thought than you imagine.
They have been trying to vertically integrate all suppliers as much as humanly possible for reasons of control, margin and competitive advantage. This has been apple's approach for many years and they have been utterly ruthless in doing so.
If they had the will to start to take the steps to actually divest from a literally genocidal state, they could do it. They simply do not care.
The part I do agree with you on is that they also know their customers do not care, and consumer awareness and action is a key part of pushing back on this kind of thing.
But please do not absolve apple of guilt by waving your hands and saying the supply chain is too interdependent and complicated.
If they can take steps to fuck over suppliers for profit and control, they can take steps to avoid slave labour.
> One thing we've seen over the last century of western civilization is that cheaper wins over better. Cheaper toasters that don't last, cheaper fridges that break down after their three-year warranty is up, cheaper laptops that come infected with bloatware and adware. If Apple refused to manufacture in China because of forced labour issues, then they'd lose out on sales to companies who kept benefitting from it, because consumers, as a whole, just don't give a shit.
Apple customers have made it very clear that as a whole, they are not price conscious. Better beats cheaper, or they’d be all using cheapo Android phones.
Apple has very high profit margins compared to their competitors in the same industries. Apple can pay their suppliers more, rather than driving them down to the bone, which of course results in workers being exploited.
Or they could be more transparent that the only thing that matters is the size of their profits, instead of cultivating a good guy corporate image, as the hypocrisy stinks.
> One of the reasons Jobs cited as being an important factor for locating in China is the availability of skilled labor. It would have taken them years to hire enough industrial engineers to handle the scope and scale and volume that the iPhone required in the US, if they could even manage it at all, but only weeks to do so in China.
So, potentially, if the phones were made in the US they'd be like Ferraris? Very expensive and only a few made at a time?
This doesn't sound like they are using skilled labor.
> It suggests that iPhone glass supplier Lens Technology has been using Muslim minority Uighurs, who were given the stark choice of working in the company’s plant or being sent to detention centers which have been likened to concentration camps
Absolutely it would be very costly, absolutely the expertise might not even exist at scale in an alternative country, absolutely it would take effort and pain and a long time.
But apple appear to, in the decades since the iPhone made them richer than many countries, have made zero effort whatsoever to address these issues.
Having worked at an apple supplier that they bankrupted in order to make the process entirely in-house (one of many they've done that to) I just do not buy that they could not have taken steps to divest. Some. Any.
Of course the issues are true of many other companies, but as I said in my original comment, the fact they portray some woke mentality (under which every single microscopic thing somebody does can be considered 'problematic') while continuing to take little to no action in divesting from a literally genocidal state which harvest organs says something about them.
The combination of their outrageous markups (which _could_ permit a more costly but more ethical supply chain) due to which they'd not have to increase prices (and thus making them one of the most able to actually divest like that), their utterly ruthless business practices and their woke and patronising pandering makes them a particularly egregious case, so in my opinion far worse than the likes of amazon, etc. (not discounting bad things they do, just a matter of perspective).
> One of the reasons Jobs cited as being an important factor for locating in China is the availability of skilled labor
Highly skilled forced labor?
Let's not kid ourselves - it's all about cost cutting. They're trying to diversify and move to another low wage country, India.
Not - I'm not saying that China or India lacks skilled labor, or highly paid experts. But that's not why companies like Apple are there. They're there for cheap labor, and close to non-existent labor protections. But China is starting to change, so Apple is looking for new places.
> Yes, Apple should do something about this issue, and yes it's horrible to imagine them profiting off this with their "nice guy" image, but keep in mind that if they did this and increased the cost of the iPhone, other companies wouldn't, and it would put Apple at a huge disadvantage.
It's like saying that Google and Facebook should continue to disregard privacy, because their huge margins relay on that?
> Not - I'm not saying that China or India lacks skilled labor, or highly paid experts. But that's not why companies like Apple are there.
I think it is partly. China in particular seems to have a depth, quality and volume of hardware engineering skills that isn't available anywhere else in the world. Maybe the US had this once, but as far as I can see: not anymore.
Apple annual income is more than the annual budgets of many countries they don't need to make everything themselves but they can have few thousand trained inspectors which monitor all the places where it products are being produced. If they are able to keep new phone designs months into production secret they are also capable of monitoring and finding about worker abuse.
> Apple's supply chain is more than 1,000 companies.
And whose choice was that? Apple has chosen to do business with all of these companies and they have chosen to consistently do business in China even despite the long history of China's violations of human rights abuses. Of course Apple is responsible for their choices of who to do business with!
Most companies can and do prioritize vendors who meet non-monetary criteria. Apple can easily ask vendors to complete external ethics audits, these audits usually request information on each vendors suppliers, suppliers of suppliers, etc.
Apple absolutely has control over who they buy from in this regard. Failing their willingness to act the US federal government has the authority to enforce labor law parity with trading partners through trade negotiations, tariffs, and bans.
> Do you really think Apple has the expertise and personnel to replicate what 1,000 companies have spent decades mastering?
Yes absolutely. They do supply chain all day, every day: in order to keep high quality, they need to be in tight control. They're very, very good at outsourced manufacture or they wouldn't be a US$1T company.
Foxconn was only the first to reach our awareness but it seems there's many other vendors with dubious HR.
Pointing out that no company can make the entire smartphone by themselves is all well and good. The OP was applying that wisdom to the "woke" culture Cook is seeking to solidify within Apple.
It's just as unrealistic for Apple to be woke as it is for them to make the whole phone by themselves. They love existing under that banner, though, because it succeeds in tricking many people into believing they can use iPhones and avoid being hypocrites.
The point of any kind of messaging is to broadcast intent and is always at least a little aspirational. That's the first step.
I'd honestly be far more wary about companies who doesn't broadcast anything, just to make whatever profit at whatever cost. Any Chinese phone brand right now (correct me if I'm wrong) or companies like Huawei or Lenovo, where, like it or not would have that approach to business possibly baked into their DNA.
Interesting that large parts of that supply chain coincidentally operate in parts of the world which have extremely low wages and virtually no worker rights.
Having worked at a company that Apple bankrupted in order to bring their work in-house I respectfully disagree that they lack the will or ability to avoid complicity with a genocidal totalitarian state.
Then by extension if you buy any computer, consumer electronics, smartphone, manufactured toy, etc, you are complicit in human slavery.
There are almost no computer or smartphone companies which do not participate in these markets. Samsung, Dell, HP, Lenovo (which is a Chinese company yet oddly gets ignored every time these discussions come up), Microsoft, LG, etc etc etc. All of them participate in these same industries. Most of them get little or no scrutiny even though they use many of the same supply lines Apple does and have far less in terms of transparency about their supply chain.
And almost every company on that list will use the same factories, supply chain, and probably labor. There are not that many ODM manufacturers that have enough scale and capability to build high precision electronics.
That would be companies like Foxconn, Pegatron (from the same founders of Asus), Wistron, Compal, etc., etc. Basically every factory that manufactures your Dell, Asus, Samsung (?), etc.
Intel might just be the only company where there's a chance your chip is built in the US and thus uses the minimal amount of forced labor necessary to mine and ship the raw material.
I don't think the issue is with the CPUs. For example TSMC is has always seemed pretty well clear of these issues as well. Forced labor is usually involved in mining for battery components, or mid-low skill tasks like assembly.
Not only do all those other companies use the same manufacturers they use literally the same manufacturer and people and facilities from this article... Lens Technology.
And yet the headline only says Apple. I asked why HN also used Apple in the headline given it is inaccurate in another comment but that was downvoted.
>Then by extension if you buy any computer, consumer electronics, smartphone, manufactured toy, etc, you are complicit in human slavery.
Indeed. I really don't understand the lack of public and political will to end the largest slavery system ever to exist on earth (by which I mean the whole offshore manufacturing sphere, not just Uighurs in China).
Where is the reporting on these companies lobbying against a bill to support the Uyghurs?
The only company I'm aware of that is getting any press on this issue is Apple.
Apple fans would rather jump to whataboutism than tarnish their favorite company. None of this is good, and the wealthiest and stingiest company in the world should do better.
You seem to think you can damn everyone who buys Apple for their participation in abuses, even as you enjoy products which are likely far deeper into this bullshit.
All you've done is point out your own biases and willingness to dive deep into hypocrisy.
There is a big problem with forced labor. Apple is one of the few companies who is remotely transparent about their supply chain. As much manufacturing as Apple does, they are bound to end up buying from some of these vendors. But unlike most of their competitors, we've seen Apple adjust their buying from suppliers who get caught doing this.
Apple is lobbying to protect their access to slave labor. (Reference in my previous post.) How is that in any way ignorable? Why bring up anything else? Why defend them when they're saying one thing and doing another?
Apple fans never condemn their company. They always hurdle accusations at everyone and anything else they can to protect their fruit god. Just like you're doing now.
Say it: "Apple uses and has benefitted from slave labor. I believe this is wrong and should change."
If you can't say that, I have more than proven my point.
It doesn't matter what other companies are doing. They're all bad. But Apple has the least excuse of them all, because they're the richest and most powerful.
Not that you care, but I cut consumption out of my life. My phone is old and I save and invest most of my income.
If my media company gets off the ground, I'd love to make a movie about Tiananmen.
I love the Chinese people (I studied Mandarin in college), but I refuse to support their regime. Businesses that kowtow should not be supported. Businesses that benefit from slave labor and Chinese market access have a lot to answer for.
I don't get the downvotes on this. Well, okay, I do, but it's not wrong. It's hard to buy anything without supporting odious practices somewhere in the supply chain. The incentive is to get costs as low as possible, and globalism let's companies put all the bad stuff far enough away that the consumers don't care.
I understand if you still want to buy smartphones--I'm typing this one one--but do it with h your eyes open. "Because it's a buzzkill" is not a good reason to ignore it. And if it bothers you, we should do something about it, like lobbying politicians, supporting labor unions, and raising awareness.
Well, I guess that last one will just get you downvotes
So, it's probably reasonable to suspect that FairPhone does (or did) use suppliers that used forced labor. I only checked the one because I had remembered hearing it somewhere.
Why are you moving the goalposts? What does the history matter, the list of countries currently with millions of people in concentration camps is quite short.
You need to raise your standards.
Concentration camps are inherently evil, it does not matter how many people are in them. A concentration camp isn’t acceptable just because it only has 999,999 people in it.
The goal post moving was the phrasing "with any history of human rights issues" (emphasis mine). The goal was: let's not do business with places who are currently abusing human rights like this. The goal post was then moved to: let's not do business with places with any history of human rights issues.
Not really, there is a compromise - it is not black and white. You can buy out of necessity, just don't over indulge or be complicit in their lies - hype compounds the problem by pumping up demand.
Apple is a capitalist enterprise; Apple can only afford to maximize profit — everything else is just window dressing.
Wokeness, philanthropy, environmental consciousness, branding, origin story, etc.; all of these things are viewed favorably by the cultural mode. Therefore, you should expect capitalists to appropriate them to distract from, or justify, the profits they make and the concentrated power they enjoy as a result (i.e. labor exploitation, control over consumer choices, influence in the market, lobbying for legislation, dictating the terms of contracts with vendors)
Apple isn’t the problem, it’s behaving how it’s supposed to in the market capitalist system that currently dominates the world. This cruelty is inevitable in capitalism.
I guess this kind of news paints the wrong picture, or more likely to believe in this kind of thing. The more likely case is that, there are a bunch of people who are unemployable having no skills or lack motivations to work or happen to be in miserable conditions (like the homeless in US) were forced (yes) to enter this kind of "de-radicalization camps", monitored (yes) and _given_ an opportunity to get employment (like an internship for students) and get _paid_ the market salary. Yes they were forced to have a job that they can potentially do (the work conditions are like other "normal" apple factory workers). If they decline, well they need to go back to the "school"..
> The more likely case is that, there are a bunch of people who are unemployable having no skills or lack motivations to work or happen to be in miserable conditions (like the homeless in US) were forced (yes) to enter this kind of "de-radicalization camps", monitored (yes) and _given_ an opportunity to get employment (like an internship for students) and get _paid_ the market salary. Yes they were forced to have a job that they can potentially do (the work conditions are like other "normal" apple factory workers). If they decline, well they need to go back to the "school"..
This news makes it more likely to believe in this kind of thing.
> The more likely case is that, there are a bunch of people who are unemployable having no skills or lack motivations to work or happen to be in miserable conditions (like the homeless in US) were forced (yes) to enter this kind of "de-radicalization camps", monitored (yes) and _given_ an opportunity to get employment (like an internship for students) and get _paid_ the market salary. Yes they were forced to have a job that they can potentially do (the work conditions are like other "normal" apple factory workers). If they decline, well they need to go back to the "school"..
Unfortunately, the free flow of uncensored news has made you aware of something I don't want you to know.
These people are no help to themselves, and do not want to do what the government tells them to do, even though it would be greatly beneficial. They are monitored, of course, as all radicals should be. The US has no right to complain. After all, they also have useless, dirty homeless people, which are pretty much the same thing.. Furthermore, these prisoners are even paid for their work! What more do they want!?
If they decline, they should be sent back to their interment camps.
Thanks, that lays the idea better than I can. But some of it was misunderstood, or perhaps I used the wrong words. Most of what you said is truthful to my original comment.
Let me share a bit more from my experience living in China for 20 years. In China, taking street people (mostly beggars or orphans who were used by gangs as pick-pockets or whatnot) into custody is systematic for as long as I can remember. (There's news that this system is to be abolished in 2021 by a new law amendment.) It's systematic as there are full-time employees who job is to do this. It is considered "help" by the general society (but there could be abuses by bad actors for sure), the system has good intentions. Because they are not criminals, it's not exactly like prison but it is true that they are taken by force to go through a "program" where they need to listen to propaganda, be educated or trained for a certain skills (mostly factory jobs such as making toys, shoes etc.) and be forced to work at a given place for a certain period. The system is not perfect, it is outright offensive to "individual freedom" (where you are "free" to be just like the US homeless drug addicts). But it is net positive for the society by sacrificing some of these people who are unwilling to go through it.
This is just a small piece of what China calls "Wei Wen" ("maintain stability"). The employees who work on those people are more akin to what is called "social workers" in US. They are institutionalized to have a budget to pay for food and training costs and the work to look out for job opportunities for these people (frankly the factory owners generally don't want to employee these people). These employees make a government salary. The factory owners get frankly sloppy workers they don't like but have to cooperate with the government. But this type of work eventually pays off to society when many of these people get out of their old life tracks by having a job and skill where they can stop being beggars or thieves.
China is a society that traditionally (from its culture and also political ideology) values "the collective value" more than the individual value. It has always been the case, which is important to understand the mindset of the government and the Chinese society in general. The "unemploytables" constitute a "problem" to society, which must be solved. This is not much different than prostitution is a "problem" for most countries. If you follow Xi Jinping's rule and his propaganda (which I doubt), his big agenda for 2020 is to "eradicate" poverty, this makes it easier to understand what is really going on in Xin Jiang. Xin Jiang happens to be a place where both poverty and radicalism are intermingled, so their approach could be different than say, Gui Zhou province (where it's mostly poverty). But this year I've read so much from CCTV (CCP's media) that they lifted people from poverty by giving them "a means of living".
You can do that. There are charities that literally buy slaves in order to free them.
Be aware, though, that there are people who criticize such practices as 1) accepting and giving legitimacy to the concept of slavery, and 2) increasing the demand, which tempts others to find ways to increase the supply. Personally, I don't find the first argument convincing. The second I could see being a legitimate concern.
I can understand that. I was thinking more along the lines of helping people break out of the conditions that force them into terrible work environments, though of course the nature of that depends on the country. Could be anything from direct cash payments to funding education or groups working to change policy. I just want to be able to pay for all the externalities, but it's extremely hard to know where the issues are let alone the people equipped to address them, for each item.
What evidence of foul play have you seen from Apple specifically? The majority of suppliers for eg, Fairphone is also in China, and Apple has the most comprehensive transparency reports and controls of them all.
I think the over double price tag (compared to the other model) should show how much the US has benefited from globalization (at other’s expense). Most consumers prefer cheaper things. What Purism is doing is very noble, but it’s not going to move any mountains. We need governmental regulation for that.
A huge percentage of consumer electronics—including smartphones—are manufactured by a small number of often questionable companies. Microsoft, Dell, HP, Lenovo, all have similar supply chains and manufacturing.
I'm not entirely sure what a good way to pick an "ethical" manufacturer is. One thing I like about Apple is they are somewhat transparent and at least seem to audit their supply chain.
It would be nice if instead of doing pieces like this, these organizations would give a list of manufacturers they recommend and why.
Let me get this straight, seems like if a company uses Uyghur workers they get accused of "forced labor". Then solution is easy, lets not hire any Uyghur people. No employment Ugyhur people. Then Uyghur people know what happens, they don't have income, they stay poor. This is what these people who accuses of Uyghur "forced labor" want? China may not have the best labor laws. But this is 2020, at will employment, employment with pay, is common sense and the absolute basic basic fact supported by law. If you don't like the place you work for, if you don't want to go out of the province to work, no one, not the police, not the company, will throw you in jail. This is not slave labor. Slaving is just no socially and legally acceptable in China I don't see it ever be possible.
And let me be fully honest. Some local governments do tie special governmental poverty aids with participation in work programs. As in, you don't get certain poverty related aids if you are a able employable person but refuses to participate in a work placement program. But these people will still get standard social program, such as a basic state health insurance. And if the person is non-employable, for example, disabled, elderly, under working age, these don't apply.
Another possible situation is, a person is work-able, but has no job and has a income level below the absolute poverty standard. Recently the government has a target goal to reduce absolute poverty rates, and the way they do that is try to get every employable person a job so they have income. This transfer work placement is one of the programs. The government work with companies to create work opportunities and get people placed in them. Some people will refuse work just because they don't want to. And the government has KPIs and targets to reduce out of work people has much as possible. So government would nag people to join work. And the aforementioned tying these special poverty aids with participation in work placement. But there is no legal consequence for refuses. No one will be able to place you in a jail.
So if you say this government is coercion and "forcing" people to work this way, you can say that. But on the other hand, the idea is that people should make a living to support themselves. The government aids is partially interested in encouraging people to make a living on their own terms. A Chinese saying goes "授人以鱼不如授人以渔".
But now, various interest groups, NGOs and countries (US etc) are now painting these companies and China as a country as using forced labor. They are destroying public image, and economically sanctioning. A company could provide jobs for Ugyhur people. And frankly, some goes out of their way to do so because there are so many other people in China these companies could employ. China's job market is very competitive. And now they might lose their business and go bankrupt. And let me tell you that a lot of Han people look at this and think is special preferential treatment towards Ugyhurs. They think why do I not get these work placement programs.
I honestly feel this pretty twisted. Yes, there are bad stories in poverty reduction efforts the Chinese government is doing right now. Some local governments use illegal tactics. But the overarching goal is still positive. We as a society could leave people under absolute poverty to feed for themselves, let them stay at absolute bottom of society. But now, we set up and are doing something about it. At least we don't just talk the talk, but actually taking concrete actions. Yet, people outside of China is saying this is a "sin". And use this as an reason to punish China and the people living in the country to death.
And how interesting this comes at a time when various countries and interest groups is trying to suppress China's economic growth, how limit China's economy is the mainstream tone in the media. I don't get how actively seeking to destroy a country's economy is moral, and how no one comes out and say "hey, this is not right". Economy is prosperity, is people's livelihoods, is people's well being, is people's ability to enjoy life. Painting an economy as a target and looking for all kinds of tools to destroy it is against all of the above. I always believed people want the best for others, people want others to live a happy, prosperous live. But the foreign policy of the US for the past 2 years, things US political leaders said, media outlet around the world said, destroyed that belief. Hatred is really alive and well in this world. Living breathing people can have so much hatred in them. Some people just want to see others suffer, burn and dead. And some of these people actually hold devastating amount of power that can shape the very lives of people, even if they are small, ordinary people who live literally on the other side of the planet.
I think you nailed it, it's not about the Uyghurs, it's about not allowing china to continue its economic growth. Never mind that growth has had tremendous positive impact on average chinese citizens Uyghurs included.
It's slavery...modern day slavery. Why are we mincing words? We stand on our soap boxes and preach about historical injustices and how we need to repair them. Well here is your chance to prevent a future historical injustice, and all it takes is for you to take a stand, instead of quietly consuming the products and leaving it for future generations to atone for methods by which those products were produced.
Equating slavery with forced labour belittles the gravity and awfulness of what actual slavery is (or was).
Forced labour takes different forms, which includes forced paid work and by some definitions penal work.
Slavery is when a person is treated as a property of another person. Being a slave may or may not involve forced labour.
In addition, calling Uyghur work “slavery” in fact undermines the cause, allowing CCP defenders to legitimately call out “fake news”. Precision matters.
They are kept in camps, monitored constantly, have no privacy, are searched constantly and on top of that, they are forced to work or go to detention. That is slavery. There's also the problem with them getting gutted for the organ transplants that China's own doctors have reported to be 4 times higher than they should be for the population size. So it is work, or go to detention and possibly get gutted.
> But when Tohti arrived at the destination, he was shocked to find at least 10 prisoners had been shot in a field by a firing squad.
> Armed police waved the surgeon and his medical team over and directed them to a man lying unconscious on blood-soaked ground.
> Tohti said: “He’d been shot in the right-hand side of the chest but was still alive.
> “I told my chief surgeon he wasn’t dead but he ordered me to remove the man’s liver and kidneys there and then – and to be quick about it. I was ordered not to give the man any anaesthetic.”
I often hear that uyghurs organs are sold as pure/halal organs to muslims from Saudi Arabia (and other rich muslims countries). If it is true -- and I think it is -- that is indeed absolutly abominable.
Probably because it’s received quite a bit of attention. If you’ve been reading HN for a while, particularly articles about the recent injustices in China, you’ve likely already encountered such claims.
"They are kept in camps, monitored constantly, have no privacy, are searched constantly and on top of that, they are forced to work or go to detention..."
An Amazon warehouse is already 90% there then.
> They are kept in camps, monitored constantly, have no privacy, are searched constantly and on top of that, they are forced to work or go to detention
This also seems to describe prison labor that occurs in the US, which, putting problems and criticisms aside, is definitely different from slavery. I don't think the imprecision in language is helpful, it hurts the cause in the same way people constantly referring to modern political leaders as literal Nazis hurts their credibility.
Because it isn't. It's distinct from chattel slavery, which is not the only form of slavery. Bonded labor is the most common form of slavery today, and is also not chattel slavery.
This doesn't say “prison labor is slavery”; it says that prison labor is allowed to be slavery. You should've provided some reference to e.g. a news article to back up your claim.
It's legal to paint yourself blue and write obscenities on your face and walk into a library, but that isn't evidence that anyone does it. (Likewise, it's legal to make people pay you fifty times the inflation-adjusted value of a loan you gave them – things being legal isn't evidence that they don't happen, which would be absurd.)
Forced labor is slavery, full stop. This was recognized by the men who wrote the 13th amendment. It is not "definitely different". And no, paying a slave does not make it 'not slavery.' Slaves have been paid paltry sums some of the time throughout history. It's still slavery.
But you haven't showed it occurs; only that it's legal. Plenty of things are legal that nobody does, and plenty of things are illegal that people do all the time.
I happen to know a little bit about what goes on in US prisons, so it's confusing me why you're not providing any of the mountains of evidence to support your point.
> Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."
That comparison could just as easily be said to belittle what actual forced labor is.
I don’t think it’s helpful to compare which atrocity is worse.
There are many societies that have had lots of norms or laws protecting slaves from various forms of harm. That’s of course not to say slavery was acceptable in those societies on any level, but many slaves lived more comfortable lives than those who eventually died of malnutrition at Auchwitz-II.
Forced labour in prisons is legal in the US right now. Equating forced labour as a whole with slavery, which is frequently used to refer to chattel slavery that existed in the US (HN audience is to large degree US-based) before 1865, may seem inconsiderate to those whose ancestors had to endure the latter.
What is reported to be happening to Muslims now in Xinjang, with reeducation camps and all, is not the same as treating a human as another piece of personal property. It is both not as bad, and yet at the same time somehow even worse, as this time a whole culture is being systematically eliminated.
> Forced labour in prisons is legal in the US right now.
The Constitution refers to it directly as slavery. The 13th says "except as punishment for a crime." Folks may want to mince words about it because prisoners are technically paid (pennies per hour), if they are even getting paid in the first place. It was major news that prisoners were sent to fight fires in California for little to no pay. Plus, prisoners are on the hook financially for a lot of their sentence, so that money is basically spent before they even get it.
I'm guessing you've never been incarcerated? There's all sorts of volunteering: such as fixing the TV or coffee maker, teaching other inmates to read, helping another inmate file a frivolous appeal, and so on.
I find Jeremiah Pate in the milking barn, attaching milking machines to the goats' udders.
"This job, how do you feel about it?" I ask him. "A bad thing? Good thing?"
"It's a great thing," Pate tells me. "It beats the alternative. Rather than sitting in your tiny little cell, you get to come out here."
Every man I meet echoes that thought. They aren't thinking about what was fair on the outside. They were just thinking about their options in prison, and in that perspective, the farm looked pretty good.
>> "It's a great thing," Pate tells me. "It beats the alternative. Rather than sitting in your tiny little cell, you get to come out here."
>> They were just thinking about their options in prison, and in that perspective, the farm looked pretty good.
You're making the point of OP. When the only other option is "sitting in your tiny little cell", there's not much choice in it. It's less volunteering, and more escaping a psychologically untenable situation.
Given other options, I doubt many inmates would be willing to 'volunteer' or work for peanuts.
Yeah, it's like the rest of the US justice system "you can plead guilty and with the time we kept you in jail waiting for trial you can go home tomorrow, or you can go to trial at some unspecified point in the future and risk going to prison for 20 years - which one do you want?"
There is no free choice in that question. Just an illusion of one.
What are those other options? Take away the volunteer opportunity? Stop punishing people?
Just FYI, most of the non-prisoner firefighters in California are also volunteers. In my district (north Solano county), 90% of firefighters are volunteers. We don't get paid.
The previous poster made a very obvious point that work is not voluntary when the alternative is punishment, which your post very helpfully illustrates as “sitting in [a] tiny little cell.” This doesn’t seem like a point that should require so much explanation for thinking people.
You and the previous poster seem to ignore that the punishment is just (to the extent that the criminal justice system is capable of justice).
It's not like they're forced to work; and if they take the option, they're still under punishment doled by the justice system. So it's not immoral forced labor as long as neither the work or the jail cell constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment".
The question is not whether it’s immoral. The question is whether it’s “voluntary” when the alternative is punishment. If pretending that this kind of work is voluntary is the only way you can make it morally palatable to you, then maybe you have a deeper issue that you’re blinding yourself to. It’s better to be realistic about what’s happening, and then decide whether you can live with the reality.
Well, I would say, the lines get blurry.
And when you have private prisons, where the owners have a incentive to exploit prison labour, while also keeping their costs low - you end up in something, too close to slavery for my taste.
You asserted it was just. I just don't think that's axiomatic. I'm not here to argue whether it's true, just to say that you shouldn't take it as necessarily factual.
>You and the previous poster seem to ignore that the punishment is just (to the extent that the criminal justice system is capable of justice).
By your logic, the Uighurs are experiencing "just" punishment under the laws of the People's Republic of China.
Since the Uighurs have committed "crimes" (as defined by the government under which they live) against the state, they are subject to whatever punishment is prescribed by the law.
This is, of course, ridiculous on its face. And is just as ridiculous anywhere else.
There are valid reasons to separate some folks from the rest of society (think John Wayne Gacy, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, etc.), as they've shown themselves to be unable/unwilling to respect the rights of others within that society.
Incarceration as a tool of punishment, while widely used, often poses more risk of harming society than any benefit from "punishing" offenders.
It's a complex issue, and simplifying it to "Law and order! Lock 'em up!" is reductive and often detrimental to the societies it's supposed to improve.
>No, I'm talking about incarceration in the USA. There's a huge difference between that and what's happening in China.
I was aware of that when responding. In fact, when I said:
"There are valid reasons to separate some folks from the rest of society (think John Wayne Gacy, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, etc.), as they've shown themselves to be unable/unwilling to respect the rights of others within that society.
Incarceration as a tool of punishment, while widely used, often poses more risk of harming society than any benefit from "punishing" offenders.
It's a complex issue, and simplifying it to "Law and order! Lock 'em up!" is reductive and often detrimental to the societies it's supposed to improve."
'sli stated, "It was major news that prisoners were sent to fight fires in California for little to no pay." This makes it sound as if they were forced to do a dangerous job against their will. As 'stickfigure pointed out, they could have chosen to sit in a cell instead. The fact that nobody goes to prison voluntarily is beside the point.
> They aren't thinking about what was fair on the outside. They were just thinking about their options in prison, and in that perspective, the farm looked pretty good.
You're making the case that it is involuntary. "Do this or we shall do to you something worse against your will" is textbook coercion.
But it's the thing that would already be done to them if the work program was not available. We put criminals in prison because of the crimes they commit, not because of the jobs they refuse once they are there.
I did not intend to comment on the nature of the work, only on the idea that refusing some form of work resulted in some form of punishment specific to the refusal. The punishment is the base state (and US prison systems are definitely punishment-oreinted, not reform-oriented). It's just not good accounting to call "going back to your cell" a punishment for not agreeing to do a particular job.m
Just to make sure no one is confused by this, jobs in prison are a privilege you have to earn through good behavior.
Firefighting jobs are the most coveted because you get to leave prison grounds, and as of 2020, can now be employed as a firefighter upon release (in CA).
Prisoner firefighters in California are volunteers that opt in and receive significantly reduced sentences for their service and often end up working for Calfire upon release.
As others have mentioned, the 13th Amendment explicitly carves out forced labor as a legal form of slavery under a course of punishment. Referring to it as slavery does nothing to diminish the atrocities of chattel slavery.
> Equating forced labour as a whole with slavery, which is frequently used to refer to what existed in the US (HN audience is to large degree US-based) before 1865, may seem inconsiderate to those whose ancestors had to endure the latter.
I don't see this as a reason to cut off the discussion. Trying to distance forced labor from slavery may seem incosiderate to those who had to endure the former.
There's no escaping the inconsideration considerations, so I prefer to discuss the topic at hand without that baggage.
- there was a concerted effort after the end of slavery to put former slaves and their descendants into things that were almost like slavery, including mass incarceration
I think you're thinking of "slavery" as a term applying exclusively to chattel slavery, but it's far from exclusive to that form. Bonded labour and forced labour are commonly recognized forms of slavery, as people are obligated to serve another under threat of violence.
Knowing the details of the current situation and differentiating it from previous forms of slavery does matter, but, as you say, it's by no means the most important thing we should be focusing on and discussing in the comments.
That's why we have the definition of "modern slavery".
It could be interesting would journalists on the Gruniad have to give up using macs then.
"We rely on our suppliers sharing our values and complying with all laws at all times. We expect our business partners to treat people with dignity and respect and not to engage in practices associated with forced labor, even if not illegal in their location"
>Equating slavery with forced labour belittles the gravity and awfulness of what actual slavery is (or was).
Doesn't matter. That's a crap argument.
First, because enlarging some things (which necessitates belittling others) can help put an end to them.
Second, because forced labor and slavery are not that far off anyway. Both are depriving a person of their agency and steal their time and effort.
Third, because slavery itself was historically a spectrum. There were "domestic slaves" (sorta like Stephen in Django), cooks, nannys, teachers and "butler" types in charge of estate work in ancient Rome and Greece, etc.) that were treated and worked more or less like modern employees (except from the forced labor), even slaves in management of other slaves, and slaves that were chained, worked to the bone, beaten, raped, etc.
"Slavery relies heavily on the enslaved person being intimidated either by the threat of violence or some other method of abuse. In chattel slavery, the enslaved person is legally rendered the personal property (chattel) of the slave owner."
A person held against their will and forced to do labor is a slave whether they're called that or not, especially if they have committed no legitimate offense for which such a punishment could be justified.
As near as I can tell the Uighurs' "offense" is being of a different ethnicity and being majority Muslim. What the Chinese are doing here is very close to what the USA did in its first century with African slaves.
You are right in your last paragraph. The situation in Xinjang is such that for an Uyghur it is in fact impossible to decline to do what the state says. Any work done with involvement of Uyghur population by default is a situation of forced labour. That’s what the article says.
However, using the term “slavery” gives CCP ammunition to fight back. They can point out that Uyghurs are paid. They can claim they are free to refuse (we know they will not out of fear of retribution, but I suspect the need for such nuance only hurts the case).
You are obviously eliding the distinction between a state where officials can arbitrarily order you to do anything and a state bound by the rule of law and a constitution enforced by independent courts that limits what the executive and legislature can order you to do.
Yes, because that's a separate/orthogonal (and much more controversial point).
I just don't want anarchists to be fooled into supporting the warmongering US propaganda.
i.e. do you agree that the state should have the power to do what's described above?
I was leaning to say more "no". I basically used to be more of an anarchist. That was probably (also) because I was disappointed in our cronyist, capitalist, disfunctional governments...
I'm now finding myself as more of a statist, after realizing how much good is being accomplished in China, and how arbitrary and ridiculous are the falsehoods that the US propaganda is pushing.
That's not what your source says at all. One person who works for a anti-communist organization thinks that it meets the UN definition of genocide. This sort of malicious misinterpretation of China is why people think it's 100x more evil and absurd than it actually is. Another example is China's banning a few Winnie the Pooh memes got warped into China banning Winnie the Pooh altogether. Anyone who stepped foot into China would know that's ridiculous.
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
There’s an active attempt in congress to amend the constitution to abolish slavery in the US:
"Modern day slavery" is mincing words, slavery in the modern day is just slavery. Typically slavery refers to the slave being considered property, and ownership transferring to offspring. You can compare it to forced labor.
I agree, though chattel slavery typically implies the slavery of offspring. You can still have institutionalized slavery without that, like the Romans and a lot of other cultures throughout history. Slaves could be set free, could have semi-decent standards of living, while still being dehumanized. Or they could be treated brutally and enslaved for generations. The term seems to fit here in the broadest sense of the word.
"Slavery" etymology takes its roots with the "Slavs" people, who were, well, enslaved in medieval times. The term has been commonly accepted to describe various similar patterns before and after those times.
I agree that yesterday or today slavery is just slavery, whatever subtile differences there might be.
You're right, and that's why governments must step in. Markets are not configured or incentivized to address ills like this, nor are corporations. Asking a corporation to right large scale social wrongs is like asking the DMV to operate your military or walking into a restaurant and asking them to come fix your roof. It's just the wrong socioeconomic tool for the job. If you try to really pressure or force them to do it, they'll do something half-assed much as you describe.
Boycotts can work a little, but a boycott large enough to be effective and overcome other market forces is very hard to organize and sustain.
I'm not totally letting Apple off the hook, just pointing out that without the government doing something here any measures Apple or anyone else takes will be ineffective. Even if Apple starts pushing back on this, other manufacturers will fill the void and take advantage of that cheap labor instead. Apple might even find it tough to police this since Chinese companies may lie about where work is being performed or who is doing it. They're likely to demand that Apple pay more for different labor and then pocket the money and use forced labor instead.
Boycott is a fine tool if we're talking about influencing the corner grocery store in a town of 100 people. You might actually put a dent in their business and cause them to change whatever you're boycotting about. On the other hand, boycotts are totally pointless vs GlobalUltraMegaCorps. If everyone on HN stopped buying from these massive companies, it wouldn't even be noticed. Apple sells roughly 200 million iPhones yearly. Do you think it's possible to get even 1% of those customers to act on a boycott?
Exactly. No one is ditching their iPhone. It’s all about the blue text bubbles. If Americans would just switch to WhatsApp or something else like the rest of the world we could get past the Android stigma.
Is the labor used to make an iPhone and different than any other phone? Or any other electronics for that matter?
As far as I know, unless you stop consuming electronics completely, you’re not avoiding the labor abuses mining the necessary metals in Central Africa or the labor to manufacture it in Asia.
About the only 'safe' phone would be a Samsung phone, but the likelihood that some parts are still sourced from un-vetted Chinese parts supplier is high.
Apple is far from perfect, but they do more than 99% of manufacturers. Even the most 'woke' fashion brands are now having to deal with the fact that much of their cotton is coming from Uyghur forced labor.
I applaud this kind of reporting, to expose the practices of the Nazi-like Chinese/Industrial exploitation machine, but I'm leery of the tendency to apply 'Apple' to every such article, like Greenpeace was doing for a long while to drum up publicity.
Samsung is one of Lens Technology's biggest customers, according to the New York Times[1]. This is the company in today's report , so I'm not sure why you think Samsung is safe.
So you're making my point for me? Even the most vertically integrated manufacturer, who tries to avoid Chinese dependencies for strategic reasons, can't avoid it.
"Forced" is the word the article uses. We don't know if that's accurate or hyperbolic. I think issues like these are worth scrutiny and intense investigation, but I'm not going to pull my pitch fork out just yet.
It's so easy to sit in my desk chair, read an article like this and have an armchair outrage moment.
pulling out your wallet without thinking is as bad as pulling out a pitchfork. Perhaps worse, since you are holding the global poor to a higher burden of proof than the billionaire elites.
That's fine, but tell me where I can buy an ethically sourced phone? I develop for iOS, Android and Desktop systems. Each of these devices have thousands of components from different vendors that I have to support. The parent article is talking about some glass.
These phones can't do much to address a glass supplier that is mean to their workers. These are just more environmentally sustainable phones.
I'm all in on putting pressure on Apple and others to clean up their supply chain, but it can't just be Apple that's held to this standard. Right now it is.
My point is that there are too many components to have complete control over the whole supply chain, so these types of issues will come up and hopefully responded to accordingly. I really appreciate that these sustainable devices exist, and I think they are a huge step forward.
Getting back to the initial comment I made... I think it's important to keep a company like Apple/Google/Samsung honest regarding their attention to their supplier's ethics. A company like Apple is going to be pretty responsive to concerns of worker mistreatment, if presented in an honest way. If we are too quick to incriminate Apple whenever a story like this comes up, it comes off more like we have an agenda against them, especially if we are not vetting the story before expressing outrage.
being sold at a slave market in the middle east, is quite different from being forced to work or being put in a detainment camp. a slave in this context has no human value. its owning a human being, not simply forcing them to work. it can even be hereditary. its practiced daily since a certain religious figure did it and granted his followers the same "right". (to own another human being)
id argue there is a difference. i know im wrong though and there are many types of slavery. the reason i choose to make a difference between them is because ive seen both and i cannot to this day process what i saw, and the attitude of people. a slave from my experience is seen as subhuman. and when religion is used to justify it, its to me different from china. but i mean chinese citizens cannot leave their country and start a new life somewere else. so i think in the context of china you might be even further correct.
Eh, nobody, including yourself, maybe except the Jainists, are willing to do without the creature comforts of their lifestyle, not just Apple users. Look at all the things you own and use, some of them built in the same Foxconn factory no doubt.
We can look the squalor of factory-farmed animals right in the eye while biting into our ham sandwich and say "damn, someone should really do something about that." Or, perhaps more commonly, "I'm entitled to this, actually."
So why would we budge over a little forced labor on the other side of the world? Or pollution? Or anything else?
We care about things right up to the point where we have to lift a finger. Though, aside, for this reason I think legislation is one of the only solutions short of waiting for a cultural awakening that probably won't ever come.
Emphasis on the word "fans". Analogy: I hate Google's business model, but I still have to use their products for lack of better alternatives.
The difference is that I won't go around evangelizing (i.e. marketing) their products as a consumer, pumping up demand if I knew the negative costs associated with it. On the corporate side is Apple's hypocrisy PR- i.e. don't drink their koolaid.
>The obvious one, the search engine... due to its accuracy and speed. No wonder their monopoly lawsuit.
As a general rule, I don't use the search engine. And not just because of Google's market power. It's also because the quality of search results have dropped enormously.
At this point, other search engines are at least as good, IMHO.
>Though, aside, for this reason I think legislation is one of the only solutions short of waiting for a cultural awakening that probably won't ever come.
I don't think it'll ever come because we've allowed ourselves to create an atmosphere where there's entities doing their utmost to ensure it never happens via the tolerance of behaviour economics and psychology being used in marketing, the tolerance of big corporate lobbyists, the corruption of science via corporate backed "studies" whose results align with the initial desires, etc.
The only consolation being that our unmitigated greed will likely destroy us long before we have the chance to infest the stars with it, and that life will go on without us.
This is an old documentary and a bit different demographic, but it is still pertinent. If people didn't care back then, I doubt they will this time though...
This isn’t even concern trolling virtue signalling, this is you using human slavery to score internet tech superiority points by ... making up some fantasy strawman to sneer at.
And then try to claim you are different for using Google because you hate yourself at the same time.
If I have the opportunity to buy something not made in China, I will take it. Unfortunately, it's essentially impossible to buy any consumer electronics not made there.
The set of things you can buy these days that isn't made in China is essentially restricted to luxury goods and safety-critical equipment (cars, guns, scuba gear, etc.); despite what they tend to say out loud, companies know that it's prohibitively expensive to get safety-critical reliability out of Chinese manufacturing. But if it's just your camera or power drill or whatever, they know you're not going to sue them when it breaks. Apple actually does a really good job on QC for Chinese manufacturing, but then you have all these accusations of forced labor to contend with.
I'm not an Apple fan, probably more of an Apple hater, but why is Apple the bad guy for seeking cheaper labor? Why is it the consumers problem that China allows it's citizens to be treated like shit? Why is this ethical responsibility somehow always offloaded to the consumer?
> Why is this ethical responsibility somehow always offloaded to the consumer?
Because NO ONE else seems to be up to the task.
I think folks here are getting lost in the weeds about precise definitions which don't really matter that much and what they think are laws that can be applied across national boundaries (generally, that's not feasible).
There has been an effort to ban "conflict minerals" from modern supply chains. It's partially successful (in that you effectively get "a sticker" that you can show-off if your supply chain doesn't use children as miners). It would be nice if, AT LEAST, a similar half-measure could be done for "forced labor" (or whatever you want to call what they're doing to the Uighurs).
> Why is this ethical responsibility somehow always offloaded to the consumer?
Because without consumer, there would be no incentive for either China and Apple to behave amorally.
China is a totalitarian dictatorship. As long as it's citizens don't rebel, they have no incentive to change their behavior. Apple is a publicly traded company. They need good publicity.
So, as a humanist, I say it's up to the consumers to force Apple to stop contributing to human rights abuses.
The problem is the propertied capitalist class, not the working class.
The capitalist class has the power. I appreciate your intention, yet it's super important to be clear that the problem is the bourgeoisie and the capitalist system, as the means of production are monopolized in their hands. The most advanced form through which the bourgeoisie (in this case Apple) expropriates, creates enclosures and exploits/oppresses, is 1) through the use of trade secret laws [1], which steals away new inventions from the commons and stifles learning and innovation, as well as 2) through the means-of-exchange money system that obscures relationships between people and places [2].
"Zak Cope makes the case that capitalism is empirically inseparable from imperialism, historically and today. Using a rigorous political economic framework, he lays bare the vast ongoing transfer of wealth from the poorest to the richest countries through the mechanisms of monopoly rent, unequal exchange, and colonial tribute. The result is a polarized international class structure with a relatively rich Global North and an impoverished, exploited Global South.
Cope makes the controversial claim that it is because of these conditions that workers in rich countries benefit from higher incomes and welfare systems with public health, education, pensions, and social security. As a result, the internationalism of populations in the Global North is weakened and transnational solidarity is compromised. The only way forward, Cope argues is through a renewed anti-imperialist politics rooted in a firm commitment to a radical labor internationalism." [3]
As an anti-capitalist, does it give you pause for thought that the Campaign for Accountability, which is behind this report, was co-founded by Louis Mayberg, the principal in a large investment management company.
If everyone's accountable, the world's a better place for everyone (except perhaps the people committing flagrantly unethical crimes). You don't need to be a staunch anti-capitalist to see that. And hey, if you've got money, maybe you can do something about it.
- US President-elect Joe Biden affirms his anti-China position. On Monday, he slammed China once again for “abuses” on trade, technology and human rights and said America can best pursue its goals relative to Beijing, when it is “flanked” by like-minded partners and allies. https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/biden-slams-chines.... This should help confirm multinational COO's decisions to leave China faster.
- China keeps attacking other countries, and further isolating itself. From stopping coal trade with Australia, and causing blackouts for its own cities https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/16/world/australia/china-coa..., to engaging in border war with india, to antagonizing US, Canada and UK.
- Chinese suppliers engaging in more and more thievery and sabotage against its own global partners, as reported at chinalawblog. Western companies are reporting Chinese suppliers are brazenly not delivering on goods paid for.
This trend is not what you think it is. The factories are moving to other countries, but still owned by Chinese firms and still using the same, if not more brutal tactics.
Multinational factories are owned by multinationals. Yes, some factories are owned by Chinese firms, but even that's misleading. Alot of the "Chinese" firms have Hong Kong owners, who usually operates more ethically, and hates China, than "CCP state" firms that engages in modern day slavery.
> Apple spokesman Josh Rosenstock said the company has confirmed that Lens Technology has not received any labor transfers of Uighur workers from Xinjiang. He said Apple earlier this year ensured that none of its other suppliers are using Uighur labor transferred from Xinjiang.
>“Apple has zero tolerance for forced labor,” Rosenstock said. “Looking for the presence of forced labor is part of every supplier assessment we conduct, including surprise audits. These protections apply across the supply chain, regardless of a person’s job or location. Any violation of our policies has immediate consequences, including possible business termination. As always, our focus is on making sure everyone is treated with dignity and respect, and we will continue doing all we can to protect workers in our supply chain.”
Now post the next 3 paragraphs after those quotes.
Apple is actively doing business in a location where slavery is frequently occurring, while pretending that their audits are thorough and comprehensive so that their hands appear clean. But the fact that they are playing whack-a-mole with constant slavery reports should be evidence enough that they know exactly what they're doing: they're trying to turn a profit while turning a blind eye to abuses, so long as they don't happen too publicly, and don't directly implicate them. This is wrong.
It looks like it may well be going that way, sure, but making this about Apple is headline bait. It's about China.
The fact is you can't buy a single thing made in China and be sure it isn't implicated in this in some way. Think of the last few things you bought that were manufactured or sourced some parts in China. Can you honestly say the manufacturer audits their supply chain with the same rigour? At least Apple is trying to keep their supply chain clean, but ultimately that may prove to be impossible.
If that's the case vilifying Apple for it won't fix it, the only way to fix it will be to shun Chinese products completely, but that's going to be a very painful and difficult process for more people than just Apple. Take Fairphone for example, those guys work really hard to do the right thing as much as possible, but they have dozens and dozens of suppliers in China some of them indirect. In their own literature they point out they can't answer for every single supplier. This is a really tough problem.
So we shouldnt shame the richest company on earth for using slave labor because its about "china"?
If anyone has leverage, its Apple, so actually yes its a way to start fixing the problem.
There's a simple way to keep slave labor out of your supply chain, stop doing business with people who are fine with that, not "performing audits to find out they are using slave labor again so we switched!"
>So we shouldnt shame the richest company on earth for using slave labor because its about "china"?
No, that’s a convenient misdirection to avoid real change. By making it “Apple is evil”, people just switch to another phone manufactured in China and pat themselves on the back for doing absolutely nothing.
How do you know which supplier is "fine with that", and how do you anticipate a supplier before they decide to change over to using illegitimate labour?
Auditing suppliers, verifying supply chains and switching away from cheaters is one way to address the issue. Another is to not do business in China at all.
It would be easier to just not do any business with any company in Xinjiang, but is that actually punishing the Uighur community who aren’t part of the forced labor? It might be better to focus the pressure on China as a whole, and at the international level. Or it might be more effective to punish companies in Beijing because they have the ear of the government.
I don't believe that quoting a PR spokesperson is a meaningful response, Apple is obviously a biased party in this investigation. Moreover, Apple has opposed the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act which would penalize companies with forced labor in their supply chains[1]. It also has a history of similar accusations with regards to their LCD screens [2] and their uniforms [3]. All of this is completely ignoring their history with foxconn and other suppliers that routinely abuse their employees without compelling their labor through outright force. Apple might say that they care about this issue, but its clear that their supply chain is setup to take advantage of poor workers from 3rd world countries at a minimum.
They have a zero tolerance in their particular factories, but is China just shuffling workers around to make sure they don't send the slaves to Apple factories?
Apple is still making products in Hitler's Germany because the prices are too good to say no. Just because they aren't using the concentration camp labor doesn't mean they aren't complicit in the crimes. They're in the same boat as Fanta from my perspective. Doing business with murderers because money is more important than human lives.
Don’t trivialize nazi concentration camps by comparing them to some re-education camps. I highly doubt the number of deaths that occurred in these camps is anywhere close to the deaths that Apple‘s home country caused in its own war on terror, including torture and war crimes. With police brutality and the highest incarceration rate in the world, how can a company that values human lives do business in the US?
Wow the desperation it takes to try to misdirect the conversation camps to the “war on terror”. Right out of a whataboutism propaganda playbook.
A citizen of any regime, from the best to the most brutal, can criticize China and it does not detract from the argument at all. It’s not hypocritical because citizens are not the government; and, even if it was directly from the government and was hypocritical, the substance of the argument does not change. Calling someone a hypocrite is just an ad hominem.
"Re-education camps" aren't they? They can call them "happy unicorn camps" and they will be still concentration camps. They use them as slave labor and human organ farms.
How on Earth, can you even try to gaslight us saying China concentration camps are "nicer" than the Nazis?
Zero tolerance apparently does not extend beyond the facilities Apple needs to make its goods. As in, they seem to turn a blind eye towards the country's behavior they are in as long as they can keep their own hands clean.
Simply put, Apple should be held accountable for simply doing manufacturing in a country which allows such abuse regardless if they or their suppliers actively use such labor.
Apple isn't alone in this behavior but they are beyond most when it comes to virtue signalling.
I'm no necessarily disagreeing with you, as far as saying "it would be weird to refer to the people in Auschwitz-II as slaves", but may I ask why? I can't come up with a reason, really. They were dehumanized, worked to death, treated as property and less. Would calling them slaves be giving the Nazis too much credit, at that point?
Because Auschwitz-II took dehumanisation to a whole extra level of depravity, far beyond slavery.
While you could logically argue that people there were also slaves, it would be an injustice to leave it at that. Generally speaking, slaves had some kinds of rights that were far better than those in Auschwitz-II.
It's one thing to be treated as someone's property and forced labour, as a slave.
It's another thing to be subject to awful medical experimentation (often to death), torture of kinds that are barely imaginable, and mass killing with on-site factories literally built to murder the occupants and other occupants forced to dispose of the body parts of their friends afterwards. All of this in large numbers.
There's a reason Auschwitz-II had sections called "Crematoria I-IV".
Auschwitz-II makes almost every evil in the world look mild in comparison. It's that bad.
I'm just trying to get the comparison of terms down. While, yes, as an American, English is my first and primary language, I'm afraid some of its phraseology still confuses me. I think it has to do with parts of society that I don't understand, granted. The visceral reaction to the word "slavery" seems much more than to the more sanitized phrase "forced labor", or even "labor camp". Those are what we are what we're discussing here, like it or not. Uighurs are being sterilized and used as forced labor, but the phraseology is so sanitary as to not disturb our modern pallet of consumerism, we dare not draw a comparison to Nazis. While there are no crematoria, there are certainly shallow graves and executions, and parallels to be drawn. The word slave and forced labor is, at best, an argument of semantics of note only to those on the sidelines I'm sure, while those in bondage don't care what they're called.
> It would be weird to refer to the people in Auchwitz-II as slaves.
People in Auchwitz-II were enslaved, thus they were slaves, subjects of economic exploitation in their life, and death.
It's just we never, and for a wrong reason, talk about the original motive behind NSDAPs attack on Jews, and other minorities.
That motive is the same as for whatever else form of forced labour — class warfare, as was the case for many other pretexts for genocide in history.
The type of hatred NSDAP managed to peddle the most was not for hatred of Jewish people for being Jewish as such, but for Jewish people being rich.
NSDAPs first attacks on Jewish people were spun around the message of class warfare. NSDAPs biggest sell for Kristallnacht was the opportunity for poor angry underclasses to get from rags to riches in one night by robbing homes, and businesses of rich Jewish families with impunity after all.
because investigations performed by the companies or governments themselves tend to portray themselves as not culpable for any actions (often omitting pertinent details). Independent review is the only way to be honest.
These reviews are not necessarily independent. If they don't yield any results the organisations lose their funding. So they have the incentive to be as dishonest as Apple and China are.
Do you have any serious evidence? Otherwise we are raising random possible problems. Maybe it's a false flag! Maybe it's the CIA or FSB or Martians! Maybe! Not necessarily!
China and Apple have their reputation to protect, so they have a very high stake in the game.
The Tech Transparency Project's goal is to uncover misconduct and malfeasance in public life. They don't have to 'prove' any wrongdoing with regards to Apple or China. If their research with regards to Apple or Chine doesn't pan out, they have many, many more potential targets without danger of losing any funding at all.
but - not being able to conduct its investigation doesn't automatically cause China to be in the wrong. More evidence is needed here. (Independent review being disallowed nationally is a bigger concern I will admit)
Two wrongs don’t make a right—hold every last one of them accountable, don’t excuse human rights abuses by anyone just because someone else has also committed abuses.
I think that there's an issue in how industrial nations abuse the lack of protection for workers in developing nations and how this usually results in profit extraction and massive human rights violations.
It would be nice to be able to force companies to take responsibility for crimes happening in their supply chain. I think this is the only way to prevent willful blindness. Otherwise the profit motive of the whole will always override the morality of the individual.
We should also improve whistleblower protections so that instead of just relying on hearsay and vague accusations we can actually have solid proofs of wrongdoing. Unfortunately, especially in tyrannical dictatorships like China this is very unlikely, given that even a 'democracy' like the US is struggling with those.
That said; I don't that China as a whole is a developing nation anymore. There are big chunks of the country that might still be 'developing', but as a whole China is very much an industrial superpower.
China Per person GDP: $9,770.85 USD
US Per Person GDP: $62,794.59 USD
China isn't a developing nation? So they should just be happy with 1/6 of the wealth US Residents get and stop now?
What Crime is happening in their supply chain? Prison Labour is not illegal in the US or China. US constitution specifically allows it... How do we force Apple to take responsibility for this?
There is solid proof of Labour camps, Prison Camps, Reeducation Camps, and persecution of the Uighurs, even the Chinese "tyrannical dictatorship" don't dispute it. It is fairly common knowledge among Chinese citizens as well. What will probably surprise you, is it has much wider support from the Chinese people than you'd expect. Now this could be that the context of "why" they are persecuted is not well known outside of china. It could also be that Chinese citizens are not comfortable objecting to it from fear of speaking out against their government. But it's not as clear cut of "wrongdoing" that this article nor this discussion makes out.
Yeah, well... I think the U.S. has some massive problems, but that's on another page and although I'd love to talk about these problems, let's stick with China for now. That a big enough pig.
Yes, my house is on fire, and that's a big issue that should be addressed, but check out the big fire across the road. Let's focus on that one.
(As someone who does not live in the US, it's hard to take the consistent negativity on China and the wilful ignorance on US domestic issues seriously, without just seeing it as propaganda...)
Since I don't live in the U.S. either, I don't see why we should include the U.S. in this discussion. I'll happily comment about the prison-industrial-complex or legalized corruption or about the dangers of militarized police... if it is the topic at hand.
The issue at hand is how China and Apple are profiting from slave labor, how much this is by design or by neglect and what to do about it.
Sure if you want to derail it. But the Actual post is about an American company taking advantage of essentially Chinese prison labour.
You think drawing a parallel to American companies taking advantage of American prison labour is unrelated to this discussion preferring to focus on the race of the 'prison labour' rather than the nature of the labour.
The US peoples voted into power a President who pardons war criminals. And the next incoming President supports (or has supported in the past) wars and bombings which cost the lives of countless non-combatants. Which places has China bombed? If the claim is China has lots its moral standing, then The US is not on any firmer moral ground either.
Well, those countries are not global powers, yet. Quite a bit of the China bashing comes from the US, and that's why I brought it up. If we judge the US and a lot of the other so called world leaders by the same standard as we judge China, things don't look so rosy anymore.
I'm quite willing to bash the U.S. too, believe me. The massive corruption in their political system, the systemic militarization of their police, the wasteful social inequality are just the tip of the iceberg of internal issues. Problematic is also their pursuit of dominance by military force, their financing and arming of groups opposing legitimate democratic governments. And that's just the beginning of my issues with the U.S.
In general I'm very skeptical that prison operators should be able to "rent out" their prisoners and that companies should be able to make profit of prisoner's work. The potential for abuse is just too high. (Maybe in a country like Finland that has some reasonable ideas about reintegration of criminals, but even there I see the dangers of corruption.)
The global production chains have put workers in jeopardy of exploitation. As long as there are no legal means to force companies to take responsibility, they will not take responsibility. It doesn't matter if a company is from the U.S. from Denmark or Finland; if there's no accountability, the profit motive will overrule any ethical concerns. Because that's what these companies were created for in the first place; to turn a profit.
Here we have just one more 'externality' that companies 'socialize' in their quest to squeeze out ever more profit. In this case it's not clean water or clean air, it's the mental and physical health of fellow humans that for one reason or another have deemed disposable.
That countries and the governments - whose job it is to server all their citizens - are such willing participants in these atrocities small and large is just the bitter icing on this putrid cake.
Other reports funded by those aligned with US foreign interests. If it conforms to Chinese government behaviour then these are extremely public and predominantly well compensated rural labour transfer programs occuring in other provinces that alleviates poverty for 10s of millions every year. If it's anything like Chinese tech (it's not) then they would be extremely well compensated and overworked relative to rest of society. In Mike Pompeo's words: We Lied, We Cheated, We Stole. That should be the default assumption when treating these analysis, especially when they contradict each other i.e. Zenz estimates of millions detained is based off fanciful estimate of 1,200 camps... GIS analysis found only ~300, but the same analysis that essentially debunks Zenz will still blindly reaffirm his claims.
It's manufactured consent. The implication is reality is worse than CCP purports but better than US funded analysis alleges, especially considering ongoing geopolitical tensions. Per leaked XJ internal documents, these are indoctorination and vocational training camps designed to secularize and alleviate poverty. Abuse will happen when operating at large scales, but CCP "political work" and demographic engineering has always operated on carrot and stick. It's more or less a proven model that works more often than it doesn't. There's a reason why the current narrative tries to insinuate it's only stick, and has to operate on fabrications, cherry picked data, repeated testimonies from the same handful of people. It's Pompeo / state department's prerogative to lie, cheat, steal for US interests. People should understand this, except those for whose interest depends upon them not to.
Because the bill says "you can't use slave labor" but also "you can't audit your supply chain to determine if slave labor is being used because audits are unreliable" so the only way to comply with a bill like that would be to completely pull out of China. Apple is desperately trying to do this with Vietnam and India plants but it doesn't happen overnight.
If you don't believe them would you believe the US government, State Department, EU government, and the world's best free and independent press?
What about leaked primary sources from CCP [leaks]?
Huge volume of facts and research from all kinds of sources on the systemic genocide and forced labor of Uighurs and other ethnic
/ geographic minorities (Tibet, now scarily Hong Kong jailing and threatening the previously free press).
What is your answer? How do you evaluate claims and sources, and this claim and source? You seem to imply that you can't see any difference, and if that's the case (which I doubt), nobody can help you.
> Honest question.
Are other questions are dishonest? Why should we trust you?
For people discussing the difference between forced labor and slavery, this document from the UN's office of the high commisioner on human rights, tracing the history of such terms in international law, may be helpful.
It is ridiculous that it's being argued, but grouping different kinds of human suffering together does seem like it could be a sensitive topic for those that very much see one kind of suffering worse than the other. 'daenz' made the mistake of attempting to group all acts of 'slavery' into equally heinous acts that should be prioritized on all fronts in an effort to rally sentiment towards the cause.
While I agree that this issue should be brought to the forefront of the 1st world public, grouping/comparing these types of things always lead to a misdirection of discussion to semantics in my opinion and comments for stories like these should be focused on educating people more on the problem and brainstorming feasible ways the community can fight against it.
Have anybody noticed how this topic mysterious lost few hundred points, sank to second page, and then came back to front?
There is a noticable tendency for any China related topics, whether good, or bad to mysteriously disappear from the front page right at the start of the workday Pacific time, and after lunch hours.
There is a noticeable tendency for people with strong feelings on this topic to make up strong narratives about what they think they're seeing on HN. In fact, it's an extremely noticeable tendency.
This was a mundane case of merging threads, which is bog standard HN moderation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25574136. I could have just changed the URL on the other one, but preferred to go with the submitter who actually posted the story first and also posted the original article, in keeping with the site guidelines ("Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter.")
Note: I highly appreciate the work of the moderators in keeping HN objective, but it is not perfect- humans are naturally biased so this is to be expected...
Pay attention for a while and you'll notice there's quite a list of topics and positions that are verboten,either because they have a personal army who care about them or there's a finger on the scale.
For example, lightly and generally criticizing China will get you a lot of upvotes. Criticizing China in specific ways and proposing strategies of action will get your comment down voted and flagged.
How did you decide that? HN has always been pedantry, many actual questions are valid even if they discuss semantics or validity of the sources. It is the way HN always has been
I can only speculate, but I'll try. I haven't downvoted anyone in this thread BTW because I've been posting comments. When I post comments I prefer for them to stand as my input on the matter.
Most of the comments I'm seeing down voted seem to me to be somewhat extreme invective lacking in significant useful or interesting content. The bottom line is HN is about high signal low noise. Most of the downvotes are probably just on that criterion.
Another issue is that most of the people reading HN, including those vilifying Apple, probably own several dozen items manufactured in China. It seems somewhat unlikely that they can account for their supply chains in any meaningful way. There's also the mob rule aspect to all of this, it wouldn't be the first time 'evidence' had been found of Apple or their suppliers playing foul that turned out to be fake. Look up Mike Daisey some time. So lets all take some deep breaths and look at what's actually going on here.
> Most of the comments I'm seeing down voted seem to me to be somewhat extreme invective lacking in significant useful or interesting content.
Yeah, that's what's been confusing me. Some of the comments being downvoted I found to be quite precise critiques of the problems and honest attempts to provide information to an interesting discussion.
> So lets all take some deep breaths and look at what's actually going on here.
I use up and downvoting to improve the reading experience for others. I try hard to vote according to the hn guidelines e.g. “Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.”. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Personally, I silently downvote because good community members will self-reflect upon their comment (for even a single downvote), and I believe the process of questioning one’s writing is good; while bad community members are often not worth responding to (edit: I sometimes engage as i am an idealist and I think someone can be influenced for the better, however I really don’t feel I have much luck against the tide!)
I don’t think I am infallible, and usually others will upvote if a mistake is made. That said, I am usually careful to only downvote for what I think are very good reasons. I sometimes upvote something downvoted incorrectly IMHO. I have showdead switched on, but I can’t say I have felt the urgent need to vouch for anything yet.
IMHO this thread contains a lot of noise and thoughtless blather, which is a shame, because the topic is really important.
Edit: the hn guidelines say “Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.” True. But sometimes I think it is worthwhile, and it is obviously polite to answer an honest question like yours which is so far down-thread in a low signal environment that I think that my transgression is otherwise harmless.
Flagged this comment due to flagrantly breaking site guidelines. Read the guidelines or email the contact address in the footer for details. Keep in mind that “reasonable” is subjective and no one owes you an explanation.
These issues are not separate and treating them as so lacks nuance. This conversation is not about whether genocide and forced labor is bad (which I hope we can all agree that it is), it is about The ethics of Apples business practices. The company in question (Apple) is already based in a country which performs its own version of state mandated forced labor along with a myriad of other human rights abuses. How is this not relevant? Knowing this, why should we expect Apple (or other US companies) to treat business in China any differently? What makes one okay and the other not?
Ignoring this connection diverts attention away from other, systemic issues in our global market system which incentivize companies to operate in this way.
One injustice does not correct another. The US has a big challenge with internal inequity compounded by a massive supply chain leveraging others inequity.
It's unlikely we'll see complete resolution to one without the other being corrected.
Ehh I actually think this is very relevant to the conversation here. There are many others in this thread who are criticizing US companies for operating in China when they are already based in a country that allows its own form of forced labor, sponsors coups abroad, starts wars, etc. Knowing this, you’d think people might understand why US companies look the other way when they profit off of forced Chinese labor.
This may seem like whataboutism but I am not trying to justify China’s behavior here—it is truly horrendous. I just think the general conversation on Hacker News around the ethics of US companies operating in China lacks this nuance. These issues are deeply interconnected and, by trying to force a separation, we all miss out on a balanced and critical analysis of the situation
With choices of two major political parties, US voters have do not have granularity to approve or disapprove long term/chronic/fringe issues or issues that disproportionately affect a small minority of the population.
I'm not sure it's a deeper structural issue. The issue is actually pretty simple; first-past-the-post voting. This automatically leads to a two-party system.
Canada currently has 338 MPs and over 80% (!) of those (278) belong to one of two majority parties.
So yes, in theory Canada has a multi party system. In practice this multi party system is severely damaged by the effects of the FPTP voting system.
There are mathematical reasons for FPTP to result in two party systems. [0] explains it pretty well. There don't have to be deeper underlying stuctural reasons for the dichotomy.
So to combat two party systems, replacing FPTP with an alternative voting system seems a pretty reasonable step.
Which is also true of Australia which has had instant runoff voting for nearly a century.
I would suggest you look at the actual examples in the wild, and see if they have FPTP (or party proportional representation, which is essentially FPTP with all the same spoiler effects), and which don't, and see if they match your expectations to any degree better than random chance.
You can prove just about anything in "math" in a vacuum. The recent push for FPTP really strikes me as the kind of wonk stuff that people bend themselves around as a huge fix, when the reality is it empirically doesn't do what people thinks it should do, and comes with it's own problems. It's a lot of wasted political capital for very little if no benefit.
No, not really. If you look at Australia's parliament, you'll see that even though Labor and Liberal are the biggest party, they 'only' make up 60% of the seats. That's not really good, but it's a far cry from Canada's 82% (or the US's 99%)
> I would suggest you look at the actual examples in the wild
That's a very good suggestion. I actually already did that and I can assure you not using FPTP results in much more and smaller parties.
Examples:
- Ireland (STV)
- Northern Ireland Assembly (STV)
- Papua New Guinea (IRV)
> The recent push for FPTP
Do you mean 'against FPTP'? Because I can assure you that I'm not pushing for FPTP at all.
> No, not really. If you look at Australia's parliament, you'll see that even though Labor and Liberal are the biggest party, they 'only' make up 60% of the seats. That's not really good, but it's a far cry from Canada's 82% (or the US's 99%)
I'm not sure how you came to that. Australia has 151 MPs, 68 in the liberal party, and 61 in labor, or 86% in the two major parties. Their senate has 76 members, 31 liberal, 26 labor, or exactly 75% in the two major parties.
> Do you mean 'against FPTP'? Because I can assure you that I'm not pushing for FPTP at all.
Yes, I misspoke there, as is clear from the rest of my argument.
This is a problem. That being said, several major states have a good amount of direct democracy, including allowing for state constitutional changes, and there are often more than two viable candidates regardless of the letter after their name. I think this is a plausible way out of the two-party two-ideology stronghold that incites further polarization. Where I vote, between these two factors I don't usually think about a party because there may be 4-6 different candidates with relatively different platforms listed under two parties, and 10-20 referenda listed under that with no party.
There is difference between voters choosing forced prison labor and voters given the choice between two parties and being intentionally misled and misinformed about what the parties are actually doing.
Is anyone saying that they are? All coverage refers to them similarly to this article - they are a Muslim ethnoreligious minority.
The parallels to Muslim minority integration in the West is probably why it is so interesting to Westerners. The disparate treatment by governments is what makes it so striking - in China they are second class citizens; in the West they are favoured over the indigenous population.
I flagged this article and I really would urge everyone to actually read it before commenting.
I am very very concerned about China’s disregard for human rights, and I believe continuing to do business with CCP controlled companies is immoral.
That said, this is unsubstantiated accusations against Apple, which Apple directly contradicts. I believe Apple has a lot of leverage and resources and probably doesn’t want to do business with anyone who will make them look bad.
The Washington Post usually has quality content, but this one is disappointing. If you look at the author's history of articles, it's one post bashing Apple after the other (looks like there is an audience for it).
I really don't like Apple, but I like misrepresented facts a lot less.
What always surprises me in discussions on this topic is that many (seemingly) Chinese-origin commenters are bewildered that anyone opposes China's behavior. They've fully bought into the CCP narrative that the Govt is merely making the best decision for a lazy and unproductive people. Stripping people of the ability to choose their identity, stripping them of freedom of thought, stripping them of language and culture, stripping them of choice itself because their primary purpose is industrial output is wrong. I have no illusions that outside forces will change China's practices, but I don't see how they build a harmonious and prosperous society long term while doing what they're doing to large chunks of their population. So much of western innovation is based on immigrants ability to leave repressive govts for freedom of thought and practice. Will China ever be able to move from copying IP and manufacturing for others into inventing for itself?
The crazy thing to me is Apple's defense that they have instructed their suppliers not to hire any Uighurs from Xinjiang, i.e. openly engaging in ethnic discrimination of job candidates.
I guess they looked at the cost of improving the working conditions in their factories and decided that it was cheaper to simply not use any workers whose fate people might care about. I'm sure the government was happy to assist them in procuring some Han Chinese workers instead...
1) Is there a shortage of labour in China?
2) Why do you setup a factory in areas far away from other factory and transport the components far away to Shenzhen assemble and export?
3) Were these workers paid? And were they paid fairly?
I can understand the situation. The Chinese government is trying to improve the economy in Xinjiang and encouraged companies to setup factories there. Ruled by a communist government, these companies had to comply and provide jobs to those areas, which is far from port and industry, whose workers are less trained and educated. China is hoping that by improving the economy, people can forget about independence maybe?
Please re-write your comment in the same vein, except this time about Pre World War 2 Germany and Hitler, and let me know if you have the balls to hit the submit button.
I am not in Germany and you are not Hitler, well, I hope. Why do I need to do that? Journalists can publish things without evidence to backup their claims, and I cannot describe what I think?
No, I don't believe there are forced labour. I put it this way. In another BBC report regarding the cotton workers a few weeks ago, the source (newspaper scan copies) has shown that in the past, companies import workers from neighboring provinces, and this year, to help the local economy, they make sure jobs will be provided to locals instead. You can still see those on BBC websites. It is not translated into English of course.
When I say independence, I probably mean extremism
I have yet to see any actual evidence of forced labor in China. Only claims, nothing more. Americans have been fed false propaganda against communist USSR for decades, and I have a gut feeling the same is happening against communist China. Maybe it has to do with China's plan to collapse the US petrodollar global monetary system [0] and the US is trying to rouse a new Red Scare and push us into a second Cold War.
EDIT: Okay I've found 1 source of evidence from the comments in this thread [1]. I wish clickbait headlines would point to these claims instead of claims from other journalist making claims based on other journalists claims.
While there probably is an element of that, hard evidence that might paint the Chinese government negatively in general is much more difficult to obtain because of information and communications controls.
Agreed, I am just wary of journalist referencing other journalists as "evidence". But I have since found some very damning evidence here: https://shahit.biz/eng/ This is very sad to read and understand. I hope this site gets more attention than these articles
Not sure why you find that piece of "evidence" particularly damning. Do you know anything about the author? Do you know his methodology? His sources? What makes him credible?
From the database author himself [0]:
> "we have over 10000+ documented people" was the initial comment. Neither boasting nor saying 100% are credible.
I honestly find it both hilarious and disappointing that HN users are skeptical and contrarian about absolutely everything, except when it comes to what the US government and its proxies have to say about China.
Some level coerced labour is inevitable, the entire "vocational" training is part of broader labour/rural transfer programs across many provinces affecting millions of individuals every year, with associate recruitment pressures and quotas. The question has always been scale and severity and every piece of solid data (i.e. GIS analysis) is demonstrating the scale and severity is much smaller than previous claims by western analysis funded by parties subservient to foreign policy. Which is exactly why database like shahbits won't get any attention when they "only" catalogue 12,000 victims, it was 6,000 at the beginning of the year. Granted this is just a subset of total interned - the real number is greater than China will admit and less than western manufactured consent is trying to sell, but 10s of thousands is not a remotely actionable amount of victims for geopolitics. Hence fabricated narratives by interest funded NGOs of millions of victim to rationalize sanctions, cherry picked data points and uncorroborated atrocity propaganda. XJ is horrible, but not horrible enough.
I looked into the Uighur detention story a couple weeks ago and found very little in terms of substance. Most sources either traced back to the US State Department, which obviously shouldn't be trusted, or Adrian Zenz, a weirdo with a religious (literally) obsession with destroying China. It comes across very much like propaganda to decrease China's world standing and justify increased aggression economically and politically.
Apple clearly does have a responsibility here, they acknowledge that themselves in their supplier policies. They have also taken steps previously to drop suppliers that have been found to use forced labour, so they're aware of the problem and willing to take action.
So the question here is what is the evidence, what does it show, and if Apple's inspections have missed anything how can they improve their policies and enforcement actions to ensure it doesn't happen again.
it's not that simple, if it was that simple to build assembly plant operating corporations, everyone would do it, but it's hard business with very low margins. There are a few big companies capable of providing apple with enough manpower/production capabilities. And even though it's a low skill work, workers still has to be trained, and more importantly have to have high work discipline(which could be considered a part of a skill set) Most countries don't have that at least in large enough numbers for companies like apple(and its contractors) to use.
But when you wield Apple's power, you control those margins. They're also different because they've been able to make privacy and recycled materials marketing points in their industry worth paying for. Why not fair labor?
I am sad to say this does not shock, or even surprise me. What is also failing to shock me is how much the world absolves Apple of their responsibility, and near-total government inaction against China. Has any major western nation penalized China for it's barbarism?
It's ok though, the new iphone 13 has 3.65 times more drop resistance, is 0.053% thinner, with a girardean microprocessor for your phone to do qubit image processing on the fly.
Forced labor is quite prevalent as state-sactioned punishment, and it is much better than other kinds of punishment that exist. I don't have problem with that, that's one way how legal system pays for itself rather than siphoning fund from tax-payers' money. The difficult part for me was how opaque the process is, how the Chinese government just put people in those "camps" without due process. It is worrisome and frankly quite terrifying.
"Due process" did probably happen, at least the Chinese version of it. Even dictatorial regimes usually have to maintain some appearance of legitimacy for the things they do. That legitimacy might not be apparent or even visible for outsiders, because it is targeted to keep a sufficient majority of citizens at bay.
And before you say "but 'due process' is well-defined anywhere", I've got a star chamber in Guantanamo to sell ;)
Well, if this due process means some opaque process that government employs to put people in those "camps" then by literal meaning there is a process, and it's done through that process.
Yet I'd say that's very different from due process that we'd like to call it. In the very least the process itself should be well-documented and published, even if specific cases files are not available online for everyone. That's the very reason why the government called it re-education camps, because the government, even in Chinese context, should only act in the framework that laws defined, and in this case, they are not.
I suspect that the Chinese government and the local Xinjiiang government expected criticism, and they are well-aware the policy is not ideal or just, and that's why they wouldn'put it into laws, because they are well-aware it would be impossible to pass. Since they can't identify who's terrorist, they round up every likely target, and put them under surveiliance just for caution. It should be said it was effective in achiving their goal, and they are aware of the collateral damage, but it's the cost they think they can afford.
I would happily pour money from incarceration system into universal medical care and basic income, then we can talk about the incarceration system. Focus only on the incarceration system lose focus of how governmental budget works, and how society works. We don't even have generally available low-cost higher education yet.
People always have this sense that we are responsible for prisoners, more than we are responsible for law-abiding citizens in worse conditions. We often ignored those who need it most among the general population, we only do things unless they become criminal, because a criminal is at least seen, tried, in court, in news report, and those non-tried people almost have zero visibility. We can see the prisoners, since they are in low-quantity, and wouldn't be too much burden on the state fund and we can not ignore them, because we put them there. And yet we ignore those can be ignored, the homeless folks on the streets of San Francisco and everywhere else. It creates a weird system where if you are in worse conditions, you might be better off committing a crime than being a law-abiding citizen. It happens often because it cheaper to build better prisons than to offer better social welfare system for everyone, not because we have a better sense of morality, but it made us feel better about ourselves.
Does HN have to use the same Apple-baiting headline as The Washington Post? Lens Technology sells to all mobile phone makers. They are a massive public company with many customers...
The guidelines ask that the original headline be used in most cases, which it looks like the submitter did. If you have a suggestion for a better one, you can email the mods via the Contact link in the footer.
Coordination of the desires of suppliers and consumers emerges from the market process by individuals deciding whether or not to engage in trades.
So, everyone complaining about Apple is free to count their displeasure as a too-high cost, and thereby stop buying Apple products.
But that would mean forgoing something you otherwise still want right now. Much better instead demand a well-armed third party change the deal. Then, having your conscience eased by shrouding yourself in righteousness, you can go ahead and buy that thing.
And by your actions, the ruling class -- both in business and politics -- can maintain and expand their power.
----
A term from economics seems apt: revealed preference. The only useful notion of preference is that revealed by one's choices, not by what one says are their preferences.
The sad fact is that most people actually don't care, certainly not enough to inconvenience themselves.
