Microsoft and Apple should be ashamed!

[oex]

and how dare you people here on these forum not go through the simple steps of research that are demanded of anyone with even the most basic of critical thinking skills.

Nice research Rockoon but I think you missed the point of generalisation.... Your figures dont display 'critical thinking' either because they are also likely based on data biases.... Maybe more unemployed people commit suicide.... Maybe more men commit suicide (especially in China which has a massive gender imbalance).... Maybe there are cultural differences (as you mentioned the psycological impact of massive industrial change in a short time).... There are many many irrelevant factors that make your statistics worthless....

It is the principle of large corporations who make obscene profits not taking responsibility that is the point here....

Generalising these thoughts and statistics into what we should stand up for as human beings.... What we should condemn.... Is no failing....
Considering our actions as consumers is not neccesarily a bad thing....
I know many people with massive computing overlaps, phones, computers, music and ebook readers that are overlapped not because of technical restrictions but because a few profiteering companies divvy up the worlds resources and production patents and write operating systems that dont interact....
No-one personally really needs more than one laptop or tablet these days.... I think there is a distinct lack of intelligence or distain for others in anyone who is overly gadget biased....

I agree with you and Michael that the media is just a vested interest group.... Media is the biggest game in town and no-body really understands it deeply enough to give it any real justification in anything it says.... Thank god for internet forum debate :lol

[Rockoon]

It is the principle of large corporations who make obscene profits not taking responsibility that is the point here....

What obscene profits are those?

https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=foxconn+profits&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest

I realize that you really think that your viewpoint ought to be defensible, and that you are alarmed that someone with actual facts isnt here defending them, but that doesnt give you the moral authority to make things up to defend what is quite obviously a position that you are not equipped to defend.

Has it occurred to you that when you arent equipped to defend a position without making things up, that maybe you shouldn't?

[jj2007]

Foxconn had (as of 2010) 920000 employees. ... Only 14 of them (according to Wikipedia) committed suicide in 2010.
The suicide rate in China (2010 figures, Wikipedia) is 1 out of every 4498 people.
The Foxconn employee suicide rate in 2010 was 1 out of every 65714 people.

Good point, Rockoon. Reminds me of a Science Fiction novel that I read when I was young (I forgot the name), which said every big project - man on the moon, powerplants, whatever - has a statistical death toll of x fatalities per Billion bucks. Which you better don't show the press when presenting the project :green

[oex]

It is the principle of large corporations who make obscene profits not taking responsibility that is the point here....

What obscene profits are those?

https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=foxconn+profits&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest

I realize that you really think that your viewpoint ought to be defensible, and that you are alarmed that someone with actual facts isnt here defending them, but that doesnt give you the moral authority to make things up to defend what is quite obviously a position that you are not equipped to defend.

Has it occurred to you that when you arent equipped to defend a position without making things up, that maybe you shouldn't?

The obscene profits I described were not Foxconns but (as according to the subject of the topic) Microsofts and Apples.... Apple was recently described as having more available cash than the US government or some such (a lot at least) and M$ founder Bill Gates happens to be (or have been) the richest man on the planet with $40-50 billion+.... Maybe if you had read the context of just this topic you would have some context of my comments....

All this shows is a lack of creativity in aloting financial capital not a success.... If the public sector is sitting on piles of excess cash there is uproar....

Futher how do you defend *making up* the context of your 'critical thinking' statistics (at least providing figures with no real weight - evidence to justify your statistics).... Face it Rockoon either you have to quote figures you have no way of backing up or you have to make generalisations on failures from a moral standpoint.... Maybe you have hear the phrase.... "Lies, damned lies and statistics" attributed (again according to the Wiki) to Benjamin Disraeli :lol

Here are some further statistics which will massively sqew your statistics (Once you have any quality data to work from in the first place.... ie genders, age, marital status, homelessness, area of the country lived in (ie rural or urban) etc etc of the target employees)....
http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide/country_reports/en/

If you have an ounce of common sense you will realise that a general condemnation is as much sense as you are going to get out of a 10 line forum post :lol

[Rockoon]

The obscene profits I described were not Foxconns but (as according to the subject of the topic) Microsofts and Apples.... Apple was recently described as having more available cash than the US government or some such (a lot at least) and M$ founder Bill Gates happens to be (or have been) the richest man on the planet with $40-50 billion+.... Maybe if you had read the context of just this topic you would have some context of my comments....

OK, I get it, these rich companies should "take responsibility" by not sourcing their materials from a company with an outstanding great suicide rate?

It seems that you have latched onto this idea that these companies did something wrong, and in spite of the fact that I shattered the evidence that these companies were doing something wrong, you still insist that they are doing something wrong.

Yeah... sorry I missed that "context" of you being completely irrational.

Futher how do you defend *making up* the context of your 'critical thinking' statistics (at least providing figures with no real weight - evidence to justify your statistics)....

They have no weight because I told you where my source was, rather than linked directly? What are you trying to say? I sourced my numbers.

..and you sit here, without having sourced anything, waiving your hands saying "look at me I am right about Apple and Microsoft being evil for working with Foxconn" .. I showed how Foxconn wasnt evil and you still sit here waiving your hands "look at me I am right about Apple and Microsoft being evil... because the numbers you sourced might be wrong"

some further statistics which will massively sqew your statistics (Once you have any quality data to work from in the first place.... ie genders, age, marital status, homelessness, area of the country lived in (ie rural or urban) etc etc of the target employees)....

http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide/country_reports/en/

Those statistics do not skew mine. They support mine.

http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/chin.pdf

You waive your hands saying they dont support mine, but are incapable of showing why, but still insist that your theory about Foxconn which so far has no actual supporting evidence from you, is true.

Now let me repeat. I realize that you really think that your viewpoint ought to be defensible, and that you are alarmed that someone with actual facts isnt here defending them, but that doesnt give you the moral authority to make things up to defend what is quite obviously a position that you are not equipped to defend.

[clive]

As for what the Foxconn employees get paid, there are billions of people that are jealous. Just because the absolute richest nations on the planet with the highest GDP/Capita pay higher wages means nothing. The GDP/Capita of China is similar to what the United States was 120 years ago, and thats purchasing power and inflation adjusted. Thats One-Hundred-Twenty years ago. If you compare all the other U.S. metrics of 1892 (life expectancy, literacy rates, Human Development Index, etc..) to the same metrics China has today, you will easily conclude that the typical 1892 American worker would probably have instantly jumped at the chance to be a 2012 Chinese worker.

Or for that matter, 1800's England, .. the'll be trouble at 't mill.  http://www.nettlesworth.durham.sch.uk/time/victorian/vindust.html

Now what China needs is a revolution, and it's hard to imagine that it won't occur in the near future, perhaps we can export them some trade unions, that will certainly throw a spanner in the works. Again this will likely precipitate a move to a new low wage country and the cycle will continue.

If people want to change the playing field here, then they are going to have to pay higher prices for things. We should also examine the fractional amount that producers of food stuffs (milk, meat, ie farmers) get from your supermarket dollars/pounds.

[oex]

....

Well if I had time in my day to argue deeply into why your general statistics dont fit the specific issue I would.... Simply I took offense that you accused all posters of not using 'critical thinking' when you yourself did not.... Effectively you have said statistically iron is the most common element in the universe ergo this item is made of iron.... You assume general statistics fit specific circumstances by probability and without real facts *which none of us have*.... So many factors are involved and you have highlighted none of them so how is this 'critical thinking'....

I know my post was offensive.... It wasnt intended that way but phrases misused like 'critical thinking' and 'deep thinking' really piss me off :lol....

Take what offense you want but throwing out general country statistics is not critical thinking :lol

[xanatose]

Corporations do not care about the wellbeing of humans. Corporations only care about money.
The only way a corporation will change is if the ones running the corporations are afraid. Either of loosing money or someone getting personal.

Since the least messy way is to hit them in their pockets. As a consumer, how about simply not buying from them and explain others why they should not buy from them. Ethical buying.

And how about instead simply saying that corporation A is evil. Say name, address email and phone number of the executives of corporation A. After all, they are the ones making the decisions and thus the one that should be personally accountable. Until executives are not personally accountable for what they did in the name of the company, there will be no change.

[Bill Cravener]

More disgusting facts about Apple and its global supply chain.

"Two weeks later, the factory exploded, killing four workers and injuring 18. In the wake of the explosion, Apple said its suppliers took measures to control aluminum dust. But despite this, in December 2011, another explosion, at an Apple supplier factory in Shanghai, injured 61 workers."

When will workers share in Apple's wealth?

[rags]

A company can charge whatever they want for any product they produce,
and pay whatever they want to their employees, as long as the wage complies
with the local laws.
By the same token, people are free not to buy said company's products or services,
nor do they have to work there, unless they are somehow forced to by their government.

@xanatose:
"Corporations only care about money."
That is the purpose of a corporation. To, make money for the people who
invested money in it, not to give away profits to people who took no risks
with their capital.

[dedndave]

i would like to believe that there are a few employers who do care about employees   :bg
i have worked for a few
probably the best was Telonics
http://www.telonics.com/index.php

[oex]

A company can charge whatever they want for any product they produce,
and pay whatever they want to their employees, as long as the wage complies
with the local laws.
By the same token, people are free not to buy said company's products or services,
nor do they have to work there, unless they are somehow forced to by their government.

@xanatose:
"Corporations only care about money."
That is the purpose of a corporation. To, make money for the people who
invested money in it, not to give away profits to people who took no risks
with their capital.

I disagree.... When a product becomes a societal necessity then people can not decide not to buy, be it drugs or everyday needed technologies.... Furthermore, we are forced by our governments to respect the money/patent system ergo the richest companies.... This is is distinct separation between money and achievement.... I am sure many would make better iPhones, have better working conditions in factories as a USP, if only there were not patents to protect Apple against this.... The ideals of survival of the fittest are warped by patents in this way (monopoly positions).... Those who make the companies work are not the ones with the money but the ones whose lives the money buys.... Those who control the companies are those with the money

iPhone Patents

Effectively business is just a governmental tool, a 'power toy'.... As much as America likes to think otherwise Business and Govenment are very similar beasts and very much in each others pockets....

While you talk of financial 'risk' of investors in reality the people who are spending and risking their lives working for corporations are the ones who are suffering.... It's not like they can just declare themselves bankrupt and then start trading again after 5 years....

[MichaelW]

I am sure many would make better iPhones, have better working conditions in factories as a USP, if only there were not patents to protect Apple against this....

Some people would make more money, and Apple would make less, but why do you assume that these other people would make better products or maintain better working conditions? And how is destroying the incentive to develop new technologies going to make the world a better place?

[anunitu]

All this is relevant right now,BUT as we advance into the REAL tech revolution,economy and our treatment of other human beings,it may be all of the stress and strain of economics might become irrelevant. With the use of robotics,we may be freed from these arguments.
Our future may be severely changed,hopefully for the better of the whole species. 

[oex]

Some people would make more money, and Apple would make less, but why do you assume that these other people would make better products or maintain better working conditions?

Because people *could* then choose.... Having started many successful businesses for people in highly competitive markets (and not just thrown money at a problem) I know that what sells best *and most fairly* is many companies subscribing to their own ideals and allowing consumers understand and to choose the best ideals when they make their purchases....

People *choose* to buy organic over price and *choose* to buy 'fairtrade' goods over price.... This is fact!

People should be able to make choices (in a civilised world) not on simple robotic functionality but on moral leadership.... The challenge really isnt to develop the products with 7 billion minds but to implement it in a way that benefits society....

And how is destroying the incentive to develop new technologies going to make the world a better place?

This is not about destroying incentive either.... Why should ONLY ONE company be able to have a sliding unlock feature? Surely the idea of the patent is that the inventor benefits not that one company succeeds and society suffers if they do not purchase from that one company....

Most highschool students could develop a sliding unlock feature (it's kinda close to the wheel :lol)....

All this is relevant right now,BUT as we advance into the REAL tech revolution,economy and our treatment of other human beings,it may be all of the stress and strain of economics might become irrelevant. With the use of robotics,we may be freed from these arguments.
Our future may be severely changed,hopefully for the better of the whole species. 

Maybe the majority of us just wont be needed anymore :lol