Relevant:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/30/uk-apple-foxconn-idUSLNE82T00B20120330

On Thursday, March 29, 2012 1:58:00 PM UTC+2, raks wrote:
>
> Reiner,
>
> you didn't get what I was saying. I AM referring to the latest episode
> where Mike Daisy's claims were challenged.
>
> Towards the end of that episode, there is an interview with a
> journalist who wrote an article about the 'iEconomy'. Apple knows
> about violations.
>
> Try again,
>
> Rakesh
>
> On 29 March 2012 12:25, Reinier Zwitserloot <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Replies inline.
> >
> > The short of it: Rakesh has been hoodwinked by Mike Daisey.
> >
> >
> > On Wednesday, March 28, 2012 7:20:19 PM UTC+2, raks wrote:
> >>
> >> Reiner,
> >>
> >> "blaming western companies for this is an extraordinary claim that
> >> requires extraordinary evidence"
> >>
> >> Apple has yearly reports about violations in its factories in China.
> >> EVERY YEAR there are major violations. Do you not think if Apple
> >> wanted zero violations it would get it?
> >
> >
> > No. How? I'm guessing that if Apple is willfully doing this they 
> wouldn't be
> > making reports about it. Also, what's the upside for apple in having 
> these
> > violations on the books? It's  fairly obvious to me that [Brand Damage *
> > Chance this turns into a worldwide stink] is many orders of magnitude 
> larger
> > than the amount apple saves on the contract with foxconn because these
> > practices continue. So, what's apple's motivation?
> >
> > I firmly believe companies do things mostly because it earns money, and 
> very
> > slightly to stroke the ego of upper management. I rather doubt upper
> > management is getting off on continuing unfair labour practices. But if 
> it's
> > not that, then either apple is stupid, or the financial gain of 
> continuing
> > these practices are incredibly large. I'd be very surprised if either is 
> the
> > case, so, either I'm missing something, or you must be wrong, i.e.: Apple
> > would like there to be 0 infractions on the books but it is not capable 
> of
> > making this happen.
> >
> >>
> >> I would strongly urge you to listen to the podcast episode of This
> >> American Life (460) where they interview a journalist about the
> >> 'iEconomy'.
> >
> >
> > You're referring to episode 454, which is a lengthy interview about this
> > with Mike Daisey. That entire episode is a lie.
> >
> > This episode was retracted in a full length episode named 'retraction',
> > which is in fact episode 460:
> >
> > http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/460/retraction
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Rakesh
> >>
> >> I would point you to the recent podcast by This American Life where
> >> they had to apologise about the
> >>
> >> On 28 March 2012 16:25, Reinier Zwitserloot <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > Conditions in china are pretty bad and 'we' (the western world) should
> >> > definitely try to do something about it, but blaming western companies
> >> > for
> >> > this is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence.
> >> >
> >> > England, the US, and europe went through this phase too, and we didn't
> >> > have
> >> > another continent goading us into it (the triangle shirt factory fire,
> >> > untold numbers of kids in the coal mines, etc). In fact, if you look 
> at
> >> > what's happening in china right now, it's a vast improvement compared 
> to
> >> > Europe/UK/US's days of labour force abuse. It's not 'right' by any
> >> > stretch
> >> > of the imagination, but it's better. Either China is learning from
> >> > example,
> >> > or the pressure of western companies is helping, or China is just
> >> > naturally
> >> > more inclined to value human life highly.
> >> >
> >> > Sure, big corporations are amoral. But they aren't bond villains 
> wearing
> >> > a
> >> > monocle, raising their pinky to their mouth, and going
> >> > "Muhahahahaha!!!!"
> >> > with a cat in their lap - they are amoral entities that just look out
> >> > for
> >> > the bottom line. They aren't any more or less evil than that. There is
> >> > virtually no money to be earned i.e. employing kids on a foxconn
> >> > production
> >> > line, and there's hundreds of millions of dollars worth of brand 
> damage
> >> > on
> >> > the line if it comes that apple by willful negligence or worse is the
> >> > source
> >> > of it. If it were up to apple, 0 kids would be on that production 
> line,
> >> > purely because that's the right economic answer.
> >> >
> >> > NB: That last bit is also why you SHOULD get upset when companies do
> >> > things
> >> > you find morally objectionable - in order for said company to take 
> your
> >> > moral complaint seriously you have to make it so that they lose more 
> by
> >> > ignoring you than by addressing your objection. However, what, 
> exactly,
> >> > is
> >> > apple doing that is morally objectionable? This is the same reason 
> why I
> >> > keep getting annoyed at Joe's continued defense of apple's patent and
> >> > programmer restrictions with 'they are just a company'. Yes they are.
> >> > Which
> >> > is why WE the geeks needs to force them into being nicer to us, they
> >> > aren't
> >> > going to do it out of the goodness of their hearts! There its easy to
> >> > point
> >> > out what apple is doing that I as a programmer find, well perhaps not
> >> > _morally_ objectionable, but certainly pretty bad for my future: 
> stoking
> >> > the
> >> > fires of the patent war.
> >> >
> >> > NB: Insert pretty much whatever hardware selling tech brand you wish 
> in
> >> > place of 'apple', and insert any of many hundreds of factory
> >> > conglomerates
> >> > operating in the shenzen area in place of 'foxconn', if you want.
> >> >
> >> > On Wednesday, March 28, 2012 4:43:40 PM UTC+2, fabrizio.giudici wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Well, I think that in the west we're particular good at doing. For
> >> >> instance, about worker exploitation in China's factories, I've never
> >> >> seen
> >> >>
> >> >> a story that didn't start from west attention, or because a west
> >> >> manufacturer was involved (e.g. Apple).
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager
> >> >> Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere."
> >> >> [email protected]
> >> >> http://tidalwave.it - http://fabriziogiudici.it
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> >> > Groups
> >> > "The Java Posse" group.
> >> > To view this discussion on the web visit
> >> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/javaposse/-/sduoCTcxf6sJ.
> >> >
> >> > To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >> > [email protected].
> >> > For more options, visit this group at
> >> > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "The Java Posse" group.
> > To view this discussion on the web visit
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/javaposse/-/0b2KySviKDMJ.
> >
> > To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > [email protected].
> > For more options, visit this group at
> > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The 
Java Posse" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/javaposse/-/To4Hw7E-npkJ.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.

Reply via email to