As the great Thomas Sowell said. "Some people think the issue is whether the glass is half empty, or half full. More fundamentally the question is whether the glass started out empty, or started out full."
There is no such thing as "exploitation" in a free market. In a free market, a fundamental principal is that no transaction takes place unless both parties benefit. If it does not benefit me to transact my labor for dollars at a certain company, I DO NOT have to transact. Now, the next step of the argument is the prudence of paying more than the going rate for a good or service. When I go to McDonald's, should I pay extra for my meal because I can afford fancy restaurants? THE ANSWER IS NO.
American's once survived on that standard of living. It just didn't seem so bad back then because that standard was once the premiere standard of living. We've certainly move the ball further since then. /watch?v=cOeyNI59jVU
When people bring this up, just reply, "Is your main concern individual rights? If so, then we both agree that taxation, regulation (of business, travel / immigration, & reproduction / relationships), special privileges, unequal treatment before the law, central banking, and most of what the government does infringes on individual rights. It seems much easier to try to change our own government than it is to change another country's government. Let's work together toward this change. ...or was your main concern just being hateful toward that company--individual rights be damned?"
In addition, if the company feels that the amount of money it's *required* to pay for services rendered, then it will go elsewhere for less expensive services. Which is what Apple did.
Is he kidding right now? Just because you aren't literally forced by the gov to work does not mean you weren't forced to work to survive by standard living conditions. That's all they are doing--surviving. They can barely--if that-- maintain the basic needs for living, which is the absolute minimum. Management definitely uses force against the employees. Regardless if these workers can legally leave or not, they really can't if they want to survive. It doesn't matter if it's better than the conditions from where they came from, doesn't make the actions in these factories any less inhumane. Working conditions could actually be better elsewhere, but that doesn't mean the wages are. It's literally a tradeoff--be treated with some degree of respect and probably fail to survive in the long run or survive but face inhumane treatment.
Errors: McDonalds do not offer the same than a fancy restaurant. You are comparing apples with oranges...Why? There is not worker unions in China...Apple and other companies are taking advantage of this lack of development. How americans, who do belong a worker unions, feels when they purchase a thing made by another worker who doesn't have the same rights an received 20 times less money for the same 8hs of work? Has the workers in Bangladesh the option of fight for a better salary? win win?
Workers in other countries don't have two choices: underpaid factory work or death, they have many more choices. They can move. They can go back to the rural areas and farm. They can find other jobs. The fact is working in the factory is the best work for the best money available. Further, wages are dictated by the least amount someone is willing to work. A businessperson would be stupid if they paid more than that amount. If you don't buy things at full retail, you're a hypocrite.
I didn't say google search was proof, look at accredited sources within a google search. And turnover rates doesn't necessarily imply meaningful work. It can also imply a lack of better pay elsewhere, not wanting to move or the best job security someone can find. The "it's their fault" argument is completely ridiculous. Fast food is a pre-job teens have so of course there would be higher turn over. It's isn't a job they plan on keeping for the rest of their life.
It's simple why is Apple in China? My answer would be that it is economically more feasible. I would have to agree with the statement that was made in the Video. Even though I don't see how people in China can survive on that income.
Whether or not Apple is "exploiting" these workers hinges on 1) whether or not these workers are free to work there, or not, and 2) if they are not free to leave that a) Apple is aware of that, and b) that Apple approves of the forced labor. We know from stories about 'mining cities' that some companies are not above using CRIMINAL tactics to exploit laborers, but that does not mean that, as Dr. Brook argues, that $5/day isn't pretty good for the locals - if they are free to leave.
You're ridiculous. The irony of your argument is if we followed your trading policies there would be more poverty in both the USA and throughout the rest of the world. The keyword is "purchasing power". If we manufactured everything with your imagined moralistic view we wouldn't be able to buy anything in this country. Clothing, technology, raw materials, etc., imported into this country would double or even triple in price. Is that what you want? $10 shirts at Walmart being $50?
Yaron Brook once said mobile phones produced in China by cheaper labour force (cheaper for Apple) is making mobile phones cheaper to buy and that he would not buy them if they are made by US workers (with US minimal wage). Does that mean that US or similar country wouldn't be able to produce any modern technology if there weren't poor countries with cheap labour?
@@goranmilic442 The US or similar country could make the technology, just not at the price China charges and it's probably not outrageous to say that things would cost 50 - 100% more at the very least just because China has little care for the health and safety of its workers. It's hard to know how things would look if we had to pay $1500 or $2000 for a cell phone, certainly how phones were designed and made would be different since they would be expected to last much, much longer. Or the type of factory innovation that might happen so they can keep costs down despite the increase in labor costs.
@@Draanor It's not just safety and health, it's the difference in purchase power. 2$ is worth more in China, Indonesia, wherever, than in USA. As long as such countries exist, capital will search for cheap labour there. If that country starts to get better standard, capital will move to other country, there will always be some country with cheaper work force. I agree with you that capital will find some way to adapt, but I disagree with Brook that US capitalism needs that cheap labour.
As the great Thomas Sowell said. "Some people think the issue is whether the glass is half empty, or half full. More fundamentally the question is whether the glass started out empty, or started out full."
as long as they aren't enslaved they aren't being exploiting....?
There is no such thing as "exploitation" in a free market. In a free market, a fundamental principal is that no transaction takes place unless both parties benefit. If it does not benefit me to transact my labor for dollars at a certain company, I DO NOT have to transact. Now, the next step of the argument is the prudence of paying more than the going rate for a good or service. When I go to McDonald's, should I pay extra for my meal because I can afford fancy restaurants? THE ANSWER IS NO.
Absolutely! The standard of living in the US compared to rural China is miles apart.
American's once survived on that standard of living. It just didn't seem so bad back then because that standard was once the premiere standard of living. We've certainly move the ball further since then.
/watch?v=cOeyNI59jVU
When people bring this up, just reply, "Is your main concern individual rights? If so, then we both agree that taxation, regulation (of business, travel / immigration, & reproduction / relationships), special privileges, unequal treatment before the law, central banking, and most of what the government does infringes on individual rights. It seems much easier to try to change our own government than it is to change another country's government. Let's work together toward this change. ...or was your main concern just being hateful toward that company--individual rights be damned?"
So as long as they are not being actually Enslaved, its okay?
In addition, if the company feels that the amount of money it's *required* to pay for services rendered, then it will go elsewhere for less expensive services. Which is what Apple did.
Is he kidding right now? Just because you aren't literally forced by the gov to work does not mean you weren't forced to work to survive by standard living conditions. That's all they are doing--surviving. They can barely--if that-- maintain the basic needs for living, which is the absolute minimum. Management definitely uses force against the employees. Regardless if these workers can legally leave or not, they really can't if they want to survive. It doesn't matter if it's better than the conditions from where they came from, doesn't make the actions in these factories any less inhumane. Working conditions could actually be better elsewhere, but that doesn't mean the wages are. It's literally a tradeoff--be treated with some degree of respect and probably fail to survive in the long run or survive but face inhumane treatment.
Errors: McDonalds do not offer the same than a fancy restaurant. You are comparing apples with oranges...Why?
There is not worker unions in China...Apple and other companies are taking advantage of this lack of development. How americans, who do belong a worker unions, feels when they purchase a thing made by another worker who doesn't have the same rights an received 20 times less money for the same 8hs of work? Has the workers in Bangladesh the option of fight for a better salary? win win?
Workers in other countries don't have two choices: underpaid factory work or death, they have many more choices. They can move. They can go back to the rural areas and farm. They can find other jobs. The fact is working in the factory is the best work for the best money available. Further, wages are dictated by the least amount someone is willing to work. A businessperson would be stupid if they paid more than that amount. If you don't buy things at full retail, you're a hypocrite.
I didn't say google search was proof, look at accredited sources within a google search. And turnover rates doesn't necessarily imply meaningful work. It can also imply a lack of better pay elsewhere, not wanting to move or the best job security someone can find. The "it's their fault" argument is completely ridiculous. Fast food is a pre-job teens have so of course there would be higher turn over. It's isn't a job they plan on keeping for the rest of their life.
They make 1 $ a day
It's simple why is Apple in China? My answer would be that it is economically more feasible. I would have to agree with the statement that was made in the Video. Even though I don't see how people in China can survive on that income.
Proof or it didn't happen.
Whether or not Apple is "exploiting" these workers hinges on 1) whether or not these workers are free to work there, or not, and 2) if they are not free to leave that a) Apple is aware of that, and b) that Apple approves of the forced labor. We know from stories about 'mining cities' that some companies are not above using CRIMINAL tactics to exploit laborers, but that does not mean that, as Dr. Brook argues, that $5/day isn't pretty good for the locals - if they are free to leave.
You're ridiculous. The irony of your argument is if we followed your trading policies there would be more poverty in both the USA and throughout the rest of the world. The keyword is "purchasing power". If we manufactured everything with your imagined moralistic view we wouldn't be able to buy anything in this country. Clothing, technology, raw materials, etc., imported into this country would double or even triple in price. Is that what you want? $10 shirts at Walmart being $50?
Yaron Brook once said mobile phones produced in China by cheaper labour force (cheaper for Apple) is making mobile phones cheaper to buy and that he would not buy them if they are made by US workers (with US minimal wage). Does that mean that US or similar country wouldn't be able to produce any modern technology if there weren't poor countries with cheap labour?
@@goranmilic442 The US or similar country could make the technology, just not at the price China charges and it's probably not outrageous to say that things would cost 50 - 100% more at the very least just because China has little care for the health and safety of its workers. It's hard to know how things would look if we had to pay $1500 or $2000 for a cell phone, certainly how phones were designed and made would be different since they would be expected to last much, much longer. Or the type of factory innovation that might happen so they can keep costs down despite the increase in labor costs.
@@Draanor It's not just safety and health, it's the difference in purchase power. 2$ is worth more in China, Indonesia, wherever, than in USA. As long as such countries exist, capital will search for cheap labour there. If that country starts to get better standard, capital will move to other country, there will always be some country with cheaper work force. I agree with you that capital will find some way to adapt, but I disagree with Brook that US capitalism needs that cheap labour.