New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Tea and Biscuits

TheBell

Council Member
The New York Times recently ran a story about globalization that focused on the use of factories in China by Apple Corporation. A follow-up article appeared yesterday about unsafe working conditions in those factories. As recently as ten years ago, Apple based most of its manufacturing in the U.S. Today, most of its manufacturing takes place overseas. For example, Apple does not produce a single iPhone domestically. At a business summit last year, President Obama asked the late Steve Jobs, “What would it take to make iPhones in the United States?” Jobs’s reply was candid to the point of brusque – “Those jobs aren't coming back.”

Many conservative economists and politicians blame two factors for the permanent exodus of manufacturing jobs. First is the high wages paid to U.S. workers, as demanded by labor unions. Second is the excessive regulation of industry by the federal government. These twin pressures drive Apple’s costs too high, forcing them to seek relief elsewhere. There is truth to these charges but they oversimplify why Chinese factories meet Apple’s needs so much better than American ones.

While wages for Chinese factory workers are only ten percent of their U.S. counterparts, Jordan Weissmann, financial editor for The Atlantic, points out that direct labor costs represent only ten percent of the full retail price for the cheapest iPhone 4S. He quotes a former high-ranking Apple executive that factories in Asia “can scale up and down faster” and “Asian supply chains have surpassed what's in the U.S.” It is as much about flexibility as it is cheapness. And the chief product savings come from removing all those pesky worker benefits and protections.

In an example that Apple executives love to cite, the company made a sudden, last minute iPhone design change. Their Chinese factory received the new plans in the middle of the night. It immediately roused more than eight thousand workers from their dormitories, giving each worker a cup of tea and a biscuit, and set them to work retooling to meet the new specs. Within four days, the factory was producing over ten thousand iPhones per day.

Tea and biscuits? Dormitories? Yes, dormitories.

China builds multiple factories, each complementing the other, to create large industrial complexes that become cities unto themselves. Rather than have homes, workers are housed in dormitories. The factory provides food, shelter, and medical attention for workers. The Chinese government underwrites the construction of these factory cities.

We celebrate the rise of free market capitalism in China. Yet if the U.S. did what China has done in order to compete, most Americans – and certainly most conservatives – would revile the practice as socialism and the intrusion of big government into private enterprise. The idea of workers as citizens within their company/factory has a creepy Orwelian quality to it.

The federal regulations cited as excessive in this country are largely missing with the Chinese government. However, keep in mind the intent behind most U.S. regulations is ensuring worker safety and generally providing a decent, dignified working environment that is often lacking in Chinese factories.

When confronted with conditions at Apple’s Chinese factories in 2010, Jobs feigned bewildered innocence. “It’s a factory, but, my gosh, I mean, they’ve got restaurants and movie theaters and hospitals and swimming pools, and I mean, for a factory, it’s a pretty nice factory.” In spite of this, “Most people would still be really disturbed if they saw where their iPhone comes from,” contends one former Apple executive.

Chinese workers who will talk to reporters say they routinely work under harsh conditions, including excessive overtime, in some cases seven days a week. Their jobs require them to stand so long that their legs swell until they can hardly walk. Under-age workers are common. All activity takes place under wall banners that warn, “Work hard on the job today or work hard to find a job tomorrow.” Oh, and factory dormitories sometimes contain as many as twenty people stuffed into a three-room apartment.

Worse still, Chinese factories display systematic disregard for workers’ health. Improper disposal of hazardous waste and falsified records have resulted in serious injuries and death from poisoning and fires/explosions. Apple insists that it conducts audits and requires corrections when it finds problems. However, a consultant at Business for Social Responsibility, which Apple has retained twice for advice on labor issues, finds that claim disingenuous. “They don’t want to pre-empt problems, they just want to avoid embarrassments.”

That may be too harsh. Some former Apple executives insist management would genuinely like to improve conditions within oversea factories but faces constant push back for fast delivery of new products and maximizing profits. Then again, Apple just reported one of the most lucrative quarters of any corporation in history, with over $13 billion in profits. It could have made even more, executives said, if its overseas factories had been able to produce more. Could Apple not use a little more of it to ensure livable working conditions for Chinese laborers?

The amoral nature of capitalism and free markets is exactly what makes them so efficient at producing the highest quality products at the lowest cost. It also has caused many to realize that government regulation of them is necessary and just. Sometimes consumers are the ones demanding improvements, as they did against Nike and The Gap, when western media exposed appalling conditions at those companies’ Chinese factories.

Unfortunately, American appetite for evermore innovative and cheap shiny electronic gadgets has not placed the same pressure on Apple or other high tech companies employing overseas workers, such as Dell, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Lenovo, Motorola, Nokia, Sony, and Toshiba.

As one Apple executive cynically summed up, “You can either manufacture in comfortable, worker-friendly factories or you can reinvent the product every year, and make it better and faster and cheaper, which requires factories that seem harsh by American standards. And right now, customers care more about a new iPhone than working conditions in China.”

The twin forces for globalizations and technological advancement demand changes to the U.S. model if we are to regain competitiveness. Nevertheless, the Chinese model is no basis for a return to American exceptionalism. Rather it represents a descent to an infamous era that authors like Sinclair Lewis and Theodore Dreiser once chronicled.

“If Apple was warned [about Chinese factory conditions], and didn’t act, that’s reprehensible,” fumes Nicholas Ashford, a former chairman of the National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health. I agree. For all his innovative brilliance, I once noted that Steve Jobs was also noteworthy for being something of an [Unwelcome language removed].

Many wish the U.S. would do more to condemn the Chinese government for its human rights abuses. I support this but it seems quite a few U.S. companies deserve the same scorn for their business practices. Instead, U.S. workers get all the blame as too fat, lazy, and pampered as well as unions and government for acting as their advocates. If we follow the Chinese model, our grandchildren may have jobs but ones without dignity, decent working conditions, or healthcare. On the other hand, there will be no shortage of iPhones . . . or tea and biscuits.
 
I'd like to add that another popoular whipping boy for conservatives are regulations imposed by the EPA on water and air quality. These are a factor in the operational costs of most manufacturing facilities in the United States. China? Not at all.

The National Geographic magazine had a feature not too long ago about the condition of the environment in China as a result of their economic boom. Not a pretty picture, and one I doubt any American would want to see replicated in this country.
 

OldGaffer

Governor
I'd like to add that another popoular whipping boy for conservatives are regulations imposed by the EPA on water and air quality. These are a factor in the operational costs of most manufacturing facilities in the United States. China? Not at all.

The National Geographic magazine had a feature not too long ago about the condition of the environment in China as a result of their economic boom. Not a pretty picture, and one I doubt any American would want to see replicated in this country.
With the scorn the right has for American workers and the EPA, they would have no problem with Americans working under the same conditions as the Chinese, it fits their social darwinist philosophy.
 

Citizen

Council Member
Great Post !!!! The truth of it is glaring, which is why NO right winger here in PJ will even attempt to reply to it.


Thanks for some REAL truths !!!!!
 

TheBell

Council Member
Mutual Demonization

Hi, Cerulean Mutt. I was including the EPA under the umbrella of "federal regulations" but I agree it is often singled out for espcially withering attacks. In fairness, my observation is that some environmental groups can be particularly aggressive in characterizing business/industry as evil, so perhaps it is a case of mutual demonization.

I have seen similar reports about China's environment and it looks like they are heading/at the same point this country was heading/at in the 1960s.

Thanks for your reply!
 

TheBell

Council Member
Wide-Spread Problem

Hi, MaryAnne. Based on the Times articles, the use of Chinese factories and the issues associated with them can be found throughout the electronic high-tech industry. It may not always be easy to buy cell phones and other hand-held devices from other manufacturers without rewarding the same behavior.

That said, I agree with you that the moral burden for this falls on consumers as well as manufacturers. In some cases, government can act on the behalf of society as a whole (including manufacturers and consumers) to ensure this happens. Unfortunately, what may be popular in the abstract (i.e. safe working conditions for all) may be unpopular in the specific (i.e. more expensive cell phones, longer time to market). Where exactly to draw the line in specific cases is where liberals, moderates, and conservatives so often disagree.

Thanks for your reply!
 

fairsheet

Senator
There is an essential opposite side to The Bell's coin, that we must consider. The Bell hints at China's LACK of regulation in a whole host of areas we Westerners hold dear - as they relate to things like safety, the environment, benefits, compensation, and so forth. ALL of these concerns are absolutely valid. And shout as they might, even the most righter Westerner, wouldn't be down with our reverting in any sort of practical sense, to China's apparent "small guvmint" - "less regulation" approach. They can screech "less regulation" in general, but when it gets to the specifics, even THEY tend to get a little tongue-tied.

But..that points up the opposite side of the coin, that I refer to. We'd be remiss to assume that this is about China's guvmint being "small" or weak. China's guvmint is actually considerably more vast and powerful than ours is. THE essential difference between us and them, is that we're "democratic capitalists" and they're "totalitarian capitalists".

Why is this important? Frankly, I think the differences between our socioeconomy and theirs, are simply to vast to form much basis of consideration. It's more useful for us to compare China with Mexico and ponder why the former has achieved this "economic miracle" and the latter, not so much so.

It's because Mexico's democratic and has a relatively weak guvmint, while China is totalitarian and has an especially strong guvmint. So....for instance, while it's simple enough to assume that China is weak or lax, in allowing workers to be exposed to toxic chemicals, that's only the half of it. For with all due respect for the Mexican guvmint - and for a variety of reasons - it may not necessarily be much more diligent as to regulating those toxic chemicals as the Chinese.

The DIFFERENCE is that the Chinese government is capable of essentially "rounding up" 10,000 people to got work in Jobs' plant, to coerce their obedience, force them to keep their noses to the grindstone, and "dissuade" them from organizing or complaining. Mexico can't make the same sorts of promises to people like Steve Jobs.
 

OldGaffer

Governor
Essentially, the Chinese government is supplying virtual slave labor to the foreign companies willing to take it.
 

Corruptbuddha

Governor
Outstanding post Bell.

The conditions you highlight in your piece are indeed abhorrent. However, like Steve Jobs, I do not see these jobs coming back to the US. The cost of doing business in the US is just too great. The regulation too strict and the labor too expensive. Until the people of China, India and other exploited nations rise up and put a stop to it, or until the US ends it's involvement with so called 'free trade' look for this trend to continue.

The only other solution is for the US to place restriction on purchasing these slave labor products. And that will NEVER happen. The economic effects would be catastrophic. How many jobs does Apple provide in America? The stores, the technical assistance? The app development? All of these industries would suffer.
 

Spamature

President
Saw that article and the astounding part was that Apple makes $400,000 profit per employee. Which is pretty good for Apple. But you'd have to wonder how those people living on what we in America would refer to as a "plantation" feel about their their pay and working condition in light of their contribution to the company's bottom line.

Put's a whole new spin on the idea of bringing those jobs back to America when you consider we fought a civil war 150 yrs ago to get those kind of jobs out of America.
 

TheBell

Council Member
Communism With a Profit

Hi, fairsheet. Yes, that's a good point and yet another reason why the Chinese version of capitalism is not a good model for us or in any way compatible with the idea of global free trade. There do seem to be genuine examples in China of the communist government allowing individuals to practice free market capitalism. However, the construction and operation of the factory-cities the Times articles mention is state-practiced capitalism which is still communism, just communism with a profit. Thanks for replying!
 

TheBell

Council Member
Hi, OldGaffer. That is essentially true, although remember -- as Jobs pointed out -- their plantations have pools. Seriously, what complicates this is that, as harsh/dangerous as conditions at these factories may be, they are often not much worse than rural peasants would have faced had they remained on their farms and certainly provide greater wealth. That said, arguing that serfdom is better than slavery is hardly an impressive argument for treating laborers this way in the Twenty-First Century. Thanks for your reply!
 

TheBell

Council Member
How It Happened and Who/What's to Blame

Hi, Corruptbuddha. I agree that all or even most of these jobs will not return and that may be an inevitable price for the benefits of globalization. However, we need to find ways to make sure free trade is fair trade. The days of unskilled workers being compensated at levels near to those of skilled workers are long past. However, we must understand that companies are profiting not simply because foreign workers are willing to worker harder for lower wages than American workers but also because we are introducing/allowing dangerous working conditions to be undertaken in other countries that we outlawed here long ago. I grant none of this solves the problem of creating tons of new American jobs tomorrow but it provides a better understanding of how we lost the old jobs and who/what's to blame. That is what I was trying to bring out. Thank you for your reply!
 

TheBell

Council Member
A Price But With a Possible Offset

Hi, Doc. I am not convinced that requiring Apple and other companies to provide better working conditions in foreign factories and/or penalizing them for failure to do so, would put Apple out of business. I agree it would undoubtedly increase the price of Apple products and that would have some of the damaging effects you mention. However, this might be offset by fewer jobs leaving our shores for "cheaper labor." There is a balance to be found here but we are definitely most imbalanced at present.

Thank you for replying and congratulations on being named a Moderator!
 

Spamature

President

TheBell

Council Member
Shielding Corporations and Consumers

Hi, Spamature. Exactly! We tend to think of globalization and high tech as the way of the future. However, the way many companies are using them today is actually very backwards-looking. One of the problems with globalization is that the distances involved -- and the enabling of foreign governments -- allow corporate management to be shielded from the human casualties of their policies. The same is true for us as consumers. Thanks for your reply and thoughts!
 

fairsheet

Senator
When we read of these sorts of things going on in China, our tendency is towards blacks and whites. Some of us think in terms of profound, dramatic, and overwhelming reactions. Others of us, flatout reject any sort of response for fear of unintended consequences.

There's a third, more realistic and politically-tenable way. It's to apply incremental, albeit inexorable pressure through every avenue available to us. Every little bit helps and a lot of little bits help a lot. I'm concerned that we let the whole last decade go by, without our making virtually any efforts whatsoever, in these regards. We can't waste the next decade that way.
 
Top