Where Your iPad and iPod Are Made

LeapingGnome wrote:

Apple, Amazon, HP, etc are buying a product. How that product is made is not their fault. If you follow this logic then it is YOUR fault since you are buying the products that these companies sell, which in turn they buy from a contractor, which in turn treats their workers like crap.

Companies are rightly responsible for what happens in their supply chains. Apple is heavily involved with Foxconn's operations. There's been numerous articles published that showed how closely the two companies worked together to get iPhones in the hands of everyone who wanted one. It's not like it's a standardized, mass produced widget that thousands of suppliers could easily make.

Just look at what Nike went through in the 90s when it was revealed that Cambodian children were making their their fancy and expensive kicks in sweatshops. That kind of thing is a black eye to your brand that can take years or decades to overcome.

The lesson corporations learned, especially for lifestyle companies that thrive or fail based on the public perception of their brand, is that they need to monitor their supply chain and make sure there's not a ticking time bomb there, even if it's only for PR purposes.

LeapingGnome wrote:

And Foxconn could say we can't build it that cheap and not treat their workers like crap.

Malor wrote:

Apple and Amazon could have chosen American companies to make their products, or they could have monitored Foxconn more closely. But they wanted their stuff built cheap.

It's absolutely their fault. It can't be anyone else's.

Apple, Amazon, HP, etc are buying a product. How that product is made is not their fault. If you follow this logic then it is YOUR fault since you are buying the products that these companies sell, which in turn they buy from a contractor, which in turn treats their workers like crap.

If only we could force the complicated web of economics into a simple model, we would know exactly whom to blame!

You're right, I guess if you are at least two layers removed you are not the problem. I want Apple to enforce the morals I wish I had for me!

LeapingGnome wrote:

You're right, I guess if you are at least two layers removed you are not the problem. I want Apple to enforce the morals I wish I had for me!

It's hypocritical, yes. But 'forcing' Apple to abide to morals we don't abide ourselves would still make the world a tiny bit better.

LeapingGnome wrote:

You're right, I guess if you are at least two layers removed you are not the problem. I want Apple to enforce the morals I wish I had for me!

It's hypocritical, yes. But 'forcing' Apple to abide to morals we don't abide ourselves would still make the world a tiny bit better.

Wait...I'm getting hit with deja vu here. Weren't we already down this road with Nike sneakers in the 1990s?

Nevin73 wrote:

Wait...I'm getting hit with deja vu here. Weren't we already down this road with Nike sneakers in the 1990s?

Skimmer.

and yeah what I see here is some dance where we as end users are trying (and failing) to duck responsibility for Foxconn's worker abuse. Apple isn't Jesus, we can't crucify them for this.

sent from my Foxconn assembled device.

Apple, Amazon, HP, etc are buying a product. How that product is made is not their fault. If you follow this logic then it is YOUR fault since you are buying the products that these companies sell, which in turn they buy from a contractor, which in turn treats their workers like crap.

Yeah, but I'm not the most profitable tech company in the world, with a hundred billion dollars in the bank and insane profit margins.

Malor wrote:
Apple, Amazon, HP, etc are buying a product. How that product is made is not their fault. If you follow this logic then it is YOUR fault since you are buying the products that these companies sell, which in turn they buy from a contractor, which in turn treats their workers like crap.

Yeah, but I'm not the most profitable tech company in the world, with a hundred billion dollars in the bank and insane profit margins.

We're also quite removed from how these things are made, whereas Apple and Foxconn are not. There's some onus on the consumer, but not nearly as much onus as there is on the manufacturers.

I've never implied that consumers don't bear an element of responsibility in this but they are not ultimately the ones who choose to work with companies that abuse workers and they aren't ultimately the ones who make the decision to stop doing so, that's on the manufacturers themselves. Sure, people can boycott Apple et al. to affect change (but educating people on this issue is incredibly difficult [by design] plus people are lazy) but it's ultimately those companies who have to decide, regardless of the reason why and they could do so without pressure, just out of you know...social conscience. If you want to portray yourself the way Apple does (especially when you start to make taking worker conditions seriously basically part of your PR message), then I don't think there's anything wrong with holding them accountable for when they don't try hard enough.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:
Malor wrote:
Apple, Amazon, HP, etc are buying a product. How that product is made is not their fault. If you follow this logic then it is YOUR fault since you are buying the products that these companies sell, which in turn they buy from a contractor, which in turn treats their workers like crap.

Yeah, but I'm not the most profitable tech company in the world, with a hundred billion dollars in the bank and insane profit margins.

We're also quite removed from how these things are made, whereas Apple and Foxconn are not. There's some onus on the consumer, but not nearly as much onus as there is on the manufacturers.

Public companies have a legal obligation to maximize profit, it is literally illegal to have morals that reduce profits. The onus on Apple and Foxconn is to maximize profit, not have morals. The same cannot be said for a consumer buying products. Consumers have to impose their own morals upon companies by affecting their profits by buying or not buying their goods or services. As Malor said Apple is the most profitable company in the world, so that pretty much tells you how much its consumers care about their moral outrage to factory conditions.

I am not sure why all of the focus on Apple in this thread though. Again Foxconn factories create electronics for pretty much every technology company in the world. Why are none of the others targeted with the bad PR? If anything Apple is doing more than most other companies to improve Foxconn factory conditions. When was the last time you heard of Intel or Motorola or Sony hiring independent labor auditing firms to publish public reports about the conditions of its suppliers? What other company publishes a public annual review of its suppliers workers' rights? Look at that list of companies I pasted above and see if you have heard of any of them trying to improve Foxconn conditions. It seems people are targeting Apple for emotional reasons when Apple is actually doing more than most to improve the conditions at their contractors.

LeapingGnome wrote:

Public companies have a legal obligation to maximize profit, it is literally illegal to have morals that reduce profits.

Over what time frame? Long term this kind of thing could seriously hurt them. It could also not but to say making ethical choices is against the idea of profits is not necessarily true at all. If you can't make a case for that then you shouldn't be running the company anyway.

LeapingGnome wrote:

It seems people are targeting Apple for emotional reasons when Apple is actually doing more than most to improve the conditions at their contractors.

Apple is one of the most famous, most admired brands in America. It is one that sells its products to young consumers with a high degree of social conscious, and as such it is one of the better targets of campaigns to alter corporate behavior. Once Apple is taken care of, activists can move on to Motorola. Then when Motorola has changed its policies, they can move onto Intel. This is how activists work.

Public companies have a legal obligation to maximize profit, it is literally illegal to have morals that reduce profits.

That's actually a myth.

It seems people are targeting Apple for emotional reasons when Apple is actually doing more than most to improve the conditions at their contractors.

With the ridiculous margins they have, by definition they could be doing a lot more. They could quadruple worker wages in China while barely even noticing the hit to the bottom line.

LeapingGnome wrote:

Public companies have a legal obligation to maximize profit, it is literally illegal to have morals that reduce profits.

Aside from the mythical nature of that which Malor pointed out, if corporations want to be considered people, then they also get to be held to other facets of being people, including a moral standard. If they want to be a person, then they get to be judged as other persons, they don't get to pick and choose which traits are favourable and ignore the rest. Also, I've repeatedly mentioned Apple et al. and also said "the manufacturers", in fact I made a point of saying that no one else is above this standard. People reference Apple because this thread began as a result of stories about them.

The more I've looked into what Foxconn supplies, and how nearly any computer component sold on the market involves some part(s) from Foxconn, the less willing I am to crucify Apple over this mess. If you own a computer, monitor, tv, or smartphone, you almost certainly have funnelled money to Foxconn.

If you want to punish Apple but be lenient to all the other companies, then that won't accomplish anything but make yourself feel better about punishing Apple for some inexplicable reason. Even if Apple went through another company for the primary manufacturing of their devices, their devices would STILL include core parts involving production from Foxconn.

Farscry wrote:

If you want to punish Apple but be lenient to all the other companies, then that won't accomplish anything but make yourself feel better about punishing Apple for some inexplicable reason. Even if Apple went through another company for the primary manufacturing of their devices, their devices would STILL include core parts involving production from Foxconn.

Who wants to be lenient on other companies?

LeapingGnome wrote:
Malor wrote:
Public companies have a legal obligation to maximize profit, it is literally illegal to have morals that reduce profits.

That's actually a myth.

I counter your link with this one

It seems people are targeting Apple for emotional reasons when Apple is actually doing more than most to improve the conditions at their contractors.

With the ridiculous margins they have, by definition they could be doing a lot more. They could quadruple worker wages in China while barely even noticing the hit to the bottom line.

Do you mean quadrupling the amount they pay Foxconn? Apple is not paying wages to factory workers in China.

How much business does Apple give them? They do have negotiating power.

In addition they can go somewhere that treats employees better. To act like they have no ability to effect change is wrong.

Malor wrote:
Public companies have a legal obligation to maximize profit, it is literally illegal to have morals that reduce profits.

That's actually a myth.

I counter your link with this one

It seems people are targeting Apple for emotional reasons when Apple is actually doing more than most to improve the conditions at their contractors.

With the ridiculous margins they have, by definition they could be doing a lot more. They could quadruple worker wages in China while barely even noticing the hit to the bottom line.

Do you mean quadrupling the amount they pay Foxconn? Apple is not paying wages to factory workers in China.

LeapingGnome wrote:

I am not sure why all of the focus on Apple in this thread though.

They are the largest company in the world with a market cap of over half a trillion dollars that's why.

It's the same reason that the media was all over Nike with the child labor scandal instead of whatever nameless company makes cheap shoes for Payless. You don't go after a pissant company nobody has heard of. You go after the market leader and right now Apple is it when it comes to electronics.

Farhad Manjoo answering "Why Apple?" (I could have sworn I posted this before. Maybe I was in a less crucifying mood and didn't) EDIT: Turns out I did, so my bloodlust must not have been slaked.

While there is no evidence to suggest that Apple’s factories are any worse than those of its competitors—in fact, many of them use the same contractors to make their devices—no company benefits more from low-cost Chinese labor than Apple. If it continues to deliver monster earnings, scrutiny of its factories isn’t going to stop.

What’s more, Apple is in a unique position to change how the world’s gadgets are made. It alone can risk reducing earnings over the short run in exchange for a long-term improvement in the conditions at its plants. Apple has almost $100 billion in cash, and it has frequently used its holdings on strategic investments that pay off over time (for instance, buying up the world’s supply of touch-screen panels). Apple’s brand image is core to its success. Millions of people around the world believe that no other company is smarter about improving our gadgets. If that perception keeps getting challenged by reports from Apple’s dark underbelly, many of its customers might rightly wonder whether the iPhone is really worthy of their continued affection. Not to mention their money.

I still wouldn't be surprised if its at least partly due to government influence. There's little economic incentive for the cost of labor to rise too quickly.

LeapingGnome wrote:
Malor wrote:
Public companies have a legal obligation to maximize profit, it is literally illegal to have morals that reduce profits.

That's actually a myth.

I counter your link with this one

Dog-piling here, but even if maximization of shareholder value weren't a real legal doctrine, the Truth On The Market post doesn't go into the definitions of "waste," which is part of the business judgement rule. Perhaps more importantly, the business judgement rule doesn't really come into play unless a shareholder suit actually gets fairly deep into motion practice. Generally, such suits settle long before it gets to that point.

wordsmythe wrote:

Dog-piling here, but even if maximization of shareholder value weren't a real legal doctrine...

Sorry to keep diverting this here but I wanted to raise this point as well. People keep saying that corporations are required to make as much money as they can but that is not the same as "maximizing shareholder value". If that's the doctrine (is it actually called that?), that doesn't necessarily just mean "Make more money this quarter than last quarter no matter what." As we've seen, many companies will report a number of stupendous quarters, only to end up crashing down for some reason or another after the fact. I don't know anyone who would call that shareholder value maximized. The long-term approach often proves more worthwhile and as has been demonstrated in the linked article above, it's not an idea that Apple and others are averse to trying in order to bolster other elements of their business. Everyone can take different approaches and just beating last quarter isn't necessarily the only way to comply with the law. And even if it was, being required to maximize shareholder value is not an excuse for inhumane treatment of people in my opinion. Once again I say this because I appear to have to, this isn't just an Apple criticism, it's an anyone criticism.

I counter your link with this one

Huh, that's pretty goddamn compelling. As far as I know, that's a new legal doctrine. I don't think it ever explicitly existed until that judge, just now, made it so.

Dunno if that precedent will stick, but I'd call your source much more authoritative than mine.

Parallax Abstraction wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:

Dog-piling here, but even if maximization of shareholder value weren't a real legal doctrine...

Sorry to keep diverting this here but I wanted to raise this point as well. People keep saying that corporations are required to make as much money as they can but that is not the same as "maximizing shareholder value". If that's the doctrine (is it actually called that?), that doesn't necessarily just mean "Make more money this quarter than last quarter no matter what." As we've seen, many companies will report a number of stupendous quarters, only to end up crashing down for some reason or another after the fact. I don't know anyone who would call that shareholder value maximized. The long-term approach often proves more worthwhile and as has been demonstrated in the linked article above, it's not an idea that Apple and others are averse to trying in order to bolster other elements of their business. Everyone can take different approaches and just beating last quarter isn't necessarily the only way to comply with the law. And even if it was, being required to maximize shareholder value is not an excuse for inhumane treatment of people in my opinion. Once again I say this because I appear to have to, this isn't just an Apple criticism, it's an anyone criticism.

I've posted this link before in other discussions but I'll throw it out here as welll: The failure of shareholder capitalism

....

Shareholder value capitalism in the U.S. since the 1980s has even failed in its primary purpose — maximizing the growth in shareholder value. As Roger Martin, dean of the Rotman Business School at the University of Toronto points out in a recent Harvard Business Review article, between 1933 and 1976 shareholders of American companies earned higher returns — 7.6 percent — than they have done in the age of shareholder value from 1977 to 2008 — 5.9 percent a year.

For his part, Jack Welch has renounced the idea with which he was long associated. In a March 2009 interview with the Financial Times, the former head of GE said: “Strictly speaking, shareholder value is the dumbest idea in the world.”

In the aftermath of the failed 40-year experiment in shareholder capitalism, Americans need not look solely to other democratic nations for models of successful stakeholder capitalism. The U.S. economy between the New Deal and the 1970s was a version of stakeholder capitalism, in which the gains from superior growth were shared with workers, CEOs were moderately paid and the rich engrossed far less of the economy. In reconnecting with America’s native tradition of stakeholder capitalism, American companies can learn from the example of Johnson & Johnson, whose credo was written by Robert Wood Johnson in 1943:

We believe our first responsibility is to the doctors, nurses and patients, to mothers and fathers and all others who use our products and services….We are responsible to our employees, the men and women who work with us throughout the world….We are responsible to the countries in which we live and work and to the world community as well…We must be good citizens….and bear our fair share of taxes….We must maintain in good order the property we are privileged to use, protecting the environment and natural resources….Our final responsibility is to our shareholders….When we operate according to these principles, the shareholders should realize a fair return.

Funkenpants wrote:
Farscry wrote:

If you want to punish Apple but be lenient to all the other companies, then that won't accomplish anything but make yourself feel better about punishing Apple for some inexplicable reason. Even if Apple went through another company for the primary manufacturing of their devices, their devices would STILL include core parts involving production from Foxconn.

Who wants to be lenient on other companies?

Could be my misreading of some of the conversation; seemed like Apple was being pilloried but others were getting a pass on the issue.

EDIT: Tannhauser'd.

Farscry wrote:

Could be my misreading of some of the conversation; seemed like Apple was being pilloried but others were getting a pass on the issue.

I don't see it as giving a pass so much as singling out Apple as a representative of a class of employer due to Apple's size, profitability, leadership in the industry, branding and image.

On a related note, I saw a report today that labor cost gaps are shrinking between the U.S. and China, and that what the report called the "total landed cost gap" (the total cost of a product once it has arrived at buyer's door) is shrinking year by year.

Within the next few years, the "total landed cost" will have fallen to only 16%, explaining why many businesses are bringing work, equipment and plants back to the United States or are preparing to do so in the future.

Funkenpants wrote:
Farscry wrote:

Could be my misreading of some of the conversation; seemed like Apple was being pilloried but others were getting a pass on the issue.

I don't see it as giving a pass so much as singling out Apple as a representative of a class of employer due to Apple's size, profitability, leadership in the industry, branding and image.

But what about, for example, Intel? Their products are more broadly used than Apple's. Shouldn't we pressure them as much or more?