Avoiding Sweatshop PC Components? 41
Jimmy asks: "Is there such a thing as a guilt-free PC or components? From what I've been reading, third world sweatshops are contracting just as much assembly work to the big-name hardware suppliers as the unscrupulous clothing/fashion industry. I'd love to have a PC which wasn't made off of the back of some underage girl working for pennies an hour. What about it? When is our new-groove techie conscience going to kick in?" Such concern is commendable, but it's not like Dell, Gateway or any other manufacturere advertise this fact in their Press Packets. How does one go about finding out such information and when you do, instead of just boycotting, why not go public?
Doo-gooder Neo hippie ideals.... (Score:1)
do you think they will raise their standard of living?
Do you believe these countries can just magically raise their minimum wage to something on par with the US or Europe?
Face it, the only way the third world will improve its standard of living is in incremental steps. As people better their lot they will demand more political say (and have more economic power to do so)
It sucks, but that is reality......
The importance of good information. (Score:3)
From what I've heard about maquiladoras and free-trade zones, you'll probably have a hard time getting good information. And when you do get it, you'll have a hard time keeping it current.
The shops work on contract, with the product changing every few months. Overall, the clothing shops stick with clothing, and the electronics assemblers sticking w/ their area, but when orders fall off, or some semblance of human-rights monitoring gets started up, the shop will fold, and the owner will look for greener pastures. A new industry will open up under the old roof pretty quickly.
Worse still, I read recently about someone having developed a manufacturing facility that fits in a cargo container. Now the whole factory can pick up and head for where the wages are cheapest.
At current component price levels, it should be easy to pick out the ones that didn't come from sweatshops. They are the ones that'll cost almost an order of magnitude more than other similar components. Like it or not, large parts of our western affluence is built on their backs. It is only getting more difficult to find products that don't include that kind of exploitation in their production channel.
I'm willing to pay for good information [gweep.net].
Radio Shack (Score:1)
==========foo fighter==========
Do not mistake understanding for realization,
Re:Doo-gooder Neo hippie ideals.... (Score:2)
The real problem is they aren't getting paid a decent wage for their area, let alown for any where else. The reason why the US has such a high standard of living is the union activity we had that forced higher wages. Even in the US work places where there isn't union support for the workers the paychecks are on average lower, significantly lower. At one time in the US you were able to support a family on the wages of a store clerk. Just try that now. It's not just the third world workers that are getting exploited.
Re:Doo-gooder Neo hippie ideals.... (Score:1)
but do you think boycotting will help? If anything it will make the unemployment and poverty worse.....
The only effective way to solve this is through workers unions IMO
Re:Doo-gooder Neo hippie ideals.... (Score:1)
It will not make unemployment and poverty worse.
You clearly come from america where everyone can have a union. Oh wait, THEY CANT EITHER!
Thats right my Isotope23 Places like WALMART (one of the nations larger employers of fucking idiots) Doesnt alow the smarter ones to joina union, if they do, THEY GET FIRED!
Unions are good, but boycott is better.
Together they can make a difference, one helps the other.
Fight censors!
Re:Who says the pay is bad? (Score:1)
Oh yea, they didnt.
Fight censors!
Questions and comments (Score:4)
Most of the assembly for PC components is highly automated. I have seen people hand-solder SMT components... These were exploited senior engineers in the Taipei design center. These poor souls were so tired after working 10 hours a day that they could barely drag themselves to their new Toyotas and Nissans to go off to their houses in the suburbs of Taipei.
The rest is all done using SMT machinery. There's a tech monitoring the line for trouble, and there are people doing QC and stuffing boxes at the end of the line. It's pretty boring, but it's light work. Remember as well that the quality demands for electronics are considerably higher than for clothing. You can't train someone just off the farm to run an SMT line.
Making silicon chips is generally a pretty nasty business. You get exposed to lots of fun chemicals, many of which are known carcinogens. The silicon fabs have largely moved overseas for a reason. They're bad neighbors, and bad PR.
On the issue of sweatshops in general, I am largely in agreement with another poster. Labor unions, education, and time solve all problems. If any of you have grandparents old enough to remember when the world's largest developing economy was the United States, ask them about pay and working conditions.
In a complex, cross-dependent society, a lot of hands make everything you touch. Some of them are well-paid, skilled laborers, some have jobs you wouldn't want in a million years. If this bugs your conscience, do the right thing. Sell your gas-guzzling automobile, get out of San Francisco, or New York, or Seattle, or wherever you are now, move to Montana, and unplug. Create your own sustainable economy and be guilt-free.
sweatshop working (Score:2)
for the people running them, they get cheap labor, and can make a decent amount of money
for the people buying from them, they get cheap assembly, and can use pass the savings on to consumers who are unwilling to pay higher costs
for those working in the them, it gives them* a way to earn much needed money (if they didn't need it that much, would they work at thsoe rates?)
*them or those who control them anyhjow
this is a side effect of a market economy, if there is a way to produce something cheaper, it woill be done.
the only way to solve the 'problem' is to develop cheaper alternatives for production, and more appealing options for the workers
of course, as soon as we get all third world nations are up to wage, safty, etc levels of today's united states, other forms of explotation will be considered horribly unethical (and probably called sweatshops as a metaphor)
....
Re:Doo-gooder Neo hippie ideals.... (Score:3)
Boycotting may work (as may unions), but do you want to take a cut in your standard of living? It's great when people say that they really want the quality of living in third world countries to improve, but I often wonder whether people are willing to take the cut in their quality of living in order to make it come true.
Think of it this way. You boycott, forcing the company in question to pay more for labour overseas, improving their quality of living. However, to do this they need to cover higher costs in the form of wages. They then pass on the additional costs to you, as you've clearly expressed that you do not approve of their current practices. So, prices have gone up. Now apply this across the board to all companies. Two things may happen. First, all companies apply this scenario and prices go up across the board. You now can't buy as much as you used to, making your standard of living decrease while their standard of living increases. You get a warm fuzzy feeling, but can't buy your DVD player.
Two, all companies but one decide to raise their prices due to market pressure. However, one company doesn't and is able to undercut all their competitors. A significant portion of the market would probably buy from them, simply because they're cheaper. So, other companies are forced to cut costs in order to effectively compete (or else go out of business). One way to cut costs is to move to where they can pay lower wages, taking you back to where you were in the first place.
Sweatshops are evil, but do you think the majority of western consumers (who have the money) would be willing to lower their standard of living to eliminate them? I may be cynical, but I think not. People really seem to love their DVD players, iPacs and other gadgets.
Re:Doo-gooder Neo hippie ideals.... (Score:2)
At one time in the US you were able to support a family on the wages of a store clerk.
And when exactly was this? Something like a store clerk have always been low paying, low skill jobs. The ones most likely to fill these jobs are kids and single adults. I grant you that if a guy had been there a long time and worked a lot of hours, then he might have been able to support a family. Generally, it's always been the case, that if you wanted to make more money, you needed to move into a job that required a skill and/or had risk involved. The supposed person trying to raise a family on minimum wage is a myth. The large majority of these people are teenagers and students. If someone doesn't have the gumption and desire to learn a trade and just stays a warm body for min. wage, they they shouldn't have a family, IMHO. It's irresponsible.
What has changed? The attitude that it is required to have two incomes. In "The Tightwad Gazette" pp23-24, Amy Dacyczyn addresses this. In many cases, you add up the added expeses for transportation, child care, professional wardrobe, meals, increased taxes, etc., the 2nd income isn't contributing that much unless both of them are in the higher paying 'professional' labor markets. [The ones on the low end may actually need two incomes, but in the past, that meant Dad (or sometimes Mom) worked multiple jobs in order to make sure someone was running the household business. My dad did this for decades] In addition, due to reduced amount of time, people often purchase prepackaged, ready made food & other services which end up costing even more (my wife knows people that spend approx $1500/month in groceries because of this). Over the years the companies & individuals selling big ticket items have recognized that the ones with the mid to high paying jobs have some money left over, so their prices have risen to match. Madison avenue has also fueled some of this with their bigger, faster, more, more, more mindset. Compare the houses in a suburb built 30-40 years ago to some new ones. The newer ones have a lot more square footage and most certainly cost more after adjusted for inflation. The same can be set for vehicles. All of this when the average number of people in a family has gone down.
I guess the point is, that it seems too many people have skewed priorities. Do you want both parents working long hours, but no time with each other & the kids, but have a big new house, big new SUVs, and all the latest expensive toys for the kids? Or do you want to be more modest in your living standards, get by on one income, and spend more time with your family? I know for a fact that it's been better for my family to do the latter. The kids get lots of individual attention from their mom and I and aren't total little shits like many of their peers (as related by their peers' parents). On the flip side, my wife recently wanted to work in a museum to get out & about. Most of what she ears is turned right around and given to someone else. I doubt what's left covers the extra taxes we owe, instead of getting a refund.
Re:Questions and comments (Score:2)
Labor unions, education, and time solve all problems. If any of you have grandparents old enough to remember when the world's largest developing economy was the United States, ask them about pay and working conditions.
Yeah, their jobs stayed pretty much the same, but products and services from union shops became more expensive. It's certainly great for the union bosses.
I don't know all the indicators . . . (Score:2)
Re:Doo-gooder Neo hippie ideals.... (Score:2)
Which is one of the big reasons that real wages didn't increase at all in the US between 1972 and 1995 or so (while the standard of living went way up, primarily due to cheap credit).
Unions == wealth? (Score:1)
no easy solution (Score:1)
However, the problem with many countries is either corrupt political systems and/or a mindset that the government should project you from everything.
(Sure, the U.S. has corruption, but not near as much as many countries.)
Re:Doo-gooder Neo hippie ideals.... (Score:1)
It is true that unions have played an important role in making sure that workers get their fair share, but they are not primarily responsible for our high standard of living. The absolute restriction on standard of living is not distribution of wealth (which unions address) but productivity; per capita consumption can't exceed per capita production over the long haul. The reason that industrialized nations have such high standards of living is because they are industrialized. Industrialization increases productivity and ensures that there are goods and services available to consume. That's certainly not to say that unions are valueless- one can easily imagine a situation in which that increased productivity went primarily to enhance the lives of a priviledged few instead of the whole population- but that unions alone are not enough to ensure a high standard of living.
Re:Doo-gooder Neo hippie ideals.... (Score:2)
I've often suspected that this is why productivity stagnated during that period. When the labor pool is expanding rapidly it makes more sense to hire more workers instead of enhancing the productivity of the existing ones. Real wages didn't increase because they depend critically on productivity. I also wonder if the return to increasing real wages recently is a sign that the labor pool is close to saturated again; if so it's a good sign for wages over the long term.
It seems very odd to me that I've never heard a professional economist say pretty much the same thing. It seems so obvious to me that a large increase in the labor pool coinciding with a stagnation in productivity is no coincidence. I wonder if it's something that they all actually know but are afraid to state publically for fear of being branded male oppressor pigs or something.
Re:Radio Shack (Score:1)
Provided, of course, that the soldering iron and miscellaneous components weren't produced by sweatshop labor...
Re:Doo-gooder Neo hippie ideals.... (Score:2)
Re:Doo-gooder Neo hippie ideals.... (Score:3)
Re:sweatshop working (Score:1)
You know, this is interesting. Whenever I visit Thailand I like to search for families that are starving and have children, pay them to "take care" of their little girls for a couple of hours and then take them to the hotel to f*ck them till their eyes pop.
People tell me that's a horrible thing to do, but I don't understand what the problem is. For me, I get pleasure at a cheap rate, and for the children and their families, it gives them a way to earn much needed money (if they didn't need it they wouldn't do it, right?)
I'd appreciate your thoughts in the matter, since you seem to understand this way of thinking.
(For the clue impaired: +1 Satire, you idiot!!
Re:Doo-gooder Neo hippie ideals.... (Score:2)
I would argue that in an ideal world, people would gain equal utility from spiritual and emotional benefits as from materialistic pleasures. However, I would also argue that most people in a capitalistic society, by definition, put high value on materialistic goods.
Preventing people from buying their DVD players is therefore reducing their quality of living. Also, please note I'm not saying what either yourself or I classify as defining our standard of living. Personally, I put more value on happiness and enjoying what I do than on my salary (I don't even own a DVD player). But, I think most people are highly concerned with what they can buy with their money.
Re:sweatshop working - Solution! (Score:1)
Re:unions (Score:1)
On the contrary there was ALOT of violence perpetrated to keep unions from forming.
Go back and check the history books.
It always takes brave people willing to sacrifice to make change, and this is how it will be done if the third world is to improve.
That said, if I was working in one of those sweat shops, and they fired me because the american consumer felt bad I worked too hard, it would really piss me off....
These people are fighting to make enough $$$ to survive and feed their children. If you want to make a REAL difference, find an organization trying to start unions over there and support them. That is IMO a much more realistic solution, and one more likely to create results.
Are sweatshops really bad... (Score:2)
I think an interesting point on sweatshop labor is this: 30-40 years ago, India, Taiwan, and South Korea were all at roughly the same economic status (e.g. very low per capita income, low per capita GDP, etc.). India rejected sweatshops as a means of economic development. Taiwan and South Korea accepted them as a necessary evil. India is still a developing nation. Taiwan and South Korea are rivalling Japan to be the richest country in East Asia. There are few sweatshops in Taiwan and South Korea.
The problem isn't sweatshops; it's poverty. Sweatshops are a mere manifestation of that poverty. Think about it for a moment: if the people in say, Bangladesh weren't in poverty, would they work in sweatshops?
What is the most certain cure for poverty? wealth creation (wealth being liquid assets). The biggest asset of a developing country is the manual labor of its citizens. The country does not have huge amounts of wealth (otherwise, it's not a developing nation), and it doesn't tend to have a high education level, because education is expensive.
What a sweatshop does is, for a very low initial cost, convert that labor into cash. Thus, a middle class gradually starts to appear and grow, eventually reaching a size where education and non-manual jobs become a possibility. As this happens, labor costs go up, forcing sweatshops elsewhere.
Definition of choice (Score:1)
I will admit that in absolute terms, they do choose it--however, you are forgetting to ask what their alternative is. Their alternative is to die of starvation. This is much like totalitarianism: "Work or die" is the main motivational lever.
There is no way for these people to escape their circumstances within the system; they cannot afford transport, they cannot afford anything but the meagre crumbs they work so hard for every day. It is the same old situation capitalism has always created. There is nothing they can do about the wages; if they strike or attempt to organise, they will be put down by the government, as has happened in Mexico many times; if they in some way succeed, all the factories will just pack up and move to another country. Treaties like FTAA and NAFTA prevent these countries from making labour laws in the first place, so even if the governments suddenly turned benevolent, no such luck.
So you may say "But wait, they have another choice! They can grow their own food!" Well I've got news for you: plenty of people do, they're called peasants, and they live miserably too. Dependent on the climate, they starve when there's a drought, and since most land is owned by rich landowners, they only have tiny plots on which to desperately try to make enough food to survive--why do you think so many peasants leave this for the hellhole of a factory?
So basically these people have three choices: be a starving peasant, be a suffering worker, or die.
The only other choice, of course, is revolution. Or doing something, anything, to hurt the corporations that are causing this intentionally to save money for themselves. One thing we can do, even if it's small, is to boycott them. It's sure as hell better than rewarding them for violating human rights and claiming it was "voluntary" on the part of the workers!
Re:sweatshop working (Score:1)
They probably think its horrible because you're popping eyes, which is arguably not a good thing
*shrug* i see where you're going with your argument, but i'm not sure that i agree with you, although it should be noted that most developed countries do have laws against the kind of sweatshops and the kind of prostitution we're talking about so there is deffinately bad mojo for both
Re:Doo-gooder Neo hippie ideals.... (Score:1)
(I'm am mostly talking out of my ass, so you might be right on about the "stagnation in productivity", of course.)
Re:Doo-gooder Neo hippie ideals.... (Score:2)
You certainly are talking out of your ass. Productivity did go up some during the 72-95 period, but at a much lower rate than it did during 45-72. In the post-war period, productivity was increasing at something like 2.5% per year vs. 1% per year in the 72-95 period. There was much hand wringing about why productivity wasn't increasing as rapidly as it had before, and how Japan et. al. were going to catch us productivitywise. Of course this ignored a number of factors, like a big expansion of the labor pool and the fact that Japan had a big edge in productivity gain because they had started out from so much lower than the US to start out with.
Re:Doo-gooder Neo hippie ideals.... (Score:2)
while the standard of living went way up, primarily due to cheap credit
That's a real good way of increasing your standard of living...go into debt. Every so often I tune into Dave Ramsey [daveramsey.com] on the radio. It's funny. It is common for the show to get a call where the guy's household income is 100K+, but he's broke ($10s of thousands on credit cards, leased cars, etc) w/ no savings. The host will offer him a few free clues (cut up the cards, get rid of the leased cars/SUV and get a cheap MOT, plow the money into reducing other debt, etc). At other times there will be a husband & wife who probably make $25-30K a year calling in because they're happy they saved $6K+ within that year to pay everything off but the house.
What's the difference? IMHO, priorities and the emphasis on the 'status' received by the stuff you own. Unfortunately, that stuff ends up owning you.
Re:Unions == wealth? (Score:2)
The union leaders & the pols they buy off are certainly better off because of it, so they will tell you yes. IMHO, it's not any different than if a CEO buys one.
Re:Definition of choice (Score:1)
"Work or die" is the main motivational lever.
Since when hasn't this been the case for human existence?
Re:Doo-gooder Neo hippie ideals.... (Score:2)
I wonder if it's something that they all actually know but are afraid to state publically for fear of being branded male oppressor pigs or something.
It's not politically correct in the current climate, so I'm sure that's a part of it.
Re:Definition of choice (Score:1)
It's not the case for those who have enough money they don't have to work. It's not the case in countries like Cuba or (to some extent) the United Kingdom, where the state views survival as a basic human right.
My point was that they have no choice. There is no way out. That's not true for those of us in the exploiting side of society in the US; we have plenty of money, plenty of choice. For them it's not just "Work or die" it's "Work in bad conditions for little pay or die".
Re:Definition of choice (Score:1)
Yes it is, just on a larger scale. If you don't want to work then the government will take care of you. Thus there is little incentive to work.
Look at the living conditions in Cuba for a good example of government welfare out of control. The per capita productivity and standard of living in the UK is no where near what it is here, where there is less welfare. Look at other more hands off countries and their standard of living is even higher.
If there are no concequences for not working, no one will work.
What are you saying? (Score:1)
The poster of this Ask Slashdot clearly feels differently - he wants his involvement in the economy to be in a manner that promotes human rights rather than trampling them.
Concerning your last paragraph:
of course, as soon as we get all third world nations are up to wage, safty, etc levels of today's united states, other forms of explotation will be considered horribly unethical (and probably called sweatshops as a metaphor)
Do you mean that it's pointless to fight against what is wrong, since there will always be something else that is wrong? This self-satisfied pseudo-analysis might satisfy you, but not everyone has divorced their actions from their beliefs.
I could go on - the sentence "of course, as soon as we get all third world nations are up to wage" is a goldmine as well ("we" have implemented systems that perpetuate sweatshops - it's utterly incorrect to assume that "we" can or will change them), but what's the point? Ignorance about how one's purchases can dehumanise workers may be excusable, but pride in willful ignorance is disgusting.
Vive la consumerism.
PAX Americana! (Score:1)
your population is the wrong color.
(No I am not racist, but our foreign policy
seems to be)
That and IMO we pretty much control the parts of your infrastructure that matter to us. I.E. echelon.
Oh yeah and you don't have alot of natural resources we need
On the bright side, just petition to become a state and I'm sure we would do it. (Plus we'd pass out lots of cool guns!! HEH HEH)
Re:Definition of choice (Score:1)
I've got news for you: Cuba has the highest standard of living of any third world country--a nearly 100% literacy rate, 100% first-world-standards health coverage, free education for everyone, free or cheap housing for everyone, and they have sustained this for a long time, and are still building! This is a country that has been isolated from the rest of the world for a long time, started out as a third world country and essentially a colony of the US, declared its independence from the US and has faced unimaginable adversity, and STILL they have a lower infant mortality rate than the US, and a higher literacy rate! YES, it's a poor third world country--and all the other third world countries look up to it for its excellent standard of living!
As far as the UK, I'd like to know on what basis you make your claim that standard of life and "productivity" there is lower than in the US. I've spent enough time in the UK to observe life there, and I would say standard of living there is at least as good as in the US, with many added benefits like free health care.
The US is not a "hands off country". The US has lots of labour laws thanks to the labour movement, plus it managed to help a lot of poor people with decades of welfare to get them on their feet, and it now purges poor neighbourhoods by arresting massive amounts of people on drug charges. "Prosperity" in the US is due to the fact that it's an imperialistic country that exploits 75% of the world and lives on the back of the average worker and peasant, ruthlessly crushing any attempts at democracy or social development in the many countries it uses as colonies.
I will remind you that in 19th century industrial revolution, it was pretty "hands off"! No labour laws, no welfare, no nothing. And people were fucking miserable, just like 75% of the people alive today. MOST countries are "hands off", particularly in the last 30 years because the US and the other first world nations have done whatever they could to get "free trade" put into place so everything would be cheaper and make them richer. And as a result, poverty around the world, corrected for population growth, has grown by a factor of 2.5 since the 1960s, a time when poverty was actually going DOWN as a result of more social programmes all over the world.
The result of free trade and capitalism is clear, and it doesn't jibe with government/corporate propaganda.
Re:Questions and comments (Score:1)
Not Montana! Try Alaska Instead. (Score:1)
No!!!! Please, anywhere but Montana, we have enough loonies up here already (myself included.).