[Recent Suicides] Buying Products which is manufactured under horrible conditions

[GothicGothicness]

This kind of links in with what I wrote in the US manufacturing thread, about people working like slaves in other countries so we can live really well ( I write we because everyone here has a computer... so I think we are all guilty in some way ).

Foxconn is a good example it builds things like i-phones, computers, mobiles etc, which can be so cheap because of the conditions the workers are under.

12 workers already tried to commit suicide, 10 was successful.

Basically they have a salary of approx $100 / month. But they have to work overtime without any money and the conditions are really tough. They have very little freetime and have "company activities" on weekends.

Fairtrade is becoming more common, but for example MS and Apple keep working against these initiative, after all it is so much cheaper to produce stuffs like XBOX and iphones, if you can have people work really cheap under horrible conditions…..

I feel less and less like buying things at all from this kind of companies. What are you guys take on it?

 

[akarthis]

You are right. But it's not enough. We are talking about a global way of thinking and basically, we (maybe i should put "i" in case someone gets offended), the consumer (s) turn our head (s) the other way. There are way too few people, not knowing what the working conditions are in these multinational factories over there. I think our fury and sadness is pure when we hear about such news but most of us forget it a few days later when we are bying our new super tech cameras, shoes, consoles etc.

What it has to be done is change the way of thinking but that can happen from schools.

p.s. i do not talking about anyone personally here.

 

[Zaleukos]

It is a bit odd that there hasnt been any attempts at selling "fair trade electronics" (or have I simply mised it?), there should be a market for that... Maybe the environmentalism of the fair traders clash with manufacturing technology? The feel-good middle class that is prepared to pay extra for FT products could definitely afford slightly more expensive electronics

Not that I am a big fan of the FT set in general, there are too many weird political undertones to that movement...

 

[DArtagnan]

This problem exists because money is the primary motivator - which is what needs to change.

But people don't want it to change.

Capitalism would work fine if we weren't human beings, but we are. Human beings are flawed and ignorance is the essential factor that can never be fully eliminated.

So, we need a system that won't allow ignorance to contribute so directly to misery.

One way such a system could work better, would be if money wasn't the primary motivator. Something like actual quality or a better world would work better.

 

[Prime Junta]

Interestingly, it turns out that money isn't a very effective motivator, except for mechanical, routine tasks. Instead, the motivators that actually work are mastery, purpose, and self-direction.

IOW, if you feel that what you're doing is meaningful, that you're doing it well, and that you yourself control how you do it, you're going to be motivated to do it—better than if someone paid you another $100, $1,000, or even $1,000,000 for it.

I know for a fact that this is the way it works for me, but it was interesting to see this validated scientifically.

[ http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/05/the-surprising-truth-about-what-motivates-us/ ]

 

[DArtagnan]

I smell a loyal dog

 

[GothicGothicness]

Well, I think that really depends…. I actually discussed this a lot with for example people in China. There is a very huge difference, in Sweden even if you are unemployed you live better than most people in China. But in China if you have a low salary job, you have to work very hard and much just to have enough to feed your family. On top of that you need to feed your parents….. so basically having a low pay job means, work a lot, eat bad food live in poor environment.

While in Sweden the difference between a high paying job and a low paying job is a sports car, so in that case it is much more understandable that salary is not that important.

It would be interesting to have some research on what motivates people when they buy products though…… quality, brand and cost would all go pretty high I guess. But fair trade conditions has certainly moved up a lot in the latest few years.

 

[DArtagnan]

Well, I think that really depends…. I actually discussed this a lot with for example people in China. There is a very huge difference, in Sweden even if you are unemployed you live better than most people in China. But in China if you have a low salary job, you have to work very hard and much just to have enough to feed your family. On top of that you need to feed your parents….. so basically having a low pay job means, work a lot, eat bad food live in poor environment.

While in Sweden the difference between a high paying job and a low paying job is a sports car, so in that case it is much more understandable that salary is not that important.

It would be interesting to have some research on what motivates people when they buy products though…… quality, brand and cost would all go pretty high I guess.

Yeah, but Sweden is very much in a sweet spot position, isn't it.

Much the same can be said for Denmark, though probably not to the same degree.

It's not hard being motivated by other things, when you're provided for.

That's why I can personally dismiss most things, because I know the government will take care of me.

That's nice, but I don't think it's fair that we have so many resources when other people have so few.

We think we deserve it in Denmark, but that's bullshit. We might be more informed than certain others, but there's nothing just about few people having a lot - when a lot of people are so poor.

We need to divide the resources of this world evenly, because we all deserve equal shares.

That won't happen with capitalism and greed so rampant around the world.

 

[DArtagnan]

About motivation:

Once you have your basic needs filled, the mind starts to wander.

People "invent" needs, because that's how we work.

You think you need an iPhone but you don't. So you buy an iPhone and then you have to invent a reason to need it, because it's not there implicitly.

That's what I call fictitious needs.

Naturally, this is a grey area - and there probably ARE plenty of actual needs beyond the basic ones - but I fear the vast majority of those are illusory.

What's worse, I suspect such invented needs stand as the reason people can't even find a partner and share love with, as the ultimate expression of happiness.

Society is saturated with needs that directly conflict with things like that, because apparently love is not enough by itself. We need to have THINGS so we can tell others why we're happy.

 

[dteowner]

We need to divide the resources of this world evenly, because we all deserve equal shares.

Right here is where your entire structure comes tumbling down on your head. Not only is that position completely indefensible (if we're all "equal", then a serial murderer gets the same lot in life as you, and for that matter, there would be no jails--you good with that?), but it's just plain laughable. You kick at the idea of false needs and then drag in the concept of "deserve"? Talk about mental knots.

 

[pibbur]

…

I know for a fact that this is the way it works for me, but it was interesting to see this validated scientifically.

[ http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/05/the-surprising-truth-about-what-motivates-us/ ]

Same here. I made an ad hoc query at lunch, and for around half of us the content of the job meant more than wages. Same with me.

A short resume
1. I stopped working as a physician in 1982 bcause I really disliked it. My total income was reduced by 50%. Reduction of net income was smaller, due to progressive taxation.

2. In 1998 i went from a teaching job to work as a resident doctor at an xray department. Total income increased by 40%.

3. In 2000 I found out I still didn't like working as a doctor, and went to work at the hospitals IT department, reducing income by 30%. If I had stayed at the xray dept, eventually qualifying as an xray specialist, I suppose I would earn twice as much as I earn today. But, unfortunately, medicine sucks!

4. I would probably earn more if I switched to a similar position in a private company (assuming they would have me). But I like it where I am.

A few thing we can learn from this
1. Doctors earn too much. Seriously, I firmly believe that. Most of my colleagues disagree with me (in fact I haven't found any one that agrees).
2. In a country where the wages in general are high, you can adapt to significant variations in income (as long as you don't have too much debt)
3. To me other things are far more important than money as a motivating factor. It had to be said though that I RREEEEAAALLY disliked working with patient. If I should choose today, I would not start med school. And if I did, I should specialize in pathology (assuming I could get used to the smell).

 

[DArtagnan]

Right here is where your entire structure comes tumbling down on your head. Not only is that position completely indefensible (if we're all "equal", then a serial murderer gets the same lot in life as you, and for that matter, there would be no jails—you good with that?), but it's just plain laughable. You kick at the idea of false needs and then drag in the concept of "deserve"? Talk about mental knots.

You think a person is born as a serial killer?

We're talking about giving people access to having a healthy life, as a starting point.

Let's pretend I thought my idea was feasible with people like you in the world, and then let's see how many people develop into serials killers in MY world as opposed to what's happening in this world.

 

[pibbur]

Right here is where your entire structure comes tumbling down on your head. Not only is that position completely indefensible (if we're all "equal", then a serial murderer gets the same lot in life as you, and for that matter, there would be no jails—you good with that?), but it's just plain laughable. You kick at the idea of false needs and then drag in the concept of "deserve"? Talk about mental knots.

I don't see why no jails is a logical consequence of believing in sharing resouces equally. I too subscribe to sharing, and I don't follow your reasoning here.

 

[DArtagnan]

We've never lived in a world where resources were shared evenly, so it's pretty hard to predict how we'd react as a race.

My theory is that crime (read: harmful behaviour) will never cease to exist, so we'd have to figure out the ideal solution to prevent it as best we could.

I have a lot of ideas for this, but I don't think this is the place to share them

Goes without saying that even with everyone having access to having all their basic needs met, the world would be far from ideal. But better than this one? How could it not be.

 

[Prime Junta]

Not just people, either. Marketers. They've refined the art of tweaking with our monkey minds to perfection; they know exactly which buttons to push to make us know we want an iPad or a new graphics card or Mass Effect 2 or a Mercedes.

The idea of romantic love as something people should actively seek is relatively new; over almost all of the course of human history, partnering up was more of a practical, economic contract arranged by the families concerned. Perhaps we're just not biologically suited to our current system of trying to do that work by ourselves, which makes us invent impossible ideals for our putative partners to live up to, and then treat them like graphics cards—something to be upgraded when the shine wears off.

 

[Prime Junta]

We've never lived in a world where resources were shared evenly, so it's pretty hard to predict how we'd react as a race.

My theory is that crime (read: harmful behaviour) will never cease to exist, so we'd have to figure out the ideal solution to prevent it as best we could.

I have a lot of ideas for this, but I don't think this is the place to share them

Goes without saying that even with everyone having access to having all their basic needs met, the world would be far from ideal. But better than this one? How could it not be.

This is precisely what Communists of various flavors and philosophical backgrounds, from Christians to Maoists, have attempted, ever since the Diggers. They've always, always failed, usually in spectacular ways involving skulls stacked in pyramids in some basement somewhere. That makes me extremely leery of any new attempts at it.

I've looked at a few post-Marxist attempts as well (the Venus Project, for example), and they don't have anything to address these fundamental failures in them either.

There are two recent sci-fi authors that explore this idea in a bit more depth: Ken McLeod and Iain M. Banks. McLeod's imagined society is actually somewhat believable (Banks's is pretty much pure fantasy). However, even McLeod posits an automated system of production that provides us with all our material needs without anyone actually having to work, unless they, y'know, really want to. Utopian societies tend to work a lot better if you're allowed to change fundamental rules like that.

IOW, every single attempt I've come across at describing how a Communist society would actually work in practice involves massive hand-waving—either magical technology that lets anyone have anything they want at any time just by wishing for it, more or less, or re-engineering a Homo Sovieticus that doesn't have pesky drives like greed, duplicity, selfishness, pride, or aggression.

If you want to convince me that your utopia is different, go ahead and give it a shot—but I won't be easy to convince. Greater thinkers than you or I have tried, and failed.

 

[pibbur]

I don't think it's possible to obtain absolute equal sharing of resources. But I think it is reasonable and practically possible to reduce the gap. I believe that in the Scandinavian countries the variation in income is generally smaller than in many other countries, and it is possible to go further here as well.

 

[dteowner]

I don't see why no jails is a logical consequence of believing in sharing resouces equally. I too subscribe to sharing, and I don't follow your reasoning here.

A person in jail doesn't get his chicken in the pot and car in the driveway, right? Unfair distribution, right? If you're going for this "fair distribution" hooey, you can't immediately start carving off groups where you endorse unfair distribution. Thus, no jails.

And yes, D'Art, some people are born bad, and born bad to privileged/"good" situations, too.

 

[pibbur]

A person in jail doesn't get his chicken in the pot and car in the driveway, right? Unfair distribution, right? If you're going for this "fair distribution" hooey, you can't immediately start carving off groups where you endorse unfair distribution. Thus, no jails.

Nope, I don't see that as a consequence. But this is an area where you and I have strikingly different views, and I don't see us getting any closer, ever.

In other areas, yes, but not here.

 

[DArtagnan]

I don't think it's possible to obtain absolute equal sharing of resources. But I think it is reasonable and practically possible to reduce the gap. I believe that in the Scandinavian countries the variation in income is generally smaller than in many other countries, and it is possible to go further here as well.

At the moment, there's really no way of being sure one way or the other.

We'd have to set in motion a group of experts determining exactly what is needed for each individual human being, and then we'd have to determine if that's feasible to provide with the current level of population.

If feasible, we'd then need to figure out how to distribute resources and relocate everyone in such a way that they could live as needed.

We'd most likely need automation in a very big way, so a ton of research into robotics and self-reliant machinery would have to be initiated.

It would take A LOT of people doing extensive work for many years, before we could even begin to put anything into practice.

But is it worth the try? I think so.

Will it happen? Probably not for hundreds, if not thousands of years. Too many people would have to give up the illusion of true wealth - and those people happen to be the ones in power.