Hard News: iPad Impressions
360 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 15 Newer→ Last
-
It would also be very easy to do.
I think it would be easy to do as a parliament. As an importer of goods it would suddenly get a lot more complicated, and no doubt we'd see some things disappear from NZ shelves, at least for a while.
-
My heart bleeds for us :-)
-
I left my screen for a few hours, and look what happens. Muldoon is opening 'The Ministry of Setting Everyone's Margin' from beyond the grave, presumably ably assisted by Bollard et al.
'The doom of complete obliteration.'
But hey, I'm just glad we have a firm grip on the significance of Apple launching it's iPad in New Zealand. Carry on, this is fun.
-
We could rename this portion of the thread "Globalisation and its completely content, thank you, would you please pass the salt?"
-
One thing is saying that the minimum wage in China should be the minimum wage in the US, in absolute terms.
That would throw hundreds of millions of Chinese out of work.
Another to exploit the lack of protections and welfare provisions for workers. We should demand that the latter be instituted - we really have no excuses not to.
I think that's been New Zealand's view in international trade negotiations: that labour standards should be part of a rules-based trading system.
It's not all bleak and intractable. China instituted minimum wage laws in 2004 -- they vary by region, which is presumably a reflection of different living costs.
And Western consumer protest certainly has its role too. It's nice to know who's using sweatshops.
-
Actually, the raw material cost of a phone is a few dollars in sand, metals and hydrocarbons. Everything else is labour, design and overheads, albeit at the component level.
-
That would throw hundreds of millions of Chinese out of work.
That's what they said about unionism in developed countries, remember?
-
My heart bleeds for us :-)
Will the world fall over if all of a sudden we have to stop importing our clothing and toys and computer parts from some parts of the world? No, there are some alternatives out there, but it might get expensive and damn annoying for everyone.
But what about essentials? Do we tell every asthmatic that there won't be any more medicine for a few months until Pharmac finds a supplier that has a certificate that indicates that they work within NZ's environment and labour laws? Insulin? A thousand other things?
It's an easy chair to sit and just say "we pass a law presto".
I'm fully in favour of there being international labour and environmental standards put into trade agreements and countries that don't meet them being pushed sideways until they do. Signing off a law that did that instantly would be a disaster.
-
I'm still struggling to see the connection between large profit margins and exploiting labor. They're separate issues entirely. One is about how fairly you pay your workers, the other is about how much you think you can make from your customers. I fully support the idea of minimum wages, and fair labor laws, but the idea of fixing margins is ridiculous. For starters, as I already said, the real margins are incalculable. What is the margin on the iPad when you consider 40 other Apple flops in the price? Then it's not so simple any more, is it? Unless you want to legislate against losses too?
-
It's an easy chair to sit and just say "we pass a law presto".
It's a wonderful recliner to lie down and keep not giving a shit, OTOH. Smiley face.
But what about essentials? Do we tell every asthmatic that there won't be any more medicine for a few months until Pharmac finds a supplier that has a certificate that indicates that they work within NZ's environment and labour laws? Insulin? A thousand other things?
Maybe. Plenty of people are going without those things in other countries, no? What makes us so special, other than the fact that we own the world?
Put it another way: the reason to have labour standards, is so that workers have basic welfare. Why should a Filipino die younger so that a New Zealander can afford cheap asthma medicine?
(Man, this has become needlessly emotional. Somebody light the Stephen Judd signal so we can restore some widsom to the proceedings.)
-
I'm still struggling to see the connection between large profit margins and exploiting labor.
The only ways to pay workers more are to reduce margins and/or make the products more expensive. If the latter means nobody will buy 'em, then you have to reduce margins. But the prime directive of our stage of capitalism is "maximise shareholder value", which is to say, maximise profits. These profits go to shareholders, who are investors as opposed to workers. I'd personally like more of the money to go to the people who do the work, as opposed to the people who already have money.
-
I'm still struggling to see the connection between large profit margins and exploiting labor.
I have trouble with the disconnect from reality
- take Tony Hayward being shifted sideways at BP and getting a pension of approx one million plus per year and other similar banking types
- what do these people do that could possibly be worth this amount of dosh in perpetuity
- is it their silence that is being bought?
But those kind of costs have to affect the bottom line somehow, how can it be sustainable? -
I'd personally like more of the money to go to the people who do the work, as opposed to the people who already have money.
Sure, but that's quite a different proposition to saying that shareholders must have their profits capped on some particular product, by some arbitrary accounting measure. That just wouldn't work.
I got no problem with a minimum wage. Nor, of course, with any number of better worker compensation models. But margins are a whole different issue. The workers themselves could be shareholders and they'd be royally pissed if their profits were screwed over because the law said it wasn't allowed.
-
Put it another way: the reason to have labour standards, is so that workers have basic welfare. Why should a Filipino die younger so that a New Zealander can afford cheap asthma medicine?
I'm all in favour of labour standards. If there were decent labour and environmental standards I'd be a free trade advocate, rather than thinking it's a nice theory used to screw people.
Labour standards are pretty different from "our standards, and right now", which was what you suggested.
And I don't think you know me well enough to assume that I don't give a shit, given that I said in my post that I did.
-
And I don't think you know me well enough to assume that I don't give a shit,
In the West, collectively, we don't. That's more of a statement of fact than anything else. And I'm well included.
Labour standards are pretty different from "our standards, and right now", which was what you suggested.
Our standards is pretty much what I mean. And they're not that fabulous, you know. But I think 40-something hour weeks with decent breaks and some sickness pay, some holiday pay, yeah, sure. Peg the minimum wage at the local standard of living, and I'm on board. And if some people in China will lose their jobs, maybe somebody will get their job back in Detroit or Timaru. I'm not against that either. At the moment we're pitting workers against workers and I'm not sure that's right.
-
I got no problem with a minimum wage. Nor, of course, with any number of better worker compensation models. But margins are a whole different issue. The workers themselves could be shareholders and they'd be royally pissed if their profits were screwed over because the law said it wasn't allowed.
Nobody's talking about capping margins (I think, I'd have to confirm that with my fellow Bolshevik). We're just talking about increasing the cost of doing business by forcing companies to treat their workforce better, wherever it might live. And that will likely reduce unit margins, although not necessarily overall profits.
-
Hmm. I think I kind of was (talking about capping margins). You see, I am not an economist, and we seem to have all kinds of arcane rules about how economies work, and I don't really understand why one rule is perfectly acceptable and another rule makes everyone go all 'pffft! that's ridiculous!' I'm mostly idiot and not very much savant. :)
-
My bad. It must have been all the noise at our factory council meeting.
-
- take Tony Hayward being shifted sideways at BP and getting a pension of approx one million plus per year and other similar banking types
- is it their silence that is being bought?$1M is about how much BP was losing every 7 1/2 minutes last quarter. It really isn't a big deal bottom line wise. I don't think it's buying much of anything, it's just the done thing, putting into the office present for the leaving do.
-
Wrote a long piece trying to describe this programme I'd seen on Tropic of Cancer about child labour in Bangladesh. Then I found it.
I think the comments about what happens when 'foreigners come and stop the children working' is quite surprising, and the comments of the UNICEF worker also. Pragmatism over idealism? Of course we'd all love the context to change so that it was not necessary, but iPads and Jobs are but a blip on a monumental, globalised, greed and consumerist based existence, of which I am in no doubt I play a part.
What to do?
-
What to do?
That is the question. The route that China is going has worked for Japan and Taiwan, both of which have much better labour conditions that they used to, and it seems to be working for China. Certainly boycotting Chinese products isn't going to help improve things over there.
-
What was that about asthma medications? Now I'll have to lobby Pharmac, although I approve of Pharmac in principle as a state purchasing tool challenging the power of big pharma.
Enjoying the rest of the conversation - about real life ethical consumer/ capitalist dilemmas. No simple answers but lots of useful information, and considered opinions. Generally I don't think we, as NZers, discuss ethics nearly enough.
-
I'd just like to say that I am liking my iPad a lot, as an extremely versatile media browser -- especially since I bought the somewhat overpriced Belkin leather case, which stops it slipping off my knee.
Honestly, I find this thing really useful, and I'm surprised more hasn't been made in reviews of the virtues of a portrait-oriented screen. Getting files on and off it outside the iTunes paradigm is slightly awkward, but for my purposes, it kicks the arse of a netbook.
I've also never had quite such an experience of feeling I have to justify a purchase with my own money. Oh well.
-
Re pricing: this post at You Are Not So Smart is worth a read. (h/t merc :)
I'm sure Apple know a thing or two about psychology. -
I've also never had quite such an experience of feeling I have to justify a purchase with my own money. Oh well.
I hope that wasn't coming from me: what I wrote in supporting the Greenpeace campaign notwithstanding (and I stand by that), I would reiterate that you don't need to justify your purchase of an iPad any more than I have to justify my purchase of an eee. Less so, if anything. However Hilary introduced the problem of ethics in relation to all of these devices and it's an interesting one; and it's brought up more often in relation to Apple and Microsoft products than others because they are polarising and much more sharply branded companies. And yes, some of their products have emotional as well as practical value. I'm sure they don't mind that.
Also, +1 on liking portrait aspect for reading. That's why I'm all in favour of PAS keeping its current layout, with plenty of space on the sides.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.