[yequalsx]

Ah...the old imperial justification. Apple doesn't directly hire the children to work in the shops so their moral obligation ends there. I'll bet those kids even earn more than would have made if Apple hadn't contracted out to the factory.

I wonder if your working conditions were the same as the Chinese kids' working conditions. Hmmm...I wonder if you would be willing to work under the same conditions as these kids work in.

[philwelch]

"I wonder if you would be willing to work under the same conditions as these kids work in."

That rather depends upon what the possible alternatives are, doesn't it? The average middle-class, privileged westerner wouldn't, but the average middle-class, privileged westerner has much better options--and for that matter, turns his nose up at the idea of living without cable TV or a microwave oven.

If there's a way up to the developed world's standard of living that doesn't involve sweatshops, it hasn't been discovered yet. Thankfully, the sweatshop stage is growing shorter and shorter over time.

[Dove]

Indeed. In the west, we have high safety and comfort standards, and expect children to spend their time learning and playing. These are luxuries, and not everyone can afford them. In places that cannot afford them, the alternative to sweatshops and child labor is not nicer work environments or idyllic playtime. It is crime, prostitution, or starvation.

I'm not exaggerating. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,119125,00.html

Alien as it may seem to our culture of riches and comfort, there are places where these jobs are a significant blessing. Slavery is evil, and should never be supported by the west. But taking a job from a willing worker (or even a child), in a poor country is NOT helping him.

[yequalsx]

I'm from the Canal Zone. I grew up there. I'm a former American colonist. The bulk of the workforce was Panamanian. Their wages were much lower than American wages. The justification by we Americans was that they were paid better by the Company than they would get in Panama. It's the standard imperial justification and it's wrong.

Panama has done quite well without America and their wages have improved. This isn't universally true but the justification that this is just something that every country must go through is wrong factually and morally. It is immoral for us to profit off of forced labor, unsafe working conditions, and child labor. That our country turns a blind eye is repugnant.

[philwelch]

Who said anything about forced labor?

If the choice is between paying someone in another country the same amount you'd pay someone at home and not hiring them at all, the simple fact is, they're not going to be hired at all. The unspoken assumption, of course, is that we can let the whole rest of the world languish in poverty so long as we're sure that every appliance in our electrified houses and every damned faucet for our hot and cold running water was made by American hands in an American factory. That's even a consistent worldview--but you have to acknowledge what you have to give up in order to maintain that consistency. If we have to consistently choose not to interfere with cultures less technologically and economically advanced as our own, that means no interference. That's a hard pill for most people to swallow. What's more imperialistic--contracting with a Chinese company for manufacturing or "rebuilding Haiti" (in our own image, of course).

[yequalsx]

No one said anything about forced labor. I included it in a list of things that it is immoral to benefit from. In that list of things was child labor; the point of the discussion. Sorry for not making this clearer. I should have left it out.

Corporations aren't building factories in China so that China benefits. They are building the factories so that they benefit. There are lots of reports of forced labor in China, of unsafe working conditions, and of worker exploitation. Our companies are fine with this arrangement because they fall back on the, "But we don't actually hire these workers. We contract this out." It's wrong.

The American public is OK with the arrangement because it means we can buy cheap crap. We don't mind migrant laborers in this country being exploited because we want cheap food.

What we lose sight of is the damage that this does to us and the world. That pollution that the factories produce in China to make cheap shit for us, in the long run, will do a lot of harm to China and the world. It's immoral for us to benefit from this.

What we could do is make trade contingent on a base level of standards being met. Make companies run the factories instead of hiding behind, "We don't actually hire the workers." The externalities need to be addressed.

[philwelch]

"What we could do is make trade contingent on a base level of standards being met."

That's exactly what Apple does, and that's exactly why you're reading this story about Apple, instead of Asus or Lenovo or any other company--because Apple, unlike almost every other company, does the audits and enforces the standards on their contractors.

[yequalsx]

After rereading the article and reading the comments on this thread I'm inclined to agree with you as far as it pertains to Apple. The overall point I made applies though. Not necessarily to Apple itself but to behavior of Western companies in general.

[viraptor]

I don't think that OP was ok with the working condition. Just that the article throws blame in the wrong direction. You can work as a 15-yo in many countries, but you have special law protection and lower maximum working hours. I don't see anything wrong with children working.

Meanwhile there's a much bigger problem: "The technology company's own guidelines are already in breach of China's widely-ignored labour law, which sets out a maximum 49-hour week for workers." If there were no children, would it be ok? Would the article even be written? This rule affects all the workers. And since the rule is "widely-ignored" I expect many more factories with even worse conditions.

Unfortunately "Apple fails" + "Won't somebody please think of the children?" seems to be more important than specific law being broken on a nation scale.

[imok20]

I, too, do wonder.

Right now, it's not clear what those conditions were; my comment was meant to address the only clear-cut part of this vague article: that 15 year-olds were working in a factory.

I'm not justifying poor working conditions, nor am I justifying overwork (though I find it interesting that we don't see it as criminal when professionals spend around 130 hours a week working.) I was simply astonished at the knee-jerk reaction so many have when children... gasp... work!

Substantiated claims that the working conditions of these children were poor can be addressed separately.

But, by all means, protect these children from feeding their families.

[angstrom]

I find it awkward as well. I grew up on a dairy farm and helped out with chores starting at the age of 10. Technically that's child labor and it's fairly common place. The utility of my labor had the same effect of helping my family. Though one key point would be it was usually never more than 2 hours on school days and 8-10 hours during summer vacation -- the reason kids originally had summer vacation.

[xenophanes]

Why do you think the kids work there? Is it voluntary or involuntary?

Suppose it's voluntary. If so, then if you stop them from having that job, they will believe you've hurt them, by taking away their preferred life option. Correct?

[yequalsx]

The same arguments were made when we decided that children shouldn't mine coal. The argument is wrong.

[xenophanes]

Why is it wrong?