[voodootrucker]

So it's fair for a multi-billion dollar company to exploit the "global market" by farming work out to 3rd world countries...

But not for a customer who is literally dying to take advantage of that same "global market" to save himself?

Like everything else in the global economy, laws are only enforced to protect the strong against the weak, and yet we wonder how all the wealth is accumulating in the hands of the few.

[rdtsc]

> So it's fair for a multi-billion dollar company to exploit the "global market" by farming work out to 3rd world countries...

That makes sense. It is interesting that when usually there are "anti-globalization" protests shown in the media, the protesters are presented as fringe idiots, violent, with facemasks and so on. Sort of implying "look at these crazies not wanting countries get close to each other, trade and be friends". The truth is globalization is overloaded to apply only to large companies. And usually the more they "globalize" -- the more they create inequality and pain for those at the bottom. So then they also end up increasing border controls, formulate various laws and agreements and ram those through each country's legislature to protect segmentation and control of market.

[icebraining]

All evidence I've seen points to a massive reduction of poverty "at the bottom" (the actual bottom, not developed world's bottom) as globalization has increased in the last few decades. On what do you base the claim that it has increased pain?

[surrealvortex]

I didn't take a position one way or the other in my comment. But if anything, I definitely did not support the company. I was more concerned about the billions of people in other countries who will suffer because they will lose access to medicine even more. Some of the comments below pointed out that India had the ability to break patents if the government considered the drugs overpriced, so I'm not sure that's a very valid concern anymore.

[option_greek]

That's a very interesting point! Is also applicable to digital content restrictions (pricing differences).

[ikeboy]

How is giving people jobs exploiting them again?

[ubernostrum]

I think a way to state this that you can't semantically object to is:

We live in a society in which those who control large corporations argue that it is virtuous to relocate significant portions of the business to locations which are cheaper due to more lax or nonexistent laws protecting workers and/or the environment, and thus consumers back in the US receive the same quality of product but at a lower price thanks to the location-based saving.

This opens up a counterargument that it should just as equally be virtuous to purchase medication from places where the retail price is cheaper due to more lax or nonexistent laws protecting intellectual property claims in pharmaceuticals, by which process consumers back in the US receive the same quality of product but at a lower price thanks to the location-based saving.

After all, protection of workers, protection of the environment and protection of intellectual property are all sliding-scale values; if it's fair for one person to do arbitrage on one of these in order to make money, why shouldn't it be fair for another person to do arbitrage on another?

[ikeboy]

>We live in a society in which those who control large corporations argue that it is virtuous to relocate significant portions of the business to locations which are cheaper due to more lax or nonexistent laws protecting workers and/or the environment, and thus consumers back in the US receive the same quality of product but at a lower price thanks to the location-based saving.

I don't think this is entirely fair. Some of the lower cost can surely be attributed to lower cost of living in those locations, not necessarily due to more lenient laws.

In that case, it isn't comparable to arbitrage over IP.

[trbvm2]

By the definition of exploit. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/exploit "to utilize, especially for profit; turn to practical account"

[ikeboy]

Well that meaning of exploit doesn't have the negative connotation clearly implied above, which requires harm.

[drauh]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_suicides

[evanpw]

"The suicide rate at Foxconn during 2010 remained lower than that of the general Chinese population at the time as well as all 50 states of the United States."

[nickpsecurity]

What is the rate of employers whose practices cause a large group of their employees to jump off their building all at once? I can't remember ever seeing that headline in U.S. papers except referring to China and such. Must be rare here.

I wonder what the rate of mass suicide is in general for "all 50 states of the United States" vs Chinese companies like Foxconn.

[tim333]

>large group of their employees to jump off their building all at once?

Didn't happen at Foxconn. They were all on separate days over a few years. Not sure where you got "mass suicide" from. It's not mentioned in the comment you refer to.

[nickpsecurity]

Wait, this was apparently misreported to me although it still says wonders about the situation. It was a threatened mass suicide that led to concessions. Over a dozen did jump to death. And the worst part of what I originally received.... curtailing the suicides by installing safety nets instead of better working conditions... did happen.

So, yes, that's unusually bad with not many in the U.S. that can compare. I'll be interested if you know any companies in the U.S. where over ten people have jumped off one roof with company installing safety nets.