[jmathes]

> This is business. ... Let them hash it out.

When is a disagreement not business? Why should we be unwilling to take sides in a negotiating even when it is "business?" When a person's negotiating position is so bad that they use suicide to opt out, I feel sympathy, and I suspect that humanity might me better off if their position were improved by non-capitalist intervention of some kind.

[ars]

That's called the "Fallacy of the excluded middle", or a "False dilemma".

They don't have to suicide. They can also quit and work somewhere else.

[drumdance]

Do you really think that hasn't occurred to them?

When's the last time you fel the need to threaten someone with suicide? My guess is never. In that case, can you begin to imagine how desperate someone must feel if this strikes him as a viable option?

[ars]

I think it hasn't occurred to jmathes, and I think they are bluffing.

I have not heard that things are so bad in China that it's impossible to get a job and suicide is the only alternative. This is just a negotiating tactic.

[jmathes]

It did occur to me. When I said their "negotiating position is so bad that they use suicide to opt out," the choice I was talking about was between working at Foxconn and trying to find another job. I said "opt out" to mean inserting their own third option; suicide. I chose this language explicitly with the goal of showing that I realize that they have at least three options, because I expected you to argue this point with me otherwise. I'm sorry for my lack of clarity. It's something I'm working on.

Whether their plan to suicide is a bluff is relevant to our apparant disagreement. I think it is at least partly not a bluff, because Foxconn employees have a history of killing themselves. Given that their employees commit suicide based on their working conditions and perceived lack of alternative, I don't think you can rationally think it's good for them to be in this situation. I am not telling you that you should feel sympathy for them, although I certainly do. What I mean is that it is possible for a person to be in a business negotiation position that is bad in the same sense of the word "bad" that being raped is bad. The fact that they have multiple options and that the options involve money is not enough to absolve their malefactors. If I were forced to choose between paid to amputate my own body parts and starving to death for lack of money, and the person asking me to amputate my limbs could pay me without amputating my limbs at no cost to themselves, I would call that unethical. I would say so even if they were not themselves amputating my limbs, killing me, or actively restricting my other options.

[ars]

> because Foxconn employees have a history of killing themselves

This isn't true. Foxconn employee are less likely to kill themself than the general population.

[drumdance]

A lot of people at Foxconn have already committed suicide. Why would they be bluffing this time? It's the exact opposite of the boy crying wolf.

Also, by reading this article, aren't you now hearing that "things are so bad in China?" Given the size and importance of Foxconn, this is the equivalent of wildcat strikes at GM or Ford. For all we know there are many small firms that are also abusive, but they don't get the media attention.