apple

[john9blue]

hey greek, why should we stop posting about injustice just because people aren't aware of it or aren't motivated enough to want to correct it? nice ad populum fallacy bro

[natty dread]

RE: viewership. If one is of the anti-apple persuasion, it won't matter if he/she is already going to buy a non-apple product. So the observation of "care" from views on whatever article does not reflect the attitudes of the relevant target markets for apple.

If one wishes to assert that since people care about this issue, then it'll hurt apple's profitability, it may be false because the observed data does includes more than apple's specific target markets (i.e. customer bases).

But Apple's market share is falling and has been for a while. This bad PR Apple just bought itself with its ridiculous litigation is just another straw in the camel's back, so to speak.

[PLAYER57832]

Well, you can concentrate on what you want. But you should know that you don't have to be a computer scientists to understand how harmful the patent system is. It's not just computers, it affects all areas of life and business.

Moreover, the labor issues aren't exclusive to apple, although I'm certainly not saying this excuses such practices.

This thread is not about the harmful patent system; it's about Apple's abuses of the patent system. If other companies abused the patent system similarly, perhaps there would be more public outcry. I used the term "computer scientist" because people that seem to be interested in this appear to be people interested in computer products at something more than a consumer level.

Again: how do you know there is no interest in the general public? On what do you base this assertion?

(1) No mention of patent law or Apple in either national convention.
(2) No mention of patent law or Apple by any prominent presidential candidate otherwise.
(3) I read one article on this from Forbes, hardly the bastion of public sentiment. That article recalled the decision favorably, by the way. I've read no other news articles on the subject.
(4) A quick google search reveals three articles: Nasdaq, Forbes, and Wired (a blog apparently). None of those are widely read by the general American public.
(5) All other google searches reveal articles with the word or phrase "tech" or "technology" or are located in techie parts of major newspapers.

Although I speak only for myself, I tend to determine whether the general public is interested in something based upon whether there is a headline article on cnn.com, Drudge report (he hates Apple by the way), or the WSJ.com. I have not seen this regarding Apple. Unless Fox, MSNBC, or the New York Times (other widely read publications/news, but not by me) are reporting on this, I don't think public sentiment is strong on this.

NPR has reported it.

But, when you talk about the political convention, you have to remember its about winning an election. This is not something the President of the US can do much about, and even voicing an opinion is very rife with pitfalls, and even (perhaps) inappropriate since the matter is still being fought out in the courts.

[thegreekdog]

hey greek, why should we stop posting about injustice just because people aren't aware of it or aren't motivated enough to want to correct it? nice ad populum fallacy bro

Did I ask you to stop posting? Did I indicate you should stop posting?

Seriously though, you guys should spend less time railing against me for telling you that no one really cares and start trying to make people care. You can bring up all the "you made a strawman" and "nice ad populum fallacy" shit you want to bro, but until you get more people to have pain from this, ain't nothing going to happen.

[john9blue]

hey greek, why should we stop posting about injustice just because people aren't aware of it or aren't motivated enough to want to correct it? nice ad populum fallacy bro

Did I ask you to stop posting? Did I indicate you should stop posting?

Seriously though, you guys should spend less time railing against me for telling you that no one really cares and start trying to make people care. You can bring up all the "you made a strawman" and "nice ad populum fallacy" shit you want to bro, but until you get more people to have pain from this, ain't nothing going to happen.

that moment when you realize... that we're trying to make YOU care

[PLAYER57832]

hey greek, why should we stop posting about injustice just because people aren't aware of it or aren't motivated enough to want to correct it? nice ad populum fallacy bro

Did I ask you to stop posting? Did I indicate you should stop posting?

Seriously though, you guys should spend less time railing against me for telling you that no one really cares and start trying to make people care. You can bring up all the "you made a strawman" and "nice ad populum fallacy" shit you want to bro, but until you get more people to have pain from this, ain't nothing going to happen.

Its also about having viable alternatives.
In this case, its not so much that apple is the lone, horrible player in the game. Its more like one of many, many very imperfect players. Change requires focusing on why the entire system is so biased against justice, not focusing on one single player who is playing dirty.

[thegreekdog]

hey greek, why should we stop posting about injustice just because people aren't aware of it or aren't motivated enough to want to correct it? nice ad populum fallacy bro

Did I ask you to stop posting? Did I indicate you should stop posting?

Seriously though, you guys should spend less time railing against me for telling you that no one really cares and start trying to make people care. You can bring up all the "you made a strawman" and "nice ad populum fallacy" shit you want to bro, but until you get more people to have pain from this, ain't nothing going to happen.

that moment when you realize... that we're trying to make YOU care

Seriously, do you guys not read posts? Do you have a problem with the written English language?

I indicated multiple times that I do care. For f*ck's sake. I'm not arguing with Natty or anyone else about whether I care or should care. For the fucking fifteenth time, people do not care.

NPR has reported it.

Link please. I need to listen to this now so I can find out if NPR reported on the story or indicated that Apple was engaged in bad juju. I suspect the former, which, again shows that no one cares.

[john9blue]

that moment when you realize... that we're trying to make YOU care

Seriously, do you guys not read posts? Do you have a problem with the written English language?

I indicated multiple times that I do care. For f*ck's sake. I'm not arguing with Natty or anyone else about whether I care or should care. For the fucking fifteenth time, people do not care.

so let me get this straight:

you agree with our stance, yet you come in this thread and tell us that we should stop spreading the word about this injustice because nobody cares, despite the fact that we are spreading the word in an effort to get more people to care?

you're trying to stop our efforts to raise awareness about your own views, by telling us that not enough people are aware of our views?

what a dumb idea. are you being completely honest in this thread? i was wondering when your inner lawyer would make an appearance on this forum.

[PLAYER57832]

NPR has reported it.

Link please. I need to listen to this now so I can find out if NPR reported on the story or indicated that Apple was engaged in bad juju. I suspect the former, which, again shows that no one cares.

They did a bunch on several aspects of the story. What is your specific interest?

For example, they did a series of stories several months ago (might have been over a year, even) on patents. One story dealt with essentially fake companies that are created just to get control of patents. I think i might have linked to it back in the "patent for toast" thread a while back? Another story focused, or mentioned that Microsoft (and other high tech companies, but apparently Microsoft is "king" of it) goes out and seeks patents for essentially any variation of technology they invent, and also goes back and sort of retroactively gets patents on variations of things already invented. (the story was some time ago, so I am somewhat foggy on details now).

They ALSO did several stories on worker conditions, lawsuits, consumer boycotts, labor fights , etc.

AND they did several stories on the most recent rulings (plus some that came earlier).

Those are just the ones I can specifically think of right now.

So.. you will have to be more specific.

[thegreekdog]

that moment when you realize... that we're trying to make YOU care

Seriously, do you guys not read posts? Do you have a problem with the written English language?

I indicated multiple times that I do care. For f*ck's sake. I'm not arguing with Natty or anyone else about whether I care or should care. For the fucking fifteenth time, people do not care.

so let me get this straight:

you agree with our stance, yet you come in this thread and tell us that we should stop spreading the word about this injustice because nobody cares, despite the fact that we are spreading the word in an effort to get more people to care?

you're trying to stop our efforts to raise awareness about your own views, by telling us that not enough people are aware of our views?

what a dumb idea. are you being completely honest in this thread? i was wondering when your inner lawyer would make an appearance on this forum.

Please show me where I typed the following: "You should stop spreading the word about this injustice." You show me where I typed that and I'll do whatever you want me to do.

I'm surprised my inner lawyer has not made multiple previous appearances in this forum.

[BigBallinStalin]

RE: viewership. If one is of the anti-apple persuasion, it won't matter if he/she is already going to buy a non-apple product. So the observation of "care" from views on whatever article does not reflect the attitudes of the relevant target markets for apple.

If one wishes to assert that since people care about this issue, then it'll hurt apple's profitability, it may be false because the observed data does includes more than apple's specific target markets (i.e. customer bases).

But Apple's market share is falling and has been for a while. This bad PR Apple just bought itself with its ridiculous litigation is just another straw in the camel's back, so to speak.

Nevertheless, the citing of general viewership on the lawsuit would not lead to accurate conclusions about future apple revenues.

"But Apple's market share is falling and has been for a while."

Is it falling? And what proportion of total market share matters?

It's not like having a huge market share is the primary cause of increased profits. (marginal costs could increase exponentially, thus overcoming marginal revenue).
Besides, the market for tablets and whatever has been expanding, so even if apple's proportion is shrinking, its quantity produced and revenues could still be expanding.


Is Apple on the Cusp of a 30% Gain?

http://www.investopedia.com/stock-analysis/StreetAuthority/IsAppleontheCuspofa30Gain.aspx?partner=YahooSA

People betting with money are "saying" something completely different from your doom-and-gloom predictions.


Apple's stocks are having a bumpy time from the uncertainty on the lawsuits. The values of its shares may increase significantly if Apple will be successful in getting an injunction against some of its competitors for producing "Apple's" products.


Here's data on market share:

iOS (Apple Inc.’s iPad) — 40 million units, 66.6 percent share in 2011; projected 73 million units, 61.4 percent share in 2012

Android (Google Inc.) — 17.3 million units, 28.8 percent share in 2011; projected 37.9 million units, 31.9 percent share in 2012

Windows (Microsoft Corp.) — none in 2011; projected 4.9 million units, 4.1 percent share in 2012.

QNX/BlackBerry (Research in Motion Ltd.) — 807,000 units, 1.3 percent share in 2011; projected 2.6 million units, 2.2 percent share in 2012.

Other — 1.9 million units, 3.2 percent share in 2011; projected 510,000 units, 0.4 percent share in 2012.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/ ... story.html

[john9blue]

Please show me where I typed the following: "You should stop spreading the word about this injustice." You show me where I typed that and I'll do whatever you want me to do.

I'm surprised my inner lawyer has not made multiple previous appearances in this forum.

well, you've doubted that natty's crusade against apple will have any luck, you've asserted that nobody cares about apple's patent trolling, you've implied that apple's practices will keep consumers happy in the end because their products are at a "price they can afford" (lol), and you've shown extreme pessimism about the willingness of customers to stop buying apple's products if the need arises.

if that's not dissuasion, then i don't know what is.

[natty dread]

Here's data on market share:

iOS (Apple Inc.’s iPad) — 40 million units, 66.6 percent share in 2011; projected 73 million units, 61.4 percent share in 2012

Android (Google Inc.) — 17.3 million units, 28.8 percent share in 2011; projected 37.9 million units, 31.9 percent share in 2012

Excuse me but that's total bs. Android has the majority, ie. over 50% market share by now and has had it for a while.







Even in the US:



So I really have no idea where your source has pulled those numbers, but I do know it's dark and gets wiped with soft paper regularly.

Is it falling? And what proportion of total market share matters?

It's not like having a huge market share is the primary cause of increased profits. (marginal costs could increase exponentially, thus overcoming marginal revenue).
Besides, the market for tablets and whatever has been expanding, so even if apple's proportion is shrinking, its quantity produced and revenues could still be expanding.

Apple is profitable because its profit margins are huge. Its market share is falling, but it makes good money out of it by charging ridiculous profit margins for its phones. This is something that may work for Apple in the short term, but history shows it will not be sustainable in the long term. When the market share falls so low that apple's platform becomes as irrelevant as windows phone, the developers are all going to jump ship over to android, and it won't take long for users to follow. I predict apple will have the same position in mobile as it has on the desktop side: only the diehard, religiously loyal apple-fanatics are going to stay as their customers.

[BigBallinStalin]

Here's data on market share:

iOS (Apple Inc.’s iPad) — 40 million units, 66.6 percent share in 2011; projected 73 million units, 61.4 percent share in 2012

Android (Google Inc.) — 17.3 million units, 28.8 percent share in 2011; projected 37.9 million units, 31.9 percent share in 2012

Excuse me but that's total bs. Android has the majority, ie. over 50% market share by now and has had it for a while.







Even in the US:



So I really have no idea where your source has pulled those numbers, but I do know it's dark and gets wiped with soft paper regularly.

I can't criticize your evidence because there's no direct link for me to understand how they got those numbers...

(Besides, the numbers from washington post are for 2011... when are yours?)


Here's Gartner Inc. again:

http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=2120015

If you scroll to their two tables, you can view different kinds of market shares by mobile devices, and by OS.

Interestingly, their results by OS differ from the Washington Post article and yours.


Android - 64%
iOS - 19%

(2Q2012)

Gartner Inc.

About them

Gartner, Inc. (NYSE: IT) is the world's leading information technology research and advisory company. We deliver the technology-related insight necessary for our clients to make the right decisions, every day. From CIOs and senior IT leaders in corporations and government agencies, to business leaders in high-tech and telecom enterprises and professional services firms, to technology investors, we are the valuable partner to clients in 12,000 distinct organizations. Through the resources of Gartner Research, Gartner Executive Programs, Gartner Consulting and Gartner Events, we work with every client to research, analyze and interpret the business of IT within the context of their individual role. Founded in 1979, Gartner is headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut, U.S.A., and has 5,200 associates, including 1,280 research analysts and consultants, and clients in 85 countries.

2011 Revenue: $1.469 Billion USD
Stock price (IPO): ~$14 (2007)
Last price: $50 (2012)

I'd take them more seriously than talkandriod.com, gadgetoz.com, and winbeta.org for market analysis.

Is it falling? And what proportion of total market share matters?

It's not like having a huge market share is the primary cause of increased profits. (marginal costs could increase exponentially, thus overcoming marginal revenue).
Besides, the market for tablets and whatever has been expanding, so even if apple's proportion is shrinking, its quantity produced and revenues could still be expanding.

Apple is profitable because its profit margins are huge. Its market share is falling, but it makes good money out of it by charging ridiculous profit margins for its phones. This is something that may work for Apple in the short term, but history shows it will not be sustainable in the long term. When the market share falls so low that apple's platform becomes as irrelevant as windows phone, the developers are all going to jump ship over to android, and it won't take long for users to follow. I predict apple will have the same position in mobile as it has on the desktop side: only the diehard, religiously loyal apple-fanatics are going to stay as their customers.

Who knows what the market may have in store for us, which is why predictions made with actual money add strength to one's assertions.

Like I said, focusing strictly on market share doesn't matter after recognizing that the total share grows. If your market share is decreasing, yet your quantity and revenues are increasing (and profits), then the concern over market share may not matter at all.

Perhaps your bias against Apple is preventing you from recognizing this fact?

Your prediction is just your opinion, are you betting money on it? I'm not, but I'm trying to highlight some problems with your prediction.


Besides, the following is a bold assertion:

This bad PR Apple just bought itself with its ridiculous litigation is just another straw in the camel's back, so to speak.

According to its stock prices, it isn't--so far! Nevertheless, the recent ruling could enable Apple to restrict the sales of its competitors, so the "camel" may become even stronger. And TGD still makes a good point which I'll refashion: if enough people don't care, then Apple's activities in the legal system may not affect its future target markets and their profits.


Go to Yahoo Finance, and search the 5-year stock prices of the following:

Samsung
Nokia
Apple
Motorola
Google
and whoever else who you think is important from that Gartner Table 1.

Google and Apple are roughly equal in terms of prices on shares. There's a lot of money riding on this, but I'm not bold enough to assert that this lawsuit and its ruling was the "straw that broke Apple's back."

[BigBallinStalin]

What is problematic for Apple is poor customer service--in the long-run, i.e. after people realize what Apple does to them (not in lawsuits) but in service, e.g. charging unnecessarily high prices and locking in the market with Contractual Agreements on insurance policies. Perhaps, enough people will view their service as so crappy that the other benefits won't offset the additional costs, or maybe not? It's hard to say. It depends on their target market.

[natty dread]

I can't criticize your evidence because there's no direct link for me to understand how they got those numbers...

The sources are shown on the images themselves. It doesn't matter what sites those particular images are hosted on, you can check the sources themselves to find out how they got their numbers.

Here's Gartner Inc. again:

Android - 64%
iOS - 19%

Sure, I can agree with those.

My main point is, Android's share has been growing and is now over 50%, while Apple's share has been shrinking. All of the different statistics confirm this, even if they disagree on the exact numbers somewhat.

I'd take them more seriously than talkandriod.com, gadgetoz.com, and winbeta.org for market analysis.

Sure, go ahead. I haven't posted any stats made by those sites.

Who knows what the market may have in store for us, which is why predictions made with actual money add strength to one's assertions.

On the other hand, you could say that people who don't "have a horse in the race" are more likely to make unbiased assessments. Idiots can waste away their money by betting on the wrong horse, and convince themselves due to sunk cost fallacy and commitment bias that they made the right decision.

Like I said, focusing strictly on market share doesn't matter after recognizing that the total share grows. If your market share is decreasing, yet your quantity and revenues are increasing (and profits), then the concern over market share may not matter at all.

And like I said, market share does matter in the long run. I also gave you reasons why it matters which you've failed to address. Sure, Apple might survive on a diminishing market share, as a producer of niche applications with a small but loyal customer base, but it's days as a major player on the mobile market are numbered.

I think you're underestimating how important maintaining an ecosystem of applications is for a mobile platform. Without developers, this ecosystem cannot survive. And the developers are not going to want to develop for a platform that almost nobody uses. Apple even demands a payment from each developer for the permission to develop for their platform. Why would developers pay to develop for a dying platform, when they can develop for free for Android, and reach a much larger customer base? It makes no sense from a developer perspective. Neither does developing for Microsoft, which has no chance in hell in succeeding in the mobile market.

Besides, the following is a bold assertion:

This bad PR Apple just bought itself with its ridiculous litigation is just another straw in the camel's back, so to speak.



According to its stock prices, it isn't--so far! Nevertheless, the recent ruling could enable Apple to restrict the sales of its competitors, so the "camel" may become even stronger. And TGD still makes a good point which I'll refashion: if enough people don't care, then Apple's activities in the legal system may not affect its future target markets and their profits.

Stock prices are not really a good indicator of long-term profitability. Everyone thought back in 2009 that Nokia shat pure gold and pissed diamonds. And now look at it, disemboweled by Microsoft's trojan horse Steven Fuckface Elop.

And TGD likes to assert that "no one cares about what apple does" without showing any real evidence for that claim. So far it's yet to be seen how much the bad PR will affect Apple, but I'd wager it's more than "somewhat".

Google and Apple are roughly equal in terms of prices on shares. There's a lot of money riding on this, but I'm not bold enough to assert that this lawsuit and its ruling was the "straw that broke Apple's back."

It might be, it might not - I'm just saying, if I had any Apple stock I'd sell now.

What is problematic for Apple is poor customer service--in the long-run, i.e. after people realize what Apple does to them (not in lawsuits) but in service, e.g. charging unnecessarily high prices and locking in the market with Contractual Agreements on insurance policies.

I agree. Why do you think Android is so much more popular? People love open platforms that allow them the freedom they deserve. Apple tries to dictate how people should use their products, but that never works in the long term. Apple has the whole "innovation" thing arse-backwards. Real innovation is always born out of necessity - an answer or solution to an existing need. Apple tries to force its "vision" on its customers, tries to tell them "this is what you need and we're here to give it to you". But the thing is, people love freedom; if you look at the trend accross the history of mankind, we've always been striving towards more free paradigms.

[PLAYER57832]

The real issue here is that since so much of apple's components, all computer components are made overseas, how much does US patent law really apply or matter....

How much does our "worry" about worker conditions even matter. China knows there is a serious limit to our power... it seems that many in the US have yet to recognize that fact.

[natty dread]

The real issue here is that since so much of apple's components, all computer components are made overseas, how much does US patent law really apply or matter....

How much does our "worry" about worker conditions even matter. China knows there is a serious limit to our power... it seems that many in the US have yet to recognize that fact.

US is only a part of the global market. If Apple succeeds in getting an injuction against Samsung on US, it doesn't kill Samsung - they still have the rest of the world, only one who loses in that game is consumers.

As for worker conditions - that's something that consumers can affect. If consumers refuse to buy products made in sweatshops, that sends a clear message to corporations that people want more ethical products.

[BigBallinStalin]

The real issue here is that since so much of apple's components, all computer components are made overseas, how much does US patent law really apply or matter....

How much does our "worry" about worker conditions even matter. China knows there is a serious limit to our power... it seems that many in the US have yet to recognize that fact.

US is only a part of the global market. If Apple succeeds in getting an injuction against Samsung on US, it doesn't kill Samsung - they still have the rest of the world, only one who loses in that game is consumers.

As for worker conditions - that's something that consumers can affect. If consumers refuse to buy products made in sweatshops, that sends a clear message to corporations that people want more ethical products.

Is it ethical to not support sweatshops, if these workers face the choice between a job that pays two to three times as much in a sweatshop compared to working all day in the fields?

[thegreekdog]

Please show me where I typed the following: "You should stop spreading the word about this injustice." You show me where I typed that and I'll do whatever you want me to do.

I'm surprised my inner lawyer has not made multiple previous appearances in this forum.

well, you've doubted that natty's crusade against apple will have any luck, you've asserted that nobody cares about apple's patent trolling, you've implied that apple's practices will keep consumers happy in the end because their products are at a "price they can afford" (lol), and you've shown extreme pessimism about the willingness of customers to stop buying apple's products if the need arises.

if that's not dissuasion, then i don't know what is.

I think you've confused my criticism of this debate not being successful. I'm not suggesting it shouldn't be made.

[natty dread]

The real issue here is that since so much of apple's components, all computer components are made overseas, how much does US patent law really apply or matter....

How much does our "worry" about worker conditions even matter. China knows there is a serious limit to our power... it seems that many in the US have yet to recognize that fact.

US is only a part of the global market. If Apple succeeds in getting an injuction against Samsung on US, it doesn't kill Samsung - they still have the rest of the world, only one who loses in that game is consumers.

As for worker conditions - that's something that consumers can affect. If consumers refuse to buy products made in sweatshops, that sends a clear message to corporations that people want more ethical products.

Is it ethical to not support sweatshops, if these workers face the choice between a job that pays two to three times as much in a sweatshop compared to working all day in the fields?

Why are those the only two options?

I debated about this with Dim way back when he was still unbanned. If the Chinese would be happy to work in those factories, then your argument might have some merit. However when Chinese Apple/Foxconn workers start suiciding because of poor working conditions, then obviously they are not being treated well.

So, I would present the counter-argument: is it right to take advantage of people's poverty and force them to work in inhumane conditions, just because those people have no better alternative?

[BigBallinStalin]

The real issue here is that since so much of apple's components, all computer components are made overseas, how much does US patent law really apply or matter....

How much does our "worry" about worker conditions even matter. China knows there is a serious limit to our power... it seems that many in the US have yet to recognize that fact.

US is only a part of the global market. If Apple succeeds in getting an injuction against Samsung on US, it doesn't kill Samsung - they still have the rest of the world, only one who loses in that game is consumers.

As for worker conditions - that's something that consumers can affect. If consumers refuse to buy products made in sweatshops, that sends a clear message to corporations that people want more ethical products.

Is it ethical to not support sweatshops, if these workers face the choice between a job that pays two to three times as much in a sweatshop compared to working all day in the fields?

Why are those the only two options?

I debated about this with Dim way back when he was still unbanned. If the Chinese would be happy to work in those factories, then your argument might have some merit. However when Chinese Apple/Foxconn workers start suiciding because of poor working conditions, then obviously they are not being treated well.

Another strawman argument. You've been hitting them pretty hard, my friend. I'm talking about relative wages, and the unintended consequences of not supporting sweatshops (i.e. decreased demand for sweatshops leads to decreasing demand for labor, which means that laborers will have to go back to the farms. Maybe they'd go to the services sector, but it's not significant in size for developing countries).


Answer: Because manufacturing or agriculture are predominantly the only two choices for manual laborers. Glance at the CIA Factbook or World Bank stats, and you'll see. The service industry is a third alternative, but the service sector in many developing countries pays somewhere in between the two for nearly all manual laborers. Usually, the reasons why people move to cities is the expectation that wages earned are higher in the city (in manu. and services) than in agriculture. So even if I argue in favor of manufacturing, my argument can be used to support the third alternative of services.


However when Chinese Apple/Foxconn workers start suiciding because of poor working conditions, then obviously they are not being treated well.
That was a highly publicized media piece which garnered them high profits. The media is not an accurate view of the China nor of the world; however, the media is extremely convenient and effective in reinforcing one's confirmation bias.

Besides, in order to avoid confirmation bias, you'd have to include the poor working conditions of working on the family/non-family farms.
Then, you'd have to avoid sample bias by not citing just one example of one factory in all of China.

So, I would present the counter-argument: is it right to take advantage of people's poverty and force them to work in inhumane conditions, just because those people have no better alternative?

So, the question remains:

Is it ethical to not support sweatshops, if these workers face the choice between a job that pays two to three times as much in a sweatshop compared to working all day in the fields?

[BigBallinStalin]

So, I would present the counter-argument: is it right to take advantage of people's poverty and force them to work in inhumane conditions, just because those people have no better alternative?

Oooh, such loaded words, natty!

(1) Is it right to neglect people the opportunity to work in the better-paying manufacturing sector in order to appease your worldview?
Because if you say yes, then you're supporting poverty. Unintended consequences can be harsh, but these tradeoffs are the nature of reality. Hopefully, I can get you to realize the tradeoffs.


(2) How does paying for a Chinese product force people to work in inhumane conditions?
I'm not holding a gun to their heads. Maybe you're applying a liberal (pun) meaning of the word "force," which includes voluntary exchanges?

(3) Besides, you're ignoring that your the choice of denying them the opportunity to work in the manufacturing sector "forces" them to work in the "inhumane conditions" of subsistence agriculture, or meagerly sufficient agriculture. Your position cuts both ways if you neglect to include a meaningful comparison.

[natty dread]

Another strawman argument. You've been hitting them pretty hard, my friend. I'm talking about relative wages, and the unintended consequences of not supporting sweatshops (i.e. decreased demand for sweatshops leads to decreasing demand for labor, which means that laborers will have to go back to the farms. Maybe they'd go to the services sector, but it's not significant in size for developing countries).

Ooh, talk more economy to me. You're making me all hot and sweating.

No but seriously, are you saying that consumers should keep buying products of corporations that treat workers unethically, just so those workers would have some work to do? I think that's a bit fallacious.

[BigBallinStalin]

Another strawman argument. You've been hitting them pretty hard, my friend. I'm talking about relative wages, and the unintended consequences of not supporting sweatshops (i.e. decreased demand for sweatshops leads to decreasing demand for labor, which means that laborers will have to go back to the farms. Maybe they'd go to the services sector, but it's not significant in size for developing countries).

Ooh, talk more economy to me. You're making me all hot and sweating.

No but seriously, are you saying that consumers should keep buying products of corporations that treat workers unethically, just so those workers would have some work to do? I think that's a bit fallacious.

If that's the only thing you can attack, then I'll consider my other positions against yours to render your overall position pointless.

Anyway, to answer your question (even though you continue to fail to answer mine), I'm trying to get you to understand the nature of tradeoffs and why unintended consequences matter. Maybe that would lead to a change in your value judgments, or at least make you more hesitant in supporting positions which actually create more poverty--instead of relieving it.

I've already framed my questions as such (see my previous two posts), but you refuse to answer them, which indicates to me that your position is at best flimsy for now.

You probably refuse to answer them because you're (1) unwilling to be fairly criticized on the fundamental problems of your worldview, and (2) at least you're not willing to address the tradeoffs between buying products that create manufacturing jobs or neglecting to buy such products, thus decreasing demand for such jobs--which in turn leads to more laborers joining agriculture, working under poor conditions at a relatively lower wage.


In general, I support "sweatshops"---GIVEN a useful benchmark of comparison, which your position completely lacks. Failure to support "sweatshops" outright (i.e. ALWAYS AGAINST THEM< RAWR!!!) would lead to "forcing" people to work in subsistence/meagerly sufficient agriculture, which is arguably worse. What humanists! You can criticize sweatshops, but you need better reasons (which I'm currently withholding) and a useful benchmark of comparison. Until then, your position is wrong--assuming that you want to decrease poverty given the constraints of reality.