My point is that, last I heard, Apple is sitting on $70 billion. Meanwhile, Steve Jobs was telling Obama that the US could never produce the iPhone. Why? Because he seemed to think that near-slave conditions (e.g. rousting 8,000 workers from corporate housing for immediate 12-hour shifts) were necessary simply to create the products he sold.
Also, keep in mind that nobody working at Foxconn can afford to purchase the iPads they build. It appears that this will remain the case, no matter how long they work there.
> Also, keep in mind that nobody working at Foxconn can afford to purchase the iPads they build. It appears that this will remain the case, no matter how long they work there.
The same is true for the average American worker at a BMW factory.
Then what is that example trying to prove? There is no way I could afford to pay for the software my company produces.. Should everyone work in a place where they can afford what they build?
Why do you think that US auto workers, making a living wage producing luxury automobiles, have anything to do with near-slave labor?
If Apple has stowed away $70 billion, don't you think they could afford to pay higher wages, benefits for those mangled by RSI (back to back 12 shifts, not counting unpaid overtime) or machinery, and generally not treat people like dirt? I think they can afford to.
Also, keep in mind that nobody working at Foxconn can afford to purchase the iPads they build. It appears that this will remain the case, no matter how long they work there.