It's the same when companies hire contracting agencies to run their warehouse operations. It's not Amazon's policies, it's the staffing/contracting/warehousing agency, who run operations according to Amazon's rules and just get it done, however they will. "Now be sure you don't abuse your workers while keeping to schedule and standards, wink wink."
Or when ag companies buy tomatoes, for example, from Mexico, where the tomatoes are grown in healthier conditions than the workers live. Occasionally the abuse of these ag workers will surface, and companies like Walmart will point to yet other third party companies that they outsource compliance and certification to. "Our compliance partner has made a complaint to our ag partners, and it's all good."
Use my own case as example. My family suffered financial hardship due to some misfortune when I was 15. I really wanted to work to help my mother. There were rarely part-time jobs in my hometown in China, then. I could quit my study and try to find a full-time job, which I gave serious thoughts. I knew several people who joined workforce around that age, either due to family financial situation like mine, or they thought they had no future in school (it was already very competitive then) and it was better to work early and accumulate working experience. In this sense, they were "child" labors. But they chose to. They were not mistreated because they were under aged. In my view, they made rational decisions to join the workforce.
One of them, a classmate's brother, returned to school after working for 3 years, when their family financial turned around.
Fortunately, our family decided to open a small business. I tried to get as much time as I could to work there to help, while study hard so that I could go to the best colleges. For two years, I didn't have much time to hang out with friends. So I was a part-time "child" labor. But it was my decision. Nobody forced me. I don't regret it a bit.
Let's face the reality. There are many kids who are just not interested in school and are not good at it. There are two options. They can either hang around and be cool, which is a good situation, considering kids of that age tend to get into troubles if their minds are not occupied. Or they can get a job, learn something from the job, develop good work ethics, etc. What do you think is the better option?
Saying "your kids have to go to school and not work" and then paying the adults 3 dollars an hour. The family winds up making more money without the kids having to work. (in this admittedly limited example, the family makes double)
If you take the kids out of the equation without increasing the parental pay, then yes, you'll have a harder time with things, as the family just lost 66% of their income, which will mean cutting back.
So you are correct that it is complicated and "stop kids from working" isn't the FULL answer. But it doesn't mean that there aren't solutions - plenty of countries have child labor laws without falling apart.
It's not impossible, for Apple with $XX Billion in profit hiding in tax shelters, to pay better than subsistence wages to their subcontracted workers (or invest in community resources for the cities where their factories are, or similar).
Interestingly, the large oil players (Shell, BP, etc.) do actually mandate some things - i.e. they are not really supposed to buy oil from countries that don't have functioning elections, some environmental protections, human rights, etc. etc. I believe this is a requirement of the World Bank, and the UN.
This is why you see shill elections in a lot of West African countries - they need it to look like they are functioning democracy, even though a country has had the same "elected" president for 22 years :)
Also, this is why Africa loves dealing with China, who doesn't get involved in their internal politics.
The fact of the matter is that it's not good for business - neither for the people in government, nor for Apple, to be force Apple to make their products where there is some guarantee that the workers are being treated fairly. It's worse for Apple, of course, but politicians don't want to lose their lobbying money or their power.
Lots of people will be saying "it's horrible what they're doing" without realising the cause - the unustainable model of global capitalism that is forever requiring higher and higher returns. Such growth for this kind of labour is much harder to accomplish where it costs more, such as in the US.
It is almost 20 years old and notes that industrialization and modernization is a process. It doesn't really work for a country to get rich without climbing it [edit: except free money, like with oil], including simple jobs in the beginning -- and now China is doing it.
In my book, it is good for humanity with a billion less horribly poor people. It doesn't feel bad to be on the other side of that, because of ideology?
Where do you get this from? Pretty much everyone from Europe is very grateful for the various safety nets the countries have built up there, especially in West-Europe.
Because of our trade rules. Modern trade agreements are pretty much about mandating labor/environmental regulations and respect of IP (mainly pharma/movies/music) in exchange for easier access to the the US market.
When now other nations are going through an industrialization phase that's actually far more respectful of worker rights than the West's industrialization was, why complain?
"did any other market complain about worker safety or abuse or pollution and refuse to buy products?"
Now that we've progressed through industrialisation to a point where life expectancy has dramatically improved, along with living conditions and all the rest, it's given us a point of comparison.
Countries that are going through an industrialisation phase aren't being criticised in comparison to a pre-industrialisation state, they're being criticised in comparison to what other post-industrialised countries have achieved. Sure, it's an unfair comparison, but the first time around, that comparison didn't exist.
What gives you the illusion that other nations are more respectful of worker rights than the US/EU was in the past?
China's cities are poisoned with smog today, for just one example.
There is nothing that says we have to allow for free trade. It certainly hasn't been a net-benefit to the United States itself.
"Would I be allowed to sell that product in the US? Probably not."
Whether anyone would buy it is a different question: I wouldn't be surprised if a product built in such a way were boycotted.
I would also expect to see court cases and fines (probably in excess of all profits for the product), for the labour conditions.
So sure, you could probably sell it. You probably wouldn't profit from it though.
Let's say I were building product in the US with child labor
in unsafe conditions not adhering to US laws and regulations.
Would I be allowed to sell that product in the US? Probably not.
You read in the news a lot about how INS will raid a farm or meat processing factory to arrest illegal workers. Those conditions are often really unsafe and there are also teens working there too.
And yet those farms are still able to sell their produce.
That figure is astounding, that every other smartphone manufacturer shares only 10% of worldwide profit.
Samsung came in at #2 with 0.9% of profits (they usually do a little better, but the Note 7 thing happened).
It's mainly because they actually suffered losses, which is why Apple's share can be more than 100%.
So, Apple's high profits depend on a whole lot of government subsidies in China. And then Apple takes that cash and protects it from US tax rates by storing it in Ireland. And now, some interesting questions are raised about the legality of that tax scheme.
Maybe the US doesn't need more businesses like Apple.
They don't depend on them. Apple would still profit nicely (albeit less) without these subsidies.
But then again the same thing could be say of various players on various industries. Detroit was, too, a city built thanks to a lot of subsidies and tax breaks; oil companies extract tremendous profits thanks to subsidies, tax breaks and all kinds of government help... so on and so forth.
Aside from that, I don't think there's a question to be raised about the legality of Apple tax scheme. There's a question to be raised about it's fairness, sure, but not the legality. Apple is using the same loopholes any other corporation can exploit (and they all do, to the extent they can or know how to).
What we need is updated international and national tax codes that start taking these things into account. Most of the current legislation was designed for a time much simpler and with less access to global markets and manufacturing chains.
it's a fair point.
sometimes i think: who cares if Apple or Google or Exxon are headquartered in Cupertino or Mountain View or Dallas or New Delhi or Bahrain or Shenzhen? what difference does it make? who gives a shit? they don't want to pay taxes and neither do i.
http://www.macworld.co.uk/feature/apple/does-apple-pay-tax-h...
in today's landscape, i don't know how to tell if Apple's location actually matters to me. what if Apple were headquartered in Finland, Japan or China? they don't pay my taxes. they don't employ me. they bring a lot of people from outside the US to do their work. they also outsource a ton of work to other countries.
why would I really care about Apple's location or country of incorporation? i bet people in Ireland care a lot more than i do.
This article doesn't include the word "unemployment" which is the reason for this focus. Though the official unemployment rate is 4%, the real rate is believed to be at least 12, not counting the non-existent migrants who aren't legally permitted to travel due to the hokou system.
(I am always astonished when I hear that China is supposedly "beating" the US: by what possible metric could this be true?)
[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-moving-from-foxconn-to-...