But it's obvious, isn't it? The workers choose to work there, for that income and under those conditions. This means that all alternative options available to them are worse (like working for even lower income and in worse conditions, or even not working at all). So, clearly, Apple has improved their conditions. Plus, Apple is doing it at profit -- which means that that improvement is sustainable. Isn't it marvelous? I mean, I don't like Apple products, but I have to give it to them: they change lives of thousands of workers for the better.

But I believe I can. These kids often choose between living in hopeless poverty and earning a reasonable living. It's pretty plain and simple. You don't have to be 21 to make a rational decision in a situation like this.

I was thinking more along the lines of 13-year olds, as Daisey encountered in his travels. There's a reason why developed nations don't let children enter into contracts.

Yeah, the reason is they can afford it. Because developed nations have a safety net that puts food on the table while those kids are at school instead of work.

The whole equation is different for developing countries.

Did you read the article. The workers are not extremely low income workers. They are better off than average for where they live. That is a perfectly valid point in the same way that I would not accept the pay I get in Florida for the same exact job were I living in D.C. or New york City.

And most factory workers are paid less in the US than in Europe, and outcry over that isn't very loud.

But it's a bit of a false dichotomy if someone's demanding (or rebutting) an increase of the wage to that of your own nation. If you're expecting that magically Apple would make it so that everyone at Foxconn producing ipads and iphones would get a salary of an average US worker, then you're clearly out of your mind. But then, pundits assuming that this is the only option also are quite a bit on the hyperbolic side with their argument.

The reason why Apple is getting some backlash on that – apart from basic envy – is that they're considered a premium brand. You know that you pay more just for the design – maybe even eco-friendliness. So couldn't a bit of that premium margin also be redirected towards Chinese workers? (Or maybe even a slight increase in prices to make that possible) Some kind of "fair trade" deal.

Never mind that Apple might actually be doing that, as I really don't know whether "their" workers earn more than (or are actually different from) workers assembling Dell laptops and Nokia phones.

If not, I wonder whether this could work out. If at all, it's company like Apple that could pull it off. Considering that you're already paying a pretty good price, a few dollars more going towards that end is simply a lower percentage than with bargain products.

It's a valid concern. However, unless one is willing to pretty much give up on large classes of products, boycotting Apple just shifts your money to some other companies whose products are built in similar or worse conditions--which is counterproductive since Apple is doing much more than most of those other companies to get the conditions improved in those factories.

that's a dumb argument. apple makes a lot of money and it will happily fork an insignificant portion of it to it's workers, raising the price for every other company to produce in china as well.

remember, everything is connected. one worker will hear about the pay in one factory, and go back to work in the country close to his family instead of being paid way less in another.

Except they're not Apple's workers, those are located in CA. They're Foxconn workers.

Whooosh

Apple pays fair market value for the labor (that would be China's market), ships the result across the ocean/vast distances, and then sells it at fair market value elsewhere.

Also, as per the article, 'low income' is relative. Low to you, higher than average in China.

Which is a better customer for the worker, an Apple making 70% profit or a Apple making only 4% profit?

An Apple only making 4% profit is going to negotiate hard to lower the production costs or look for lower-cost suppliers. An Apple making 70% profit is not going to put up as much fight when Foxconn raises their prices a little bit so they can pay the workers more.

So really it's the Dell or Microsoft making 4% profit (completely made up number) that is far worse for the workers. If we cared about the workers as opposed to some PR / ego thing then we'd go out of our way to buy Apple products and boycott Dell/MS/etc.