Saturday, March 31, 2012

When forced, are "better" labor conditions really better?

Under pressure, Apple's Chinese manufacturer, Foxconn, has vowed to make vast improvements to its labor conditions... Substantially fewer hours and better pay, in a nutshell...

So what do you think?

*Will, in the long run, such moves (resulting from political, as opposed to market, forces) help or hurt the lifestyle of the average Chinese citizen? Will there be greater or fewer employment opportunities going forward (after an initial hiring surge to cover the now fewer per-employee work hours)?

*Will higher prices for consumer electronics inspire faster or slower global employment growth?

*Is Foxconn ultimately making life better for the citizen of some other emerging nation, as production migrates to lower-cost labor markets?

*Historically speaking, who's been society's true benefactor - the businessman or the bureaucrat?

Per Henry Hazlitt: "The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups."

Per Walter Williams:

No comments:

Post a Comment