Cheap and not exploiting people and environment unfortunately don’t go hand to hand. You have to choose your priority.
They actually do go hand in hand. Just not under the american economic system. China has cheap evs higher average wages when factoring in ppp, and a better environmental track record and future than the US.
Oh yes, the famously non exploitative economy of China. The country where some companies are installing fences on the roofs so that their working forces can’t suicide so easily. The country were political prisoners are being used as cheap working force. That one? Doesn’t sound so much better or even different from the American economic system.
The country where some companies are installing fences on the roofs so that their working forces can’t suicide so easily.
The specific company you’re likely thinking of is famously American company Apple.
Or rather a legally distinct subcontractor that does nothing but produce products for Apple and is thus de facto a part of Apple regardless of legal ass-covering.
The country were political prisoners are being used as cheap working force
As opposed to the US where more or less ALL prisoners, some of which are political prisoners, are slaves?
In case there’s any doubt, none of what I just pointed out exhonorates Chinese mistreatment of workers in any way.
Equally horrible or even less horrible doesn’t ever equal good enough.
Did you step out of a time machine from the early 2000s? Also that second part just isn’t a thing in China. Id recommend actually reading up on modern China, what they did to the foxxcon ceos that did cause suicide inducing working conditions, and why China will surpass the US in every positive measure by the end of the decade
They actually do go hand in hand.
they actually do not. whatever your business is, you can do it with or without passing negative externalities on your employees and environment you operate in.
in one case your product will be cheaper, but with bad consequences, and you have to choose one of these paths.
Easy to do when you skip 200 years of industrialization. I get what you’re saying, and you’re not wrong, but they just happened to be in a more advantageous position to start with in this instance.
