Journalism, Stupidity and the iPhone

Perhaps you've heard, Verizon is joining the iPhone craze. It seems as if AT&T got a pretty big headstart. But with the mi-fi feature that Verizon is offering... well, we'll see.

The announcement did remind me of an articile I read in infoworld a few months ago titled, Suicide, Stupidity and the iPhone.

The eye catching summation is, “Factory workers who can't stand to crank out even one more iPhone are killing themselves, while cell phone users careen about the highways”.

In the article, Bill Snyder tells of a city-like factory complex in Shenzhen, China housing 250,000 employees. The factory makes iPhones, iPads and other consumer electronics, apparently of the computer variety. However, the real news is the bleak conditions. Bleak conditions driven by the American consumer’s desire to get cool devices “cheap”.

This story says that the factory made $2.3B last year but only paid employees about $300 per month. I’m not sure how those two numbers relate to each other but this would indicate that payroll for the factory approached $1B. Ok. So what’s the point? That the factory should pay its workers more? I realize that Wikipedia isn’t particularly authoritative but I searched them anyway. I found out that per capita income for the People’s Republic of China is approximately $3600 per year. So, assuming that there are some rather wealthy Chinese, whose income is quite a bit greater than $3600/year, that would indicate that these employees earn an income greater than the Chinese mean. Is that a “bleak” condition?

Further, this story says that conditions are so bad at this complex that, horror of horrors, 10 people have committed suicide so far this year. I decided to take upon myself the role that Snyder labels, “apologist” and did a little more research. ChinaToday.com says that in 2008, there were 260,000 suicides in China. In 2008, the World Bank reported Chinese population at ~1.3 billion. That puts the suicide rate in China at .02%. The suicide rate at the factory appears to be approximately .008% (assuming 10  suicides for the first half of the year and 10 for the second half). So, we have a suicide rate that is less than half of the overall rate in China. Statistically, that’s a larger gap than the “slightly lower than that of the country as a whole” that Snyder suggests. I suppose that’s because the conditions at this complex are so horrible.

Additionally, Snyder says that all of these suicides occur at work rather than at home, so “there's obviously a link between the work environment and the deaths”. However, in his description of the “city-like factory complex”, he says that employees live in “dorms on the complex grounds”. Do suicides in the dorms count as “at home” or “at work”. He doesn’t say. But, it may be that the link between the work environment and the suicides isn’t quite as obvious as he indicates.

I'm not sure if this is just lousy reporting or just another anti-business, anti-free market, anti-consumer screed. Either way, I think I'm beginning to understand the “Stupidity” portion of Mr. Snyder's article.

This is Progress?

Apollo program…

So, on May 25, 1961, JFK does his little “put a man on the moon” speech. (Granted, the program was already started before this speech. In fact, it got started during Eisenhower’s administration. But, it really got moving after this speech.) On July 20, 1969, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin land on the moon. The entire Apollo program cost $170B (in 2005 dollars). That goes even past 1969 all the way to 1975 and included 6 moon landings. So, in 8-10 years, after deciding to start the program, we put a man on the moon. In the 1960’s.

Constellation Program…

On Jan. 14, 2004, Bush gives his “go back to the moon” speech. NASA estimated that the cost would be $230B (in 2004 dollars) through 2025. I think it’s safe to assume that the program would have exceeded that number by at least 50% (over 12 years of operation, the Space Shuttle program went over by 55%). So, that would put it at about $345B (2004 dollars). When Constellation was cancelled, they were thinking that they wouldn’t be able to put a man back on the moon before 2028.

Comparison…

So, in the 1960’s we put a man on the moon…

·         In 8 years

·         With technology 50 years older than today

·         For $170B

Fifty years later, we can’t put a man back on the moon… (something we’ve done before)

·         In three times the time (24 years)

·         With technology that’s many orders of magnitude better than in the 1960’s

·         For twice the cost ($340B)

This isn't progress. This is decline.

Chicago Politics

With Rahm Emmanuel running for Mayor, William Daley becoming President Obama's Chief of Staff, David Axelrod's imminent departure, and other recent events, it seems that Chicago politics is back in the news.

I was reminded of an article I read in the LA Times almost a year ago about how "tough" Chicago politics are...

President Obama Day 386: What happened to him?

While I agree with the overall observation of this article (basically that the Chicago mob is out of its league in Washington), I find it lacking.

I do not agree with Mr. Malcom’s use of the word “tough” and his descriptions about how “tough” Chicago politics are. Is it physical toughness he’s talking about? In spite of the example of the guy who gave up jogging to lose weight because he didn’t get to “knock anyone down”, I don’t think so. I think their definition of “tough” is that they don’t have any rules. You know, little rules like telling the truth.

Chicago politics is “tough” because the brand of Chicago politician with which we are most familiar, will say anything about anyone without any regard for accuracy or truthfulness. Granted, a not unusual behavior in politics in general but, in Chicago, perhaps it's a bit more extreme. Chicago politics is “tough” because politicians there are willing to destroy other people’s lives in order to get their own way. And, it’s not just political opponents. It can be people who just happen to be in the way. You can almost hear the whiny and petulant, “I want, I want, I want…me, me, me”.

Many seem to be fearful of retribution from this administration. Why is that? Because Rahm Emmanuel might scream obscenities at them. Yeah, there’s probably some truth to that. But more likely, it’s because he’ll try to destroy your life because you accidentally bumped into him in the elevator. These people are those bratty little kids you saw years ago in the supermarket, lying in the aisle, kicking and screaming while parents softly cooed, “Now, now. Let’s not act that way little Rahmmy”. They were never taught to control themselves and eventually developed a steroidal sense of entitlement.

That’s not tough. That's pathetic.

Man Up, America?

I read this article in Vanity Fair in November. I sat down and wrote this response. As I just started blogging, I decided to make it my first post.

Man Up, America! - Graydon Carter

Mr. Carter claims, “The general anti-Obama rage out there is palpable. But it’s no more virulent than the anti-Bush sentiment that has pervaded the country for much of the past decade—although this being America, there’s an attendant hatred for Obama that has more to do with race than anything else.”

Actually, I don’t believe that Mr. Carter really thinks that “hatred” for Obama is based on race. I think that he wishes that it was based on race.

I’ve been told since childhood that people often “see what they want to see”. I believe this to be true. I know I’ve practiced the behavior. Further, this practice is very common. One doesn’t have to look far to find parents who are unable to comprehend that their child could do something malicious, or wrong. Or, parents who believe that their child is above average when it is clear that he is not. There are wives who believe that they “deserve” it. Yes, seeing what we want to see is very common. And, the temptation is often strong. Seeing things the way they really is sometimes almost unbearable.

So, when someone sees something that obviously doesn’t exist, I begin to wonder why they want to see it.

Mr. Carter sees many things. He sees hatred and that this hatred is based on race. While I’m sure that there is some hatred “out there”, it seems to me that most of what I’ve observed is righteous indignation. I would expect someone of Mr. Carter’s obvious enlightenment to be able to discern the difference between righteous anger and hatred.

So, why does Mr. Carter want to see hatred instead of righteous indignation? And, why does he want that imaginary hatred to be based on race?

Mr. Carter wants objections to Obama to be hatred and for that hatred to be based on race because Mr. Carter wants those objections to be illegitimate. From there, all of the pieces fall into place. I do not know Mr. Carter but I see that he is the editor of Vanity Fair. I think I’m probably on pretty solid footing when I say he is likely a big fan of the president and enthusiastic about the president’s policies. Were objections to those policies legitimate, and Mr. Carter honest with himself (admittedly a stretch), he would have to do some soul searching. He might even have to admit that he’s been wrong.

No, Mr. Carter has way too much invested in his own arrogance and liberal philosophy than to give it up that easily. Better to smear one’s political opponents with claims of hatred and racism than to have to examine one’s own self.

Mr. Carter says, “Man Up, America!”. I say, "Physician, heal thyself."