SuperTommy.me - Latest Comments

Re: Tenets of Weight Training

AnthonM89 — Sat, 12 May 2012 20:50:25 -0000

I agree with you on some things, but no matter what everyone should be doing some sort of "cardio" related activity, if you want to lift weights you have to be active, also I think using proven pre workout supplements such as creatine can really help out http://www.aminothree.com/what...

Re: Is Foxconn Evil?

iamsupertommy — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 10:33:14 -0000

About Henry Ford: that was a great businessman. He paid his workers well and beyond the average factory wage. So does Foxconn. I think you are ignoring context. Ford famously paid his workers $5 a day which was incredible high at that time and place. Just as Foxconn's wages are high for China's time and place. When Ford was paying $5 a day wages, China was poor and warring. It was crazy and chaotic. America was coming out of one of the greatest economic prosperities of our time. To just ignore parts of history and cite others gives an unclear picture.

I truly believe we can have manufacturing jobs in America. We can't have it while our taxes are sky high--and let's not forget that when Ford was doing this there as no income tax in America--and our money is being inflated to never never land. Cheap money is a cause of lowered standards of living and our Federal Reserve is amongst the worst in modern day money printing. Our government debt is absolutely ridiculous today. In 1914, we had no such burdens. This is an entirely different time and place and that's why jobs have left. The government has become an impediment to America's prosperity.

I buy American--and specifically local to where I am in NY--whenever I can because I believe in a local economy. I don't know where you get the idea that I'm into what you call "neoliberal globalization". I believe in free trade because trading helps everyone. I am not more interested in artificially inflating the bank accounts of the 1%. I have no problem if you make your money offering a good or service that people like. If you start taking it from the the people through the government because you're too big to fail or politically connected, that's a problem.

I did present facts. My post shows the numeric reality in present day China. Those are the wages. That is their population. Their history is one of chaos, war, and dictators. This is their century to join the rest of the developed world. They are doing it. I am not dilly dallying in what should be's, what if's, and feel-good statements, I'm looking at it from what is. And that's what I see. They will not be poor in 50 years. This argument will be little but a blip in 50 years. Maybe countries in Africa will be the subject of the same discussion but, this is how it has been for hundreds of years from Europe to America. And in end, we've all become richer for it. Foxconn's factories look like a resort compared to those of Ford's.

it is sad for the families to lose their loved ones. I'm not saying it isn't. But, accidents happen all the time and this is not like sending children to run across a field to determine whether there are mines there or not. Foxconn tries to keep it's facilities safe but accidents will happen. That's all I'm saying.

I had to respond to some of this. Had you just left it as a comment of insulting words then I would have just left it as is. :) Some things just aren't worth the time.

I do not value profits over people; that's a generalization. I do business with companies that I feel treat their customers well and their employees. I just believe Foxconn IS treating their employees well. I know that's the fundamental difference here. I have formal training in marketing but I'm also an avid reader of economics, politics, history, and business-related topics. And even though you wouldn't be able to tell by this blog, I am a software developer by profession. And yes, I do work on iOS applications along with almost all the popular modern platforms.

And in the last three years, Apple has created an ecosystem for developers like I've never seen. They literally created an industry out of nowhere. One that now supports thousands of small and large companies that provide jobs for people here and abroad. It's created a technology boom that doesn't appear to be a bubble. It's garnered more interest in VC investment in tech startups in NY and San Francisco than ever before. Granted, this isn't all Apple but, they played, and are playing, a huge role.

When I wrote this Foxconn article in 2011, I wasn't out to prove how great Foxconn was. All I heard was people repeating the same cliche about slave wages and their half-guilty chuckles for owning Foxconn made products. Not a single article I was pointed to included context so I wanted to find out for myself with the data available what the situation really was. And what I found is what I wrote here.

I also thank you for this civil discussion considering the general approach is to use some swear words and call it day.

Re: Is Foxconn Evil?

Reagan — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:31:10 -0000

*I know you're into marketing, so you're taught*

Re: Is Foxconn Evil?

Reagan — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:26:02 -0000

"I am not prepared to decide that a Foxconn worker is more important than the minimum wage worker with little skills at my local grocery store." That is such a terrible argument. If you were paying the extra $100 for an i-phone it would be made in America and the 45 year old stocking shelves at the grociery store would have a manufacturing job he could probably support a family on. All the unemployed teenagers could have grociery store jobs again. That extra money from the American manufacturer would be in the local economy already. Henry Ford understood this which is why he paid his workers well, so they could buy his cars, enrich the company, and build an economy. China could then begin to work on their own problems. Instead, we have neoliberal globalization which you think is a great idea because it allows the wealth of the top one tenth of one percent to skyrocket by expoiting cheap labor, and you are completely indoctrinated abandon normal human sympathy and serve this system.
"I presented hard facts and maybe that is heartless." You didn't present many facts at all. You mainly just refuted mine with an unreasonable rhubric of truth, shoddy argumentation, and then coldly dismissed the plight of these workers (suck it up, go make your life better) - which is heartless.
"this isn't a situation where Foxconn is literally losing large percentages of it's workforce to these accidents." Tell that to the families of the "small percent" that have died that this is "nothing to blow out of porportion."
And with that, it's closing time for me on this thread, so I'll give you the last word if you like or we can leave it here. I know your into marketing, so your taught to value profits over people, but I sincerely hope you consider business ethics and contemplate with compassion the issues that really hurt people. Even though we have fundamental disagreements about this issue, thank you for a civil discussion.
-Reagan

Re: Is Foxconn Evil?

iamsupertommy — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 16:48:23 -0000

I did read this article. I thought it was fairly good. There was some clear slant and I don't disagree that Foxconn should improve working conditions if people are dying but, let's not blow this our of proportion as accidents happen and this isn't a situation where Foxconn is literally losing large percentages of it's workforce to these accidents.

It does Foxconn no good to kill it's employees as training new employees is not free.

The Times article noted statements from Foxconn as well which i liked even though I don't think anyone took Foxconn's statements as anything outside of an evil corporation lying. They might be or they might not. I have no reason to believe that they are any more truthful that the 1600 Foxconn employees who were interviewed.

I also read about the suicide protest from workers working on XBOX 360's at Foxconn as well and that was resolved. Why these workers threatened suicide is a mystery to me and I haven't gone to investigate it so I won't make any assumptions.

But, to paint Foxconn as some blood-soaked evil corporation is entirely unfair. At the end of the day, there is no reason any of Foxconn's workers need to work there. If you can explain to me why these people won't go work for that amazing non-existent fairy tale factory then I'd love to hear it.

Also, a great deal of the anti-Foxconn information comes from anecdotal accounts by former employees. It is not surprising the disgruntled ex-employees have nothing nice to say. It is also not surprising that interviewing 1600 Foxconn employees and discovering that they would all rather work fewer hours for more pay--who wouldn't? This is what I'm talking about when I say these studies are flawed.

I presented hard facts and maybe that is heartless. Fine. But, I also know that even if we all spent $50 or $100 extra dollars for iPads, iPhones, Macbook's, XBOX's, or whatever Foxconn is producing in order to improve the factories or increase pay, that $50 or $100 isn't a magic trick. That's money you spent on an iPad instead of at your local grocery store or at Target or somewhere else.

It might not matter if you and i individually decide to do that but, when 15.4 million people--that's how many iPad's Apple moved in Q4 of 2011--that's a lot of money and those are other people's jobs that you don't see. I am not prepared to decide that a Foxconn worker is more important than the minimum wage worker with little skills at my local grocery store.

Re: Is Foxconn Evil?

Reagan — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 06:51:31 -0000

Hey Tommy,
Did you see the cover of the New York Times today?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01...
I think it's time you rethink your position on the matter (and your worldview).

Re: Is Foxconn Evil?

Reagan — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 16:44:54 -0000

The study is not flawed, but there is a reason the study was based on interviews. Foxconn is a very secretive organization. They, wisely, don't want the world to know what goes on in their factories. Putting that aside, I have no idea what the workers in these factories should do. I don't pretend to. But to acknowledge someone is opressed, and to try to join their struggle because decisions made in your country have led to their opression is not insulting. What is insulting (and heartless) is to tell people "that is life, go work someplace else." Because their other option is "abject poverty on a farm" that doesn't make Foxconn good. Only the textbook definition of exploitation.
Finally, I think you misunderstood my point about rationalizing your beliefs due to your love of technology. I didn't mean anything about technology itself being inherently good or bad, I meant you love Apple products so much, you are willing to blindly dismiss any evidence that might paint them in a bad light, the testimony of 1,600 workers or 17 suicides all done in the same greusome, public way for example. I'm saying, you love fancy Apple gadgets so much, it blinds you to the suffering they cause expoited workers who, were it not for the totalitarian bludgeon over their heads, would be on strike, struggling against their immoral boss tomorrow.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2...
I think we are coming at this from different perspectives: one of normal human sympathy and the other of uncaring, "that's life. If you want something better, go work for it (nevermind the violent police state you live under)."

Re: Is Foxconn Evil?

iamsupertommy — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 14:18:35 -0000

I'd say the same about the lie that minimum wage and "worker's rights" laws help people in any run long or short. We're coming from different perspectives.

I have no sympathies toward the Chinese government or their arbitrary minimum wage laws; I feel the same about minimum wage laws everywhere. However, it is the stance of the proponents of minimum wage laws and various other laws that an entity evil enough to jail and kill it's own citizens should also be tasked to handle the well being of its citizens.

As far as that study you noted, I looked at the link you had and there is no hard facts anywhere. An interview with 1600 workers is very obviously not a good source of objective information. Studies that rely on observational evidence or interviews is not hard evidence.

Even if we ignored that flaw, what exactly do you suppose these Chinese workers do otherwise? Foxconn can tell them to work triple overtime but, they don't have to do. Go work somewhere else. Unless the alternatives are worse. In which case, how moral would it be to force people to live in a worse situation because we don't like the ones they are currently in?

Life is not easy. If the Foxconn workers don't like their job, they can go work somewhere else. If there's no other options then, well, that is life. If you want something better, you work for it. No one owes anyone anything and there is never a guarantee anyone will get what they want.

I don't need to rationalize technology; I know it does the world good. It is those who walk around believing a poorly paid Foxconn worker is suffering so that they can have an iPhone that needs to rationalize--by guilting themselves or some other way.

The options these Chinese workers have is abject poverty on a farm or a means to better their lot in life at a Foxconn factory. If there was another way, they'd do it. To think that poor people in China are too stupid to figure that out is insulting to them.

Re: Is Foxconn Evil?

Reagan — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 13:59:27 -0000

Sorry Tommy, I don't know how many people you will convince with the 'sweatshops help people in the long run' lie. Or the weak argument, 'because Foxconn pays their workers 1.7x more than other terrible factories - in a totalitarian state where people will be jailed or killed for starting a union - that makes them humain.' I am more likely to believe esearchers representing twenty universities from Hong Kong, Taiwan, and the mainland who released a report describing Foxconn factories as “labor camps” which severely violate a whole host of Chinese labor laws. http://www.reaganmsova.com/201...
I see you love video games, and that is great, but make sure you don't rationalize your love of technology in ways that really hurt and oppress people.
-RS

Re: Is Foxconn Evil?

Fuddyman_25 — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:38:13 -0000

fuck you, work in a factory for shit pay with terrible hours and get back to me

Re: Wheels of Fury Cheats

Casey-burtenshaw — Sat, 10 Dec 2011 15:35:58 -0000

hi the cheats are sweet thay work so good and im 12 so i cheat lots

Re: Vegetarians Don’t Save Animals

iamsupertommy — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 18:04:47 -0000

lol, yes, I meant moral and not morale--I just typed moral as morale, my fingers for some reason want to spell out morale when I think moral.

But, I agree.

Re: Vegetarians Don’t Save Animals

David James — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 17:51:57 -0000

I have to get one thing out of the way, I'm sure you meant moral as opposed to morale. Drove me crazy.

Interesting viewpoint on the situation, and probably correct on the face of it. Unfortunately, in order to actually eat 'humanely' raised livestock, you'd have to either raise it yourself, or trust someone else to do it. To me, this means buying locally where I'd be aware of the practices on the farm in question. To trust some sort of formal certification process is like trusting that food labeled 'organic' never saw a pesticide, herbicide, or chemical fertilizer in it's life. Lobbying groups have already muddied those waters. Don't even get me started on the definitions of 'free range' and 'cage free'. So, until I'm back in a position to locally source any meat I may want to consume, I'll stick to being a vegetarian, although technically an ovo-pescatarian. To dispel any assumptions, I'll also mention that I've hunted, fished, and been in a small scale slaughterhouse, none of which affected my decision to eat meat. Driving by a industrial chicken 'factory' did more, that and seeing conditions in which the food we eat lives.

Still, I encourage those who are sticking with their meat to make the decision to buy 'free range' and 'cage free' even if the definition falls short of what you might expect. It's better than doing nothing.

Re: Is Foxconn Evil?

iamsupertommy — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 10:14:34 -0000

Bill,

The analogy of smoke and fire is faulty at best. Where there's fire, there's bound to be smoke because smoke and fire go hand in hand. However, suicide and long work hours do not correlate nearly as well. It's not even close.

I also did not say the suicides are all a big coincidence. I just said I do not know why they are committing suicide en masse but, I noted that Foxconn is subsidizing deaths. I'll quote myself from the second paragraph:

"Most of the outrage over Foxconn came about as reports of their employees committing suicide piled up. Why these folks are committing suicide is anyone’s guess. However, this big bad slave driving company gives the families of deceased employees 8.5 – 10 years worth of wages."

If you are saying the correlation between a great deal of work hours and suicide are as tight as that of fire and smoke then one would expect suicides to be happening to every employee there. It is not. Accounts in this country work just as many or more hours during their busy season and we do not have mass funerals for accounts during this time.

If you would like to demonstrate how the everybody wins part is bogus, please do. Otherwise, you just sound like you're blowing smoke. I'm not saying I know everything but, I demonstrated facts in terms of Foxconn's wages and working hours as well as the economic principles of value and how economies grow. You are more than welcome to refute it. Calling it bogus demonstrates nothing.

Re: Is Foxconn Evil?

Bill — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 01:37:47 -0000

To the writer of the article: Ever heard the saying "Where there is smoke, there is usually a fire"?

I must say, I've never heard of any other company having even close to as many of their employees kill themselves. The fact that you are trying to say the conditions of the work and their deaths are separate issues is ridiculous. Seriously, you're making it sound like all these suicides are a big coincidence. Again, where there is smoke, there is usually a fire.

I could go on, but I'll finish by saying that article shows a complete lack of understanding of the situation and just a lot of ignorance on your part. The "Everbody Wins" section is bogus... just bogus. I wish I could be a little less blunt, but that would take away from my point. I guess I just find this article to be quite obtuse and ignorant. Again, not trying to be a jerk about it, but I'm simply stating the facts.

Re: Is Foxconn Evil?

iamsupertommy — Sat, 05 Nov 2011 13:05:44 -0000

I'd say baseless comments are more annoying than both. But, what do I know?

Re: Is Foxconn Evil?

Shirley Smid Huinink — Sat, 05 Nov 2011 12:52:45 -0000

Not sure what is more annoying, the content of the article or the comma after the word "But."

Re: Dear Occupy Wall Street

iamsupertommy — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 10:02:27 -0000

Look, did you tell your representative in Congress that you wanted to bailout Wall St, GM, AIG, and foreign banks? Did you? Because, I wrote them and said, do not do any of this. And they did all those things. So, when is this the will of the people? If the government was acting on our behalf, what are these folks doing occupying Wall St? just curious.

If you think we can consistently elect angels to government then you can continue believing in it but, I am willing to wager just about anything that we will never have 100 members of the Senate and 435 Representatives of the House that are all incorruptible.

This money--in the form of income taxes, that's what we're talking about--doesn't go to anyones well being except the dirty politicians. The Grace Commission, in 1982, was tasked to find out where income tax revenues went and how it was spent. How it was budgeted is meaningless. I have budgets every month and I can assure you, it doesn't go exactly as I budgeted. So:

"The report said that one-third of all income taxes is consumed by waste and inefficiency in the federal government, and another one-third escapes collection owing to the underground economy. 'With two thirds of everyone’s personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the federal debt and by federal government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services [that] taxpayers expect from their government.'" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...

I have little evidence to suggest that much as changed since the report came out. And even if it did, sure as hell not 100% of the money is spent the way we think it should be. Gas tax pays for roads, Property tax pays for schools. The States have their own plethora of taxes that handle fire departments, police departments, and pretty much everything else we would think our federal income taxes support. The fact is, the federal income tax is almost entirely used up to pay the interest on the national debt. What little actually gets back to us is used for nothing we believe it is. It may go to special interest projects or invested in companies that are clearly on the edge of bankruptcy but, it isn't put to better use than if we all just kept it and chose where to put it ourselves.

And btw, the system is collapsing because politicians are not playing by the same rules that the rest of us are playing by. That's the problem.

Re: Dear Occupy Wall Street

iamsupertommy — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 09:52:36 -0000

I am not going to the argue that the Founders weren't flawed, I said they were. And I didn't get into this since I'm not trying to sound like an extremist to whomever related to OccupyWallSt would come across this :) but, there's much I'd change about the system they devised. It clearly isn't perfect but, it's the most perfect one devised that we are aware of--at least, that I am aware of.

Ancient societies may have had a better system but, our knowledge of how they lived isn't as solid as what we know of the 18th and 19th centuries. So, I'm sticking with the most perfect system we know of.

I don't believe the 14th amendment nullifies the 9th and 10th and I'm also not going to debate States rights. Unless you really want to. It's a pretty dead end debate. Neither of us are going to change our minds. But, I am advocating for a shrinking of the Fed and I said not a single word about State's rights. But, I hardly believe anyone thinks that when California legalizes marijuana that the Feds can enter the State and enforce their own drug laws.

By your definition of the 14th amendment, there is no need for States at all.

Re: Dear Occupy Wall Street

Zach Freier — Sun, 02 Oct 2011 21:34:42 -0000

What do you think the government is? You speak of it like it's some entity completely removed from the will of the people. The government is US. WE decide how much of OUR money goes to providing for OUR general welfare. Everyone must be bound to the same rules or the system collapses.

Of course, the corrupt influence of money in politics has, in recent years, decreased the influence individuals have on the government. But that's not a failing of the concept of government; it's a matter of implementation that could easily be modified.

The Wall St. bailouts are an example of the elected officials of the federal government working to appease their donors instead of their constituents. Those are corrupt politicians who should be removed, and the influence of money on politics begs for reform.

Re: Dear Occupy Wall Street

Zach Freier — Sun, 02 Oct 2011 21:25:10 -0000

The founding fathers argued for years about the meaning of Article 1, Section 8, and never came to anything resembling a consensus. You can't just ignore Hamilton and his sympathizers because they don't agree with your interpretation of the founders. Today, the courts follow the Hamiltonian interpretation. That's good enough for me.

As an aside, the word "and" does not imply the two things on either side of it are related in any way. If I say I'm going to spend my income on video games AND a new car, there's no reason to believe those two things are related at all.

I never meant to imply the founders didn't use the idea of "natural rights". What I was pointing out is that they reformulated the theory to remove property and add the pursuit of happiness. If the founders were libertarians in the sense that they considered property to be a paramount natural right, they would have left it in.

The 14th Amendment's equal protection clause specifically targets the idea that state governments are not ultimately bound to Federal mandates. It's a specific rebuke of the state's rights obsession that led to the Civil War.

Re: Dear Occupy Wall Street

iamsupertommy — Sun, 02 Oct 2011 21:15:49 -0000

Well, is it not the government that decides how much money it's going to take and you're going to keep? I hardly see how that's not the same as the government owning your labor. Explain to me how it's not.

And yes, if you want a government service like Social Security or Medicare/aid or whatever, you should pay for it. If you don't want it, why are you also forced to pay for it? Whom among the young folks protesting believe they'll see a dime out of Social Security? We are paying it every month anyway. Why? Why can't be choose to do something else with the money?

What do you call it when those who are hurt by the system are forced to pay for their own torture? This includes the Wall St bailouts. Take money from us and give it to Wall St. How many of us agreed to that? And if we didn't, what do you call it then? If not theft, what is it?

Re: Dear Occupy Wall Street

iamsupertommy — Sun, 02 Oct 2011 21:11:30 -0000

Article 1, Section 8 does not allow for education or infrastructure. I don't see where it says it does. The general Welfare has been construed to mean something other than that it did when it was written. It means the well being of the United States and it related to the Defense considering it's joined with an AND.

I'm sure there's no sane person who would disagree but that's a valid function of government.

That is quite nonsense, the founders specifically says our rights comes from our creator and not the government. That's identical to natural rights.

I don't see what the 14th amendment has to do with anything I deride. The welfare clause is construed to do just about anything anyone in government wants. If that was the case, why bother listing the things the government is allowed to do in the Constitution?

Re: Dear Occupy Wall Street

Zachary Freier — Sun, 02 Oct 2011 21:10:43 -0000

The government having power to take a portion of your income is in no way the same as the government owning your entire labor power. It's an expression of the RESPONSIBILITY that comes with the RIGHTS the government protects. As I said elsewhere, things the government provides are necessary for any sort of income generation; it's not socialist or totalitarian to suggest that those who benefit from this system should also pay for it.

Re: Dear Occupy Wall Street

Zachary Freier — Sun, 02 Oct 2011 21:05:07 -0000

"The market works as a cohesive unit without any other part having to know about the others." Yes, I'm familiar with libertarian philosophy, but it's every bit as nonsensical as a pure socialist philosophy. It's not based on evidence, or how people actually DO act; it's based on thought experiments performed in isolation from reality.

"No where in our Constitution does it say the Federal government is to provide education and infrastructure." How about Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts
and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and
general Welfare of the United States."

"The Feds should protect the country from foreign invaders and not run around the world occupying other people's lands." This has nothing to do with Occupy Wall Street; in fact I would be willing to bet that most of them would agree with this statement.

"The Federal government is there to enforce contracts. To enforce property rights." Did you know that the founding fathers dropped the original Lockean formulation of natural rights, replacing property with the "pursuit of happiness"? Oh right, that's just another fact that's convenient to ignore for libertarians idealizing the founding fathers.

"If it wants to, it should follow the rules and amend the Constitution.
It ain't that hard. The Constitution is written in simple language." Between the 14th amendment and the general welfare clause cited above, there's plenty of Constitutional justification for all these programs you deride.