That the youth of today is inspired by the real world events around them is of course a source of cheer. That being so inspired leads them to want to change that state of the universe is even more cheering. Good to know that those of us soon to slip the surly bonds of this planet can leave the place in good hands. But it would be even more pleasing if those with the inspiration actually knew what they were talking about. You know, were informed before becoming inspired?
In A Permanent Save State is a little game to be played on mobile phones. It's set around and about the issue of the suicides a few years back at the Foxconn plants in China that make Apple's kit.
Exactly one month ago, In a Permanent Save State was removed from Apple's App Store an hour after it went live in violation of the company's app guidelines. Today, Benjamin Poynter's game, inspired by the real-life suicides at Foxconn's electronic manufacturing plants, has returned and is currently available through the Google Play Store for $0.99. The game does not guide players through the course of the suicides, but instead provides a portrayal of what seven overworked laborers go through in the spiritual afterlife.
So it's back, on another platform and OS. From back when it was first removed from the store:
An iPhone game that imagines "the spiritual afterlife" of overworked electronics labourers has been removed from the App Store.
In a Permanent Save State, by Benjamin Poynter, alludes to the suicides of workers at the Foxconn manufacturing plants in China, where many gadgets are made - including iPhones and iPads.
These suicides led to severe scrutiny of the plant's employment practices, both by the media and by its clients.
Poynter doesn't seem to be dim for he said back then that he was reasonably sure that the game would get pulled. But he does seem to be badly misinformed which is a pity. Here's his own site and this is how he briefly describes the game:
I am being very critical of the human rights and socially irresponsible practices of Apple and Foxconn through the fantasy it packages to the world.
And that's where the misinformation comes in. No, I'm not claiming that Mr. Poynter is misinforming us deliberately. Rather, that Mr. Poynter is himself misinformed. For there really isn't anything at all that is socially irresponsible about the practices of either Foxconn or Apple with respect to those factories in China. You can see this in graphic form here.
Just to trot through the basic points. The suicide rate inside the Foxconn factories is lower than the general suicide rate in China. Each and every suicide is of course a tragedy for both the person dying and for those left behind. But providing a working environment that reduces such tragedies cannot really be described as "socially irresponsible". Heck, I've even seen it claimed that the Foxconn suicide rate is below that at Harvard.
Health and safety at the factories seems well up to first world standards. Certainly, the factories are less dangerous than the average American workplace by the recorded numbers. Yes, there was indeed an explosion caused by aluminium dust and that's one that shouldn't have happened. But those averages aren't lying.
Which leaves us with wages. Chinese manufacturing wages have, in recent years, been rising at 16% or so a year. These are real wage rises by the way, real increases in purchasing power. Foxconn has always been among those companies that pay higher than other Chinese manufacturers. And such a 16% rise means that real wages have risen by four to five times just since the year 2000. That's the effect of compounding for you.
So, the factories are safer than the US, safer than many others in China too, the suicide rate is lower than that in the general population and wages are rising faster than they have done anywhere, ever. It's very difficult indeed to see what is "socially irresponsible" about this. Indeed, if it weren't for the propaganda we're continually fed on the subject I think we'd all be regarding it as hugely socially responsible. What the heck's wrong with making the poor richer?
For as I and my colleagues at the Adam Smith Institute in London keep insisting, the way to make the poor richer is to trade with them. To buy the things that they produce. It is, as we say, socially responsible to buy things made by poor people in poor countries. For that's what makes both us and them richer.
Which is why I think this game is so silly and why Mr. Poynter is so badly misinformed. The sight of those million workers at Foxconn getting richer, of 1.3 billion Chinese doing so, is not something to be decried. Industrial revolutions are indeed messy and smelly things: but they're the only thing we've ever found as a species which substantially and permanently increases the living standards of the average bloke in the street. As we can see in China: this is something to be applauded, celebrated, not something to be dismissed as "socially irresponsible".
