Originally Posted by amideislas

I'm certain that most companies seek to minimise their costs, and when vendor a can offer them product-x at 30% less cost than vendor b, even when guaranteed that product-x will be responsibly sourced (even if they don't actually live up to that), then I needn't explain that logic.

I think if you go to Eroski and a can of beans is €3, and at Lidl, the same brand of beans is €1.50, you might also consider the Lidl beans, or if you feel particularly morally responsible at that moment, you may rationalise to pay €3 on moral grounds.

Therein lies the problem. WE won't work in a factory for less than, say, €15 per hour, 38 hour work weeks, 6 weeks of holiday, 14-month work year, Christmas bonus, etc..... In fact in some cases, it might not even be legal to accept less.

But at the same time, we equally want everything we buy to be inexpensive, and further, we prefer all the cheap stuff we want to be made in factories where people like us work, receiving all the cushy benefits we would demand.

Further, we want those businesses who sell us all this stuff at low prices, to pay much higher taxes than we do. After all, they're making all that profit by selling us all that stuff at cheap prices and paying their staff generous wages and benefits.

Then, when they discover it all doesn't reckon out, they move parts of their operation to places where people are delighted to get the work (excluding the obvious slave conditions alleged here), we scream bloody murder about "outsourcing" to get cheaper labour.

I don't know. I tried to reckon it out, but my calculator exploded.

Originally Posted by Dick Dasterdly

Big difference between outsourcing to a more economic source of supply operating under humane conditions and outsourcing to slave, child and political prisoner labour for instance, no wages at all involved, as was the case in China, don't know if still is.

Originally Posted by Dick Dasterdly

...I believe Apple were mentioned for example, though I've no idea under what circumstances.
There is a company with unique and very desirable products which has been able to stick almost any price label they wished on their boxes in recent years, knowing full well that joe public will still readily cough up the necessary, so why on earth should such as they they need to stoop to such depths,... if indeed it is the case ?...

Originally Posted by mfh

In Apple's case its simply so they can add money to their $137 Billion cash reserve, yes you read that right, they have $137,000,000,000 just lying around doing nothing (most of it offshore to avoid tax of course)

Originally Posted by mfh

In Apple's case its simply so they can add money to their $137 Billion cash reserve, yes you read that right, they have $137,000,000,000 just lying around doing nothing (most of it offshore to avoid tax of course)

Originally Posted by notacontrathinker

Apple total assets $176 Billion.
Apple cash $3.11 Billion.

http://www.marketwatch.com/investing.../balance-sheet

Originally Posted by mfh

@Amideislas This is not responsible journalism. It is sensationalism'

I don't normally read the Telegraph but I agree that article is sensationalist at the very least, but... I do think that if they were alerted in 2011 to abuses in their suppliers they should have implemented some sort of checking system.

Lets be honest here all of them know damm fine that when they outsource to third world countries that there is a real possibility of abuse occurring.

Originally Posted by mfh

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...984350234.html

according to the above WSJ article...

Apple's cash hoard, meanwhile, continues to grow rapidly. As of the end of December, the Cupertino, Calif., company's cash sat at $137.1 billion, up 68% from the end of fiscal 2011. More than two-thirds of that amount is held overseas.

Originally Posted by mfh

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...984350234.html

according to the above WSJ article...

Apple's cash hoard, meanwhile, continues to grow rapidly. As of the end of December, the Cupertino, Calif., company's cash sat at $137.1 billion, up 68% from the end of fiscal 2011. More than two-thirds of that amount is held overseas.

Originally Posted by Pocaloca

Profits achieved at the expense of conditions so appalling that they had to install suicide nets at one of their outsourced companies in China, because workers were throwing themselves out of windows.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_suicides

Originally Posted by notacontrathinker

...
Witchhunt.

Originally Posted by mfh

I am not a financial expert at all but if most economists/Financial commentators are using the term 'cash hoard' well I see no reason why I should not use the same expression, do you?

Originally Posted by mfh

In Apple's case its simply so they can add money to their $137 Billion cash reserve, yes you read that right, they have $137,000,000,000 just lying around doing nothing (most of it offshore to avoid tax of course)

Originally Posted by notacontrathinker

There is NO such term as "CASH HOARD" in accountancy.

It is a term used by the press to sensationalize their stories.

You didn't even say "cash hoard" you said "cash reserve" which I have shown you is blatantly untrue. It is not "lying around doing nothing", it is invested.

By all means give Apple a good kicking but don't go round inventing figures, it makes your argument look stupid.