Hacker News Reader

Comment by davidk0101 | Hacker News Reader

So you were basically saving $180 in exchange for a more polluted planet. Great exchange if I ever saw one.

Yes, that is basically correct, although the difference in cost wasn't all environmental obviously, there was also the advantage of using a labor pool with few rights compared to the US, poor health care, and other factors.

On top of unit costs there is cost to stock in store, cost of the store's profit, etc. Let me ask you this, would you be willing to pay $10,000 for a computer Made in USA? Is the computer you are working on right now Made in USA, or are some components from China?

That's the answer right there. We can pay $1000 for a Chinese made laptop or $10,000 for an entirely USA made one top to bottom. What market is there for the eco and labor friendly USA one, and what is the chance that a company selling these would stay in business for even 6 months? Is the chance greater than 0%?

I don't think a vendor could convince me they didn't merely mark up a $1000 slave labor computer. In Collapse, Diamond wrote about sham "sustainable forestry" certifications from that self-regulated industry; I can't believe that wouldn't happen here as well. Even with orders of magnitude more money involved, Wall St. couldn't find honest appraisers, so what chance do we have?

It wouldn't be self-regulated; there are already laws about declaration of origin on products. The "Made in China" stickers on devices aren't there because the manufacturer is giving the vendor a discount for advertising the Chinese origin. They're there because customs can seize and destroy mislabeled products.

Yep, I know. I wonder what would the global income equality be like if it cost the same to make a component in China as in the USA? Would it really be 10x the cost?

Realisticlly, if you don't do it then a competitor will and not only will he pollute the planet, but drive you out of business with his cheaper units.

That's a shitty justification for causing irreparable harm simply because you need to make a buck.

That's not (just) for making a buck. You bring value to your customers. In the current system if you are more environmental friendly than your competitors you will go out of business (the comments here talk about 10x the costs). I'm not saying this is ALWAYS true, but as a general rule. The system makes environmental consumer-based businesses non-sustainable. The system causes such businesses to be unsustainable. Now, what is 'The system'?

The easy (but probably wrong) answer would be how western import taxes don't have enough environmental/ethical component in them.

No, it's very reasonable, and it's the reason that these things need govt. regulation. Otherwise, it's just tragedy of the commons all over the place.

You are correct that the system is not what is best for the world, however we do not have tariff regulations that would temper the effects of exporting pollution and human misery, and corporate interests control legislation to this effect through lobbyists and bribes. Right now, if you work, the company you work for is destroying the environment. Even Greenpeace and PeTA use computer components made in China, and drive cars that use oil paid for with human misery in authoritarian and failed states. To have a job or a computer at all you become part of the system. There is the option of going completely off grid and being self sufficient in an Adobe house in Mexico, or a cabin in Alaska, but few choose this path.

This is what regulation and tariffs are for.

Too bad we can't be bothered, since we must protect corporate profits at any cost.

120 bucks, actually.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com