BreadWithSpam@fractious.net

Very interesting article (sidebar, actually), in the
current issue of The Economist:

iPadded: The trade gap between America and China is much exaggerated
<http://www.economist.com/node/21543174>

In short, only approximately 2% of the cost of an iPad is
Chinese labor. About 30% is Apple's profits, 31% is cost
of materials (some of which does still go to China, but
probably not that much - most of the expensive materials
are things like displays and memory chips from South Korean
firms like Samsung and LG). About 15% is distribution and
retail costs.

Anyway, it's not the same as the silly flamewar regarding
whether or not the plight of chinese workers is the fault of
evil corporations or evil consumers. But it's interesting
nonetheless.

One point in the sidebar was that the Yuan could rise by 20%
and it would add less than 1% to the import price of an iPad.

So, too, would a 20% increase in the price of chinese labor,
I suppose. But that's probably a matter between Foxconn
and their employees. If Foxconn increases their passed-along
prices to Apple, Apple has every reason to look into alternatives
which keep their costs down, even if that cost is only 2% of
the selling price of the iPad. Management has an obligation
to shareholders to do just that.

--
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.

Michelle Steiner

In article <yob39baauzh.fsf@panix2.panix.com>, BreadWithSpam@fractious.net
wrote:

> Management has an obligation to shareholders to do just that.

And corporations, as members of society, have obligations to the society as
well, just as all other members of society do.

--
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

Jolly Roger

In article <michelle-7AABE6.15165520012012@news.eternal-september.org>,
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <yob39baauzh.fsf@panix2.panix.com>, BreadWithSpam@fractious.net
> wrote:
>
> > Management has an obligation to shareholders to do just that.
>
> And corporations, as members of society, have obligations to the society as
> well, just as all other members of society do.

Sadly, most Republicans I know would disagree with that notion. For them
it's all about me, me, me.

--
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

Kurt Ullman

In article <michelle-7AABE6.15165520012012@news.eternal-september.org>,
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <yob39baauzh.fsf@panix2.panix.com>, BreadWithSpam@fractious.net
> wrote:
>
> > Management has an obligation to shareholders to do just that.
>
> And corporations, as members of society, have obligations to the society as
> well, just as all other members of society do.

Nope. Under US law, and this has been pretty much since the beginning of
time, the corporation first and foremost owes a fiduciary duty to the
stockholders. Now, I am not going to pretend that has seen much more
than lip service (on a good day) recently. But their first and only
legal duty as a director or executive is to the shareholders.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

Kurt Ullman

In article <_NudnQ7HvNHsaITSnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@earthlink.com> ,
Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article <michelle-7AABE6.15165520012012@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>
> > In article <yob39baauzh.fsf@panix2.panix.com>, BreadWithSpam@fractious.net
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Management has an obligation to shareholders to do just that.
> >
> > And corporations, as members of society, have obligations to the society as
> > well, just as all other members of society do.
>
> Nope. Under US law, and this has been pretty much since the beginning of
> time, the corporation first and foremost owes a fiduciary duty to the
> stockholders. Now, I am not going to pretend that has seen much more
> than lip service (on a good day) recently. But their first and only
> legal duty as a director or executive is to the shareholders.

Upon further review, the last sentence was a little more emphatic than I
meant it to be. Their first and major duty under securities law is to
the shareholders.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

George Kerby

On 1/20/12 4:21 PM, in article
jollyroger-59786B.16215220012012@news.individual.net, "Jolly Roger"
<jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> In article <michelle-7AABE6.15165520012012@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>
>> In article <yob39baauzh.fsf@panix2.panix.com>, BreadWithSpam@fractious.net
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Management has an obligation to shareholders to do just that.
>>
>> And corporations, as members of society, have obligations to the society as
>> well, just as all other members of society do.
>
> Sadly, most Republicans I know would disagree with that notion. For them
> it's all about me, me, me.

"Most", not "All"...

‹me

Michelle Steiner

In article <_NudnQ7HvNHsaITSnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@earthlink.com> ,
Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > Management has an obligation to shareholders to do just that.
> >
> > And corporations, as members of society, have obligations to the society as
> > well, just as all other members of society do.
>
> Nope. Under US law, and this has been pretty much since the beginning of
> time, the corporation first and foremost owes a fiduciary duty to the
> stockholders.

"first and foremost" does not mean "only". It's obligations to its
shareholders do not negate its obligations to society.

> But their first and only legal duty as a director or executive is to the
> shareholders.

The *corporation* has an obligation to society. And it is possible that
the corporation's obligations to society can supersede the directors' duty
to the shareholders. As an extreme example, if the only way the
corporation can make a profit is to do something illegal, the obligation to
obey the law supersedes the duty to the shareholders.

--
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

Michelle Steiner

In article <jollyroger-59786B.16215220012012@news.individual.net>,
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> > And corporations, as members of society, have obligations to the
> > society as well, just as all other members of society do.
>
> Sadly, most Republicans I know would disagree with that notion. For them
> it's all about me, me, me.

I know; some of them, especially many of those proclaiming themselves to be
Libertarians, say that no one has any obligation to society.

--
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

Michelle Steiner

In article <CB3F6701.7F8E3%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>,
George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > Sadly, most Republicans I know would disagree with that notion. For
> > them it's all about me, me, me.
>
> "Most", not "All"...

Agreed, but unfortunately, they are in control of the party.

--
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

Jolly Roger

In article <michelle-B7FAD0.17495720012012@news.eternal-september.org>,
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <jollyroger-59786B.16215220012012@news.individual.net>,
> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > > And corporations, as members of society, have obligations to the
> > > society as well, just as all other members of society do.
> >
> > Sadly, most Republicans I know would disagree with that notion. For them
> > it's all about me, me, me.
>
> I know; some of them, especially many of those proclaiming themselves to be
> Libertarians, say that no one has any obligation to society.

Which is total bullshit as far as I am concerned. It's selfishness
through and through, and is not a constructive way to view the world.

--
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR