cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/6745228
TLDR: Apple wants to keep china happy, Stewart was going after china in some way, Apple said don’t, Stewart walked, the show is dead.
Not surprising at all, but sad and shitty and definitely reduces my loyalty to the platform. Hosting Stewart seemed like a real power play from Apple, where conflict like this was inevitable, but they were basically saying, yes we know, but we believe in things and, as a big company with deep pockets that can therefore take risks, to prove it we’re hosting this show.
Changing their minds like this is worse than ever hosting the show in the first place as it shows they probably don’t know what they’re doing or believe in at all, like any big company, and just going for what seems cool, and undermining the very idea of a company like Apple running a streaming platform. I wonder if the Morning Show/Wars people are paying close attention.
Boy you sure do sound like you just got your MBA. Chasing the cheapest labor and lowest regulations really doesn’t douch for the populace other than make them slave laborers for better products for the benefits of other nations.
If the wages are the same across multiple industries then it doesn’t really help right? It’s just taking advantage of a poor countryand enriching higher members of that country who actually do see the most profit gained.
It might help in getting advanced manufacturing set up in the country but that actually also hurts countries that rely on advanced manufacturing to keep GDP high when they are creating their competitors while doing little investment into themselves.
So yes it works to get the cheapest product possible but it’s really not the super helpful beneficial concept that you think it is and the whole world is not richer for these jobs we give to them to enrich further a group that just chases the quickest profit.
What a strange take when a mountain of evidence is right in front of you. China went from “nothing but cheap labor” to the next world superpower because of exactly this kind of exchange. They have modern cities with rapid transit, EVs, and a top tier domestic tech industry.
Well yeah I mean I kinda covered that. They now have advanced tooling and active investments into their infrastructure and country. It’s not yet actually reaching the majority of China and there is still wide issues with these investments. But now companies will have to find the new cheap labor if there is increasing access to jobs that are to pay enough for the citizens to access these higher standards.
A country can’t be cheap labor and an important market without either massive divide in the populace or slave labor.
And if they can’t get cheap labor there anymore these companies will leave and create rust belts like there are in the US. At which point the advanced manufacturing arm and service economy could take over if it’s built enough but they join into a already crowded space with dwindling access to resources. Not to say things haven’t gotten better in sense of moving forward technologically and amenities wise but that is basically always a guarantee of time passing. But this hunt for cheap goods for top level enrichment is not a wholly good venture and is quite destructive in ways that take little effort to see.
Why, specifically, do you hate the global poor?
Wow what a terrible response meant to cause an inflammatory response instead of having a discussion about a topic on an intellectual level. You have set up a pin with an impossible answer and claimed that you are the only right response to knock it down.
But, I have an answer. I care about their well being and not their economic status. I don’t care if they are making more money or not and they aren’t from my country. My countries laws will have no direct impact on them and while I care about the ecology of the planet I can’t be reasonably expected to care about everyone.
You falsely assume globalist ideals are the only right way to live and I would rather care for those immediately around me who have an impact on my life.
We can aim for bettering of societies that aren’t our own without it being based entirely around taking advantage of their cheap labor and unawareness of their lacking systems.
You speak as an economist who only thinks in terms of money without any real compassion and assumes money is compassion.
It demonstrably improves their personal wealth, incentives inclusive institutions, and changes countries. History is most assuredly not on your side here.
Nativism is a plague and populism is the cancer nativism spawns.