bkdc
Items tagged "words":
-
You’re a designer, your brain is different. My customers are normal people. Do you need me to talk slowly until you understand that?—
Someone with a normal brain. (via clientsfromhell)
Design for ‘normal people’ - something that some/most designers should try harder to keep in mind.
reblogged from: clientsfromhell -
Tags
-
Steve Jobs got us the design and the technology; it’s our job to show that we care about labor conditions. The answer isn’t necessarily that we stop buying these toys—it’s that we demand better.—
FROM BKDC: bwahaha - sounds so….civilized (in a very non-capitalist capitalist way) until you stop and think that you wouldn’t pay $1500 for the same device. You all (sometimes me too) demand better. Better prices, that is, and no ‘sane’ company/CEO is going to commit suicide by not trying to ‘make you happy’ and give you just that - more for less.
Netflix is being killed for a couple dollars more but you DEMAND better? pfff…try putting DVDs in envelopes for 8 bucks / day or whatever for a few hours of your life first.
Go in front of Walmart -demand you pay more for what they sell. Better yet, why not buy from a mom & pop store (10-30% more expensive) instead. Oh, they’ve been killed by
Wallmartyou already.Go ask Apple to raise the prices AND pay the workers in China triple what they get now.
Go and demand that investors stop expecting 10-50% profits year to year on their portfolio TODAY.
You do all that after you demand a voluntary salary cut.
shame, anyone? — citizen kerry (via azspot)
KERRY HERE:
Please, help me understand why it’s silly to imagine that the Apple, which revolutionized the music industry, could be capable of improving labor conditions overseas? I heard this from several people yesterday so I’m hoping someone can explain.
I’m not arguing that we triple wages at Foxconn. I’m wondering why it couldn’t implement safer working conditions, hexyl-hydride-free environments (before reports of irreparable nerve damage), a humane work day (8 hours?), and/or allow third-party inspectors to conduct safety verifications.
I get your point that CEOs are driven by a need to please shareholders and that means being ruthless about keeping costs low. And I know that well-meaning liberals (like me!) have, in the past, called for better working conditions (read=more expensive labor costs) which had the unintended consequence of causing factories to move to cheaper parts of the world. And suddenly, all those people who’d taken factory jobs—because the choice was between working there or going hungry—were staring once again, at hunger. I understand that being the judge of “what’s best for people” isn’t always so simple. I even understand that on a macro-economic level, sweatshops can lift people out of poverty. (See: the American garment industry.)
But I don’t understand why we can’t we aim a little higher than allowing our corporations to “routinely abuse, poison, and exploit” their overseas workers (to use Mike Daisey’s term)? And the onus is on companies like Apple because they’re the industry leaders.
And this is part of a bigger question I have, which is: If we are going to live in a globalized world, why aren’t there global standards for work safety? Why is it OK for people in France, Sweden, and the US (for example) to accept labor conditions in other countries that they wouldn’t accept in France, Sweden or the US because they are, in theory, illegal? (Not always true in practice—plenty of workers treated terribly in the US.)
What am I missing? I would be grateful for any illumination anyone has time to share. I’m actually looking into “How to Buy Clothes Ethically” and this Apple detour has provided a great deal of insight.
(via citizenkerry)
Perhaps if we paid the true value of the goods we use, we’d be less likely to just consume mindlessly? I know, shocker, but maybe we should stop seeing an abundance of cheap goods as our birthright as Americans.
We keep the monetary costs of so many of our goods - our electronics, our food, our gasoline - artificially low, so we can continue to consume and hence keep the economy growing, but that cost has to be paid somewhere, right? We pay for cheap food in depletion of water and phosphate supplies. We pay for cheap electronics in countries destabilized by poverty. We pay for cheap gasoline in endless wars in faraway lands.
One way or another, we pay. Frankly, I’d rather pay with the money in my bank account than pay with people’s lives, but I also recognize I am a minority in this.
(via whynotshesaid)
BKDC here (is it just me or is Tumblr not really built for this kind of ‘responses’):
Thank you ladies for your replies. The good news is that I think that you’re both right or at least not very wrong :)
Kerry, Apple is currently being praised as the most valuable IT company. This means many things that shouldn’t make anyone be proud of and yet, this ‘news’ has been doing rounds in the media/blogs/twitter/whatnot as if it’s the ultimate proof of US might (for lack of a permanent US hotel on the Moon which would have worked too). People looooved it.
You ‘could’ demand that Apple does a better job at looking after its employees and contractors. I agree that they should…no, I know that Apple ‘can’ for sure.
Look at Apple’s revenue per employee. That one’s from 2009 - it got bigger by now… What it says is that Apple doesn’t like to ‘share’ money but they’re very good at making them. Here’s a primer on corporate valuation - as you can see by page 3, Apple’s not very good at creating economic value.
Apple, just like a few other illegal in some parts of the world occupations, is in the very lucrative business of giving people (almost) instant gratification (give you technology and design / fire / patent the wheel while customers feel cool about all having identical phones - not anymore since now Apple gave all of us the white version too).
Ferrari does the same but without having to rape anyone (maybe just the customer) and it costs them a lot - did you know that Ferrari’s almost always bankrupt? Thank you Fiat for keeping them alive!
Apple did not look after its workers - we know that. Why? Because they’re not Ferrari :) They’re big and strong and…they’re willing to do the raping so that they can stay that way.
Apple would most likely not be the most valuable IT company in the world if they did things differently. Is it their fault? Would people LOVE a ‘so-so’ company? No - look at HP which works on high volume, low profit margins…you don’t WANT an what’s it’s name HP laptop, you NEED an iPad.
I don’t think that it’s Apple’s fault - customers gave them the power and Apple’s just riding the wave and enjoying it (I would too).
Stop camping in front of Apple stores for the new iWhatever 7 and Apple might change a bit. But that alone is not enough because there’s always a next business waiting in line to sneak up on you and pull the same tricks - and boy, people seem to fall for it every single time, over and over again :)
I guess that this is not about Apple or some CEO. It’s about us, the consumers, just like whynotshesaid pointed out.
PS: Planned obsolence (1), Pret a Jeter - Pyramids of Waste (2)
PS2:
There’s only one way in which they have become more expensive and that’s the banning of lead in solders. We have to use tin solders, not tin/lead now and as tin is worth much more than lead there’s that one component that is pushing the value calculation the other way. That tin solder also grows whiskers (really, you can get a pointy “whisker” growing out of a majority tin solder which then shorts the circuits) is one of the explanations why modern electronics now fail before becoming useless rather than becoming useless (for reasons of software bloat) before they fail, as they used to.
Tim Worstall, Is your old hardware made of gold, or just DIRT?
Funny how ‘saving the planet’ hurts it more.
PS3: some brick, Ericsson R320s, Sony Ericsson P800/P910, Sony Ericsson M600, Samsung Omnia 7 (all my mobile phones, bought many years apart). The technology was/is always there (long before Apple invented the fire) and you’d be amazed what the P800/P910 could do (still works but no AngryBirds).
reblogged from: whynotshesaid -
Steve Jobs got us the design and the technology; it’s our job to show that we care about labor conditions. The answer isn’t necessarily that we stop buying these toys—it’s that we demand better.—
bwahaha - sounds so….civilized (in a very non-capitalist capitalist way) until you stop and think that you wouldn’t pay $1500 for the same device. You all (sometimes me too) demand better. Better prices, that is, and no ‘sane’ company/CEO is going to commit suicide by not trying to ‘make you happy’ and give you just that - more for less.
Netflix is being killed for a couple dollars more but you DEMAND better? pfff…try putting DVDs in envelopes for 8 bucks / day or whatever for a few hours of your life first.
Go in front of Walmart -demand you pay more for what they sell. Better yet, why not buy from a mom & pop store (10-30% more expensive) instead. Oh, they’ve been killed by
Wallmartyou already.Go ask Apple to raise the prices AND pay the workers in China triple what they get now.
Go and demand that investors stop expecting 10-50% profits year to year on their portfolio TODAY.
You do all that after you demand a voluntary salary cut.
shame, anyone?
citizen kerry (via azspot)
reblogged from: azspot -
Buy! Sell! Lend! Borrow,if you will, but cease to produce! Leave that to proletarians!—Unknown source (any hints appreciated)
Tags
-
ABC News - Japan Earthquake: before and after
(Source: almostrocketscience)
reblogged from: laureolaTags
-
The myths of the "self-made man" and meritocracy
The recession has caused a significant economic adjustment, including a realignment of assets and the demand and supply of talent. Along with these adjustments has been renewed debate over issues such as the distribution of wealth, the disappearing middle class and the belief in meritocracy. Some recent experts have reaffirmed a perception that both the belief in the “self-made man” and the benefits of meritocracy are largely myths and don’t serve society well.
Movies, TV shows and popular media, and many politicians are reinforcing these myths by arguing and promoting the notion that anyone can be wealthy or make it to the top by virtue of their hard work and positive attitude and that’s how successful people did it in the past. If this were true, we wouldn’t see a virtual explosion of people buying lottery tickets, and governments using lotteries as a significant source of revenue.
Some of the wealthiest entrepreneurs in North America say there is no such thing as the “self-made man.” With more millionaires making, rather than inheriting, their wealth, there is a false belief that they made it on their own without help, a new report published by the Boston-based non-profit United For a Fair Economy, states. The group has signed more than 2,200 millionaires and billionaires to a petition to reform and keep the U.S. inheritance tax. The report says the myth of “self-made wealth is potentially destructive to the very infrastructure that enables wealth creation.”
The individuals profiled in the report believed they prospered in large part to things beyond their control and because of the support of others. Warren Buffet, the second richest man in the world said, “I personally think that society is responsible for a very significant percentage of what I’ve earned.” Erick Schmidt, CEO of Google says, “Lots of people who are smart and work hard and play by the rules don’t have a fraction of what I have. I realize that I don’t have my wealth because I’m so brilliant.”Malcolm Gladwell, in his book, The Outliers, attacks America’s myth of the self-made man. Gladwell’s meticulous research has shown that enormously successful people like Bill Gates, The Beatles, and professional athletes, scientists and artists, all had people in their lives that helped them get there.
reblogged from: azspotTags
-
Mark Herrmann's Blog: From Michael Lewis...
To: Wall Street chief executives
From: Your man in Washington
Re: Embracing the status quo
Our earnings are robust, our compensation has returned to its naturally high levels and, as a result, we have very nearly regained our grip on the imaginations of the most ambitious students at the…reblogged from: markherrmannTags
-
New Urbanism for the Apocalypse | Fast Company by Greg Lindsay
Has the New Urbanism outlived its original purpose? The movement’s charismatic founder, Andrés Duany, seems to think so.
Last week’s 18th annual Congress for the New Urbanism in Atlanta should have been an unalloyed triumph for Duany and his fellow travelers. Their planning tools for reforming and retrofitting sprawl with denser communities was formally adopted by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recognized the role of the urban landscape in public health policy. But Duany appeared deeply suspicious of his own movement’s success, repeatedly excoriating the government as a “nanny state” and telling Fast Company “New Urbanism has been so successful that it has a lot of dinosaur DNA. The honchos are on board — you’ve seen them here. They want us to join them. Do we want to run among the dinosaurs, or among the mammals? I want to be is among the mammals.”
The choice of metaphor is intentional. Duany believes the metaphorical asteroid — call it peak oil, climate change, the collapse of complex structures — is on its way. He’s trying to push the body of planners and architects toward a small-town America that more closely resembles pre-1850 America than pre-1950. When I mentioned that his colleagues suspected he had recently become more radicalized, he scoffed. “I’ve always been radical,” he said. “That’s why they’re trying to shut me up.” “The end of the world is not in my timeline,” he added, “but circling the wagons is.”
Spending four days embedded with the New Urbanists is one long exercise is cognitive dissonance. Thirty years after Duany first formulated their basic principles, they have far outgrown their image as the advocates of quaint cottages (see: Seaside, Florida, Celebration, Florida) and are really in the business of finding spatial fixes to social challenges, whether public health, water scarcity, affording housing, disaster relief, or the future of good. What they can’t agree on is the scope of the problem — should they be making the best of suburban America’s bad situation, or building lifeboats for the end of the world? Nowhere was this cognitive dissonance more apparent than in the session introducing what Duany might as well call the the New New Urbanism: agrarian urbanism.
Agrarian urbanism, he explained, is different from both “urban agriculture” (“cities that are retrofitted to grow food”) and “agricultural urbanism” (“when an intentional community is built that is associated with a farm).” He was thinking bigger: “Agrarian urbanism is a society involved with the growing of food.” America abounds with intentional communities, he pointed out — golf course communities, equestrian ones, even the fly-in kind. So why not build one for locavores? And they can have as much land as they like — it’s just that they would have gardens instead of yards, or community gardens and window boxes if they choose to live in an apartment. Their commitment to “hand-tended agriculture” would be part of their legally binding agreement with the homeowners’ association. “You design your own utopia,” he said. Instead of a strip mall in the town square, there’s a “market square” comprised of green markets, restaurants, cooking schools, an agricultural university, and so on. “This thing pushes buttons like mad,” he said. “The excitement this triggers — they get as excited about this as they did in the old days about the porch and the walkable community.”
Duany conceded growing food is hard work, which is why his agrarian communities would still end up hiring Hispanic laborers to do the dirty work. But “you don’t pretend they don’t exist,” he said in a particular utopian moment. “The people who grow the food must be known to the kids. And they’re the ones who actually know what they’re doing — they know how to build buildings and they know how to grow food.” The money to pay for them — and for the farms — already exists in developers’ landscaping budgets. Stop building golf courses and start building farms, in other words. “We have American cheap labor, too,” he said. “Ourselves, except we’re spending it on ornamental bushes.”
It all sounded quite reasonable, given the demographics of Michael Pollan readers and Whole Foods customers, and has already proven quite profitable too, as the developers of the agrarian New Urbanist community Serenbe, Georgia, could attest. But underlying Duany’s modest proposal are darker suppositions. In a recent interview posted on YouTube, Duany compares this moment to August 1914, with the Great War underway while everyone is in denial believing the Belle Époque will return. With “megastuctures” like banking and industrial agriculture and poised to collapse, perhaps the next urbanism will be single-story buildings built on a cash (or barter?) basis, while jitneys and “bottom-up” forms of transportation will replace both cars and mass transit.
Follow this dystopian line of think far enough and you will eventually arrive at the dystopian worldview of James Howard Kunstler, who spoke on the same panel as Duany. Kunstler’s rhetorical style is reminiscent of the prophet Jeremiah, and he has function as the New Urbanists’ id since his breakthrough book The Geography of Nowhere. These days he’s one of the most prominent collapsars, having sketched a roadmap to the Dark Ages ahead in The Long Emergency and rewriting The Road twice since then.
“I have a harsher view of the situation we are actually in,” he informed the audience, before declaring that “techno-grandiosity” and “organizational grandiosity” will not be enough to save us from the Long Emergency. “Farming, at one level or another, is going to be your occupation.” Walking through historical forms of agrarian communities — plantations, prison farms, hippie communes and Soviet collective farms among them — he dismissed vertical farming as impractical and dense cores like Manhattan as impossible in the coming age without oil. Overpopulation would take of itself. “There’s a reason we don’t talk about population is because we’re not going to do anything about it. There isn’t going to be any protocols or policies. There will be the disasters and famines, and we don’t how much social disorder will stem from that.” That he was predicting this in the air-conditioned Grand Ballroom of the downtown Hilton in Atlanta was not lost on him.
Tags
