You have to consider the demographic, and not the overall population statistics. Most people who kill themselves tend to be very poor and/or old and alone. These workers were neither. Also, those are the suicides that are directly related to Foxconn-- ie. people throwing themselves off buildings or after being beaten. I do not think the conditions at Foxconn were particularly bad compared to other places in China, but that's kind of the problem. There's a reason Chinese labor is cheap. The crazy thing about this is that the Chinese government has to some extent figured out that manufacturing goods at little profit margin for other countries while burning up all your labor and natural resources is a horrible way to drive your economy. You're at someone else's mercy. And, you aren't investing, you're just as a country sort of going to payday to payday and sacrificing the long-term for short-term survival. So China is trying to go upscale like crazy. They just don't know how yet. And Trump is the only guy stupid enough to WANT to fill the gap that China and others are desperately trying to exit.
And, if you have the attention span, please read the following thread to see just how much thread this is going to unravel. It's 60 or so tweets long but will inform you on what a momentous effect Flynn's flip will have. This guy has been on this case since it started: Vin
The problem with his argument is that it only considers individuals who killed themselves by jumping off the building where they worked. 10 workers killing themselves by jumping off a factory in a year (requiring the installation of nets) can be shocking without it being more than a small subsection of the overall suicide rate for the employees of the factory.
The story as it was told was that ten suicides in one company was an absolutely horrific statistic. It wasn't, provided you looked at the denominator. The use of the word "factory" reduces the denominator in peoples' minds because "factory" doesn't conjure up 400,000 people. My mental picture of "factory" is probably about 300 or so people. Without even looking I'm prepared to bet my house that there was an utterly horrific absolute number of abortions, deaths from cancer and road fatalities amongst workers at the factory. Doesn't mean that the rate was high or that working there caused them. Vin
What Damien Green does within the walls of his own home, on his own personal computer, providing that it hurts nobody, with the possible exception of himself, and is legal, is his own business. That's quite a few caveats. What he does outside of his own home, while he is representing his voters, or within the walls of government or parliament, is very much everybody else's business as well as his. The fact that this news is retrospective is neither here nor there. At the very least one could question his character and whether he is fit to represent the UK as a government employee and role model. If he was gazing at porn at work, but outside of the public domain, ie, he wasn't representing and serving the country. then perhaps that would be fine too. But he wasn't. Just a few weeks ago a minister resigned for retrospective inappropriate behaviour, which was very mild indeed. After due introspection I think Damien Green might consider doing the same.
I agree with your comments, but the most important issue for me is anyone who is/was/aspires to be in a position of influence, within a political party and the government, needs to eliminate the possibility of being coerced into trying to influence decisions, not on merit but for self preservation. As I referred to in an earlier comment, the Tory whips have been exposed as using confidential information to ensure obedience at the ballot box, so heaven knows how much damage could be caused by people who aren’t even on his own team, pushing him or any other MP, to influence decision making, for fear of exposure. Denying having watched the porn, when he appears to have been caught bang to rights (another report I read refers to his laptop also having been used for watching porn) further taints his character.
Yes, I understand. All of which calls his character into question. If someone is to remain beyond influence then they must be taintless. That's a highish bar, but by no means an impossible one.In years to come the standards will only be higher. Probably best for these potential leaders to note that. That is, don't try to live by not getting caught, but try to live without blemish. If you're that keen to lead.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42205329 This is the point which I was trying to make in my original post about police confidentiality before it got lost in the politics.
What are your results on the new 8values political ideology test? https://8values.github.io FYI I came out as a Social Liberalism.
Well, i didn't have anything better to do with my lunch time. https://8values.github.io/results.html?e=75.0&d=78.2&g=60.8&s=71.8
