溫哥華老友記討論區 - Powered by Discuz! Board

標題: Blood iPad [打印本頁]

作者: habitrailspace 時間: 2010-5-28 07:18 標題: Blood iPad

Will you buy Blood iPad?

作者: habitrailspace 時間: 2010-5-28 07:51

http://news.chinabyte.com/62/11202562.shtml

苹果也把iPad交由低成本且高效率的制造厂代工与组装。在大陆江苏设有工厂的台湾新普科技为满足iPad电池订单，近来拼命加班赶工，新普的“苹果生产部门”自2月中旬农历新年来扩增700名员工，使员工增至1800人，该部门主管表示：“苹果的订单时间很赶，我们已大举增加人力以达成目标，iPad电池目前的产量比1月时高出50%。”

作者: Ovaltine 時間: 2010-5-28 09:06

ipad are forever, foreverrr

作者: habitrailspace 時間: 2010-5-28 10:54

作者: habitrailspace 時間: 2010-5-28 10:54

http://ww.9to5mac.com/is_money_enough

作者: tofu 時間: 2010-5-28 17:17

blood ipad?

they all get fair pay
if we don't buy ipads, they will all loss their jobs la.

作者: sheep 時間: 2010-5-28 17:32

blood ipad?

they all get fair pay
if we don't buy ipads, they will all loss their jobs la.
tofu 發表於 2010-5-28 17:17

只係可以用你情我願來形容
講唔上 FAIR PAY

作者: godavid 時間: 2010-5-28 18:35

ipad sucks

作者: echicken 時間: 2010-5-29 03:23

回復 6# tofu

is that if you don't leave the rubbish in food court, then the janitors will lose their job? what kind of logic is this? Chinese logic

作者: sheep 時間: 2010-5-29 07:27

本帖最後由 sheep 於 2010-5-29 07:30 編輯

回復 tofu

is that if you don't leave the rubbish in food court, then the janitors will lose ...
echicken 發表於 2010-5-29 03:23

the truth is yes, unfortunately

作者: tofu 時間: 2010-5-29 20:40

回復 9# echicken

if you don't generate garbage, do you need a generate bin

作者: godavid 時間: 2010-5-29 21:27

who cares about garbage

作者: echicken 時間: 2010-5-30 04:52

回復 11# tofu

that is 偷換概念 in philosophy. even if we don't buy ipad, they can work on other electronic devices. and for janitor, my statement is "if we dont leave garbage, will they loss their job?" the answer is obviously no cuz they have to do other cleaning job (not the things that we leave there) too. i think u should take a intro philosophy class in a post secondary institution

作者: tofu 時間: 2010-5-30 17:01

回復 13# echicken

so you believe your theory is 偷換概念?
there are other janitors doing the other cleaning jobs already, so if there is not enough work for all of them, someone will get layoff.

if you don't buy the ipad, will you buy another cell phone/tv/printer?  your theory will work on necessary goods, but not inferior goods.
if i don't eat beef, i will eat chicken/fish/pork.  but if i don't buy the ipad, i don't need to buy anything else.  so if the total demand of electronic devices decrease, the number of manpower will decrease.
go back to take econ 101 la.

作者: habitrailspace 時間: 2010-5-31 08:45

is ikea furniture a better example?

作者: echicken 時間: 2010-5-31 20:40

回復 14# tofu

that's why your knowledge of economics is limited to econ 101. It is true that the demand of ipad may decrease if people boycott the product. But then what is the reason for that? It is because the manufacturer! if your theory is correct, there should never be organic products or ethic beans at the commercial skytrain station.
Your theory is saying that "people in a lower class have to be sacrifice in order to the keep up the demand and sales for the market". but then buyers are not only care about the price, ECON 101 DID NOT TEACH YOU the other factors that may affect the market, transaction cost, demand and supply.

if you are right, then all the countries in Northern Europe should collapse cuz they are everyone there are nearly equal. every country should follow what China does and earn more $. That's nonsense, then why there are more people wanna leave china at all cost?

the ipad and the company's goodwill will decrease and suffer from loss in long-term. but if the manufacturer set up a better policy and welfare for the workers, then the company will gain a goodwill back and earn more in the future. also, ipad is not the only product in the market. there will be other same kind of product coming and replace it. in order words, more workers will be needed. the same logic, if you can't go to LYK, does it mean you have nowhere to go? If the answer is positive, congratulations.

作者: sheep 時間: 2010-5-31 20:46

but if the manufacturer set up a better policy and welfare for the workers, then the company will gain a goodwill back and earn more in the future
echicken 發表於 2010-5-31 20:40

this will be another issue " crisis management "
this is not economics neither mirco nor marco

作者: tofu 時間: 2010-6-1 16:32

"""Your theory is saying that "people in a lower class have to be sacrifice in order to the keep up the demand and sales for the market""""
are you just refer yourself as lower class and talking about your own story.
when did i say that?  I said "but if i don't buy the ipad, i don't need to buy anything else."
it means i don't have to buy any replacement product, but i can buy anything else i want.  but i can buy a house, diamond ring or ...., or simply i just keep the money in my bank account. there is nothing to deal with "sacrifice".  also refer to your first theory, if i don't buy any electric item, the workers who work with electrical diverse will loss their jobs.

"""the ipad and the company's goodwill will decrease and suffer from loss in long-term. but if the manufacturer set up a better policy and welfare for the workers, then the company will gain a goodwill back and earn more in the future"""
is it a bigger joke, or you just live in your fairytale.  you are missing lot of steps.
if the company just need to set up a better policy(i believe you mean a budget control or anyway whatever) and welfare the workers will automatically gain back the goodwill and earn more in the future.  then gm, ford, nortel and .... will not in trouble la.  cutting cost will only limit the deficit in a short term, because fixed expenses cannot change.  if you can't gain back the market, shareholders will still leave you, finance costs will still increase.

if you are right, then all the countries in Northern Europe should collapse cuz they are everyone there are nearly equal.
back to econ101, you forgot the import/export , service industry and raw material.  if the country has nothing, it will probably follow iceland soon.

you are using too many assumptions in your statements without quote.  i shouldn't say anything about econ 101, because your level is far below that.

作者: soli 時間: 2010-6-2 15:33

that's why your knowledge of economics is limited to econ 101.

非常同意﹐看tofu女士既回復就知道﹐講到錯晒...

我好懷疑tofu女士連咩係goodwill 都唔知...
econ 101 既程度係o甘上下...

歡迎光臨溫哥華老友記討論區 (http://www.loyaukee.com/forum/)