Indeed. When everyone expects human greed and disregard for the public good to rule businesses, then businesses will meet that expectation. Public policy is supposed to be a check on that, but the first line of defense consists of decision-makers in business remembering back to some very basic lessons they were taught in the home and in kindergarten; the "sharing is good" and "be nice to others who aren't like you" kind.

Well then, I guess we in the States will just repeal the minimum wage, worker's comp, overtime pay, OSHA, and a whole host of policies that make it more expensive to hire people. We apparently haven't raced to the bottom quite fast enough. Why, it's a wonder we don't have 30% unemployment if what you're saying is correct.

Oh no, it's not the extreme boom-and-bust cycle unleashed by inadequately regulated finance capitalism or the concentration of wealth into too few hands that caused unemployment. No, it just happens to always be those policies that assist the average worker. Gee, what a convenient coincidence.

Whatever they are, they're not what Foxconn's offering.

That's all well and good for tools, but I haven't found any manufacturers of smartphones that aren't also sweatshops. Until that changes, I'm proudly going without one and letting the hypocrites know that. Then hopefully they'll feel enough shame so that they'll do one of two things:

1) Never complain about sweatshops ever again because they're complicit in it and don't want to be hypocrites. Then they'll go on to the afterlife and have to answer to whatever diety(ies) exist on why they just HAD to have that iPhone when they knew full well why it was so cheap. Then they'll hem, haw, and stutter because they've been had, and then the diety(ies) will shake their head(s) and kick them back down to earth for a do-over because their ethics were lacking and maybe, just maybe, they'll get it right the next time. While emotionally satisfying, this is not my optimal outcome.

2) Actually stop buying smartphones and other products made in exploitative conditions and demand that manufacturers clean up their act. Then they'll buck up and pay a higher price tag, and the workers will have a better life. Oh, the consumers will complain about the prices, and they'll resent the fact that they can't buy every shiny new gadget on the shelf now, but they'll have done the right thing in the end.

Then the thousands of iPhone buyers complaining about bad working conditions need to put up or shut up. Human rights ain't cheap, people.

I'm still waiting for an iPhone manufacturer that pays its workers a decent wage and respects meaningful safety standards. I'm willing to pay an extra $100+ for my iPhone to not have a guilty conscience. C'mon invisible hand, supply my demand already.

Guys, he's from Arizona, so of course he's going to post stupid Internet tough guy comments full of self-entitled classism. Ignore him.

*psst* I think he's trying to troll us by being completely unreasonable in his replies. Common tactic, really.

What in the world would giving out free movie tickets to a 12-year-old at my house prove, other than I like giving out movie tickets? You need more details in your example to make a guilty verdict likely; say, "You have to come inside my bedroom to get them, while I'm in my underwear, and be sure to wear something low-cut and revealing." Then we can start talking about establishing intent to facilitate commission of an offense without actually uttering the magic words, "Let's have sex!"

Thank you for informing us of your views on the relationship of natural selection to social organization. Now kindly answer the poster's question on why laws regarding children have changed so drastically in the last 10 years. Otherwise your comment is irrelevant.

So can you guarantee that I'm not going to go to jail if I cross into Canada because I talked with a Canadian 13-year-old about the anime One Piece online with no intent to have sex with them whatsoever? Because I'm thinking of emigrating to Canada, and they're supposed to be the nice and sensible country compared to the States.

Actually, most states have an age of consent of 16, no matter how old the other party is. Moreover, nude photos of anyone of any age are not illegal - they have to be sexually explicit as a precondition for a charge of the photos being child pornography.

Don't bring that up too often, or else the morality police will get legislatures to raise the age of consent to resolve this contradiction. And you think the court dockets are clogged now...