Suicide is a tragedy and people should always do what they can to prevent it. However, it is also something that will always occur in some portion of the population, typically as the result of depression. We should not ignore the fact that the suicide rate in, for example, the United States is an order of magnitude higher than it is at Foxconn. Foxconn employs over 1.2 million people, so the number of suicides will appear high compared with other, smaller companies. Working conditions are tough, the cultural environment is difficult for people with depression (which can be said for almost every culture), and the company could invest more resources to provide help to those in need. But we cannot 'fix' depression, and it's irresponsible to divert attention from the underlying mental health issue to blame the employer for all the employees who have committed suicide.
You should try reading the article next time -- this post has absolutely nothing to do with suicide rates.
I guess your response is somewhat appropriate though. Like the company he worked for, you didn't even stop for a second to think of Xu as a human being, he was just a means to an end. In your case, that end being the collection free internet brownie points by posting a contrarian opinion.
That's unfair. The article starts off by referencing suicide rates; the website exists to argue against workplace iniquity rather than celebrate creative output.
It's actually reading the surrounding details of Xu's life deeper into the article, and particularly his poetry, that makes it abundantly clear that more was preying upon his mind than long hours and an institutional environment.
My intent was to supply a relevant perspective missing from the article. Each individual story of suicide is tragic. Xu Lizhi's poetry and perspective are extremely valuable in helping outsiders connect to the experience of depression, and in no way am I trying to undermine his experience or the reality of suicide.
To the extent that the article uses his story as a commentary on Foxconn as a company, however, it is important to provide broader context alongside the deeply personal experience. The underlying issues contributing to depression and suicide are universal, but it is easy to cast blame on specific contexts.
Even ignoring the article, the only context for Foxconn most people in the world have (assuming they have any at all) is "suicide rate". That's it.
That's what the news media has always done: Turned things that were stories, be they true or be they false, into context, to be inserted subconsciously whenever certain keywords get mentioned.
The suicide rate in federal prisons is lower than that of the general population as well. Does that mean that the quality of life is higher in federal prisons? Or is it simply that Foxconn employees feel so trapped by their conditions they are deprived of even the ability to take their own life? Perhaps with enough rhetorical gymnastics we can disassociate Xu Lizhi's experience from the electronics in our pockets and our own culpability in the suffering of others. If you wish to discuss the underlying mental health issues than do so. In the meantime I think criticism of Foxconn, Apple, Samsung, and the systemic use of neofeudal labor is perfectly valid.
I'm not sure this is what GP was addressing, but there is a very real phenomenon of getting so depressed that you can't even manage to kill yourself. You actually see increased risk of suicide at the beginning of therapy for some patients, where they come up enough to get just enough mental energy to successfully kill themselves.
But we have no evidence that this is the case. At first people kept saying "Foxconn employees kill themselves a lot, so they're depressed", and now they're saying "Foxconn employees don't kill themselves as much as we do, so they're depressed". It seems to me that people here are simply predisposed to believe that Foxconn employees are depressed, and are willing to take pretty much anything as evidence for that belief.
> You actually see increased risk of suicide at the beginning of therapy for some patients, where they come up enough to get just enough mental energy to successfully kill themselves.
This is something that happens (mostly with bipolar people who go into manic states, it actually doesn't typically happen with severe depression cases), but in terms of risk, no you are wrong, statistically you see decreased risk immediately after starting any kind of depression treatment:
It seems a little to easy to reduce the situation to a "Once Foxconn employees stop killing themselves at X rate we can consume Apple products guilt free." type of equation, doesn't it?
Edit: The article is relatively weak. There's many more interesting case studies of nations and cultures that went from a near 0 suicide rate to sudden spikes.
Without claiming any authority on the subject, I would suggest that suicide can be seen as a 'luxury'* in certain cases:
Isn't it that much harder to "undo yourself" when you have dependents on you that have no other alternative?
If it takes $x units of depression to take your own life while responsibility-free, wouldn't it take 10 * $x to do so while knowing that you're leaving your children to the STATE?
* Bad choice of word considering the context, but I can't find another. I hope you get what I mean.
If you've never been depressed I don't think you can understand what someone in that mind-state might think, and thinking: "my kids would be better off with anyone than me" is the exact sort of thing a suicidally depressed person might say.
We should not ignore the fact that the suicide rate in, for example, the United States is an order of magnitude higher than it is at Foxconn.
I looked at the figures for this. They are all talking about suicides by employees while on Foxconn property, not total suicide rate of current and recent employees.
