First, I never said that actions that are wrong become right because we do them. What I'm saying is that they are perfectly fine for us (or were fine for us in the period we transitioned to a capitalist system), and I do not see why they wouldn't be for these workers (I'm talking about the no phone, keeping finger nails short, searches while leaving factory etc, not the sexual intimidation - see below).

Secondly, I can't comment on how much money the guy from the article is making or how much purchasing power that represents. However it does seem that he needs to support not only himself, but also his parents, plus save up for a bride price, a practice itself instigated by years of dysfunctional demographic control policies. I would estimate that only the top 20 or so percentiles of youth in their 20's in the West make enough money to support themselves, their parents AND save up for a significant expense. (I'm not very familiar with the current marriage market in China but I've read that in some areas prices of $5000 are being paid. That would represent several years worth of (average) salary. How many people in their 20's in the West do YOU know who can save up 150k in a few years?) So all in all the elevated need for income seems to come from externalities. While unfortunate for this worker, and I sympathize with his hardships, I think no reasonable person will argue that he should be paid according to his 'need' (use of vocabulary of a certain flawed economic system intentional)

Again, I'm not saying that because 'we' (Westerners) have something that that makes it right; but again in this case, it seems like this guy faces the same challenge that many young people in the West face, and while many of us like to complain (myself included), I would not argue that this is imposing 'inhumane conditions' upon us.

Then, about the work safety regulations - fining people for getting hurt is not right. The article does seem though like they had to go out of the way to find an example of such an instance. On top of that, not only the worker was fined, also the management, and the worker was re-hired. Still no excuse for unsafe working conditions, but again if this is the worst example they could find, I'd say they're doing quite OK. We can't really tell from the article if it's really unsafe, and I have a hunch the author would've let us know if he knew just one more way to make it seem like a horrible factory.

Lastly, the sexual harassment. For this, too, there is no excuse; on the other hand, it's quite easy for something to be labeled 'sexual harassment' nowadays. The article only says "Some security guards sexually harass the young women, often using very provocative language." which seems to suggest that in the most extreme cases, they use "very provocative language". Again without details this is hard to judge but it hardly seems to be the daily gang rape that the rest of the article suggests it is.

(Let me be clear, for the record, that no form of sexual harassment, in any place or form, is ever OK. However there are gradations of sexual harassment and my point is that from what we can tell from the article, the worst that happens is in the same class of behavior as mild picking on a colleague - not acceptable, but not the worst either, in the broad moral spectrum).

So in closing (at last...), my original point still stands. If the facts in the article (of which there are few, in between all the rhetoric) are correct, and if these facts are interpreted in context, even when contrasted with so-called 'advanced nations', there seems to be very little that is out of the ordinary (if not up for some improvement, as is the case anywhere), and certainly not as "dehumanizing" or exploitative as the author wants to make us believe.

(sorry for the long ramble :) )