3 ms·

No, I think this line of thinking is exceptionally counterproductive. If you are the sort of lovely person who is bothered by others' working conditions and ri

No, I think this line of thinking is exceptionally counterproductive. If you are the sort of lovely person who is bothered by others' working conditions and rights, a cleaner in your home is absolutely the best outcome. Not only do you get to pay above the odds —if you want to— you get to see them, you can talk to them and ask them how they're doing in life. Conversely how do you suppose the teenagers who assembled your robot is being cared for? What about the miners extracting the rare earth metals used in batteries and motors? What about the villages around said mines that suffer horrific levels of pollution? And what about the dump where all this ends up in under 10 years time?

TeMPOraL 8y ago
> Not only do you get to pay above the odds —if you want to— you get to see them, you can talk to them and ask them how they're doing in life. To the extent that it makes this person's work bearable, it worsens the situation. The company abusing the worker gets to earn that much more money and stay in business that much longer. If everyone did that, such companies would worsen their treatment even more (this is the same phenomenon that makes jobs desirable for non-economic reasons pay less; satisfaction gets deducted from your salary). > Conversely how do you suppose the teenagers who assembled your robot is being cared for? What about the miners extracting the rare earth metals used in batteries and motors? What about the villages around said mines that suffer horrific levels of pollution? And what about the dump where all this ends up in under 10 years time? The way to help those people isn't to buy more of their products, ensuring they have more work to do.
- JoeAltmaier 8y ago
  Agreed. But I worry about the 'first-world' convenience of this argument. Boycott abusive employers, maybe put them out of business! But the poor people working there are out of a job too. And they needed that job - it was miserable and yet they kept working, so I know they really needed it. People have to eat every day. To lose a job, even a miserable one, is not something I want to inflict on somebody, especially sitting in my armchair in my comfortable house on 80 acres in the heartland of America. So where does that leave my ambitions to be ethical in my buying?
- oliwarner 8y ago
  Abuse can exist anywhere, but I wager it is more likely in countries with little or no worker protections, and where there are more people working in poor conditions. Because where I am, we do have worker protections, minimum wage, modern-day slavery rules that forbid indenture, maximum hours, health and safety regulations. The people in the factories and mines that make the robots have none of these. My point above was that you are only ever able to detect abuse where you have contact. If you feel your cleaner is being abused (again, just talk to them) you have so many options for legally improving their situation. That may mean the agency they worked for goes out of business under a hail of prosecutions, but there is a solid demand for cleaners (both self-employed and agency). Somebody else will step in and take on that work, and ultimately employ local people to do the same work. > The way to help those people isn't to buy more of their products Not sure if you got that the wrong way around but my point above was not to suggest that buying more robots is a good thing. If the quote above is what you meant, we agree.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

TeMPOraL 8y ago

> Not only do you get to pay above the odds —if you want to— you get to see them, you can talk to them and ask them how they're doing in life. To the extent that it makes this person's work bearable, it worsens the situation. The company abusing the worker gets to earn that much more money and stay in business that much longer. If everyone did that, such companies would worsen their treatment even more (this is the same phenomenon that makes jobs desirable for non-economic reasons pay less; satisfaction gets deducted from your salary). > Conversely how do you suppose the teenagers who assembled your robot is being cared for? What about the miners extracting the rare earth metals used in batteries and motors? What about the villages around said mines that suffer horrific levels of pollution? And what about the dump where all this ends up in under 10 years time? The way to help those people isn't to buy more of their products, ensuring they have more work to do.

JoeAltmaier 8y ago
Agreed. But I worry about the 'first-world' convenience of this argument. Boycott abusive employers, maybe put them out of business! But the poor people working there are out of a job too. And they needed that job - it was miserable and yet they kept working, so I know they really needed it. People have to eat every day. To lose a job, even a miserable one, is not something I want to inflict on somebody, especially sitting in my armchair in my comfortable house on 80 acres in the heartland of America. So where does that leave my ambitions to be ethical in my buying?
oliwarner 8y ago
Abuse can exist anywhere, but I wager it is more likely in countries with little or no worker protections, and where there are more people working in poor conditions. Because where I am, we do have worker protections, minimum wage, modern-day slavery rules that forbid indenture, maximum hours, health and safety regulations. The people in the factories and mines that make the robots have none of these. My point above was that you are only ever able to detect abuse where you have contact. If you feel your cleaner is being abused (again, just talk to them) you have so many options for legally improving their situation. That may mean the agency they worked for goes out of business under a hail of prosecutions, but there is a solid demand for cleaners (both self-employed and agency). Somebody else will step in and take on that work, and ultimately employ local people to do the same work. > The way to help those people isn't to buy more of their products Not sure if you got that the wrong way around but my point above was not to suggest that buying more robots is a good thing. If the quote above is what you meant, we agree.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]