Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 y…
> 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 s…
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.