Estimate how many slaves work for you based on your possessions and lifestyle.

I agree with the general principle of your comment, but I do think there is a difference between some of your examples concerning the consumer's proximity to the exploitation in question. Someone who buys a coke in Brooklyn is certainly far removed from the actions of a Coca-Cola subsidiary seizing drinking water in a far-off land, but someone purchasing the services of a sex worker who has been trafficked is much closer, and thus partially culpable, for the wrong that has been committed. If fewer people are purchasing the services of trafficked women (I'm not talking children here...that's a different issue) then it is safe to say that there will be less aggregate demand for them and that fewer women will trafficked as a result.

This is not to say that the sex traffickers themselves will be converted to an upstanding and pious life; rather, many of them would probably switch to another unsavory line of work. However, I would say that it makes more sense to use the change in number of trafficked women as the appropriate metric in considering the effect of a behavior change.

If we are buying products which were made, or have parts that were made, by people in terrible conditions, what would happen if we stopped buying those? Does it mean the people who use to make $1/day are now making $0/day which will lead to a harder life filled with crimes?

Note: This is an honest question. I also come from a place where skilled-workers make around $4 or $5/day. I think in many cases, $4/day is better than 0.

The people who make $1/day stop making $1/day. There is crisis. The crisis is caused by the cessation of a domination-based dependence relationship. The crisis could cause government collapse and mass-death. Out of the ashes will arise a (necessarily) more self-sufficient community.

The fact is that globalization fixes countries as "slave countries." It's very easy to control people by giving them a locally beneficial option. Which sounds better to you:

Make $1/day working 16 hours per day - spend the rest of your time sleeping/taking care of yourself/family.

Making $0/day refusing to work - spend your day working on building up your community in creative ways, but suffer much higher probability of personal/family death.

The option that 99.9% of people will take is #1. However, real change can't occur if everyone takes #1, so we have stasis.

This methodology is questionable.

Suppose 10 slaves work on an assembly line for a year and produce 100,000 soccer balls used by 100,000 people. In that case, these 100,000 people each have 10 slaves working for them.

On the other hand, suppose you had 100 slaves handcrafting 100,000 soccer balls. In that case, each of these 100,000 people has only 1 slave working for them.

This methodology seems to penalize inefficient manufacturing processes less than more efficient ones, even if the more efficient ones result in less slavery.

If you lived next to a diamond mine, you probably wouldn't buy diamond rings. I say this because I assume you are a compassionate/empathetic person to some degree, and I think it would be very difficult for you to separate out your feelings towards the terrible conditions/bloodshed involved in diamond mining and the shining ring that you just bought from the smiling slave-driver. The only reason that you could ever be comfortable buying such a ring is that you are far removed from the suffering involved in your purchase.

There are two complicating factors here: visibility and paucity of influence. You can't see the bad thing happening and you, individually, don't have the power to stop it.

The interaction between visibility and morality is a complicated one, but the fact is that if people in the most affluent nations boycotted diamonds then diamond mining would cease. If people boycotted Coca-Cola and Fiji spring water then villagers would get their water back.

The fact that you can't control these situations also complicates things. You can stop buying Coca Cola but, unless everyone else does to, CC is just going to just keep on stealing resources.

I think that the thing I really dislike about your comment is that you have the audacity to condemn the wrongs committed, but lack the integrity to acknowledge that you play, at least, some very small part in those wrong things happening. Because you do. If you don't buy that diamond ring then that is real $$$ that the diamond miners don't get. The hole created by your boycott has a non-zero probability of shutting down a diamond mine. The fact is that you don't care. I'm not saying you should - I'm just saying you don't. And the people doing these "wrong" things don't care either. Perhaps you could say that you would do differently in their situation, but my guess is that you are REALLY not in their situation and you have no idea what their situation is AT ALL.

I get it. You're in a comfortable position. There's no reason for you to change. You probably don't care enough about people in China, etc. that you're actually going to significantly, or even insignificantly, change your day to help them out. In fact, it's not even clear that you can. This may sound like a criticism, but I really don't care what you do.

The main element missing from your comment is the answer to "what to do?" My guess is that your answer is "Nothing. There are bad people elsewhere, and I'm not to blame, so I do nothing. Let them figure it out." I guess I hope this isn't actually your answer and that you realize that it's a lot more complicated. These people are "unscrupulous" not because they're full of demons, but because globalization exerts pressure and men sacrifice their better intentions when faced with that pressure.