Thinking and talking about the situation in terms of our lives sensationalizes more than it informs.
Thinking and talking about the situation in terms of our lives sensationalizes more than it informs.
If every person's situation is relative, then how do we oppose slavery or abuse? It's better than starving to death, right?
The real problem here is that there's no recourse in our current economy. China makes well over half the electronics we buy so it's not like a boycott of Apple would necessarily help.
I see two approaches that could help. We can appeal to the humanity of CEOs, boards, and investors and try to press them to enact change. Or we can use their vanity by embarrassing them with productions like "The Agony and Ecstasy of Steve Jobs."
While I get what you are saying and am by no means arguing in favor of Fox Con, I believe you are turning my shades of gray argument back to black and white. There isn't a strict dividing line between the acceptable and unacceptable; it's a gradient. There is worse than Fox Con and there is worse than what is worse than Fox Con (and so on, ad nauseam).
My point is that it is foolish to use Fox Con as the poster child of this issue when there are far worse situations. It does a great disservice to the argument. Most people will stop at Fox Con in their exploration of the situation and say to themselves "That's horrible. We should do something about that," instead of "It's horrible that Fox Con is a better option for most people and that there is worse out there. We should dig deeper and fix the problem from the ground up until Fox Con is the worst of the worst and then we can fix that."
I'm happy to admit I'm as much a part of the problem as anyone else. I'd like to not forget or justify that away at the very least.