Exactly my thoughts, when people say they have a great work life balance at their enterprise IT company, it’s at the cost of some cheap labour outsourced somewhere.

When you buy cheap cloths at Walmart or even at the brands, just have a look at the tag. Your luxury is at the cost of cheap wage slave labour or a child labour in a third world country.

The new trend is 100% US based customer support. These are the very companies which cheaply outsourced customer support to start with.

That cheap labor is exactly what has brought countless people out of extreme poverty in many countries that over the years have had the competitive advantage of cheap labor. This is how Japan and south Korea started. You can see it in process with China and many others.

I'm not sure how taking away what little industry they have by refusing to buy their products helps these countries.

While I find it said that children are working in many countries today, I'm also not glib enough to think that is those jobs are taken away, their parents will just send them to school instead and they'll go on to live a happy life.

Farmers and other poor from China's interior make a different calculus.

Many move to the eastern parts of the country to work in those factories because they are a better alternative to what they have back home.

It's not all that different from kids in Podunk USA moving to bigger cities for better opportunities despite "the rat race" in cities.

If north America and Europe had not essentially outsourced their labor to China and India, we'd have two billion more people living in extreme poverty, burning wood stoves, etc.

Farmers are not the same thing as hunter gatherers though.

That's just not true. It's not how economics/capitalism works. It's possible for both us "over here in the west" to benefit from "cheap labor" elsewhere, and for the people providing the "cheap labor" to benefit as well! It's a win-win in most cases, which is why over the last 40 years more people have moved out of poverty than at any other point in human history.

"if I were a garment factory worker making 100$/month under terrible conditions and long hours, then things might change -- I'd personally take my chances out in the wilderness."

Maybe that's true, but I think it's a bit ridiculous to suggest you would simply not be able to live in the same conditions 2 billion people live in and accept (they don't go out to the wilderness). Are you really so different that for you this will be such and impossible situation that you'd throw yourself to the wilderness?

> Are you really so different that for you this will be such and impossible situation that you'd throw yourself to the wilderness?

These garment factory workers don't have the option to become hunter-gather. There probably is nothing to gather or hunt around where they live and the skills to do it are lost. We are comparing two models of society. Are humans in our capitalistic society happier on average than hunter-gatherers of the past?

This misses the whole point of the article, and injects a political agenda into a conversation about how wealth in the west isn't helping happiness.