No, there isn't. Which is why average workers openly supporting rich people and dissing Health and Safety rules surprise me. They're there for your own protection, created by decades of hard work by hard workers who know how easy it is to get fucked by a company.

Yet most of us probably wear textiles made in a mill in Bangladesh and use electronics manufactured in East Asia at a huge environmental cost.

The only thing you're doing by supporting "Health and Safety" laws is offshoring suffering.

The only way to stop the cycle is to consume less, but that seems to be a foreign concept.

I'm specifically thinking of forklift drivers and factory workers. I've been around them when HSE was auditing, and they were openly mocking them for telling them to wear their goggles. Why?

Can't say anything about other countries, since there's so much shit at home, they need to take care of their own...

But yeah, they also buy the latest shit (on credit), and when asked why, there's no good answer. I use my stuff until it's completely dead, and even then it's fixable. If everyone did it, maybe we'd get rid of planned obsolescence, which is an insane, but sadly profitable concept.

Not sure why wearing goggles when driving a fork lift improves h&s.

The trouble is there tends to be a one size fits all h&s I see track side workers wearing hard hats and the failure modes for accidents tends to be things like runaway trucks not heavy objects falling on your head.

I have also seen all the local bus drivers wearing high vis vests for no reason - I could see having one the bus in case it breaks down and they have to get out and put out hazard signs but when I have seen busses broken down they don't do that.

While it's probably good to aim for less consumption, there's no fundamental reason that those countries couldn't have the same progression in workers rights.

What needs to stop is western tax money pouring in through different channels to support repressive and corrupt regimes and policies under the guise of keeping these countries "business friendly".

The working and middle classes in the west have been undermining themselves for quite some time now.

> there's no fundamental reason that those countries couldn't have the same progression in workers rights.

There is in that a high level of unemployment leads to social unrest and governments toppling.

Most people in the developing world are willing to suffer in order for a better future for their family. If you take that away (as I mentioned, more automation) then you take that away, and you get a lot of pissed off people.

It's a lot easier to live in a sweltering room with your family if you have a reassurance that your children won't suffer the same fate.

Suppose I come down with cancer. I have a grand piano, which I auction off to pay my medical bills. The highest bidder offers $4,000, so that's what I sell it for. It isn't enough, so I run out of money and die.

Is the person who bought the piano morally guilty for "ignoring others' suffering"? Should they be held guilty unless they bid however much I needed for my cancer treatment, even if that's $1,000,000? Are they more guilty than the losing bidders, who offered even less, or people who didn't bid at all? That's what this seems to imply about Amazon (or all employers, really), except in this case, the person is selling a service (whatever work they perform) rather than a piano.

>except in this case,

Your analogy is very leaky. Bidding and delivery is one and done, whereas in the dynamics of workplaces, employers have vast influence on the workplace conditions daily. Also applicants rarely get full insight when applying - this is true of piano bidding ("I wonder what it will be like to deal with this person") but that represents a small one-time exchange.

Indeed. And it's useless to pretend that's not the case.

"useless to pretend that's not the case" is a dumb, paint brush response. Yes, many, if not most, capitalists do so. That said, consumers don't tend to reward good behaviour either. Even when I put a minimal amount of effort into making purchases from "ethical" companies, I get people questioning what the hell I'm doing. Why don't I go for the cheapest, brand-namest, most-marketed, child labor made, etc equivalent from <Big Corporation Co>.

If anyone is going to start rambling off about the evils of capitalism, I suggest they stick their foot in their mouth until they've already stopped buying from companies that benefit from exploitative behaviour. But since I've met almost nobody who falls into that category, then it's time to admit that capitalists aren't inherently unethical, it's just that consumers, including you (and even me) have decided to reward the ones who aren't.

> But since I've met almost nobody who falls into that category, then it's time to admit that capitalists aren't inherently unethical, it's just that consumers, including you (and even me) have decided to reward the ones who aren't.

Of course society is (in theory) set up to ensure that it's the consumer's fault. Or that the consumer has some kind of mass control over this. Unfortunately the consumer is at a mass disadvantage. Not only do stress and monetary factors constrain the amount of control they can exercise, but also big companies expend hundreds of thousands of pounds in advertising and propaganda.

Putting the blame on the sheep for the faults of the farmer is ludicrous.

Do not think is just limited to "Capitalists"

Of course, the entire capitalist society condones exploitation. There is no ethical consumption under capitalism.

There’s no consumption at all under the alternative.