[MathCodeLove]

Those "exploited workers" probably made decent money relative to the cost of living in their location, and they got to do it from the comfort of a computer instead of hard labor in the sun, which is what someone in their same socioeconomic bracket would more likely be doing.

[balthigor]

How would you know?

Have you ever been in "their" location living in "their" same socioeconomic bracket?

Would it bother you more if "their" was replaced with "our"?

Would you then consider it "decent" money?

[MathCodeLove]

If it was "our" citizens getting paid near (US) minimum wage to sit at home and monitor a robot all day then yes, I'd still be all for it. Teenage me would have much preferred that to fast food, and even adult me would happily take it as a second or interim job if needed and unable to find better paying work for some reason. And I'm sure it'd be a great opportunity for the physically disabled or other people unable to leave home.

This is a win for everyone involved. A US company gets to outsource easy work at a price below our minimum wage that they can afford to a population which can live happily with those lower wages due to their nations cost of living.

[fivea]

> How would you know?

How do you know someone hired to drive a remote vehicle is being exploited?

[skhr0680]

Minimum wage to drive a robot sounds way better than minimum wage in retail

[Hakashiro]

"It is okay to pay sub-living national wages to foreigners in other countries because their cost of living is lower"

And I suppose you should also add they must stay there and never come to your country because then your job is at risk?

[MathCodeLove]

>"It is okay to pay wages below what we could live on to foreigners in other countries because their cost of living is lower"

FTFY. But, yes? How is that controversial?

>And I suppose you should also add they must stay there and never come to your country because then your job is at risk?

How do you draw that completely unrelated conclusion from the previous conversation?

[Hakashiro]

Cost of living is irrelevant when the cost of certain goods like iPhones, computers, Internet subscriptions and other things is fundamentally determined by strong markets like USA or EU.

Or are you going to tell me that Indians don't deserve to use iPhones, watch Netflix, or learn new skills through online programmes? Because that would be pretty racist, and I don't suppose you consider yourself racist, do you?

Further, the fact some countries earn astronomically high wages means they can, when they retire, take everything with them, into a cheap country like Egypt, India, or Greece, and live like emperors. Is that fair? Especially when hard-working people in India can barely afford vacation in their own country.

[MathCodeLove]

Ah, the old "If you disagree with me then you're a racist". Please don't engage if you aren't going to engage in good faith, we're not on Reddit. I'm happy to be called wrong, but not if you're going to do so like that.

People deserve what they can afford. Are you suggesting we subsidize the cost of every luxury good so that everyone in the world regardless of income has access to said luxury good? It's a great notion, but the logistics are fundamentally impossible.

I can't afford a Ferrari. Do I not deserve a Ferrari? I can't afford a Rolex. Do I not deserve a Rolex? The answer is no, I don't deserve either of those things. I don't fundamentally deserve anything except for my own life. If I want anything else it's up to me to find a way to obtain it.

[cuteboy19]

Cost of Netflix minimum (non mobile) plan

US: $9.99=760₹

India: $2.6=199₹

[Hakashiro]

Indians make less than 1/4th of an American salary. Your point?

[MathCodeLove]

> Cost of living is irrelevant when the cost of certain goods like iPhones, computers, Internet subscriptions and other things is fundamentally determined by strong markets like USA or EU.