To argue that “simply refusing to work for any company that acts objectionably in the world in one way or another” is absurd frames that sentiment in such a demeaning, belittling way. Of course exploitation at some level exists as a result of the economic system that we are under—that is undeniable. And, further, as a result of imperialism (the highest stage of capitalism), that exploitation extends globally, and as citizens of the imperial core, we get to reap the benefits. Residents of America are complicit in American imperialism to some degree, be it through something more mild, like taxpayer money, or something more direct, like working on a defense contract. This is an ugly fact, and hard to accept.
But, really, is that what is meant when people say they don’t want to work for any company that is morally objectionable? It’s almost comical how the article views it in such bad faith. The answer to “What if I got a job offer to a company I find repugnant but the salary is handsome?” is not to examine how closely you work with X morally awful component or to do the mental gymnastics to weigh your possible survival with an atrocious aspect. It’s to realize that if such a company that can afford to pay you that well wants you, then likely another company without that association will want you as well. It’s just a matter of what pay you are willing to settle for. It’s just a matter of how much your morals are worth monetarily.
Would I accept a job at Facebook/Meta? I don’t even know if I would apply in the first place.
