Can’t help but feel like this is an opportunity more than it is exploitation based on the information given.
The opportunity exists only because this labor pool is composed of laborers who are vulnerable to such exploitation.
To me, this article isn’t about whether it’s good or bad for the laborers involved, but an invitation to look at the bigger economic picture, i.e. why their material conditions are such that there are opportunities for children to trade $2 for an hour of their labor.
This person doesn't read as "insincere" to me at all. To me, they read as very deliberately and conscientiously conceding shared language and norms where possible, while also holding--and expressing!--a position on the edges of, if not beyond, this forum's Overton Window.
I find myself doing the same thing, often. It's a necessary component of discussing--with strangers--broad, complex and controversial subjects. The alternative is to simply agree, or to simply disagree--and with no understanding of how one's own beliefs relate to another's!--neither of which help us grow as a society.
> obviously judgmental language like “vulnerable”
I consider children to be a vulnerable population regardless of what the economics of their lives are like. So therefore, I judge the systems in the world that incentivize capitalizing upon that vulnerability. QED.
Completely foregoing school to make more than average might be the wrong decision for someone who is 15 or it might completely change that family’s life. Balance would be great.