The suicides are, in part, cultural; remember that suicide in a lot of Western religions and philosophies is anathema, so people here wouldn't consider it no matter how bad things got. But I've heard nothing about the kinds of beatings and murders that marked the US's history of labor disputes.
As far as it being 2013 - to paraphrase "The Princess Bride," in a lot of the world that doesn't mean what you think it means. We First Worlders are numerically a small part of the human population - to more than half the people in the world, 2013 doesn't mean readily-available clean water or electricity.
Another bottom line - there are only two ways to effectively change the situation. The workers quit working or the buyers quit buying. Neither group seems willing to commit to that course of action in serious numbers, despite moaning about how awful it all is. The half-measures you guys are talking about is like saying killing animals for meat is wrong so just amputate one of their legs; we'll eat those, and they can still hobble around.
I must admit, comparing people working for a living with killing animals for meat and being a customer with amputating the worker's limbs is one of the most bizarre analogies I've ever seen. And suicide should just be accepted as a cultural phenomenon and wouldn't be considered in the West no matter how bad things get? Wow.
Look, I understand the need to justify one's world view, but these days it's easy for anyone with an Internet connection to research topics like suicide rates in the West, not to mention the history of labor abuses and struggles. I don't know what source(s) of information you use, but you seem to be missing huge swaths of history.
Yes, strikes and boycott's can be effective tools if you can get large enough numbers. However, in earlier times even large strikes in the U.S. were met with mass firing and replacement (aka lockouts--used again in recent decades), arrests, worsening of conditions as punishment and physical violence. But history demonstrates other concerted actions can sometimes accelerate progress and reduce the need for drastic measures. Customer outrage, bad press and political pressure also play significant roles in forcing change. One thing is certain. None of the advances came from skeptics/hecklers on the sidelines saying there's nothing you can or should do to help.
To save time, let's just agree that we see the world differently. Some are content to say developing nations can enjoy the advances of the First World only if they achieve those advances on their own. Meanwhile, they're decades/centuries behind us so it's justified to exploit or ignore them. A different view says, oh we have medicines; manufacturing and food production techniques; technology; organizational experience and best practices that we can share to help those less fortunate. It's 2013 so let's help them catch up in areas that are open to/in need of assistance. In the first view we're competitors, exploiters or disinterested observers. In the second, we cooperate to a certain extent on the basis of our mutual humanity--as long as the other party is also willing to cooperate, contribute and eventually stand on their own two feet.
The stark difference between these views tends to make it difficult for each side to comprehend the other. Best not to judge, but just observe, discern and allow people to follow their chosen path.