Exploitation isn't when somebody is forced to do something, it's when one person profits off the work of another. So in my example, the job is exploitative, yes. Having a business fail is not exploitation.
I didn't make an argument about whether it was contributing to the economy or not, but that doesn't matter - slavery contributed to the economy too, but it's also morally wrong.
It's a stripped down hypothetical on purpose, to get to the heart of the question. Non-labour material concerns are left as an exercise for the reader.
Using someone else's limitations (e.g. inability to work legally) as leverage for your own gain (e.g. paying them an extremely low wage) might as well be the textbook definition of exploitation.
Absolutely. I’m not a fan of the overly broad definition of exploitation meaning “anyone who has a job.” Clearly voluntarily selling your labour for money isn’t exploitation. Save your money and live off the interest.
People taking a deal doesn’t mean it’s not exploitative, it just means it’s enough of an improvement (or the downsides of not taking it are bad enough) [0] that people take the deal. Indentured servitude was for some a willingly taken deal but that doesn’t mean it’s something we should bring back as a common, endorsed arrangement...
[0] In the US not working is a shitty way to live.
This reminds me of the article “My Family’s Slave”[1] which is both a powerful story and an interesting look at the cognitive dissonance of people who benefit from modern exploitative labor. Just because someone isn’t constantly and overtly cruel to their “imported labor” does not mean they aren’t exploitative.
Exploit: Pay them (much) less than their work is worth. Because some of that money that comes from their work goes to other people that don't work (previously called slave owners, then feudal landlords, now called shareholders).
>> If people in a poor country are offered jobs in a factory, and they prefer those jobs over subsistence farming (since the conditions are better and pay is better), who exactly is worse off as a result?
> You aren't understanding the meaning of "exploitation". See the GP.
My question stands regardless of the meaning of the word "exploitation". I didn't use that word in my question. - Which I note you dodged answering. Who is worse off? Can you point to them?
>> both parties walk away happy
> Are they actually happy? Or are they exploited? That's the issue.
Why are they mutually exclusive? If being exploited isn't something with negative connotations, why can't I be "exploited" and be happy at the same time? If I hire a plumber to fix my leaky sink, who cares what the definition of the word exploited is? He's happy for the work, and I'm happy for my sink being fixed. We all walk away better off.
Was he exploited? Was I? Who cares when its consensual and we're both better off?
This argument about what "exploit" means seems pointless and unrelated to the actual topic - which seems to be, is it moral to hire someone in a poor country to do work for you. My claim is that not sending work to poor countries is often even more cruel - because it keeps people in poverty.
The article describes someone exploiting an unfair advantage and then says they are "worse off" when they are situationally forced to stop that exploitation.
This is a horrible perspective.
Exploiting another person's need to survive in order to gain unlimited labour is akin to slavery.
Serious question: Is there an ethics course for popular economics?
Retail managers forcing minimum-wage employees to clock out before cleaning the store, knowing they won't complain because they can't afford to lose their job.
Things that are not exploitation:
Rich people paying to enable future software updates on their luxury car.
>I challenge your premise that it's possible to consider a labor relationship exploitative if both parties voluntarily enter into it.
This is a philosophical point, and there are scholars working in economics and economic philosophy who have argued that some kind of mutual benefit is does not preclude exploitation. See for example J.E Roemer, Roberto Veneziani, and Nikolos Vrousalis, three economists on the matter. See also here[0]. In addition, slavery may not only be problematic because of the 'degenerative case' mentioned.
> This argument about what "exploit" means seems pointless and unrelated to the actual topic - which seems to be, is it moral to hire someone in a poor country to do work for you. My claim is that not sending work to poor countries is often even more cruel - because it keeps people in poverty.
Exploitation is not a pointless issue; it harms many millions, maybe billions of people.
The options are not only A) Exploit people, or B) Don't hire anyone. We can and should hire them in ways that aren't exploitative.
reply