toe
1mo ago
I think you gloss over quite a lot of nuance with this. Is it explotation to give my mentally deficient neighbor a piece of candy to mow my lawn and clean my pool? Is it exploitation to give a homeless alcoholic a bottle of vodka in exchange for him pulling out his tooth on camera? Is it made worse if I sell copies of the recording for a pretty penny? The consent aspect, to me, is muddied by the fact that there is a strong imbalance in power and leverage. There is a threat inherent in the subtext to the impovrished. Work yourself to the bone, or starve. Both people profit, one enough to fill his coffers, the other enough to keep them going through the next day of labor. A market wage does not make the claim that it is fair or humane.
The exact point of the examples was that the people in these bad situations would accept the trade. The thing with the homeless guy was real. It happened on bumfights. And if that man had complained and insisted on a "fair market wage", they could have walked down a block and found someone else. If some above the board company bought teeth it would probably pay a lot. This isn't that, though. The market rate for homeless people pulling teeth isn't very high. On paper, the homeless guy could kick his addiction, get it together, and find a job. However, humans are not rational actors, and the common ailments that ail the permanently homeless are exceptionally difficult to solve. For many people the best option is a shitty one.
Yes, everyone wants a 10x pay raise. Yes, that pay raise comes with quality of life increases. You're speaking of a relative comparison though. In terms of absolutes, if you're still living a hard, shitty life while your employer profits off of your time, your health, your very ability enjoyment of life, to me it is unjust and exploitation.
It is my view that the common people are far more than generous in their trades while the largest players are the most stingy.
I believe that people would be a lot better off, and that your view would be a lot closer to accurate, if we lived in a world where most of the power was in the hands of many small and medium sized players. Because we really would be better off in everything but the short term if private equity and the like didn't exist. Sure, they provide a lot of jobs. They've also had a large hand in creating the current wreck that is the US economy and the cratered buying power of the us citizenry.
More options
Context Copy link