3 ms·

> The reality though is that it's not really exploitation because these often illegal workers don't really have any other options. I'm sorry, but do you not re

> The reality though is that it's not really exploitation because these often illegal workers don't really have any other options. I'm sorry, but do you not realize how crazy that sounds? It's the equivalent of saying: > "I’m not exploiting dehydrated hikers in the desert by selling water at $20/liter. It’s their only option" Your example is a clear-cut case of exploitation.

lelima 7y ago
The thing is they shouldn't be allowed to enter the desert in the first place, people that are legally allowed into the desert can buy water at a fair price.
- pjc50 7y ago
  Literally can't tell if this is parody or not. But people are now being prosecuted for supplying water to people in the desert.
  - lelima 7y ago
    If illegal people can't access water in the desert, they won't go to the desert. I might be wrong but I think that is what the government wants.
    - pjc50 7y ago
      No, they'll go through the desert and some of them and their children will die. And this will be on the heads of those preventing them from having water.
Bartweiss 7y ago
That's certainly exploitation, agreed. I'm not sure why anyone would use "no other options" to argue something isn't when that's almost a requirement for exploitation. That said, the desert metaphor also gets us to the usual issue: arresting the water-seller without doing anything else still makes life much worse for the hikers. I don't accept the libertarian argument that exploitation can't be immoral if it's mutually beneficial, but it seems accurate to say that the exploitation is usually not the most immoral thing happening. It's a more active harm, but having one unpleasant option is still better than having zero options. Coming back to the article: earning four Euro per hour to live in Paris is obviously unsustainable. Taking half of someone's already-low wages to (indirectly) provide them with work papers is a callous thing to do, and knowingly designing a company to provide plausible deniability for that practice is alarming. And yet... if someone is living in an abandoned car with no support and no right to work legally, earning 17 Euro a day is still better than earning nothing at all. Any reaction that claims to be about protecting the worker needs to start with those problems before it cuts off their job.

lelima 7y ago

The thing is they shouldn't be allowed to enter the desert in the first place, people that are legally allowed into the desert can buy water at a fair price.

pjc50 7y ago
Literally can't tell if this is parody or not. But people are now being prosecuted for supplying water to people in the desert.
- lelima 7y ago
  If illegal people can't access water in the desert, they won't go to the desert. I might be wrong but I think that is what the government wants.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    No, they'll go through the desert and some of them and their children will die. And this will be on the heads of those preventing them from having water.

Bartweiss 7y ago

That's certainly exploitation, agreed. I'm not sure why anyone would use "no other options" to argue something isn't when that's almost a requirement for exploitation. That said, the desert metaphor also gets us to the usual issue: arresting the water-seller without doing anything else still makes life much worse for the hikers. I don't accept the libertarian argument that exploitation can't be immoral if it's mutually beneficial, but it seems accurate to say that the exploitation is usually not the most immoral thing happening. It's a more active harm, but having one unpleasant option is still better than having zero options. Coming back to the article: earning four Euro per hour to live in Paris is obviously unsustainable. Taking half of someone's already-low wages to (indirectly) provide them with work papers is a callous thing to do, and knowingly designing a company to provide plausible deniability for that practice is alarming. And yet... if someone is living in an abandoned car with no support and no right to work legally, earning 17 Euro a day is still better than earning nothing at all. Any reaction that claims to be about protecting the worker needs to start with those problems before it cuts off their job.