3 ms·
> it doesn't address [worker exploitation] This is my point. Ignoring concerns of worker exploitation and focusing on textbook definitions comes off as dismis
by chishaku 7y ago
> it doesn't address [worker exploitation]
This is my point. Ignoring concerns of worker exploitation and focusing on textbook definitions comes off as dismissive, even if that wasn't the intent.
Similarly, your comment comes off as dismissive which highlights the importance of the context that I added.
Worker exploitation does result in negative externalities, even if the exploitation itself is not an externality.
- tptacek 7y agoAll 'rayiner said was that worker exploitation isn't an externality. The comment to which he was responding said literally nothing other than that worker exploitation was an externality. Worker exploitation is not an externality. I'm not sure how you're finding a way to object to this.
- chishaku 7y agoI've not objected to the definition. I'm adding nuance that you're still trying to dismiss. Worker exploitation does result in negative externalities, even if the exploitation itself is not an externality.