> I never really understand the exploitation argument. If I offer you $1 an hour and you agree, is it exploitation then? I'd tell you to check your privilege,

> I never really understand the exploitation argument. If I offer you $1 an hour and you agree, is it exploitation then? I'd tell you to check your privilege, but then I'd be reading your comment incorrectly. You're being intellectually dishonest. Realistically, you could staff your company with homeless people and pay them $1/hour. That's a slave wage but any adult will end up at the same conclusion; that you will still find people willing to work for you. > Maybe if you demand $6 I just go somewhere else. And maybe if I offer $1 you go somewhere else. Amazon pays more than the minimum wage. Based on your thinking, why then are Walmart et al. still employers? They pay less than AMZN yet are still in business. Why is that? Why are people not going somewhere else like you say? A cursory reading of retail labour practices tells a different story. Say what you will but please, don't think we actually believe that you "never really understand the exploitation argument". It may be inconvenient for you but any thinking person understands plenty people have no choice between making less than $10 a day vs going hungry. > The point is that the job market is also a market with supply and demand. If we can agree on a price, why is it exploitation? HNers think the labour market consists entirely of folks with a complete grasp of market dynamics, have good credit and zero financial burdens. Taking on an exploitative job does not mean I agree on price. It simply means I'm in no position to decline said job. Even if pay is good, I can't think of one employer I holistically agreed with but I took the job because I have responsibilities. "It's just supply and demand, stupid!!"?!? eye roll