My definition is the conventional one. Exploitation when used in the social context generally refers to some kind of non consensual interaction where somebody w

My definition is the conventional one. Exploitation when used in the social context generally refers to some kind of non consensual interaction where somebody who is not capable of giving consent like a child is manipulated into accepting something that is not in their interest. It does not refer to a job offer that is the best one on the market that is available to a person. Your definition implies that a job offer that 95% of the world population would rush to accept, that is above market rates for that job and which is voluntary according to any court of law, is exploitation. By what standard can you describe it as such? It is a completely arbitrary definition, unless you are citing marxist theory which says that all investor profit is exploitation, in which case you should disclose your ideological suppositions from the outset so that people understand you are not referring to exploitation in the way it's conventionally understood. As for land, that is completely incomparable to a company. Land is a public resource in a sense so if a Lord monopolizes it they're depriving others of something that they have an equal share in. And no single company or cartel of companies, has anything approaching a monopoly on the job market. So your comparison is wrong on two levels. It's telling that arguments trying to justify the socialist claims of exploitation have to make inappropriate analogies. The substance of the claim cannot be justified on its own grounds.