3 ms·
Yes, because the workers would not be contributing labor to the company's output. To put it another way: Yes, zero exploitation of OP's labor is less than "som
by mattdeboard 4y ago
Yes, because the workers would not be contributing labor to the company's output.
To put it another way: Yes, zero exploitation of OP's labor is less than "some" exploitation of OP's labor.
It clarifies things for me to replace "cheaper labor" with "more profitable labor". Why would a company refuse to hire more profitable labor? How could the company not having any relationship with OP exploit his labor more than hiring him as more profitable labor?
- therealdrag0 4y agoThe employee is welcome to work for a local company at local rates. It seems they prefer the colonizer? Is that exploitation any more than the US employee not getting paid 2x or 5 or 100 their current rate?
- mattdeboard 4y ago> It seems they prefer the colonizer? Sure, because the foreign company exercises their access to capital to compete at a wage level that local companies can't compete with, but is still as low as possible to extract maximum value from the investment made by purchasing the worker's labor. Why do you think there's such inequality in economic opportunity, such that exploiting labor in this fashion is possible, in the first place? > Is that exploitation any more than the US employee not getting paid 2x or 5 or 100 their current rate? I'm not making any comparative assertions here. You seem to be making the case (by implication of your question) that in your opinion it's good for OP he's getting the opportunity to be exploited. And I'm just saying, it's exploitation. It is what it is.
- therealdrag0 4y agoActually I agree