3 ms·

>It just means you let your employer exploit you. By definition, all labor on which another profits is a case of exploitation, regardless of length in time.

communitynotes 3y ago
"all labor on which another profits" is not the definition of exploit. https://www.google.com/search?q=exploit+definition https://www.google.com/search?q=exploit+definition
- Frost1x 3y ago
  That’s not what OP said. They said it was a case of exploitation and they are correct. People just don’t like to hear it phrased that way because it brings up negative connotations. Now, while the agreement may be exploitive that doesn’t mean it isn’t mutually beneficial or that the situation be zero sum, at least viewed at a small scale. It’s perfectly possible to be exploited by someone and still end up in a better situation regardless. The level and terms of exploitation are what matters. As a member of the labor force you ideally want to minimize that exploitation and be charging as close to your value add as the market will bear. In an idealized situation, you pull more than the market rate in some way shape or form (higher pay, less work, etc.) because in a capitalistic system you should be doing your due diligence to help the labor market optimize the way the employer market is optimizing.
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    The ideal compensation is: compensation = (value produced) - (cost to employ the person) - (opportunity cost) - (risk) By and large, that's what the employee gets. Get paid more than that, you're apt to be fired. Get paid less than that, you're apt to change jobs.
    - robocat 3y ago
      > compensation = (value produced Only in a non-capitalist society. You are naively missing company profit as the reward for company risk: capitalism 101. In an imaginary world you have built a business that brings in $x. You now employ $people to run the business and you leave the business in their capable hands. The amount of value produced by $people is $x. No capitalist owner would then share the total of $x out to the $people according to the value each person is producing in the business. Whether $x is profits or revenue, most capitalist businesses won't be kept alive for $0 profit. Apple makes a revenue of 2.4 million per employee. When someone (a new employee) joins an existing business like Apple, should they be paid around 2.4 million less costs? https://www.statista.com/statistics/217489/revenue-per-employee-of-selected-tech-companies/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/217489/revenue-per-emplo...
      - WalterBright 3y ago
        > You are naively missing company profit as the reward for company risk I wrote: compensation = (value produced) - (cost to employ the person) - (opportunity cost) - (risk) Note the word "risk" in there. > Apple makes a revenue of 2.4 million per employee. Revenue is not profit. And did you factor in the value of stock options as compensation? Total employee compensation is a lot more than salary. > When someone The value produced by a particular "someone" surely varies wildly among Apple employees.
        robocat 3y ago
        > Note the word "risk" in there. 0: I took risk to mean the risk of employing someone - your definition is totally unclear (I admit I'm an engineer not an economist). Please point me to a good reference that defines your equation. 1: Risk is not profit. 2: Profit is only related to risk in some perfect (edit) economist model of markets. Or if you use a tautological definition between the risk and the profit. In the practical world, risk and profits often diverge. Businesses cannot have perfect knowledge so opportunities always exist. 3: you are also ignoring the bigger issue: why would a capitalist company pay more for an employee than they have to? An employee usually can't even know how much their work is worth - they don't have access to the financial records - (edit) a company uses that information asymmetry to their advantage. If two fungible employees bid their required salary for a job, the company will pay as little as possible and choose the cheaper person. Where does that fit into your equation? > The value produced by a particular "someone" surely varies wildly among Apple employees. Obviously. This margin is too small to write a detailed example to fit your needs! Argue the point. Edit: at least say whether you think "value produced" is revenue produced or profit produced. Kind of an important difference between the two and it isn't clear what you mean at all. When you do that, I'll try and construct a marginal employee argument edit2: I was trying to point the Apple example towards an argument based on marginal value - I should have been clearer, sorry.
  - communitynotes 3y ago
    The key word in the definition of exploit is "full" use. To simply use something and derive a profit from it is not necessarily exploitative, as the noted comment suggests. In the context of this thread, the original claim put forth is that being "used" for 80 hours is in fact exploitative; by one calculation, this amounts to 100% of your waking time in a standard 5 day work week, assuming a typical 8 hour daily sleep period. On the other hand, being used for a 40 hour work week is not exploitative; you still have 50% of your time remaining for non-work life. The math here is used for illustrative purposes, but a reasonable interpretation of "full" would tend towards 100%, not 50%. Workers are truly exploited in some cases. To label a 40 hour work week as exploitation, in most cases, is simply hyperbole that diminishes the real suffering and ethical issues of actual worker exploitation.
    - earthwalker99 3y ago
      The usual counterargument is that the worker agreed to exchange their labor for a price so it's "fair" and therefore not exploitation, which is obviously juvenile. I appreciate that you at least go beyond that simplistic platitude, but it seems equally shortsighted if not ridiculous to get caught up about what qualifies as "full use" of a human being, which is probably why most people just stop before going there. You didn't even mention the wage! I have to ask: would a slave that never works beyond 40 hours/week be considered exploited?
sakjur 3y ago
And yet people understand the sentiment. Having footnotes pointing out the inherent unfairness of capitalism when criticizing the employers that go further than societal norms to exploit their employers seems like an excessive level of formality (to expect) for HN.
boringg 3y ago
That is definitively not exploitation.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

communitynotes 3y ago

"all labor on which another profits" is not the definition of exploit. https://www.google.com/search?q=exploit+definition https://www.google.com/search?q=exploit+definition

Frost1x 3y ago
That’s not what OP said. They said it was a case of exploitation and they are correct. People just don’t like to hear it phrased that way because it brings up negative connotations. Now, while the agreement may be exploitive that doesn’t mean it isn’t mutually beneficial or that the situation be zero sum, at least viewed at a small scale. It’s perfectly possible to be exploited by someone and still end up in a better situation regardless. The level and terms of exploitation are what matters. As a member of the labor force you ideally want to minimize that exploitation and be charging as close to your value add as the market will bear. In an idealized situation, you pull more than the market rate in some way shape or form (higher pay, less work, etc.) because in a capitalistic system you should be doing your due diligence to help the labor market optimize the way the employer market is optimizing.
- WalterBright 3y ago
  The ideal compensation is: compensation = (value produced) - (cost to employ the person) - (opportunity cost) - (risk) By and large, that's what the employee gets. Get paid more than that, you're apt to be fired. Get paid less than that, you're apt to change jobs.
  - robocat 3y ago
    > compensation = (value produced Only in a non-capitalist society. You are naively missing company profit as the reward for company risk: capitalism 101. In an imaginary world you have built a business that brings in $x. You now employ $people to run the business and you leave the business in their capable hands. The amount of value produced by $people is $x. No capitalist owner would then share the total of $x out to the $people according to the value each person is producing in the business. Whether $x is profits or revenue, most capitalist businesses won't be kept alive for $0 profit. Apple makes a revenue of 2.4 million per employee. When someone (a new employee) joins an existing business like Apple, should they be paid around 2.4 million less costs? https://www.statista.com/statistics/217489/revenue-per-employee-of-selected-tech-companies/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/217489/revenue-per-emplo...
    - WalterBright 3y ago
      > You are naively missing company profit as the reward for company risk I wrote: compensation = (value produced) - (cost to employ the person) - (opportunity cost) - (risk) Note the word "risk" in there. > Apple makes a revenue of 2.4 million per employee. Revenue is not profit. And did you factor in the value of stock options as compensation? Total employee compensation is a lot more than salary. > When someone The value produced by a particular "someone" surely varies wildly among Apple employees.
      - robocat 3y ago
        > Note the word "risk" in there. 0: I took risk to mean the risk of employing someone - your definition is totally unclear (I admit I'm an engineer not an economist). Please point me to a good reference that defines your equation. 1: Risk is not profit. 2: Profit is only related to risk in some perfect (edit) economist model of markets. Or if you use a tautological definition between the risk and the profit. In the practical world, risk and profits often diverge. Businesses cannot have perfect knowledge so opportunities always exist. 3: you are also ignoring the bigger issue: why would a capitalist company pay more for an employee than they have to? An employee usually can't even know how much their work is worth - they don't have access to the financial records - (edit) a company uses that information asymmetry to their advantage. If two fungible employees bid their required salary for a job, the company will pay as little as possible and choose the cheaper person. Where does that fit into your equation? > The value produced by a particular "someone" surely varies wildly among Apple employees. Obviously. This margin is too small to write a detailed example to fit your needs! Argue the point. Edit: at least say whether you think "value produced" is revenue produced or profit produced. Kind of an important difference between the two and it isn't clear what you mean at all. When you do that, I'll try and construct a marginal employee argument edit2: I was trying to point the Apple example towards an argument based on marginal value - I should have been clearer, sorry.
- communitynotes 3y ago
  The key word in the definition of exploit is "full" use. To simply use something and derive a profit from it is not necessarily exploitative, as the noted comment suggests. In the context of this thread, the original claim put forth is that being "used" for 80 hours is in fact exploitative; by one calculation, this amounts to 100% of your waking time in a standard 5 day work week, assuming a typical 8 hour daily sleep period. On the other hand, being used for a 40 hour work week is not exploitative; you still have 50% of your time remaining for non-work life. The math here is used for illustrative purposes, but a reasonable interpretation of "full" would tend towards 100%, not 50%. Workers are truly exploited in some cases. To label a 40 hour work week as exploitation, in most cases, is simply hyperbole that diminishes the real suffering and ethical issues of actual worker exploitation.
  - earthwalker99 3y ago
    The usual counterargument is that the worker agreed to exchange their labor for a price so it's "fair" and therefore not exploitation, which is obviously juvenile. I appreciate that you at least go beyond that simplistic platitude, but it seems equally shortsighted if not ridiculous to get caught up about what qualifies as "full use" of a human being, which is probably why most people just stop before going there. You didn't even mention the wage! I have to ask: would a slave that never works beyond 40 hours/week be considered exploited?

sakjur 3y ago

And yet people understand the sentiment. Having footnotes pointing out the inherent unfairness of capitalism when criticizing the employers that go further than societal norms to exploit their employers seems like an excessive level of formality (to expect) for HN.

boringg 3y ago

That is definitively not exploitation.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]