4 ms·

If the contract is voluntary it is advantageous to both or else it wouldn't be entered into. Take this trade off. I create a system whereby I can make $100 fo

If the contract is voluntary it is advantageous to both or else it wouldn't be entered into. Take this trade off. I create a system whereby I can make $100 for every hour someone works. I tell you I'll pay you $10 an hour to work. If you are better off working those hours you will take it and I will receive $90 and you $10. If you won't I'm out a lot of money, so I will probably revise my offer upwards. These workers are individuals capable of making decisions. If they decide working for Amazon for $13 an hour is better than alternatives they should take it - if not they should pursue a more valuable alternative.

rayiner 13y ago
I understand the economics. But that doesn't answer my question: why does that rule out the possibility of taking advantage? How do you get from point A to point B? There is an implicit assumption in your thinking that I'm trying to tease out.
- htf 13y ago
  A contract is not a zero-sum game. The expected outcome of a contract is that both parties take advantage of each other and they both win.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    That's a bizarre definition of "take advantage."
    - htf 13y ago
      Then I assume you mean that one party is better off and the other party is worse off (taken advantage of). Sure, that can happen. But in the case of Amazon, the workers are better off or they wouldn't work there.
      - rayiner 13y ago
        No, "taken advantage of" does not require one party to be made worse off. That is not the way the phrase is ordinarily used in the English language.
        tesmar2 13y ago
        Sure it is. If I am taken advantage of, I am not better off for it.
        mpyne 13y ago
        You could be "better off", but still have been screwed out of being "even more better off". That's still being taken advantage of. Consider the legendary story about how Steve Jobs screwed the Woz.
    - sliverstorm 13y ago
      Either definition works. You can take advantage of (exploit) someone at their expense, or your can take advantage of (leverage) their capabilities to mutual gain. Frank took advantage of Amazon's 2-day shipping to do his last-minute Christmas shopping
      - rayiner 13y ago
        Yes, but when someone says "Bob took advantage of Amanda" they likely do not meant Bob leveraged Amanda's capabilities to mutual gain.
- Artistry121 13y ago
  htf is right as well. The only assumption is that people will make the decision that is in their best interest. Amazon can only attract workers if it is the best option those workers have.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    You're both assuming that offering someone the best option they have rules out the conclusion that you're taking advantage of that person. But that does not necessarily follow.
    - Artistry121 13y ago
      Then yes, everyone is taking advantage of everyone. My cell phone provider is taking advantage of me because they make profit off of me. I'm taking advantage of them because they spent $1,000,000,000 building the infrastructure so I can use that cell phone. Apple is taking advantage of me by making a profit off of their cell phone. I am taking advantage of Apple by using that phone which they put millions of dollars of research into and shipped to my door. So we both gain an advantage. Jack gets a job with Amazon - he is able to afford a color TV and internet at home. Amazon hires Jack - they get their orders shipped to homes on time for Christmas. Everyone is getting an advantage in all of these situations. No one would ever make an agreement that doesn't provide an advantage. I assume you're asserting there is a power difference between Amazon and Jack that makes Amazon get more advantage from Jack. This may be true. Amazon, however, has a power difference with customers who ultimately decide whether the billions of dollars worth of infrastructure they are building is worth it or whether competitors will win. Is it wrong if I decide to not buy from Amazon? Am I taking advantage of them by buying if their product is $10 but not buying if their product is $12?
      - rayiner 13y ago
        "Taking advantage" does not mean "getting an economic benefit out of a transaction with someone." It's a moral judgment, defined in terms of conformance with social norms and expectations.
  - 13y ago
sliverstorm 13y ago
If the contract is voluntary it is advantageous to both or else it wouldn't be entered into. I think the fundamental disconnect here, is the people you are debating with believe that Amazon should have made it more advantageous for the workers, because as the workers have no other options it would be the nice thing to do.
ama729 13y ago
> If the contract is voluntary it is advantageous to both or else it wouldn't be entered into. If your grandfather gave all of his money willingly and right away to his physician, don't you feel the physician acted unethically? And don't you feel your grandfather might be impacted negatively by that decision?

rayiner 13y ago

I understand the economics. But that doesn't answer my question: why does that rule out the possibility of taking advantage? How do you get from point A to point B? There is an implicit assumption in your thinking that I'm trying to tease out.

htf 13y ago
A contract is not a zero-sum game. The expected outcome of a contract is that both parties take advantage of each other and they both win.
- rayiner 13y ago
  That's a bizarre definition of "take advantage."
  - htf 13y ago
    Then I assume you mean that one party is better off and the other party is worse off (taken advantage of). Sure, that can happen. But in the case of Amazon, the workers are better off or they wouldn't work there.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      No, "taken advantage of" does not require one party to be made worse off. That is not the way the phrase is ordinarily used in the English language.
      - tesmar2 13y ago
        Sure it is. If I am taken advantage of, I am not better off for it.
        mpyne 13y ago
        You could be "better off", but still have been screwed out of being "even more better off". That's still being taken advantage of. Consider the legendary story about how Steve Jobs screwed the Woz.
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    Either definition works. You can take advantage of (exploit) someone at their expense, or your can take advantage of (leverage) their capabilities to mutual gain. Frank took advantage of Amazon's 2-day shipping to do his last-minute Christmas shopping
    - rayiner 13y ago
      Yes, but when someone says "Bob took advantage of Amanda" they likely do not meant Bob leveraged Amanda's capabilities to mutual gain.
Artistry121 13y ago
htf is right as well. The only assumption is that people will make the decision that is in their best interest. Amazon can only attract workers if it is the best option those workers have.
- rayiner 13y ago
  You're both assuming that offering someone the best option they have rules out the conclusion that you're taking advantage of that person. But that does not necessarily follow.
  - Artistry121 13y ago
    Then yes, everyone is taking advantage of everyone. My cell phone provider is taking advantage of me because they make profit off of me. I'm taking advantage of them because they spent $1,000,000,000 building the infrastructure so I can use that cell phone. Apple is taking advantage of me by making a profit off of their cell phone. I am taking advantage of Apple by using that phone which they put millions of dollars of research into and shipped to my door. So we both gain an advantage. Jack gets a job with Amazon - he is able to afford a color TV and internet at home. Amazon hires Jack - they get their orders shipped to homes on time for Christmas. Everyone is getting an advantage in all of these situations. No one would ever make an agreement that doesn't provide an advantage. I assume you're asserting there is a power difference between Amazon and Jack that makes Amazon get more advantage from Jack. This may be true. Amazon, however, has a power difference with customers who ultimately decide whether the billions of dollars worth of infrastructure they are building is worth it or whether competitors will win. Is it wrong if I decide to not buy from Amazon? Am I taking advantage of them by buying if their product is $10 but not buying if their product is $12?
    - rayiner 13y ago
      "Taking advantage" does not mean "getting an economic benefit out of a transaction with someone." It's a moral judgment, defined in terms of conformance with social norms and expectations.
- 13y ago

sliverstorm 13y ago

If the contract is voluntary it is advantageous to both or else it wouldn't be entered into. I think the fundamental disconnect here, is the people you are debating with believe that Amazon should have made it more advantageous for the workers, because as the workers have no other options it would be the nice thing to do.

ama729 13y ago

> If the contract is voluntary it is advantageous to both or else it wouldn't be entered into. If your grandfather gave all of his money willingly and right away to his physician, don't you feel the physician acted unethically? And don't you feel your grandfather might be impacted negatively by that decision?