> It was a decent phone, worth probably $50 but I got it for $35 because the seller needed cash right away. Just because he was illiquid does not mean it was wr

> It was a decent phone, worth probably $50 but I got it for $35 because the seller needed cash right away. Just because he was illiquid does not mean it was wrong of me to buy the phone from him. Or was that immoral of me and should I have been required to give him $50? I was coercive of you: you used the fact that he essentially had no bargaining power to extract value in your favor. Whether or not you want to call that immoral is your business. > I have never heard a story of Amazon threatening someone to work for them or using physical force to entice them to take a job Amazon makes job offers which wouldn't be accepted without coercion, and uses the fact that benefits from social programs will be cut if the person uses the job to co-opt government coercion. They effectively threaten your current social program income to get you to accept a job you otherwise wouldn't. Is that entirely Amazon's fault? No. Is Amazon using a messed up government policy to coerce people to take jobs they otherwise wouldn't? Yes.