Exploitation involves, by definition, giving the exploited something they need. If you don't have food, and someone gives you food in return for slave labor, they are exploiting you.
If people in a poor country are offered jobs in a factory, and they prefer those jobs over subsistence farming (since the conditions are better and pay is better), who exactly is worse off as a result? Sounds like a profitable trade to me given both parties walk away happy.
Outsourced factory jobs are the mechanism by which previously poor countries like Taiwan and China (in many ways) have been pulled out of poverty. The process is happening before our eyes in Vietnam right now.
Do you think you’re doing poor people a favour by denying them well paid jobs? Should we do the same in the west, and have companies fire all our poorest employees?
> If people in a poor country are offered jobs in a factory, and they prefer those jobs over subsistence farming (since the conditions are better and pay is better), who exactly is worse off as a result?
You aren't understanding the meaning of "exploitation". See the GP.
> both parties walk away happy
Are they actually happy? Or are they exploited? That's the issue.
>> If people in a poor country are offered jobs in a factory, and they prefer those jobs over subsistence farming (since the conditions are better and pay is better), who exactly is worse off as a result?
> You aren't understanding the meaning of "exploitation". See the GP.
My question stands regardless of the meaning of the word "exploitation". I didn't use that word in my question. - Which I note you dodged answering. Who is worse off? Can you point to them?
>> both parties walk away happy
> Are they actually happy? Or are they exploited? That's the issue.
Why are they mutually exclusive? If being exploited isn't something with negative connotations, why can't I be "exploited" and be happy at the same time? If I hire a plumber to fix my leaky sink, who cares what the definition of the word exploited is? He's happy for the work, and I'm happy for my sink being fixed. We all walk away better off.
Was he exploited? Was I? Who cares when its consensual and we're both better off?
This argument about what "exploit" means seems pointless and unrelated to the actual topic - which seems to be, is it moral to hire someone in a poor country to do work for you. My claim is that not sending work to poor countries is often even more cruel - because it keeps people in poverty.
> This argument about what "exploit" means seems pointless and unrelated to the actual topic - which seems to be, is it moral to hire someone in a poor country to do work for you. My claim is that not sending work to poor countries is often even more cruel - because it keeps people in poverty.
Exploitation is not a pointless issue; it harms many millions, maybe billions of people.
The options are not only A) Exploit people, or B) Don't hire anyone. We can and should hire them in ways that aren't exploitative.
