[shadowgovt]

It almost makes one question the definition of "exploitation."

"Hey, your employer is extracting far more value from you than they're paying you for. You should be paid more."

"Yes, but I don't really need to be."

Is that "exploitation?"

[ehnto]

But where else would they get paid for their work? They can't leave to "The other blockbuster animation studio" because there is only a handful, and they've all agreed to fix wages at a certain rate so they don't get into a wage-war. If demand for their talent drove their wages, their wages would be much higher. Small studios don't make enough money to pay higher, so big studios hold all the cards and exploit that fact to draw down wages.

It's the same issue airline pilots have. If they had the choice to move to a different airline paying higher, they would, but they accept the conditions they're given because the whole industry pays similar rates, and their skills aren't transferable to any other industry. Essentially they're trapped, lest they choose an entirely new career.

[shadowgovt]

Right. The answer in the large is "They'd decide animation is a sucker's game and do something else entirely." Which they could do, and that's the natural back-pressure on wage-fixing cartels driving prices to zero (as opposed to the "unnatural" back-pressure of laws that say "companies aren't allowed to collude on fixing wages", which almost universally translates to "... in ways we can see," because every major industry with a few players and a non-union staff does it somehow. To be clear, I think those laws are wise, but they're a sub-optimal solution because they're very easily gamed and the ROI for gaming them is very, very high).

There were not many Google engineers who felt actually slighted by Google when the company was fined for price-fixing along with Apple, Pixar, eBay, &c. At least, if they did feel slighted, they sure didn't demonstrate their frustration by unionizing, leaving, or actually taking more action than accepting their one-time payoff from the class-action settlement. And why would they? They're already paid far above average wages for employees countries Google operates in (and significantly above most of the tech sector in the US).

[telotortium]

In the case of the Google wage-fixing cartel, it was partially broken even before the lawsuit by Facebook, which was not part of the cartel and hired away enough Google engineers that Google had to raise wages for the entire company in 2011.

[coliveira]

That's why airline pilots form unions to defend their interests.

[pcwalton]

Which is also what has happened in large swathes of the animation industry (though, importantly, not Pixar).

[mindcrime]

Given the parameters as you laid it out there, I'd say "no" or at least "not necessarily" because not all value is monetary.

That is, the value you get from your job may be more than just your paycheck. This won't necessarily apply to everybody, but I'm pretty sure some people receive value simply from the work itself and the sense of accomplishment they get from doing what they do.

[skrtskrt]

Yes, someone doesn't have to know, understand, or feel that they're being exploited for it to be exploitation.

[shadowgovt]

That implies exploitation is not defined in the transaction between the individuals directly affected, but via a third party acting as a higher power.

I agree, but it "smells" weird that we've included "feel" in that set in this specific context. If neither party feels they're exploiting or being exploited in an employment agreement paying well above minimum wage, then by what standard is a third party judging their transaction that we can conclude they "feel" wrongly?

We start to go down a pretty dark path when we take "mutual consent" off the table as the gold standard for two-party interactions. There are absolutely criteria of things in society for which we do that, but we hold them to a very high standard of scrutiny, and I'm not convinced "That employer is underpaying their employee with too low a six-figure salary" meets that high standard of scrutiny.