|
|
|
|
|
|
by wolverine876
1247 days ago
|
|
|
> 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. |
|
|
> 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.