The employer almost always makes more money than the employee and is the one profiting from the worker. It is not an equal comparison and the worker will always make less than the money they bring in to the company.
Why can't we both profit? If I buy a product from you, you make money from it. And while I lose money (because I gave it to you) I probably increase something else - happiness, if it's for my hobby, or the ability to make more profit, if it's for my job.
With that analogy in mind, consider a test pilot, who wants to push the edge of experimental aircraft. There's no way for anyone except a Howard Hughes to do that without being employed. So sure, the test pilot's employer might make money (if it's a profit-making company and not a hobby or government project), but in exchange the pilot gets to fulfill something highly desired, which otherwise cannot be done.
Another problem I have with that interpretation is that some jobs are synergistic, such that you cannot look to pairwise relationships to understand the economics.
There aren't that many successful solo bass players. If I were a bass player, I'm much more likely to make money as part of a band than working on my own. So my relative profit is greater by being in a band, even if I don't make my full share of income to the band.
The third problem (or the first one re-visited) is that it focuses on the traditional employer/employee relationship. If I'm a gig-worker, brought in as a third-party contractor, I'm not an employee. Nominally, my clients buy my time, so I'm the one to profit. But yet they expect to many more money from the work I do for them.
Which means any exchange must be un-equal, which makes it a pretty useless interpretation.
This is a basic understanding of how the world works. It is clearly impossible for an employee to be making more than they bring money into the business. Otherwise the business wouldn't exist.
> Marx's exploitation theory is one of the major elements analyzed in Marxian economics and some social theorists consider it to be a cornerstone in Marxist thought. ...
> Exploiters appropriate another's surplus labour, which is the amount of labour exceeding what is necessary for the reproduction of a worker's labour power and basic living conditions. ...
> Once capitalists are able to pay the worker less than the value produced by their labour, surplus labour forms and this results in the capitalists' profits. This is what Marx meant by "surplus value", which he saw as "an exact expression for the degree of exploitation of labor-power by capital, or of the laborer by the capitalist".[9] This profit is used to pay for overhead and personal consumption by the capitalist, but was most importantly used to accelerate growth and thus promote a greater system of exploitation.
When I read your original comment I was reminded of the presentations of the Marxian economist Richard D. Wolff, eg, from https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/understanding-marxism-u... :
> The heart of Wolff’s argument centers on what Marx called “surplus labor,” which is what employers appropriate above what they pay for wages. After further deducting raw materials, machinery and the like used in the production process, what’s left is the employer’s profit.
> Wolff maintains that the fact that productive workers are not compensated for the full amount and worth of their labor constitutes “exploitation.”
I think it's understandable why I saw them as being similar.
Is the main difference between you and Marxian thought that you don't consider the difference to be "exploitation"?
You wrote: "It is clearly impossible for an employee to be making more than they bring money into the business. Otherwise the business wouldn't exist."
The Wikipedia page gives some criticisms to that Marixan view, which also hold for your statement: "They suggest that Marx should have allowed for two things; namely, permit a fair profit on the risk of capital investment and allow for the efforts of management be paid their due. "
Also, I think it's possible to be both synergistic and exploitative.