The point is that the job market is also a market with supply and demand. If we can agree on a price, why is it exploitation?
That is an extreme example, to get the point across. These workers didn't agree to your offer of $1 out of choice, they agreed because they have no other option. This is where governments need to step in and create laws and regulations so a small group of people do not screw the majority of the population.
We do not live in a jungle where the strong survive the weak starve. Not everything should be tied to supply and demand. A huge portion of jobs done by humans today will be done by robots soon (for example, truck driving). What happens then? You don't pay even that $1, because you don't even need humans at that point to drive your trucks. You just let millions of truck drivers starve? These are not pure economics problems, these are societal problems. If not handled correctly and early, we'd have bloody revolutions on our hands.
Another option is to refuse and leave wealth to your descendants.
Even with an example this extreme I don't see what's unfair here. Why is the onus of provided high wage jobs in India is on Apple? Why would it be preferable to regulate it and potentially drive Apple to another country, leaving those workers without any jobs at all?
Absolutely nothing is making them their arm reach into their pocket and pull cash out, it’s their choice. They are free to say no and get shot in the head.
I'd tell you to check your privilege, but then I'd be reading your comment incorrectly. You're being intellectually dishonest.
Realistically, you could staff your company with homeless people and pay them $1/hour. That's a slave wage but any adult will end up at the same conclusion; that you will still find people willing to work for you.
> Maybe if you demand $6 I just go somewhere else. And maybe if I offer $1 you go somewhere else.
Amazon pays more than the minimum wage. Based on your thinking, why then are Walmart et al. still employers? They pay less than AMZN yet are still in business. Why is that? Why are people not going somewhere else like you say? A cursory reading of retail labour practices tells a different story.
Say what you will but please, don't think we actually believe that you "never really understand the exploitation argument". It may be inconvenient for you but any thinking person understands plenty people have no choice between making less than $10 a day vs going hungry.
> The point is that the job market is also a market with supply and demand. If we can agree on a price, why is it exploitation?
HNers think the labour market consists entirely of folks with a complete grasp of market dynamics, have good credit and zero financial burdens. Taking on an exploitative job does not mean I agree on price. It simply means I'm in no position to decline said job.
Even if pay is good, I can't think of one employer I holistically agreed with but I took the job because I have responsibilities.
"It's just supply and demand, stupid!!"?!? eye roll
This is also why unions exist, to try to redress that imbalance via collective action.