Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In a healthy market an employee should not have to tolerate even the slightest indignation from a boss because the boss knows they can have a new job with the same pay that afternoon (not a year and a half later or having to move across the country). Anything short of that dynamic is exploitation and a lack of govt intervention to bust up companies to comply with anti trust.
sure they can, Mcdonalds worker can walk to Burger king and get a job, then to Taco bell when they get fired, after that, they go to Pizza Hut
see, Minimum wage workers are not exploited, they have a range of employers they can go work for
sure they can, Mcdonalds worker can walk to Burger king and get a job, then to Taco bell when they get fired, after that, they go to Pizza Hut
see, Minimum wage workers are not exploited, they have a range of employers they can go work for
Just because you can go somewhere else does not mean it is not exploitation. Lets say you are payed a dollar an hour and treated horribly there being others jobs available does not change that job is horrible and people are not being underpaid.
That hypothetical sounds like Extortion. The landlord would be committing a crime and should be prosecuted.
All fifty states have varying laws regarding extortion, with most states classifying it as a felony. Some states charge the crime as a theft offense, while others call it “attempted extortion,” “extortion in the first degree,” or “extortion in the second degree."
A crime? Yes.
Extortion? Yes.
A felony? Probably.
Exploitation? Nope.
Ok so your philosophy is that the threat must involve the loss of life to count as exploitation, otherwise it is "mere" extortion? You clearly have redefined the notion of exploitation to a much narrower scope than the normal usage of the word.
As an extreme example, let's suppose a landlord found illegal drugs in a tenant's rented dwelling and took pictures and documented the situation. Then the landlord said the rent would quadruple the next year, but that if the tenant did not sign a new lease, the landlord would turn the tenant in to the authorities. How would you argue that that would not be exploitation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SportyandMisty
That hypothetical sounds like Extortion. The landlord would be committing a crime and should be prosecuted.
All fifty states have varying laws regarding extortion, with most states classifying it as a felony. Some states charge the crime as a theft offense, while others call it “attempted extortion,” “extortion in the first degree,” or “extortion in the second degree."
A crime? Yes.
Extortion? Yes.
A felony? Probably.
Exploitation? Nope.
Ncole1, I thought of another example that might be closer. It isn't hypothetical -- it happens all the time: Elder Abuse. A typical example is someone who ingratiates himself/herself into the life of an elderly person (say, someone in their 90s) with the intent of getting that elderly person to gift the scofflaw significant assets.
Elder abuse also is a crime. Unlike your hypothetical, the Elder Abuse gets closer to exploitation in that it passes the voluntary transaction threshold but doesn't pass the smell test. Fortunately Elder Abuse is a crime.
In general, elder abuse is a term referring to any knowing, intentional, or negligent act by a caregiver or any other person that causes harm or a serious risk of harm to a vulnerable adult. Legislatures in all 50 states have passed some form of elder abuse prevention laws. Laws and definitions of terms vary considerably from one state to another, but broadly defined, abuse may be:
* Physical Abuse—inflicting physical pain or injury on a senior, e.g. slapping, bruising, or restraining by physical or chemical means.
* Sexual Abuse—non-consensual sexual contact of any kind.
* Neglect—the failure by those responsible to provide food, shelter, health care, or protection for a vulnerable elder.
* Exploitation—the illegal taking, misuse, or concealment of funds, property, or assets of a senior for someone else's benefit.
* Emotional Abuse—inflicting mental pain, anguish, or distress on an elder person through verbal or nonverbal acts, e.g. humiliating, intimidating, or threatening.
* Abandonment—desertion of a vulnerable elder by anyone who has assumed the responsibility for care or custody of that person.
* Self-neglect—characterized as the failure of a person to perform essential, self-care tasks and that such failure threatens his/her own health or safety.
Just because you can go somewhere else does not mean it is not exploitation. Lets say you are payed a dollar an hour and treated horribly there being others jobs available does not change that job is horrible and people are not being underpaid.
Unfortunate circumstances, of course, but what you describe is not exploitation.
Ok so your philosophy is that the threat must involve the loss of life to count as exploitation, otherwise it is "mere" extortion?
I'm not sure how you got to loss of life. Can you explain? I'm lost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncole1
You clearly have redefined the notion of exploitation to a much narrower scope than the normal usage of the word.
My view is that exploitation in the context of economics is indeed very rare -- and may not exist at all.
There are lots of situations that are reprehensible and awful and that some mistakenly label exploitation that should be called something else: deception, coercion, slavery, fraud, extortion and many other things.
Unfortunate circumstances, of course, but what you describe is not exploitation.
The definition of exploitation is the act of treating someone unfairly to in order to benefit from work. If a business pays someone a low wage or cuts their hours that is what the definition says it is. Seems like you do not understand what the definition means or you just do not care.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,551 posts, read 81,085,957 times
Reputation: 57750
Quote:
Originally Posted by Storm Eagle
The definition of exploitation is the act of treating someone unfairly to in order to benefit from work. If a business pays someone a low wage or cuts their hours that is what the definition says it is. Seems like you do not understand what the definition means or you just do not care.
While I'm not a fan of employers paying someone a low wage or cutting their hours, it's not necessarily unfair. Fairness by definition is impartial and just treatment or behavior without favoritism or discrimination. If that action is taken to maintain or increase profits, which is the goal of any business, it would only be unfair if the affected employee was selected based on gender, race, age, religion etc. (protected class).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
