Skip to main content

Can someone, preferable, Toussaint or MBM, tell me the demarcation point of exploitation, in relation to the difference between worker pay and compensation and corporate profits and or executive pay? I ask this question in tangent with my post in regards to profits and thermodynamics.

Everyone agrees that slavery was exploitation, but was it exploitation because the people were denied their freedom or was it exploitation because of the difference between worker pay and the owner's profit/pay. I am sure that many will say BOTH, but in truth, the denial of freedom was only undertaken to enforce the wage and profit gaps between workers and owners. People would not voluntarily have done that work for no pay, thus their freedom of choices had to be denied.

Today, people volunteer to be exploited, because society or curcumstance has restricted their viable options, which in turns restricts their degree of freedom, which leads them to accepting their exploitation, as a means of survival.
Vita vya panzi (ni) furaha ya kunguru. War among grasshoppers delights the crow. Msema kweli hana wajoli. The speaker of truth has few friends. ("`-''-/").___..--''"`-._ `6_ 6 ) `-. ( ).`-.__.`) (_Y_.)' ._ ) `._ `. ``-..-' _..`--'_..-_/ /--'_.' ,' (((' (((-((('' (((( Noah The African in America
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:

Can someone, preferable, Toussaint or MBM, tell me the demarcation point of exploitation, in relation to the difference between worker pay and compensation and corporate profits and or executive pay? I ask this question in tangent with my post in regards to profits and thermodynamics.


Great question - I think exploitation is probably defined by "community standards". While I believe that there are universal standards/laws that humanity should observe, in reality people develop perspectives based upon their particular contexts.

quote:
Everyone agrees that slavery was exploitation, but was it exploitation because the people were denied their freedom or was it exploitation because of the difference between worker pay and the owner's profit/pay.


I believe that the issue of pay disparity is incidental to the broader system of exploitation that was slavery. It's almost like trying to equate illiteracy with slavery. While it was clearly a by-product, illiteracy was not an objective of slavery.

quote:
I am sure that many will say BOTH, but in truth, the denial of freedom was only undertaken to enforce the wage and profit gaps between workers and owners.


IMO, 'denial of freedom' was a tactic to maximize profits. "Wage and profit gaps" are a by-product of that.

quote:
Today, people volunteer to be exploited, because society or curcumstance has restricted their viable options, which in turns restricts their degree of freedom, which leads them to accepting their exploitation, as a means of survival.


Agree. It's interesting that union membership and influence has declined over the years. Unions would seem to be an effective way to aggregate worker leverage to enhance their interests.
"Everyone agrees that slavery was exploitation, but was it exploitation because the people were denied their freedom or was it exploitation because of the difference between worker pay and the owner's profit/pay. I am sure that many will say BOTH, but in truth, the denial of freedom was only undertaken to enforce the wage and profit gaps between workers and owners. People would not voluntarily have done that work for no pay, thus their freedom of choices had to be denied.

Today, people volunteer to be exploited, because society or curcumstance has restricted their viable options, which in turns restricts their degree of freedom, which leads them to accepting their exploitation, as a means of survival." --- Noah the African

At the risk of being an interloper:

I tend to agree with MBM. I disagree that "wages and profit" were byproducts. The intent of the social initiative was economic. As stated, chattel slavery was instituted to enable "wages and profit." It seems like a chicken-and-egg scenario. But the goal here was eggs in a variety of forms. The goal was not chicken soup.

Exploitation is "unjust use." The labor of chattel slavery was "unjust use." Chattel slave was criminal.

So it would seem that the determination of when exploitation occurs is dependent on the point when compensation is "unjust." Now the question becomes: "What is a just wage? and "Whose definition of a just wage will prevail, and be "just?"

A "just" wage is primarily dependent on the society/economy in which you live. The minimum wage in the United States of $5.15/hour is riches in dozens of other nations. Even extraordinary riches.

It must be agreed what is being discussed here. The most important parameter is to agree that an employee is NOT a business partner. An employee is a partner/team member in a greater effort, but not a vested participant in the risk/benefit equation of the business venture.

The goal of ALL business is to minimize cost. Why? Because, minimizing costs maximizes profit. That is capitalism.

Another key rule is supply and demand. Though typically though of as applying to product, the rule also applies to the availability of labor.

If a worker is willing to work for the pay offered, it is not exploitative. If the worker is denied a choice of other work, that is exploitative.

PEACE

Jim Chester
I am having trouble understanding the rationalization that exploitation is based upon community standards. I do not agree with that. If a person in Ghana is paid 50 cents an hour for doing the same task as a person in the USA is paid 8 dollars an hour, you all are suggesting that it is not exploitation because the cost of living in Ghana in much lower. However, it is not the cost of living that is lower in Ghana, rather, it is living that is lower in Ghana. In America, there is not a high cost to live; rather, it is the cost of living the high life, with all the comforts of modern technology and equipment. In Ghana, things are cheaper because they lack modernity because they basically cannot afford it. Thus, it is exploitation to keep people wages so low that they cannot live in modernity.

That having been said, the official definition of the term exploitation is not dependant upon the any of the variable that you all just mentioned. Exploitation is simply TAKING ADVANTAGE for personal gain. For someone to take advantage means that they have advantage, which means that others must be at a disadvantage before advantage can manifest. Thus, exploitation requires disadvantage, to manifest, but how does one become disadvantaged?

Most people are disadvantaged because they cannot secure a sustainable income, legally, or living standard, without selling their energy to an owner of capital. Thus, the owners of capital take advantage of this by offering employment opportunities with the understanding that the goal is to create profit and wealth for the owner, which can only manifest if revenue exceeds expenses or cost, with worker pay being one of the greatest variable cost. Thus, the owner's profit has an inverse relationship with workers pay (assuming no product pricing flexibility). Consequently, if the goal of most businesses is to maximize profits, it often becomes a conflict of interest to workers pay.

So I do not think that exploitation is dependant upon community standards, in regards to economics. It is simply the phenomenon of someone taking advantage of a need or desire of others, and using that need or desire to compel individuals to make an uneven exchange with them getting the short end of the deal. Take as an example drug prices. People need drugs to live with many different illnesses and diseases, such as diabetes. The pharmaceutical industry thus takes advantage of this need, by selling them to the public way above cost, thus increasing their profits.

The owners of capital thus either takes advantage of the needs and desires of workers and/or the needs and desires of consumers, which compels agreement for an unequal exchange of energies, that goes to the benefit of the owner of capital in the form of profit.

In our system, value is often determined by the owners of capital that use advertisement to brainwash people into valuing things that will compel them to make unequal exchanges or purchases and hence create profit. The whole system is centered on controlling what people place value in, to stimulate working and consuming and profit creation for owners of capital. It is like the drug dealer who first gives you his product at a discount to get you hooked on it. Once he creates the need, desire or value in his customer base, they are then ripe for being taken advantage of by selling product way above cost and making a profit.

The system has anti-trust regulation to prevent monopolies and promote competition that should prevent egregious exploitation, however, collusion is often the rule as most engage in the competition will not promote a race to the bottom by selling below cost and not only preventing profits, but creating losses.
A person, or group of people, risk venture capital to create a company and hope it is successful. They offer jobs to others, who have the choice of doing the work or not doing the work.

Exploitation is in the mind of the beholder. There are lazy ass people who think ALL their duties are exploitive, and there are great workers for whom hard work is manageable and they strive to achieve anything that they are tasked with. Some thrive on the challenges, some avoid them.

Noone in america HAS to take a job they think is exploitive, thats the beauty of living in a free society. And if noone is applying for a particular position, the company must raise the wages or ease the workload until someone wants it, or risk not getting required work completed. Of course, the better prepared a worker is, the more opportunities await.

It is truly odd that given the history of the 20th century, one would even be concerned with 'exploitation' in free capitalist markets. You've got the biggest exploitative, and often deadly, exploitation of socialism and communism staring you right in your face.
If you feel 'exploited' noah, you quit and find something you can handle, UNLESS you are in a socialist/communist society where you suck it up or risk physical harm. Your obsession with this bad mouthing free markets is getting funny.

In this country, the Majority of jobs are offered by small businesses. Anyone who has ever risked their money to begin a small business KNOWS that the owners typically work harder than anyone else in the building. There are MILLIONS of jobs offered, and anyone with any sense picks and chooses the jobs they are comfortable performing.

And for you not to be able to define exploitation in its relation to slavery is utterly assinine. Why are you even worrying about all this? You going to become a venture capitalist and treat your employees like kings or something? I bet you don't even work for a living yet.
Since exploitation is linked to advantage and disadvantage and profit and wealth is linked to taking advantaged of the disadvantaged, then it logically follows that maintaining disadvantage is one of the aims of the elites.

If one simply visits the Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov. they can find a plethora of information regards what jobs will be demanded by the owners of capital in the next 10 years. The data shows that the majority of jobs are not high paying jobs, but rather mostly low and moderate paying jobs. Say a third allocated to High, moderate and low. Thus, the question is how does society determine who should get what jobs? I think that the consensus would be educational attainment.

In light of this, the system must produce enough educational failures to fill the demand for the low-end jobs and enough marginally educated people to fill the ranks of the moderate end jobs. Failure, due to the law of supply and demand, thus increases the value (salaries) for the high end market because their generally lacks the supply to fill the demand and we all know that when supply does not meet demand that the value or price of what is demanded rises.

Hypothetically speaking, what then would be the result of everyone over the age of 24 having a college degree? The result would be that there would be an oversupply of educated people, which would reduce the value or salaries of the educated overtime. Furthermore, with a nearly fully college educated populous, who would then perform the third of jobs that are low paying jobs? Certainly it would breed discontent and revolt to have college educated people sweeping floors and washing dishes and working as cashiers. Consequently, the system and order needs to create the educationally disadvantage to fill those jobs and also be content with them based upon their realization that they lack the education to get the better jobs.

In light of this, the law of supply and demand compels the elites to resist the disadvantage from gaining equality and thus taking away their advantage. They do not want the disadvantaged to increase the supply or competition and hence lower their returns. Logically, for a nation to move towards equality those that are UP in status must come down and those that are DOWN in status must come up. One of the primary motives is RANK and STATUS and rank and status is the product of displacement or separation from others economically. Thus, equality is the nemesis of status and rank and thus those with higher status and rank resist equality and attempting to preserve disadvantage among others. As the great Hannibal one noted: It is not that I must succeed...rather...it is that others must fail!
The only problem with this manifesto is that society does not 'determine' who does anything. Employers do, they want skilled talented hard working people who can take much of the responsibility and work off their own hands. An employer delights in finding someone who can make their life easier.

The ONLY way you are going to educate yourself about the working world is for you to start a business, hire people, and let reality smack you upside the head. Until then, there is no point in me arguing with someone who is still pondering outdated texts on 'means of production' and who thinks the continuous 200 years plus rise in the growth and expansion of the world's economies and living standards didn't happen.

Unemployment is the worst exploitation. It makes one think that work is optional.
One of your primary faults, Taharka, is that you only know how to argue and not debate. The elites run this society and are generally the owners of capital. They lobby the government and use the power of money to leverage their interest and promote the maintenance of disadvantage. Your secondary problem is t hat you have poor reading comprehension, probably the resultant of only hearing or reading what you want, in order that you can muster a rebuttal.

Your input on this forum is one of the least profound, wise or logical. Your tirades are always rooted in some emotionalism or defense of the system and ˜whiteness'.
And now your 'against' dictatorships too. Guess Africa is out of the question also for you. Why don't you start killing the whites? Eventually you'll get the power you seek, if its only a matter of numbers to you.

So, where do you plan on living out your socialist utopian dream? Mars perhaps?
Let us know, we'll send you care packages or something. Buy now comrade.
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
Can someone, preferable, Toussaint or MBM, tell me the demarcation point of exploitation, in relation to the difference between worker pay and compensation and corporate profits and or executive pay? I ask this question in tangent with my post in regards to profits and thermodynamics.

Everyone agrees that slavery was exploitation, but was it exploitation because the people were denied their freedom or was it exploitation because of the difference between worker pay and the owner's profit/pay. I am sure that many will say BOTH, but in truth, the denial of freedom was only undertaken to enforce the wage and profit gaps between workers and owners. People would not voluntarily have done that work for no pay, thus their freedom of choices had to be denied.

Today, people volunteer to be exploited, because society or curcumstance has restricted their viable options, which in turns restricts their degree of freedom, which leads them to accepting their exploitation, as a means of survival.


The exploitation is mutual. Two people - each of them wants something that the other has - they agree to the means of trade - they seal the deal.

The only problem comes when the exploitation is coerced - it is then no longer mutual.

Slavery was exploitation because the people were not free to seek out the employment situation that best met their desires; nor (with a few exceptions) were they free to make a deal regarding employment with whomever they could seek out.

Also, it was exploitation because the owners would extract tribute from the slaves' pay in those cases where they were allowed to earn their own living.
Again, look up the definition of exploitation. None of the definitions that I have read mentions force or coercion. The problem, thus far, is that we are not starting from the same working definition of the term. Many of you are interjecting your own self-serving definition of exploitation in order to make your point, however your usage is not how the term is defined.

One of the primary conduits to exploitation is IGNORANCE. The reality is that people choices and bargaining would radically change if they are cognizant the true cost or value of something. The Indians may have Sold Manhattan for a dollar (or whatever) without coercion, but their ignorance to its true value or worth is the only reason that they entered into agreement. The Indians ignorance was thus a disadvantage and the buyers knowlege was an advantage, which facilitated the egregious gap between value and price, which created the huge profit and hence exploitation by the buyer.

In fact, in most agreements that people enter into, if all parties are not fully aware of cost and value, then the degree of exploitation can and will be increased. For example, if a women takes her car to get it checked out for a tickin sound and they tell her she needs an engine overhaul, when her all that is wrong is that her oil is low, here entering into agreement was not forced. Rather, her exploitation is the seller taking advantage of the buyers ignorance. Also, If workers are being paid little, relative to the profits of the company and they realize that those profits can support much higher pay, they will collectively bargain for better wages and salaries. This is why Unionization is on the decline in capitalist nation, because unions prevent egregious worker exploitation.

The Capitalized nations are embarking on a thrust towards transnational corporations because the cost of labor in the USA prevents constrains profit margins. In other words, the USA industry is looking for a more exploitable source of labor, which means a cheaper source of labor.
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:One of the primary conduits to exploitation is IGNORANCE. The reality is that people choices and bargaining would radically change if they new the true cost or value of something.


At the risk of sounding like a 'speaker of truth', I must interject at the juncture of the above quoted selection beginning with the word 'reality' in order to discuss the 'true' value of 'something' called Life.

Noah has deftly established the culprit of exploitation as Ignorance, and as a result, I would like to remind us all of the circumstance of our present Ignorance. As Africa-'americans', it is slavery.

But before slavery, how did we 'Africans' value Life? Did everything including our food come with a price tag attached to it? Recall the Europeans called us 'uncivilized savages' in order to justify the taking of our lands. Enslaving those they saw as 'savagaes' was be no different than domesticating wild animals to them, and 'domesticate' they did.

Now we speak their language, discuss their economic policy, call ourselves by their names, and refer to what they call 'theirs' our own as 'equal citizens'. We have been domesticated by European standards to look like, walk like, and talk like them. Everything we were before they came is lost to us, so we have no measure against which to compare the 'true' value of Life. Only their European one.

It replaced our own, and in the process, deleted any memory of there ever having been another. Like a modern virus erases a hard-drive, our minds have been erased completely and totally, and infected with a European mentality. We have been assimilated into the 'borg' collective peoples. lol, no joke.

Any way, back to what I was saying, what is the 'true' value of Life? The European way? To what do we compare it to? Because it has been drilled into us minorities as the 'right' way', the 'only' way, the 'american' way.

We are the decendants of former slaves and our history not only includes that of the Europeans, it goes much further back. But in less than two thousands years, they have wiped away all legitimate record of the preceding African empires. They destyroyed it all, and now we think like them, argue like them, and believe like them.

WE are the very epitome of IGNORANCE. We ARE the exploited, and have been since we got here. We have simply managed to 'forget' that we were given ignorance as an inheritance by those who enslaved us. They replaced our identity with theirs, and now we argue the economics of capitalism, as we have observed through them.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

sd
People run from the truth when it creates threats of epiphany to their beliefs and comfortable paradigms. People like Toussaint and Taharka are simply indoctrinated by the lies and fallacies of the system. The system promotes and rewards a division of ignorance, to divide and conquer the masses, to the benefits of the elites.

The way it works is that the system rewards those who will carry and propagate the virtues of the system, more so than the other ignorant masses. The system is all designed to benefit the elites first and foremost, but the elites realizes that they are far outnumbered by the masses and thus must divide and rule the masses by favoring one over the other and hence pitting them against each other and not against the elite few.

This is what Faheem deftly pointed out in regards to the Tutsi and Hutu conflict in Rwanda and how the European element and minority favored the Tutsi over the Hutus and fermented further animosity to the point of hatred, when the real enemy and exploiter was the Europeans. IGNORANCE facilitated it all.
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
... if a women takes her car to get it checked out for a tickin sound and they tell her she needs an engine overhaul, when her all that is wrong is that her oil is low, here entering into agreement was not forced. Rather, her exploitation is the seller taking advantage of the buyers ignorance. Also, If workers are being paid little, relative to the profits of the company and they realize that those profits can support much higher pay, they will collectively bargain for better wages and salaries. This is why Unionization is on the decline in capitalist nation, because unions prevent egregious worker exploitation.


Ignorance is a problem regardless of whether or not there is capitalism, and ignorance can be used for exploitation with or without capitalism.

The first case you have described - the car repair - is one of deceit. For these reasons, people choose repair shops that they trust most to give them an honest assesment. This ignorance is best handled by a free-market, since there are few other ways to combat it.

The second case pertaining to workers being paid "little" in comparison to profits is one that is purely subjective. What is being paid "little"? Is it that which the workers see as "little"? Is it what the owners believe is "little"? Is it what Noah The African decides is "little"?

At what point is there too much profit with respect to the workers pay? Any line drawn would be arbitrary, given that such a concept cannot be defined. It's simply a judgement call.

In this sense, there is no real "demarcation point of exploitation."
quote:
Originally posted by soul_doctor73:
Now we speak their language, discuss their economic policy, call ourselves by their names, and refer to what they call 'theirs' our own as 'equal citizens'. We have been domesticated by European standards to look like, walk like, and talk like them.


You give the Europeans way too much credit. Economic concepts are univeral. They aren't confined to any race, creed, or region of the world. People, in general, react to certain situations in certain ways, no matter where they're from.

Being "equal citizens" before the law is not an exclusively European concept either. They may have institutionalized it - which I think happens to be a good thing - but they are not the sole arbiters of this concept either.
I figured with such a long time to ponder that you would come up with a better answer than that, Toussaint. I never said that ignorance was endemic to capitalism, so that rebuttal point is moot. However, in controlled systems, the primary interest is in the collective and not the individual and thus there is less opportunity to exploit ignorance for individual gain and profit. Also, since most collective systems do not have PROFIT as the goal, to the same degree, then incentive for exploitation is reduced.

Deceit and ignorance go hand and hand, for in order to be deceived; you must first be ignorant of the truth. Not being forth coming with truth is deceit, when that truth can potentially alter the entering into agreement or the nature of the agreement. The reality is that most exchanges and agreements are done with one or more parties being ignorant of truth and the party in knowledge of the truth uses this to that entities advantage. Much of the profit earned under this system by the owners of capital would not manifest to the same degree if all parties were cognizant of the truth. That would result in a trend to equalization in society and reduce the gaps between the working poor and the owners of capital.

The use of the term ˜little' is not a ˜subjective' term. Rather, it is a ˜RELATIVE' term that is created from the juxtaposition with something ˜larger'.
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
I figured with such a long time to ponder that you would come up with a better answer than that, Toussaint. I never said that ignorance was endemic to capitalism, so that rebuttal point is moot.


My point was that because ignorance is there regardless, such exploitation based on ignorance is just as possible under capitalism than any other system - that is, as long as you're dealing with human beings.

quote:
However, in controlled systems, the primary interest is in the collective and not the individual and thus there is less opportunity to exploit ignorance for individual gain and profit. Also, since most collective systems do not have PROFIT as the goal, to the same degree, then incentive for exploitation is reduced.


Your primary interest may at some time be in the collective, but, unfortunately for you, you must deal with real people here. Now, unless you believe that millions of people will behave like a family, exploitation of the worst kind - plunder - will happen in your "controlled system."

quote:
Much of the profit earned under this system by the owners of capital would not manifest to the same degree if all parties were cognizant of the truth. That would result in a trend to equalization in society and reduce the gaps between the working poor and the owners of capital.


First, it probably wouldn't happen. The prisoner's dilemma throws a rather large wrench into that hypothesis.

Second, there will always be limits on information, so ignorance is not going away any time soon. Thus, that "if" you have in your statement is a huge one. And, like I stated before, information is best spread through the free market.

quote:
The use of the term ˜little' is not a ˜subjective' term. Rather, it is a ˜RELATIVE' term that is created from the juxtaposition with something ˜larger'.


As far as determining a "demarcation point" it is still subjective. Determining at what point the relationship between the profits and the workers' salary turns into exploitation is still an arbitrary process.
There are many phenomenons such as ignorance that are not endemic to any particular system. Ignorance is a human trait and not a characteristic of any economic system. Greed is also a human trait that is not endemic to any economic system. However, it is how the various systems use or rely on these human traits, to provide incentive or to increase success, that separate them. Consequently, ignorance, like greed, is a human trait that capitalism uses to help drive profits and the economy. There could very easily be full disclosure laws that allow consumers or workers to make more informed decisions, such as the product labeling laws that inform people of the ingredients in the processed food they purchase. However, profiteers run this country and they would use their dollars to lobby that such legislation would never pass, because they ultimately know that it would hurt their profit margins to inform the worker and consumers.

Who cares whether the demarcation point is subjective or not? Are not interest rates subjective? Nearly most things in economics are subjective, because economics is not an exact science, but rather, more a behavioral science where things are calibrated to produce equilibrium and keep the economy in growth and harmony. When every you are dealing with human behavior, it is subjective. There are ways to create objective measures however. A formula could be created that would be used across the board to make all analysis objective to the formula.
Who cares whether the demarcation point is subjective or not?

Yes, the question for all of this topic is 'who cares'. The entire view that all work is exploitation, and that all employers are automatically 'exploiters' is strictly a 'subjective' point of view that very few in reality actually hold.

There could very easily be full disclosure laws that allow consumers or workers to make more informed decisions, such as the product labeling laws that inform people of the ingredients in the processed food they purchase. However, profiteers run this country and they would use their dollars to lobby that such legislation would never pass

Its becoming obvious that you either do not shop and purchase products ever, or that you cannot read. Have a look at ANY product you have purchased recently, and tell us that you see no listing of the ingredients. The legistlation you ponder PASSED long ago, where have you been? This has to be one of the most ridiculous discussions to pass this way.

The 'demarcation' point was obviously inside your head all along, thats what folks have been trying to tell you.
The fact is that in reality there has to be such a point, whether it is subjective or objective. The definition of exploitation is defined as using others for personal gain. It has nothing to do with force or coercions, as many of you erroneously believe. Making a profit in hence exploitation, because it involves using others for personal gain. Thus, does the terms represent a distinction without a difference? If not, then what is the distinction and difference or the demarcation between it being one or the other.

Of course, all that you detractors can retort with is subjective claims of silliness, but you cannot intellectually contradict my premise, because most of your premises start with your own personal self-serving definitions of exploitation that do not fall in life with the official definition.

Opppps...I just remembered that I am boycotting ignorance and thus had pledge not to respond to your ignorance going forward. Since I have written this....I guess I will post it this time.
I use my employer for 'personal gain' each and every day. So, tell me where it is you will be working someday where you will choose to 'not gain' from your employment, and rather simply be 'used' by someone to help them profit, while not taking any pay or profit yourself, presumably as a 'hobby' if not for gain?

As you can see, your view regarding profit misses the entirety of why people work for others and value the availability of jobs, why people seek to increase their job skills, and why people start businesses in the first place.

So, what do you aspire to? Have you decided to take the 'lowest' paying job you can find, in order to not be 'exploited' too much?

This silliness can only come from someone who hasn't had to support themselves yet, probably languishing on their duffs in some school or something, and who thinks they know better than the world what makes things tick. Someday you'll discover the value of having multiple jobs available to you, and your view will come more in line with the reality that ALL work is a gift, and its the lack thereof you should be avoiding. Fortunately for everyone else, silliness is not contagious.


The 'farmer' is 'exploiting' his land and crops thru his sweat and labor because he profits from its bounty, which feeds the rest of us. The doctors and hospitals are 'exploiters' of all patients because they profit from saving the very LIVES of people, who would otherwise would die. The city is 'profiteers' because it exploits the people it employs as 'trashmen' due to the health needs of the city in keeping the filth from building up on your street, and the trashman are 'profiteers' for being paid to do the work that they should be doing for 'free'. The banks are 'profiteers' when they fund projects such as hospitals, playgrounds, and shelters, because they should be risking their money for free, for shame for shame.....

Now, I think I'll go apply for that job or college admission that has the best affirmative action program, and in the process practice your definition of 'exploitation', since I in fact will be 'profiting' by using those 'others' in the civil rights movement for my own 'personal gain'. in other words, THEY did all the work, and I can sit back and 'profit' by "exploiting" their past efforts.

Stupidity. Why not move to that socialist paradise and see if you don't get 'exploited'. What a joke.
The issue is what you gain relative to what you give. Everything that everyone does is for selfish motives. This issue is the discrepancies between exchanges. Profit can only be gained from such discrepancies. If customers purchased products AT COST, there could be no PROFIT. Thus, profit comes from charging people more that SOMETHING COST. If consumers refuse to purchase at cost, then the owners must attempt to lower production cost via improving efficiencies and or reducing worker compensation, until a point is reached were the consumer will purchase above cost, in order to provide a profit.

In order for Profit to be made, an entity in the creation or exchange has to exploit advantage over others resulting in agreements for unequal exchanges, which is the only way that profit can manifest.

AOL KEYWORD/PHRASE: UNEQUAL EXCHANGES CREATE PROFIT.....and unequal exchanges is gain at the expense/loss to others.
The issue is what you gain relative to what you give.

Oh yes, of course it is. This 'issue' here has now taken about 5 or 6 different turns, coinciding with each time you are challenged on it.

Read my previous posts, that is what I think about this silliness of yours. All jobs are exploitation, and all hiring is exploitation, yeah we hear ya. I hope the unemployment bureau provides air conditioning.

Why don't we start with the biggest exploiters of ALL, those who use 'welfare benefits'! Hell, those folks don't have to put forth any effort at ALL, done' have to 'give' a damn thing, yet are guaranteed to profit each and every day off the work, sweat and efforts of OTHERS who freely pay their way. Those profiteering scumbags, huh ......

Face it, you are not the lord and king in deciding what 'others' deem worth working for and what others perceive they gain in anything. This is so typical of someone who hasn't done anything in the real world yet.

This Topic and philosophy of yours is officially dead now, and I've enjoyed helping to kill it. Remember to take a ticket before you get in the profiteers line at unemployment, according to your 'definition' that is.
I think that biggest exploiter of all have been white civilization. They have taken far more land, resources and freedom from others, than they have given in exchange. They took the Americas and colonized Africa as well as many parts of Asia. In these interactions and exchanges, the resultant is that they took in far more than they gave back, resulting in exploitation and hence profit.

Think about it. While Europeans were all living in Europe, the majority of them lived in poverty. It is not until the started coming into contact with new lands and peoples could they thus create profit for themselves, by taking more from others than what they gave in return. Now, as a resultant of centuries of this, they are collectively the richest race on the planet.

No wonder you are such a big proponent of profit.....I guess I would be too if I were the typical white person in this world.

PS: I have not jumped around in my points. I have been consistant throughout...it is your comprehension that fails you...or your bias...or a combination thereof.
don't give yourself that much credit...your posts are laced with insults as a diversionary tactic to not address his points directly.......since employers do not exploit their workers, what in the hellare unions for? Are they just greedy and undeserving of their existence?....and as so far as the product thing.....you must did not see the testimony denying nicotine addiction from cigarettes...faulty parts, medicene, SUV tires and the whole nine....you call welfare recipients profiteering scumbags...what about those rich old racist white dudes...who are already rich....go to other countries, exploit,kill and steal......and have YOUR kids killed in the process while their kids enjoy riches and comfort? What in the hell would you call them, relatively speaking? we are all exploited to an extent as we seek to gain our benefits and resources and to meet our goals...unless you think a company only makes from a job what they actually pay the worker and are only trying to break even.......
Kevin...'Chick' is much to kind. I can think of more fitting terminology and I am sure you can too Big Grin

On this issue, see how well the reverse works. Say for instance that the workers tried to get more pay out his job than the work he puts into it, by loafing off. What would be the resultant? YOUR FIRED (courtesy Donald Trump). Yet, the OWNER is in business to get a profit by giving the worker less money than the value of his work, in regards to product price, in order that the owner may profit.

Take for instance you go to make a purchase as a consumer. How often are you going to get the owner of a business to sell you a product belowe cost and thus have YOU profit and not HIM?

Of course selling items at cost and leaving margin for research and delopement and company improvement is the most equitable arrangment.
Bro....you will never get someone to sell you jack schit below cost...and if it is a product in demand.....they will call the staff in and have you ask the question again so they can get a GROUP laugh at your azz. Yeah, people who say rude schit are powerless in an academic setting....because there...you cannot replace substance with insults....it shows a lack of acumen on one's part.....I like the way you stick to the subject and not get distracted....Julian Bond does the same thing even when dealing with a lackey like armstrong williams....i am still trying to develop those skills....because they always tell you not to stoop to another person's level......i like to do the limbo UNDER their level.....and give them a bigger dose of themselves..maybe it is a fetish or something.....peace
For all the non-believers and detractors to the link between profit and exploitation: Here is case study number 1,000,000,001.

Above all, note the link between the success of creating profit and consumer IGNORANCE.

I don't make this stuff up folks, contrary to what Toussaint and Taharka lament....this is THE SYTEM and how it works. Don't hate the player...hate the game...which I do.

Case study

How to mke a Proft in Auto Loans
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
Notice how peole like Taharka and Toussaint never acquiesce Big Grin...rather than losing face...they just move on to the next topic. That is what you call WILLFUL IGNORANCE or INTELLECTUAL INERTIA or INTEGRITY CONSTIPATION Big Grin or _ALL OF THE ABOVE!_


Acquiesce what? This whole topic is pointless. The demarcation of worker explotation is wherever you want it to be.

For you, it seems as if simply having a job and being paid a wage is being exploited if the employer makes a profit.

If that's what you think "exploitation" is, then so be it - congratulations. Just realize that it means absolutely nothing.
I beg to differ. It means a whole hellavu lot. It tells that the whole fundamental structure is built off of varying degrees of exploitation. Regardless of how successful such a methodology has proven is secular and economic terms, there is the moral and righteous perspective. Maybe this is why Capitalist nations REALLY separate their politics/economics from their religion. Moral and Righteousness would impede on the ability to profit, especially if it is linked rightly to the phenomenon of exploitation.

This system is the proverbial selling of ones souls to the Devil, for earthly reward.
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
I beg to differ. It means a whole hellavu lot. It tells that the whole fundamental structure is built off of varying degrees of exploitation. Regardless of how successful such a methodology has proven is secular and economic terms, there is the moral and righteous perspective. Maybe this is why Capitalist nations REALLY separate their politics/economics from their religion. Moral and Righteousness would impede on the ability to profit, especially if it is linked rightly to the phenomenon of exploitation.

This system is the proverbial selling of ones souls to the Devil, for earthly reward.


Wonderful, although your whole presumption is based on the false premise that one can only profit based on someone's ignorance.

But, that's ok. Selling things for profit (God forbid) is selling one's soul to the Devil in your opinion. This would demonize all forms of trade as well, as people trade for the purpose of profitting from that trade in one way or another.

That's fine also. However, this demarcation point of worker exploitation is still completely arbitrary. It may/may not be whatever we say it is, and we obviously disagree (surprise). Therefore, I don't see the point in going on on this subject.

You may continue beating your chest now.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×