Do all business owners (or corporations) exploit workers? What would you consider exploitation?

[Nikia]

I was thinking more about the thread about Russian Communism http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=175974&mesg_id=175974 while I was at work.
I think that we can agree that a corporation that makes huge profits while employing children for pennies to work 14 hour days under bad conditions is exploiting their workers. From the other thread, it seems that some DUers think that all business owners or corporations (that employ workers) are exploiting workers.
When I think more practically about my own working experiences and businesses and business owners who I know, I cannot agree that they are all exploiting workers. I also think that some people rather just do what they are told for a steady pay check than have to provide an independent service themselves or rely on how successful a business is.
What consititutes exploiting people though? Is it paying poorly? Is it not letting them have a say in how the business is run? Is it poor working conditions? Is it not sharing the profits equally? Does it matter how big the business is? Does it matter how rich the business owner is him/herself? Does it matter if the business is losing money? Does it have anything to do with intentions?

[More Than A Feeling]

1. It's making profits off disrupting their lives.

It is my current opinion that nobody has more at stake when it comes to large corporations than the workers. Upper management has their golden parachutes, stockholders (ideally) have only a small chunk of their savings invested, so it wouldn't be too big a loss. But a job is a worker's livelihood, and taking that away for profit amounts to benefiting from the giant gaping hole left in a worker's life. That's just plain immoral, and what's worse, the overseers of this process are rarely forced to face the consequences of their actions. That's why I propose that some or all of the profits that can be traced to outsourcing be taken in taxes and given to workers to help pay for their job search, even if their new job is on the other side of the globe. That'll lessen outsourcing for sure!

[Redstone]

2. No, they don't. And anyone who says "Yes, all of them do" is full of crap.

For example, the guy (now deceased) who owned an electronics company where I worked, and later had as a client, offered education reimbursement to EVERYONE who worked there, not just managerial types.

He also had a teacher on full-time staff, and offered all employees EASL and GED classes on company time.

He spent a million dollars more to build a factory in the city when the company needed to expand, rather than save the million bucks he would have, if he had moved the company to the suburbs.

I could go on and on about the education initiatives he funded in the city, but you get the idea.

So, anyone who says "all business owners exploit workers" is going to have a fight with me.

Redstone

[manic expression]

9. A few things

what is happening to electronic jobs now?

Where did that electronic business get its materials? How were those workers treated?

Would you agree that, had there been a competitor in the area, that business would have been in trouble if it used a million dollars to keep their operations in a certain area while its competitor just cut costs and left?

[Redstone]

17. A few replies:

what is happening to electronic jobs now?

The company is now owned by a French corporation, but while that owner was alive, there was NO outsourcing, nor any layoffs, ever.

Where did that electronic business get its materials? How were those workers treated?

Raw materials were purchased from domestic suppliers. That was the owner's rule. We couldn't even buy machined parts from Switzerland, though that would have saved us money. And how were the workers treated? Fair wages, the educational benefits, I mentioned, and respect. Every year, after I negotiated the contracts with our largest customer, I had a meeting with all of the shop-floor employees (not just managers), and told them the value of the contract I'd just negotiated, and reaffirmed to them that it was not my negotiating skills, but rather their effort during the prior year in making quality products on time, that allowed me to be able to bring in that contract.

Would you agree that, had there been a competitor in the area, that business would have been in trouble if it used a million dollars to keep their operations in a certain area while its competitor just cut costs and left?

We had plenty of competitors. Location doesn't matter; we had offshore competition as well. But we built that company on customer service, unremitting quality of product, and employee loyalty. Lots of competitors had lower costs, because they compromised quality by going overseas for parts, but we didn't.

I'm damn proud of what that company accomplished (because I helped make it happen as the second-in-command for 11 years), but more so because of the vision and dedicating of the man who owned it.

There ARE good companies out there, whether you can believe it or not.

Redstone

[manic expression]

19. OK

Thank you for the replies.

First, I think it speaks volumes that such a company has now been bought. Does it not suggest that the competition of capitalism naturally takes such a course (meaning good owners can't stave off the inevitable). Have there been layoffs since the takeover?

Allow me to interject my own ancedote. My uncle had been running a factory for awhile (I even worked in it for a brief time), he employed all domestic workers, payed them a decent wage and so on and so forth. The last time he talked about business, his tone was quite somber, and he talked about the fact that other businesses were moving operations overseas and paying far less wages. "I just can't compete" was one line that struck me at that point. I doubt this is an isolated story, and it goes to show that the products that even relatively humane businesses are being forced to buy from producers which are far from decent employers.

Are those comments valid?

[Redstone]

22. It doesn't speak a damn thing that the company has been bought; it was sold because

the owner died.

No, your uncle's anecdote is NOT isolated; that happens just about every day. Look at how Wal-Mart, for example, is actually
driving jobs out of Mexico and into China, because of relentless cost-cutting.

I cringe every time I see that "price rollback" happy-face thing in a commercial, because I know that it means "We're fucking another vendor." The sons of bitches. And the poor dumb fucks who shop there because they can save $3.00 on a window fan don't even realize that they're sending their own manufacturing job overseas by buying that fan.

But that's the reality of the world these days. We can't stop it. All we can do is to find our niche. I've been fortunate enough to be able to do that; I can say to my clients, "You want to find someone who can do the things I do for you, not only at a lower price, but at ANY price? Be my guest."

But as I said, I'm in a fortunate position. I feel sorry for those who are not.

Redstone

[manic expression]

59. It was basically inevitable in a market economy

I completely agree with what you've said, and although it is the reality of the world these days, we can change that reality. We can overthrow this cruel system that screws over workers and common people while the rich get more and more.

Niches are all well and good, but they are very limited at best, and can be overtaken by companies who don't care for humanity as much.

Some people say life isn't fair; I say life is what you make of it. There is another way.

At any rate, thanks for the comments you've made.

[raccoon]

71. You were fortunate to work for that company.

IME companies that give a rat's ass about their employees--heck, now you can throw government bodies into that too--are rare as a black swan.

[GirlinContempt]

35. I'll fight with you.

To exploit is to use for profit, and any business does this. I'm sure the guy you were referring to was nice, however he would have gone out of business if he did not exploit his workers. In fact, providing education is one of the surest ways to get the most out of your employees, which benefits the employer. Does it also benefit the employee? Yes. Does it make him an inherently bad person? No.
However, if business did not exploit workers, they would not make profits or stay afloat.

[GOTV]

80. When you say "exploit" does it mean the same as when other's say "exploit"?

Because I think most people mean "exploit" in a bad way. That exploitation is wrong.

If you're saying that all work is exploitation, it seems you must be thinking of "exploit" as a morally neutral word. Like "work" or "job".

[GirlinContempt]

84. Exploit is morally neutral

When you're referencing a dialouge that happened between socialists and non-socialists, the word exploit is not going to mean 'slave labour by transnationals with daily beatings'. And if it's treated as such, this back and forth will continue to no end.
And, I think it's good that if most people think the word exploit is negative, period, they're exposed to the meaning of the word. It's used far beyond this "OMG EXPLOITATION IN THE 3RD WORLD" routinely (in my personal experience).

[The Backlash Cometh]

3. Treating someone with disrespect because you know you can always

find someone else to do the job. Underpaying employees, when the employer breaks all kinds of laws to take in an obscene amounts of money for himself. So, in other words, exploitation is not giving your employee a reasonable shake of the profits.

Exploitation suggests there is something disproportionate going on.

[muntrv]

4. Not all businesses exploit workers. Exploitation would involve paying

below minimum wage, creating unsafe working conditions, and purposely having employees work less than 40 hours a week to avoid providing health care.

[GirlinContempt]

36. False.

Exploitation does not require any of those things.

[MrSlayer]

5. My union prevents me from being exploited.

I'm sure the owners would like to exploit us but they can't.

[GirlinContempt]

37. False.

[MrSlayer]

55. Don't explain your point or anything.

Leave us all in suspense.

[GirlinContempt]

58. If the company you work for

makes money off of you, you are exploited.

[MrSlayer]

60. I disagree. I am fairly compensated.

The difference between union and non-union construction is that we all make money.

[manic expression]

62. Exploitation is not measured purely by compensation

exploitation means you make less than you produce, which is exactly what happens.

Also, I talked to a roofer once, and he told me that companies have hired illegal immigrants to do their work, and that the companies who use that cheap labor have driven out all the competition (or else the competition now also uses the same cheap labor). This is far from uncommon. I think this is important to recognize.

[Unvanguard]

168. "Make less than you produce"

Take two groups of a hundred workers. The first group has nothing but the clothes on their backs. The second has a sophisticated, highly automated machinery to work with. Both apply exactly equal quantities of labor effort and are exactly equally skilled.

Obviously, more is produced with the second method - but the quantity of labor is equal. The additional production must be the product of something else, namely capital. (Indeed, the rate of profit will be LESS than the proportion of the product that comes from capital investment - otherwise, the workers wouldn't bother to get jobs, and would instead work on their own to produce goods.)

Edit: I don't really believe that labor exploits capital. I'm pointing out the fallacy in the method - the notion that because without labor capital produces nothing, everything produced is the product of labor. As I've shown, the same logic can be used to produce a similar result, only for the other side of the equation.

[manic expression]

171. Technology aids and improves production

I'm not sure what your point is beyond that. Perhaps you could clarify, since I don't follow what you're trying to say exactly (my apologies).

If you take two groups of workers in isolation you miss the whole point.

Bosses will start to use machines to replace workers, firing them and throwing them onto the streets when s/he doesn't need them anymore. The investment in technology is made first and foremost for PROFIT and little else.

[Unvanguard]

172. Well, the typical argument

for the notion that capitalists exploit their workers by paying them less than they produce goes more or less as follows:

1. No value is produced without labor; a factory without workers is useless.
2. It follows from (1) that all value is produced by labor.
3. The capitalist must pay her workers, in order to make a profit, only a portion of the value the company produces.
4. Thus, by (2) and (3), the workers are paid less than the value of their labor-product.

The problem is with premise two. Yes, without labor, capital produces nothing - but without capital, labor also produces nothing. How can you produce anything if you have no tools and no raw material? We must find some other way to define the value of the labor-product.

There IS a second argument for surplus-value - that the exchange of money for labor is not an exchange of equivalents, because in the end the capitalist gets back the money she originally invested plus profits. Yet this argument is flawed because it ignores "time" on the capital side of the equation. As long as her capital is invested, the capitalist cannot use it for anything else; she cannot use it to purchase goods for her direct use the way money is ordinarily used. Similarly, the mere fact that the laborer retains her capacity to labor after she works for a day does not mean that her wages are really paying for nothing.

So, no, capitalists do NOT necessarily pay their workers less than they produce. By that (highly limited) definition of exploitation, capitalism is not necessarily exploitative.

[manic expression]

173. OK

Who produces the machines? Obviously, someone makes them, since machines do not make themselves.

Who extracts raw material? It doesn't fall from trees, and even if it does, someone has to pick it up.

All this is accomplished by labor, not by capital.

[Unvanguard]

175. So?

Yes, capital is for the most part just "dead labor" (though not entirely; raw materials have value even without labor) - but what does this prove? How does it demonstrate that the workers are exploited? It was not their labor that built the factory and extracted the raw materials, it was somebody else's.

[manic expression]

176. This shows that it is labor

not capital, which produces. Therefore, giving workers less than what they produce is exploitation.

Yes, those workers probably didn't build the factory, but OTHER WORKERS DID. Are you actually trying to say that a factory manager spent years building every part of a factory? Workers build the factory through their labor, workers produce in the factory through their labor; both groups of workers get less than what they produce.

[Unvanguard]

177. Yes, other workers did.

(Actually, we needn't assume that... Marx's theory of surplus-value argues that ALL profit is exploitative, even if the factory owner really did spend years building every part of the factory. But let's go with it for the sake of argument. It really doesn't matter.)

If capital is really the result of dead labor, then somewhere along the line, perhaps several generations back, the ultimate source of the capital accumulation was the labor of the owner of capital. Instead of taking what anyone would call his just proceeds for himself immediately, he instead invested it, denying himself some of the satisfaction he would otherwise have derived from it in trade for a profit. Ultimately, this profit was the foundation of the capital that purchased the factory.

Of course, this is theoretical. In reality, much of capital accumulation had its origin in outright theft - what Marxists tend to label "primitive accumulation." But this is not so much a problem of capitalism in general as it is a problem with the specific origins of capitalism in our world. If "primitive accumulation" is the basis of capitalist exploitation, then it follows that if all past theft were compensated fully, capitalism would be non-exploitative - a conclusion certainly not consistent with the theory of surplus-value.

[manic expression]

180. Yes

(we should assume it, because for all intensive purposes, it is impossible for an owner to build a factory AND extract AND process all the resources used for the factory)

The ultimate source of capital accumulation is no different than what we see today. Crassus the Rich made his wealth in the Roman Republic not by going out and making olive oil, but by practices which evoke thoughts of today's bourgeoisie. Those with capital, the bourgeoisie, did not appear out of thin air, they developed before capitalism, eventually establishing it. The point is that your "line" isn't connected to anything concrete.

So it is not "hard work" which allowed this theoretical "first capitalist" to accumulate wealth, it was a great many factors that are hardly unfamiliar.

I hope I answered your points.

[Unvanguard]

182. Indeed - and I responded to that point.

This is the whole notion of "primitive accumulation" - the original wealth of the bourgeoisie stems not from its labor, but from various forms of theft.

There are two problems with this. The first problem is that there has been considerable upward and downward mobility over the last few centuries, enough that there are plenty of capitalists who did indeed have some sort of "hard work" start somewhere along the line, and the ones who did not are not necessarily all that great a proportion. The second is that the obvious solution to this problem does not seem to be socialism, as you would probably suggest, but simply a new capitalism - say, redistributing wealth radically once, and then leaving the economy more or less as it is in terms of public and private property. Then, all capital would either be the result of that redistribution (which everybody got, so there's no unfairness) or the result of "hard work" in more than theory.

[manic expression]

183. Property is theft anyway

however, the first wealth accumulation of the bourgeoisie occured before there was capitalism. Merchants began to amass wealth, and some began to employ artisans and other workers for their profit. This is what happened in Germany and England/Britain during the Middle Ages, and it is one example.

"Hard work" means that you get the chance to screw over your former peers. Carnegie may have "worked hard" before he became one of the most unforgiving employers in history, but that does nothing to justify anything. It just means that we need more class consciousness, so that workers will not turn on their own at first sight of an extra buck.

If you just redistributed wealth, people who were in an advantageous position to do so would simply accumulate more wealth and start the whole system up again. You wouldn't change anything at all.

By the way, are you an anarchist?

[Unvanguard]

185. Actually, I agree with everything you said there.

I am ardently anti-capitalist; I am indeed an anarchist, and with strong communist tendencies. I simply do not think that the theory of surplus-value is a very good way of reaching that conclusion.

I tend to look at it as a question of economic dependence - for her basic economic welfare, the worker is dependent on the capitalist, while the capitalist is not dependent on the worker. The only solution to this problem is a very high level of competition, but I don't see this happening - it's in the best interests of the employing class to coordinate to keep wages low, and if the market won't let them, they'll just drag the state on their side to ensure it happens anyway.

[manic expression]

186. That's good to hear

It's always important to discuss these things, I'd rather not people treat it as something that shouldn't be questioned.

I think the capitalists depend on the labor of the workers, while the workers simply depend on the capitalists only because it is a capitalist system and the capitalists control the wealth. Furthermore, the state is of the bourgeoisie, and so naturally the state will further the interests of the capitalists at every possible juncture.

Anyway, thanks for your points. Do you know what Bakunin or Kropotkin or any other anarchist theorist has to say on the issue?

[Unvanguard]

187. Bakunin and Kropotkin, to my knowledge, accepted surplus-value.

Indeed, Bakunin thought Marx the economist was brilliant... it was Marx's political analysis that he didn't like.

As for economic dependence, you are right that the dependence of the workers on the capitalists is rooted in the structure of the capitalist economy, but economic dependence in general (and with it exploitation, extortion, and a lack of autonomy) is founded on the division of labor.

[GirlinContempt]

67. As manic expression said

it has nothing to do with fair compensation. If your employer makes money off of your work, you are exploited. Whether or not this situation bothers you is up to you.

[onenote]

104. so does that mean management is also being exploited

if a company has profits over and above what it pays its executives and managers? If a company pays its shareholders dividends, does that mean everyone at the company, from the CEO on down, is being exploited?

[GirlinContempt]

107. Yes.

[otherlander]

181. So...

a business owner is exploiting himself?

[GirlinContempt]

193. Yes and no.

Not in the same way he is exploiting his employees, but yes. Just as you can 'exploit' a talent, you're using something for personal gain.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

6. Examples I saw when I was working temp

1. Compulsory overtime, so that workers in a metal plating plant were on the floor 72 hours a week. They gobbled down their lunch and then spent the rest of their 30-minute breaks sacked out on the benches. Meanwhile, you could never find the "suits" on the premises between the hours of 11AM and 1PM or after 5PM. I called the temp agency and said I wasn't going back after the Chief Scrooge told us we could have 4th of July off only if we came in on Sunday to make up for it.

2. Having workers work in a plant grinding rubber products into various shapes without breathing gear. The air was so full of black rubber particles that when I got off the job, I had black flecks on my face. If I ever get lung cancer (as a life-long non-smoker) or other lung disease, I'll know whom to blame.

3. Electronic monitoring of word processing and data entry personnel so that they were penalized for making too many errors or not typing fast enough. (Otherwise known as "how to increase your clerical workers' stress levels)

4. Cutting the pay or hours of rank and file workers while giving the executives bonuses

5. A major retailer whose own rules said that you got an hour's break total if you worked 8 hours, 30 minutes if you worked 6 hours, and 15 minutes if you worked less than 6 hours. They consistently scheduled people for 5 hours and 45 minutes or 7 hours and 45 minutes so that they wouldn't have to give the extra break time. And this was a MAJOR national department store.

6. Another business made us clock out for our 20-minute lunch and 10-minute break.

All of these occurred during the Reagan recession, when the OFFICIAL unemployment rate in Minneapolis was 11%.

[Nikia]

50. I think workers can be more easily exploited when they feel that they don't have a choice

When a company knows that if people quit that they can easily be replaced. This happens when unemployment is high. It sometimes happens in companies that pay better than other companies in the area, causing people to trade decent working conditions for a wage that will provide what they think is a good life for their family . It probably happens more so with temps because the company does not invest in them like they might permanent employees.

[manic expression]

7. Yes

Exploitation means, among other things, that the boss makes money while the workers produces. The people who PRODUCE things get less while the people who do not get far more. The worker sells his/her labor to survive, the boss USES that labor to enrich him/herself. That is exploitation and it is wrong.

Furthermore, whenever you have competition, bosses will try to cut costs as much as possible, which means trying to get the most out of their workers and giving the least back. Gradually, this competition will lead to worse conditions and lower wages. That's what the market naturally does.

If a business treats their workers well, they run a great risk of going out of business. If a business treats their workers like crap, they will probably "succeed". Such is the nature of capitalism.

[Zodiak]

158. Such is the nature of unfettered capitalism

We learned that regulation actually helps prosperity and capitalism naturally eats itself up without regulation in the 1880's and in the 1930's. It seems we fall in love with laissez faire every 50 years and destroy our people with this blind love.

Capitalism is not enumerated in the constitution, but we treat it as more precious than freedom (since we readily give up a LOT of freedom for our jobs and think that it is right that we do so).

If you work for 8 hours and produce $500 worth of material and only make $100, you are being exploited. The serfs who lived in feudalism got a better rate of return for their work...more than 20% anyways. The social compact between worker and employer breaks down when that $100 cannot make ends meet....otherwise, such exploitation is considered "good" because it allows everyone to prosper because of economy of scale (serfs didn't have that).

However, the compact is breaking down because the rate of return is getting less and less and that $100 cannot buy basic necessities any more. But many people are still in love with unfettered capitalism as if it was written in the Constitution.

[porphyrian]

8. Business owners, not necessarily. Corporations, yes.

Corporate charters require that they put profits before everything else, including humanity. If that means closing a factory, firing all of its employees and devastating the local economy to make their stocks rise a point, that's what they do. A business owner, however, has the possibility of behaving in a humane manner, though many choose not to.

[manic expression]

10. True to an extent

The bourgeoisie (corporations) basically don't care one bit. The petty-bourgeoisie (business owners) can be in contact with their workers, and sometimes work alongside them. There is most definitely a difference there in more ways than one.

However, I would submit that those small business owners are gradually forced out by more ruthless and inhumane employers (Wal-Mart being a textbook example).

[porphyrian]

12. In an environment where it's profitable to do so or without worker protections, yes.

However, I believe that capitalism can work as long as regulations exist which put people before profits.

[manic expression]

14. That is an environment that naturally takes hold

if capitalism is allowed in any small measure. Wal-Mart has made untold amounts of money by treating workers terribly. Our regulations, in the end, did nothing to stop this.

To me, regulations are ineffective when it is the government which applies them has no interest in making them work (as in a government bought off by the rich and made up of rich people: a bourgeois government).

That being said, your point is well taken.

[Redstone]

18. That, right there, beng the reason I've never worked for a large corporation.

Besides, of course, the fact that my personality would get me fired from ANY large corporation in about three minutes.

Redstone

[porphyrian]

26. Heh, right. - n/t

[seabeyond]

32. best job i had was with coca cola. best insurance and other benefits

regular raises, vacations, excellent working environment, good and respectful bosses.

[porphyrian]

34. Right, but what is the impact of soda-related diabetes they're directly responsible for worldwide?

Dr. Mengele was nice and even doting on one of the twins in every pair he experimented on. That didn't make him a nice guy.

[seabeyond]

46. personal responsiblity. a person have diabetes and shouldnt drink it

then dont. moderation in soda drinking will cause no health effects. i am not into dictating individual responsiblity, i give it to an individual to decide for themselves.

[porphyrian]

51. No, I'm saying their product has caused an exponential increase in diabeties among...

...formerly-healthy people, not to mention their impact on obesity. And this isn't just in America, where we have access to the information and education to know better than to consume too much of their product. Coca Cola is one of the biggest advertisers in the entire world, and the brainwashing works. They are responsible, whether or not you hold them so.

Anyway, what percentage of their profits did you see with their employment package compared to other companies, especially given the amount of your tax dollars going towards dealing with the health epidemic they are directly responsible for helping to cause?

[seabeyond]

53. no they are not responsible. the person that abuse the product and all sugars

are responsible. and it is not just coke that is causing the rise in diabetes, it is all kinds of products. it is not the products. it is the choices individuals make. it is their responsibility. it is their health.

[porphyrian]

56. Blah, blah, blah.

Why do you bother?

[seabeyond]

57. with you? wink. n/t

[Greyhound]

68. So the manufacturer of heroin is not in any way responsible for the ill effects that his

product creates? Or cigarettes, liquor, asbestos, cocaine (had to include that one), oil, timber, etc., etc.

I think the point that is being largely missed is that in our system nearly everyone is exploited to some degree, and the argument is based on how much is too much. It simply is not possible for an individual to amass vast wealth without exploiting hundreds or thousands of others.

Every enterprise generates some amount of wealth, the exploitation comes from how that wealth is distributed, and in our system those that produce the most are rewarded the least. Some people object to that, but find that there is no alternative, no way to opt-out.

"behind every great fortune lies a crime" - Balzac

[seabeyond]

69. i dont agree with you. i dont agree we are all victims. i dont agree we are all powerless

i dont agree that we are all exploited..... i dont see life that way. i dont live life that way.

my sister in law with three young ones she didnt take care of often said to me.... i deserve the pedicure, i deserve the friday night out at the bar, i deserve the steak for dinner, i deserve,... i deserve....

in the meantime she wasnt being mother to her children. she doesnt deserve shit.... she made a choice in life to have the children, so in exhaustion and hard work ect... meet your responsibility. there is no deserve.

all these things you suggest put on the market allows free choice. a person chooses or doesnt. i dont see the addict (and i was one) as a victim. i dont see the poor (and i was one) as victim. i dont even see the raped (and i was twice) the victim. powerless

much of this thread boggles my mind. i know much of the conclusion comes from lack of experience. every person,... start a business. let that business put the food on your table to feed your family, pay your bills and provide for not only you but all the employees you have a responsibility to, along with the family of those employees. and then tell me how you exploit the employee.

i simply do not agree with your argument nor do i adhere to you perception of how life is.

[GirlinContempt]

70. It boggles my mind too

that you're so unaware of the meaning of the word 'exploit', as are others making the same argument you are.

[seabeyond]

72. exploit

1. a noteworthy act or deed
2. to utilize fully or advatageously
3. to make selfish or unethical use of

i know the word is not being used as one or two. i assume (and assuming is never good so correct me if i am wrong) people are saying all people who are an employee are being exploited if they are not getting equal share of profit from a company must be talking about three.

so i have to assume (again) the suggestion is that if a company does not equally divide the profit equally for all employees they are being selfish or unethical

and you tell me i should "get" this and boggles your mind cause i do not agree with it. it isnt doable. a business would be no more. it is absurd. yet...... i boggle the mind cause i dont agree with it

[GirlinContempt]

75. Well, it IS selfish

However:
1. to utilize, esp. for profit; turn to practical account: to exploit a business opportunity.

I never said anything about 'unethical', although selfish (being devoted to the care of ones self) can apply.

To exploit is to use something for gain. Employers use their employees for gain. Your emotional reaction to the word has nothing to do with the meaning of it. You can disagree with the meaning of words all you want, I suppose. However, this is the system in which we live.

Maybe you'll have a less knee-jerk reaction to the idea that you, personally, can EXPLOIT your own talent or skill. Does that make you howl in outrage? Do you think I'm suggesting you beat yourself in the back room? Or do you understand the meaning of the word in that context?

The word is most commonly used as 2 and 3, and in the case of stating all employers exploit their workers, clearly it's 2, though that's a poor definition. I'm assuming Wiki.

[seabeyond]

77. not a knee jerk reaction. for you to characterize it in such a manner is exploiting

you ability to define who i am and my intent without fact.

no i did not get the definition off wiki. but the dictionary that sits next to me and i often go into and have had for the last 3 decades since i bought for college all those years ago. i have truly exploited this book for all it is worth.

ok,.... as i said, i assumed from the conversations i heard that the term exploited was being used in a negative fashion, hence assumption third difinition.

i guess we can say that selfish, in and of itself, isnt a necessarily negative word either.

so thru you imlication, there is really no act the companies and corporations are doing that are necessarily bad

clarification: in todays world i am not a big corporate supporter. i am having a lot of issues with corporations. i dont think we are reasonably addressing the business world on this thread, nor looking at the position of employees in a balanced way either.

[GirlinContempt]

78. There we go.

As I said to someone else, whether or not the exploitation bothers you is entirely up to you. Exploitation, when referred to as the 2nd definition, can still be seen as negative, but it is not inherently negative. You're correct, selfish is not necessarily negative either.

[seabeyond]

82. but lets be real. not a single post using selfish or exploit is doing it

in a positive fashion. is this correct? and if it is correct,..... then where is the bitch when i address the negative connation being used by the word exploit?

[GirlinContempt]

83. The OP was referencing a post

which involved Marxist or communist perspectives. The word exploit is both negative and your second definition under these terms. So, the real problem that people seem to have with this view is not the word 'exploit' but the fact that people think all exploitation is negative, which is the debate that should be happening. However, that debate can't happen if each side doesn't understand the others terminology and reasoning.

[seabeyond]

85. fine. i was talking coca cola. now you talk about op. then tell

me the real conversation is the definition of exploit that is not being done.

that is fine. i can follow that. and with the changing of the conversation, so goes what i have to say about it.

[GirlinContempt]

93. You said:

"much of this thread boggles my mind. i know much of the conclusion comes from lack of experience. every person,... start a business. let that business put the food on your table to feed your family, pay your bills and provide for not only you but all the employees you have a responsibility to, along with the family of those employees. and then tell me how you exploit the employee."

And I responded

[seabeyond]

95. it is the conclusions being drawn that there is an

equality, the simple = sign of the owner and the secretary. or janitor. if you want an example of male/female position, not being gender specific in the point i am making. that if the employee at the lowest on the wrung is not making the same as the owner then there is exploitation. that is what i am refering to on the comment you put up. they are NOT contributing equally to the company. it appears on many posts i have read, people feel the person taking the risks, experiencing the stress and work load of ownership is equal to all positions in the business.

[GirlinContempt]

98. It's not a matter of equality

in terms of load of labour, but a matter that someone else is profiting off the labour of one.

[seabeyond]

105. so???? n/t

[GirlinContempt]

106. So, you're arguing about equality

when that really has nothing to do with it.
SO????? explain where you're going

[seabeyond]

111. now we are at the point where you are asking me to repeat myself

maybe you do not understand what i am saying. maybe you do, but prefer to argue. i dont

[GirlinContempt]

116. I'm not asking you to repeat yourself

I'm telling you a discussion about exploitation has nothing to do with equality. You said the conclusion being drawn is that a janitor is fiscally equal to a CEO, which is not so and I've not seen that conclusion come to at all, and it doesn't make sense.
As far as I can tell, you're equating EQUAL wages with the worth of wages. Neither have anything to do with the other. So, if this is not what you're saying, please explain. If it is what you're saying, I'm not preferring to argue, but to be clear.

[Greyhound]

76. I have no idea where you get the idea this is about victims, except possibly through projecting

your own experiences.

I have started and built three companies and sold two of them, so maybe I do know a little something about it. I do not seek your agreement nor approval, but wished to offer an explanation of why there are so many people that are disenchanted with, and disenfranchised by, our system. It requires that most of the population fails, in order for the few to "succeed". Our system undeniably offers the greatest rewards to the most irresponsible, thus the most profitable health-care company delivers the least/worst care, the largest insurance company denies the most claims, and the wealthiest families become so on the corpses of thousands of their workers.

I find it hard to believe that you believe that the producers of such obviously destructive substances should be allowed to make their products freely available and bear no consequences for it. I can see how an argument can be made for allowing the wholesale production and distribution of heroin, for example, but I can't see the logic of shielding those from the consequences of that production. Isn't responsibility the central tenet of your philosophy?

As for my perception of life, you have no idea whatsoever what that is, so you don't know what you're talking about.

[seabeyond]

81. lets get back to the beginning of the conversation.

coca cola is responsible for the increase of diabetes in this nation and the world. and i say there is individual choices people make and they are responsible for their health. is coca cola responsible for the ill health of americans and the world. i say no. i say the individual is responsible for their health.

i dont promote the legalization of herion. i do not promote the use of herion. if a person choses to use herion, then that person is responsible for their choice.

i have huge issues with what have been happening with corporations over the last two decades and especially since bushco has gotten into office. but that isnt what i have been listening to on this thread.

[Greyhound]

86. 150 years ago, or whenever it was introduced, they had no idea that

ingesting that much sugar, never mind the cocaine, would have the deleterious effects that are known today, so there was no reason to blame them for injuring their customers, however that has not been the case for many decades, yet when was the last time you heard of any soft drink company telling people that their product should only be used only in moderation by nearly developed people and never by young children?

With 12 - 15 teaspoons of sugar and HFCS in a single 12 oz. serving, it is well known to the entire medical profession, as well as the companies themselves, to be very unhealthy to drink continuously, yet that is what they promote. That is irresponsible at best, and likely negligent.

Sugar and HFCS are extremely habit forming and where is the primary focus of their advertising? The choice of a new generation, things go better with Coke, etc. I've never seen their marketing campaign directed to the senior set, why do you suppose that is?

Remember when a few bottles of Tylenol had been tampered with by some nut and the CEO ordered the immediate recall of every single bottle in the whole nation? Today we have the very same industry using the court system to keep drugs known to kill people on the market for the maximum time they can, so they can squeeze a few more millions of dollars out of the public.

They have bought themselves a game that is rigged entirely for their benefit, and all the while there is a better way, they just don't want us to know it.

Bottom line, our version of capitalism offers the greatest rewards to the least scrupulous companies.

[seabeyond]

100. you have a couple different issues going at the same time

and this is one of the reasons that i may not be communicating my thoughts well. maybe it is the time to address all you are talking about in a small amount of time.

sugar issue. people are aware of the issue with junk food and if they consume to much, it is their choice. i do not believe in nanny mentality of restricting or eliminating because there are people that do not chose moderation. i dont believe that is my role. i do not condemn the person their choices. i accept it as theirs. i do not feel that if they are too stupid to moderate then i am suppose to step in and decide for them. that is basically how i feel about a lot of life rules that democratic party would like to enforce understanding that the majority, or a lot of people on this site disagrees with me

the foods we deem healthy that have lost control over last handful of years thru bushco i think is the ultimate in dishonest and corruption in corporation. what we are doing to our meats and eggs and veggies and fruits. that i would like to battle. because at this point it is our healthy food supply contaminating that and not allowing the choice of responsible eating

i have come down heavily on the pharmaceutical industry and their abuses and corruption during repug reign and one of them is the mandatory law on these vaccination the most recent in texas. i am hearing a good push for the exact opposite and trust of the very govt and pharm that is causes abuse for own agenda purpose which i find so very odd and inconsistent. having a child that i think was effect by vaccination and knowing the abuse of studies and research for profit, seeing it in many different studies that are pc motivated like second hand smoke to push an agenda, and now strongly questioning the cholesterol pills they are pushing and other drugs, not to mention the add, bi polars, autisms and others we easily drug....... i have a HUGE distrust of this whole area of govt and corporation. again, last decade.

what is today, is not what was yesterday. this is what i am battling. willingly. a lot of the things i hear on the company exploiting issue on this thread is not addressing what i feel is the very specifics of what is happening in the corporations today. the sending jobs over seas, the lower wages, the health care packages..... all of these are being influenced and attacked from different sides for different reasons most all thru the imbalance that has happened last two decades of govt/corporation relationship and especially noticed of late thru bushco.

[Greyhound]

133. I think if we were discussing this in a more communicative medium,

say face to face, we would find that we are essentially in agreement.

You are right this is about several issues, but I think they are all related through the common denominator of U.S. corporatism. An ethical company (didn't used to be an oxymoron) would, upon discovering that its products may have negative consequences would, at the very least, work to inform its customers of the discovery and advise them to act accordingly (that's why I brought Tylenol up), but in the system we currently have this is thought/believed to not be really possible, in spite of the evidence to the contrary. The idea of corporate responsibility and customer loyalty were, for a short time, the way of doing business here and is still essential to the Japanese model for example. I don't believe that the fact that this period coincided with the rise of our middle class was a coincidence.

The dangers of over-consumption of sugar are better known than they used to be, but perhaps not nearly so much as you might think, thanks in large part to the sugar industry itself spending the huge amounts it does to blunt the impact, and HFCS is far worse and ignorance of this is almost universal thanks to the corn industry. In addition, even those of us that are aware of these problems have a difficult time controlling our intake, just try to go to the store and buy products that are free of these things, it ain't easy. Pre-prepared pasta sauce is one example, it's a great idea since it saves a lot of time, but there is none available without a large amount of HFCS and/or sugar in it. So what do we do, make it from scratch? Nope, as you point out our very food supply is contaminated with everything from pesticides to growth hormones to GMO's. It is becoming ubiquitous, and thanks to the bizarre food distribution scheme there are few, and in many cases, no alternatives to this pseudo-food.

The confluence of government and the corporation have made us a fascist state by definition, so we cannot look to our government for a solution, as they are nothing more than the enforcement arm of our corporate state. Witness what our political leaders and Presidential candidates have to say about this issue, with very few exceptions, nothing at all.

The nanny state, IMO, is certainly not an answer, just look at the mess that is California, nearly every aspect of their personal and public lives are regulated, defined, and restricted, and everyone bears the costs. As far as it (sugar, smoking, drinking, whatever) being their own decision, that is perfectly fine as far as I'm concerned, but there must be informed consent, not coercion through advertising and misinformation.

So we start out discussing the definition and acceptable level of exploitation in the employer/employee relationship, and end up going around in circles trying to figure out what causes it and what to do about it, or even if there is a problem at all. I think this is exactly what is intended. These issues, and many more, are all related and there is no simple solution, so most of us throw up our hands, give up, and go back to trying to make a better life for ourselves, and things continue to deteriorate.

[rinsd]

122. Who knew? You thought you were working for a company that made soda

In reality, you are comparable to perhaps the most evil and despised Nazi.

[seabeyond]

131. truly

this is the part of the democratic party that brothers me the worst. or one of the worst. i try to stay out of these threads. my bad for not thinking twice before posting.

thanks

[Hippo_Tron]

153. I don't think it's very reflective of the Democratic Party...

Some of the people who are arguing with are Marxists (I don't mean that as an insult). Marxists are not a constituency of the Democratic Party by any means.

[seabeyond]

162. i hope so

i tell myself on certain issues that seem to be so extreme to me that it doesnt appear to be reflective, then i see some of the laws passed in calif and i have to ask myself, who am i fooling, lol lol. but thank you for the reminder.

[Nikia]

43. The irony of things is that large corporations

Often seem to offer a better deal to their workers because they often have more money to be able to pay a competitive wage, which is why they pay well in the first place. On the otherhand, they will have no qualms about closing plants and laying off people if they think it will increase profits.

[porphyrian]

45. Right, but what percentage of their profits are they actually paying their employees?

It may seem like a good package, but how much more is the effort of any given worker creating for the company? Exploitation doesn't always have to seem abusive.

[JVS]

52. Small business owners can often suck ass tremendously

When working for a small business, conditions often go unregulated which would be examined by the government in a larger business. Further, the impersonality of larger companies often shields employees from the unbridaled avarice of the owners. I've worked for a small business where conditions were so bad that one of my coworkers was gleeful when she got a job at Walmart. Some of the owner's behavior would be unthinkable at a less personalized business. He once went so far as to hint that he believed that some employees might be holding out money from him and that he saw some nice car-stereos in the employee's cars which were unprotected during our workshifts, so we should just think about that. There is a certain advantage to being just another number.

[porphyrian]

54. I'm generalizing, but anyone who's worked for a businessman from the Mediterranean knows this.

On the other hand, the most interesting game of Monopoly I've ever played was with a bunch of Greeks.

[seabeyond]

73. do you know how much theft there is from employees.

my husband's old boss in small business had an employee steal over 300k before he was caught. prosecuted and in jail for a year. suppose to pay back, never did. the mans business went under. my father had an employee when he first bought business. a long time employee very trust stold thousands. they dont have a clue how much was stolen.

i regularly and often watch people take supplies from business, cheat on time cards and never think twice about that theft, justifying in all kinds of manner, that the company owes them in some way. probably cause they are exploited.

one of the biggest issues a business has with employees.

lets not pretend it is ONLY the business owners who are the asses.

[Greyhound]

79. The good one's, defined by several examples in this thread as those

that generously compensate and genuinely care for their employees, are inevitably doomed to remain small by the system we have accepted. They cannot "compete" with the unscrupulous competitors, and are doing very well to stay in business. Our system punishes those good owners and rewards the worst.

This, I believe, is the point of this thread. To use a recently popular phase, "there is a better way".

[porphyrian]

87. I agree. Corporatism is a proven failure for the vast majority.

I still believe capitalism can work, though, as long as we regulate things enough to keep the bad guys from screwing everyone else. Preventing the buying of political influence and redefining the corporation as either having no individual rights of the citizenry or as being responsible and accountable for their actions if they retain those rights would go a long way in correcting our current problems.

[Greyhound]

89. I agree that capitalism has its place, but as other, mostly European, countries

have demonstrated, it must be strictly regulated and constantly watched, otherwise it will inevitably result in the kind of atrocities we have seen, and are today seeing repeated.

I think the first step is to ban profit from essentials such as food, shelter, health, education, and law. Oh, and we also must abolish the thoroughly obscene notion that corporations are legal beings with rights equal to those of people, they must be subservient.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

11. Oh God No, Not Be A Friggin Long Shot. Course, You're Sure To Get The Melodramatic Replies That Say

otherwise, but they're probably just being silly anyway.

Nah, there are plenty of good corporations and businesses out there, though lord knows there are still too many that do in fact exploit their workers.

[manic expression]

13. Here is a definition of exploitation

To anyone interested in the Marxist viewpoint, here is an entry from marxists.org:

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/e/x.htm#exploitation

I think it is a pretty good description of exploitation. It is but one viewpoint of many from the left.

[Redstone]

27. I'm afraid that I'm NOT "interested in the Marxist viewpoint." Not even faintly.

You've heard the phrase "scrapheap of history?"

That's the permanent home of Marxism. It has never worked, and never will.

Goodbye to all that. Nice-sounding ideas, never workable in the real world. No matter HOW many times it's been tried.

Redstone

[rug]

40. And how long do you expect capitalism to last?

[manic expression]

61. I posted it because others are probably interested

especially the person who posted it originally. And really, if you aren't interested, it wouldn't hurt for you to be exposed to it anyway.

Scrapheap of history? Please, tell that to Cuba, Kerala, Chiapas, Venezuela and other societies that have rejected capitalism and taken the socialist route. They will laugh in your face if you tell them that their system is in the "scrapheap of history". It has worked even more than that, in Paris, in Russia, in Spain, in other countries. It has worked and worked well. Sorry to break this to you, but the only thing heading for its end is the self-destructive system of capitalism.

But wait, you say, capitalism has been around for at least 200 years! Well, think about it, how long was feudalism around? Quite a long time, but that doesn't mean it didn't end. Be sure that capitalism will end. It is inexorable, this corrupt and disgusting system will destroy itself. Capitalism employs its own grave diggers; the process you described yourself is what does this.

[Unvanguard]

170. While surplus-value is nonsense

that definition gets one thing right - there is inherent exploitation involved in commodity exchange, and anything else that makes a person's welfare contingent on serving the wills of others.

The problem, of course, is that this exploitation is extremely hard to get rid of. Marx believed that with the elimination of scarcity resulting from the increased productivity of capital investment, the alienating aspects of labor could be eliminated, allowing for high production without compulsion - yet in truth this doesn't seem all that much more plausible at today's technological level than it was at the technological level of a century and a half ago.

[gollygee]

15. I think that, generally speaking,

the larger the corporation and the more it advertises itself as having low prices, the more likely it is exploiting its workers. The larger a corporation is, the more separated the owners are from the workers, so they don't see the effects of their business choices. And when prices are really low, the savings come from somewhere, and I promise not from the executives or major stockholders.

[tammywammy]

16. Absolutely not

I work for a family owned company with around 80 employees. They have never once treated me wrongly, nor can I say I've ever seen them treat anyone wrong.

BTW, I work for an LP not an Inc. Oh and I know that the owner and GM (his son) make a butt-load more money than I do, but I feel like I'm well compensated.

[Greyhound]

23. So your peonage is acceptable because you are comfortable?

This is not to say that these owners are bad people, they are working within a system that demands exploitation to succeed.

If they chose not to comply with this system they would likely be unable to do whatever it is they do, but consider this, will you ever receive enough compensation from them to live they way they do? If business takes a turn for the worse, which course of action will they pursue, reduce their lifestyle so that you can continue to labor on their behalf (since it appears that this is your preference), or will they fire you in order to maintain their lifestyle?

[Redstone]

29. Just HAVE to be hostile, don't you? Got an agenda here, maybe? Someone is happy,

feels he or she is being treated and paid fairly, but you have to start raving about a "system" that says the company is doomed, though it clearly is not?

Never had the guts to start your own business, have you?

Redstone

[Greyhound]

65. I don't know what you are raving about but, yes I have started and run my own

businesses, three times, twice successfully. I took the proceeds from those and, unlike you apparently, lived freely and quite happily.

I want to point out that there is a better way, an idea that you are not open to, so move along please.

ETA: In looking over your other replies on this thread it is apparent to me that you may well be in need of a break from your own pursuit of the corporate dream.

[Redstone]

178. "My own pursuit of the corporate dream?" HAHAHAHA. I work for MYSELF!

What on earth gave you the idea that I'm "pursuing the corporate dream?"

I've been self-employed for the last 16 years, and half of my life before that.

Nice ad hominem attack, not to mention unfounded assumption.

Redstone

[otherlander]

184. It's a legitimate question.

[Nikia]

47. I do not know about the poster's employer

My employer in 2001 announced that they lost money that year but that they were going to give us bonuses and raises anyway because their family had plenty of money saved for lean times and they felt that it was the right thing to do. Granted that was only one year and they had reason to believe that things might get better, but if it was only money they were after, they could have sold the business to a larger corporation and ran.

[manic expression]

63. That doesn't mean the employees aren't exploited

That just means your employers aren't 100% greedy. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Exploitation isn't defined by how many bonuses you get, it's defined by the relationship between what you produce (your labor) and what you get for it, as well as who makes the most in the process.

At any rate, the conditions which make such a thing possible are hardly looking up. Both the workers and the petty-bourgeoisie are getting less and less, the disparity between rich and poor is growing fast. That kind of generosity may not be so feasible in the future or even the present.

[Greyhound]

66. That is good to hear. In my businesses, I used a different approach

but I was trying, not to bash the owners of her business, but to point out that we are captive to a system that offers much greater rewards to those that are selfish, than those that are cooperative.

Also, I guess I worded my reply badly, being an employee is really quite enough for many, perhaps most, people. Whatever makes each of us happy is good, but I wanted to bring up the notion that amerikan capitalism is not the only, or the best way, an idea that some find very threatening.

Al la the cartoon that Redqueen posted a day or two ago.

[Greyhound]

20. All business owners? Not consciously, but see this toon, posted by Redqueen,

to see why the answer is probably yes.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=166086

[leftofthedial]

21. by definition, any capitalist enterprise exploits its workers

labor is a resource. capitalism exists solely to exploit resources and turn them into capital for the enterprise's owners.

[Redstone]

30. And your problem with that is what, exactly?

Redstone

[leftofthedial]

33. longer than I have time to post at the moment, but

I wasn't stating that I have a problem. Just answering the question in the OP.

[Redstone]

41. I was not being hostile, OK? Just want you to know that, because this is a subject

that we can discuss at some length in the future, and I'd enjoy doing so.

But not tonight. Remind me, if you would, and we'll delve deeply into the idea, OK?

Redstone

[leftofthedial]

42. you got it!

back to the studio. Deadline for some tracks.

[Redstone]

44. Deadlines...that, I understand. Go get 'em.

Redstone

[endarkenment]

137. marxist tripe

you meant 'by the textbook marxist definition'.

Define capitalist enterprise.

Is a worker owned and operated coooperative enterprise that accumulates capital through the 'exploited resources of its workers' who also happen to have a share in the accumulated capital and a say in its distribution a capitalist enterprise?

If is not, why not?

If it is, who exactly is being 'exploited'?

[manic expression]

155. One opinion

of many.

First, such an enterprise would have to be COMPLETELY vertically integrated. If it isn't, it would probably use labor that is being exploited.

The thing you describe is basically a co-op, and there are many in existence (many of them run by anarchists). However, I would say that such a thing is not a capitalist enterprise. Why? Because capitalism is based on (among other things) competition, not cooperation. This enterprise is based on cooperation and not competition.

But wait, this enterprise still competes in the free market just like any other, so isn't it capitalist? Not necessarily, because if you used that measure, Cuban sugarcane would be produced by a "capitalist enterprise" if it is sold AT ALL. That is certainly not true, so we can dispense of such reasoning.

Hopefully that makes sense.

[endarkenment]

160. The cooperative exists externally as what you

define (or should define) as a capitalist enterprise. It does not generally cooperate with other capitalist enterprises even if they happen to be cooperatives as well, instead it competes with other enterprises for profit within a market economy. However, being a cooperative, internally there simply is no exploitation, or rather there is voluntary self-exploitation for the purpose of accumulating capital and the general well being of the members.

The example of the cuban (or chinese) non-cooperative enterprise is not pertinent. Those are exploitve as they are not voluntary organizations, and the accumulation of capital is typically completely controlled and directed by the state, not the members of the enterprise. They are examples of state capitalism within autocratic or totalitarian systems.

[manic expression]

169. Cuba is a fine example

People who wanted to leave were allowed to do so, and leave they did. The people working there now do it just as voluntarily as people working in other countries. Even if you want to make it a requirement that it be voluntary, Spain saw collectives form in Catalunya during the Spanish Civil War, and they were fully voluntary. Are the anarchist collectives in Spain "capitalist enterprises"? Hardly.

By the way, "state capitalism" has no definition, it has no meaning, no one really knows what it means.

[XemaSab]

24. It's like a relationship between a buyer and a seller.

Ideally both sides are happy, but each side can cheat the other.

It's harder for the buyer to cheat the seller, but it can happen. More often, the seller cheats--or appears to cheat--the buyer.

I think in the relationship between employer and employee there are egregious examples of exploitation, but for the most part people are fair.

[JVS]

25. yes

[Katherine Brengle]

28. Well, to be technical...

Anyone who makes a profit from someone else's labor is technically "exploiting" that person.

However, there is such a wide range that I am hard pressed to say "all" business owners are part of the problem - the ones that need to be stopped are those who do not pay a living wage, offer no benefits, no job security, and keep their employees from unionizing.

[mitchum]

31. "What is the nature of a thing?"

Yes

[GirlinContempt]

38. I think you're making the mistake

of equating exploitation with fairness or kindness. They are not mutually exclusive.

[Nikia]

48. Doesn't the word exploitation imply there is some kind of unfairness?

About the situation. What would make the situation fair? Do you think that most Amirican workers would really prefer whatever solution you propose?

[GirlinContempt]

49. Exploitation does not necessarily imply unfairness

Unless you think profiting off of someone else is unfair. Most people in this society don't seem to. Exploitation CAN BE unfair, but it doesn't HAVE to be.
Exploitation can be a relationship between you and yourself. You can 'exploit' your own talents or skills.

The only thing I'm proposing is that exploitation has nothing to do with warm fuzzies.

A statement that all bosses exploit their workers is not ludicrous. Whether this situation bothers you or not is entirely up to you.

EDIT:
Doesn't not? What the hell?

[NashVegas]

74. Without Exploitation, Resource-Gathering Would Be Pointless

The whole point in convincing others to contribute their labor to your wealth-concentrating needs, in exchange for monies, is to do so using a formula that you come out gaining a greater share of the money than the person providing the labor does. The more workers you can convince to sell their labor (resource) to you, the more wealth, exponentially, you stand to make while theirs remains flat or at best increases in a linear fashion.

[manic expression]

121. Employers don't convince people to contribute their labor

they work within a system that REQUIRES workers to sell their labor in order to survive. This means that workers, for all practical purposes, must "contribute their labor to {the bosses'} {wealth-concentration}".

The more workers you can employ, the more productive your business is; however, the more money you can make OFF their labor, the more productive and competitive you are. This means that the boss who makes the most money off of his/her workers' labor will most likely succeed and outcompete those who do not. This, in turn, means that the boss who pays the least wages possible, works the workers as hard as possible, employs the lowest earning employees possible, neglects working conditions as much as possible, etc... is more competitive and subsequently more likely to succeed.

[NashVegas]

148. You're Not Taking Freelancers and Other Self-Employed Into Account

It is because of that group, I use the word, 'convince.'

It was Lincoln who campaigned using speeches noting that labor exists independently of capital.

Let's say I want pie tonight, and, for the purpose of argument, assume ingredients are readily available. I make my own. No one is paying me, but it still gets made.

But assume I work in the bakery department at the local grocery store: if I don't make it, the cash registers don't ring.

*however*

I will give you this: as our raw resources - land, lumber, minerals, water, and increasingly food patents - are being given away to private interests, your word, "requires," does increasingly come into play.

[manic expression]

154. Are you claiming

that freelance workers are remotely as numerous as employed workers?

Workers, especially unskilled workers, MUST work for businesses as a matter of survival. It is an established fact that workers can scarcely employ themselves in the capitalist age.

You need to get the ingredients from somewhere, which means you'll likely have to pay for them. If you don't address this part of the scenario, you're letting one of the most important parts of the equation go unaddressed.

If you want a pie, you need to buy either the ingredients or a baked pie (this is making me hungry). However, you need money to buy the ingredients, and where do you get that money? From working a job. You can sell your pies to make money, but the market caters to firms which can produce more pies and sell them for less. It is unlikely that your self-employment will last long at all due to competition inherent in capitalism.

Assuming you work in a bakery: if you don't make it, you'll get fired and tossed to the curb, leaving you right where you started.

[Ivan Sputnik]

39. It's inherent in the relationship

A for-profit business will never pay employees as much money as they can make from their labor, or they won't stay in business for long. So, in that sense, they all exploit workers -- it's a matter of degree.

[MSchreader]

64. If a company makes a profit, they are exploiting

That's the scientific definition of exploitation. They may be nice about it all, give good benefits and a wage that allows someone to live a little, but that doesn't mean that they aren't exploiting.

Profit is surplus value. It's what's left over from the sale of commodities (and services, which contribute to the exchange value of commodities) after all debts and costs are paid out, including wages and benefits. The rate of exploitation can be looked at this way:

You and your co-workers, 100 in all, make various kinds of cabinetry. You are all paid a "living wage" averaging out to about $25 an hour, plus benefits that raise your overall income to double that amount, for eight hours a day, five days a week. In total, the weekly cost of your labor is $200,000 a week -- $10,400,000 a year.

The 20 other employees, who handle everything from office paperwork to maintenance and janitorial service, also make a "living wage", averaging out to about $20 an hour, plus benefits that raise their overall income $45 an hour, for eight hours a day, five days a week. In total, the weekly cost of their labor is $36,000 a week -- $1,872,000 a year.

You and your co-workers (supported by the office, maintenance and custodial employees) can produce a high-quality cabinet every 5 minutes, which has an average value of $1,000 on the market. The value of all the cabinets you make in a week is $480,000 -- $24,960,000 a year.

Monthly bills and costs for maintenance and upkeep of the building and machines is roughly $600,000 a year.

The total costs for production are $12,872,000 a year. The total value generated by the products produced are $24,960,000 a year. The remaining $12,088,000 is profit.

The rate of exploitation is calculated by comparing the amount of socially-necessary labor time with the actual amount of time working. The math goes like this:

12872000 / 24960000 = 0.5157051282 = X

X * 8 hours = 4.1256410 = Y

The variable Y equals the amount of socially-necessary labor time, which is the time it takes for you to contribute your share of collective labor in order to cover the costs of your maintenance and existence. This is roughly four hours and eight minutes of labor (4 hours, 7.538461 minutes, to be exact).

Any work beyond this amount of time is solely for the benefit of the owners and his or her managerial agents. It is, in short, unpaid labor -- capitalism's dirty little secret: wage-slavery.

Again, as I said above, your boss might be a nice person, might be friendly and even seem generous, but if they are making a profit, you are working for free (i.e., for their enrichment, not yours) for a given period of time during the day. In short, for that period of time, you are a slave.

Martin

[onenote]

110. ummm...don't "bosses" work too?

[MSchreader]

157. They're "deciders"...

Just like George.

Martin

[gravity]

88. Workers benefit from business owners too

Employment is just a exchange of goods and services. An employee is selling his or her's skills and services for the employer. You aren't being forced to work for anybody, but are selling your services for a profit.

Problems can occur though, since individuals don't have the bargaining power compared to corperations, especially with unskilled labor where workers are a dime a dozen. An employer might be willing to pay someone $15 an hour for a job, but if two people are competing for the same job, they will sell themselves cheaper and cheaper to the bare minimum price to survive if there are no alternative jobs to work for. Minimum wage laws and labor unions are used to fix these problems giving people more power to negotiate wages, so the business's can't exploit the workers like that.

This can work the other way around and favor the employee if businesses have to compete for a limited number of workers.

[GirlinContempt]

94. No matter how much competition there is for an employee

the business is not going to pay them the product of their labour. The business will make money off the employee, thus exploiting them.

Can this kind of competition increase the compensation for the employee? Yes. Does that benefit the employee? Yes.

However, it isn't an 'exchange' (in the equivalent sense) of goods and services, because one side will always receive less, and the other benefit more.

And, well, you are being forced to work for someone. It's usually that or starve.

[gravity]

96. Both parties benefit

Employees make money off the business too. If they could make more money doing something else, then they will do it.

The business will gain more profit and the employee will gain a higher salary, assuming that they couldn't find a higher paying job elsewhere.

[GirlinContempt]

97. That wasn't my point.

My point was, the business still makes money off of the labour of the employee. The employee is not making money off the business, they're making money by selling their own labour and lower than it's market value.

[gravity]

114. The employee sells their labor at market value

Market value is what the market is willing to pay for the labor, not just the business. If the market value is less than the cost to hire someone at the business, than they will hire more employees. If that wasn't the case, then no business will ever hire new employees.

The employee is making the money off a business the same way the business makes money. If you are willing to pay $5 for something that sell for $4, you are saving money the same way the business makes a profit from buying your labor. The business is still making money, while at the same time the consumer benefits from the market price being lower than what they were willing to spend. It's the same thing, it all just depends on how you look at it.

[GirlinContempt]

117. What?

I still don't see how getting paid less than the product of your labour is the same thing as making money off of the product of someone elses labour.

[onenote]

123. how do you figure its less than market value

What determines the market value of one's labor? Is it the value of the product they produce? A factory has all kinds of workers, from highly skilled, to not so skilled, to unskilled. They may have drivers, assembly line workers, sales force, clerical and administrative staff, etc. The product that the factory produces (a car?) has a market value. How do you apportion the market value of each worker on the basis of the market value of the car. Do all the workers at a plant producing cars that retail for $18,000 have a lower market value than workers who do exactly the same work at a plant that produces cars with a retail price of $40,000, where some of the difference is attributable to difference in cost of materials and in demand.

[GirlinContempt]

125. So, your argument is

that because the average employee can not figure out exactly how much of the value of the product can be attributed to them, it's not exploitation? Or for the same reason they may in fact be getting paid the value?

[gravity]

127. The market value is what someone is willing to pay

for labor given the labor supply, which is what one is willing to sell labor for.

There could be problems if competetion between workers drives the price of labor below a living wage, but thats what labor union and minimum wage laws try to prevent.

[GOTV]

99. I'm not so clear that that's always the case...

... is it always possible to know what a single individual's contribution to a products value is?

Obviously a product must be sold for more than it costs if the company is to last for a long time but when you have several people involved in the production of the product and they are all required how can you even tell what an individual is worth?

I think it's possible that there may be employees that are being paid MORE than their contribution only because their contribution is not easily determined.

[GirlinContempt]

103. What?!

If that was the case, how could profit be made?

Worth is judged by how much profit (capital) they create. If an employee was routinely being paid more than the capital they brought in, the business would suffer. However, if the employee brings in enough to cover their wage, as well as the extra for the employer, they are being paid less than the capital they produce (worth).

A company will not pay you more than your worth because they will not profit. Businesses are IN business to profit. If it was that difficult to gage an employees worth, things would be a lot different. And, also, in most cases, any doubt of worth will translate into less not more.

[GOTV]

108. Simple

> If that was the case, how could profit be made?

To make a profit, you just need to sell for more than the aggregate cost. It doesn't matter if each person is paid less than their contribution.

Lets say Larry, Curley and Moe work together to make widgets that sell for a dollar each. Larry contributes .20 to the value and is paid .15, Curley contributes .50 of the value and is paid .40, Moe contributes .30 of the value but is also paid .40.

Moe is paid more than his contribution but the total cost is only .95. That's a .05 profit per widget.

> Worth is judged by how much profit (capital) they create.

That cannot always be determined. In fact I think in most cases it can only be guessed at.

[GirlinContempt]

113. Have you ever been in business?

This conversation is getting ridiculous.
If a widget COSTS $0.95 to make, but is SELLABLE for $1, which is it's worth? If it can be made for 0.95, but can be sold for $200, which is it's worth?

Businesses know if they are paying their employees more than the employees generate. It's pretty easy to tell. And, even in a situation where say, you and I work together, and get paid the same, but I generate more capital, the business is STILL exploiting both of us.

[gravity]

118. A business would fail

If they had to pay employees the amount of money they generated.

[GirlinContempt]

119. Exactly.

I've said that all along.

[GOTV]

129. But, could still succeed...

if one person were paid more than they generated as long as the difference between generated and received value of the other employees was increased enough to make up for it.

If you had 100 employees who generated $100 a day and so you paid them $90 a day, you might be in good shape. If you decided, for any reason, to start paying one of them $110 a day because he's your brother-in-law, you'd still be in pretty good shape.

Before the raise your employees were generating $10,000 at a cost of $9000 a day. After the raise your employees produce $10,000 at the cost of $9010 a day.

The point is you only need to pay them less on average, or in aggregate. It's possible to pay a few more.

[GOTV]

126. A product is worth what people are willing to pay

And this is not ridiculous. It is simply not required that each person be paid less than their contribution in order for a business to be profitable. It's very simple.

All that is required is that the aggregate cost be less than the money brought in by the product. An individual contributor can be paid more than they're worth and a profit still be made. I would think this is the usual case with CEO compensation.

I gave you a hypothetical example with numbers illustrating this point. Did I do the math wrong?

> Businesses know if they are paying their employees more
> than the employees generate. It's pretty easy to tell.

Is it easy? Explain how one can know. If you and I formed a company and I build the product while you sell the product, how do we determine what we're generating individually?

[GirlinContempt]

196. Ok, you're right.

IN the odd situation, one person could theoretically be paid more than their labour is worth. Highly unlikely exception to the rule sort of case, but sure, could happen.

"Is it easy? Explain how one can know. If you and I formed a company and I build the product while you sell the product, how do we determine what we're generating individually?"
How much is our overhead? Are we trying to make a profit? How much would a comparable supplier sell the product for? What is it's common market value? Am I good at selling it?

[GOTV]

199. Ok, we can agree that it's rare but possible, now to answer your questions

> How much is our overhead?

$0 - I build the product in my basement from stuff I find in the street and you sell the product in your home across the street

> Are we trying to make a profit?

No. We have day jobs that pay our daily bills.

> How much would a comparable supplier sell the product for?

$1 - $5

> What is it's common market value?

$2.50

> Am I good at selling it?

Yes

You sell the product for whatever you can get from each individual purchaser and we split it but all the work that determines its look, form, function & quality is mine. I like to make them, you like to sell them.

Without me, you'd have nothing to sell, but without you I'd sell very little because I don't like to sell and I'm not very good at it. Even though you keep half the money, I assume I end up with more than I would on my own.

What's my contribution to the value of the product vs. yours? Are you exploiting me or am I exploiting you?

[Telly Savalas]

191. In many companies, executive officers play the role of Moe

in the story above.

Some knucklehead joins the management of a company, gets a giant-ass compensation package, then makes a bunch of stupid decisions to the detriment of the enterprise. In such a case the member of management, who is still technically labor since they don't own the capital, is exploiting capital in that they are paid generously to destroy value instead of create it. Granted, this is the exception to the rule.

[Yavin4]

90. Exploited? Yes Taken Advantage of ? No

Yes, all workers are exploited by their corporate owners to some degree, but most workers understand this relationship and trade being exploited for their own self interests. A kid in college works a part-time job in order to pay for school. A temp gets exploited in return for work experience and connections. A union laborer gets exploited in return for future financial security, a pension. We all allow our physical and/or intellectual talents be exploited in return for some kind of personal gain. That's the deal that we all make every day.

Let's look at a job that carries a pension plan. At some point, when that worker retires, he/she still collects a paycheck in the form of a pension without contributing a single new hour of work. Thus, that worker is no longer exploited.

Now, what about jobs without a pension? That's up to the worker(s) to decide. It's up to them to form a union to fight for such benefits and to offset the exploitation.

[GOTV]

91. Am I being expoited or am I exploiting?

I work for a salary. I do something I like, making something that the company sells for a profit. If I did this without the aid of a company I'd have to do all the boring stuff that others in the company do for me, sales, marketing etc.

Is the company exploiting me for my labor or am I exploiting the rest of my company to get the boring but necessary stuff done?

[Yavin4]

101. You Are Being Exploited, But You Are Comfortable With The Deal

You have traded being exploited for the opportunity to do an activity that you enjoy and get compensated for.

We are constantly being exploited even outside of work. You always pay more for a product than what the retailer paid for it correct? But, you accept it because of the utility that said product brings you.

[GOTV]

109. Why am I not also the exploiter?....

... I am using them to do the part of the job that needs to be done, but that I don't want to do.

[Yavin4]

112. Because They're Making More From Your Labor Than You Are

They make more money from your labor than what you're making. Just like the retailer makes more money from your purchase from them then what they paid for it.

[GOTV]

120. Ok, I see how you make the determination, but I'm not sure it's true in my case...

... I feel a little dumb in this thread because I've heard these arguments many times and they seem a little academic to me. In a sense many of them seem obviously true, but in the real world they seem next to impossible to apply.

I make something that we sell, but the value of the product, what it's sold for, cannot be laid entirely on my shoulders. You can't just take the difference between what the product sells for and what I'm paid and call that money I made that I don't get.

I could make stuff all day but without them doing their jobs, we wouldn't see a penny. How do you say what the individual contribution is when, like a chain, if any one job goes undone, the income drops to zero?

Clearly if I don't make it, they can't sell it. But if the other guy doesn't deliver it, it can't be sold either. If the sales guy doesn't do his job, no sale is made. If the money isn't handled properly so that it shows up in our bank accounts we all stop working.

If there is a meaningful way of dividing up my contribution to the final value of the product, for all I know I might be pulling more out of the company than I'm contributing - which of course means someone else is getting way screwed.

[Yavin4]

134. The Product That You Make And Sell Is An Accumulation of All Labor

Everyone's labor that went into that product is reflected in the price and that price is still more than the collective labor combined that went into creating it.

Thus, all of the workers are exploited. The key thing is the tradeoff. It's worth more to you to be exploited at this particular time and at this particular wage rate because you're getting something out of it, personal fullfillment, career satisfaction, hot looking co-workers, whatever.

[Greyhound]

92. What about those workers that had a pension and now find that "our"

government has allowed the corporations/companies to renege on the deal? Still unfairly exploited.

[Yavin4]

102. That's a Different Scenario

That's a violation of contract law, and the government is wrong to let that stand.

[manic expression]

115. I would say practically all workers taken advantage of

in one way or another.

Even a worker who gets good pensions, wages, benefits and other compensation has their labor used by someone else. The nature of the market is that if you are not exploited, or if you don't exploit others, you will lack the means to live. Therefore, workers are forced to sell their labor in order to survive.

Now, some may say exploitation is morally neutral, but I would submit that exploitation is inherently unfair and unjust, especially in the context of wage labor. The compensation that you point out is a product of the naked exploitation of other workers abroad, which allows for this influx in wealth that the workers experience. However, this is temporary and a result of the practical enslavement of countless workers.

[GOTV]

128. People may be using my labor, but am I not also using theirs? ....

... it's not like my Boss and his Boss don't do work necessary to the production of the highest value possible.

If I just sat here making stuff all day, it wouldn't bring in a penny.

[manic expression]

130. What are you using it for?

Your immediate bosses may (or may not) work, but that doesn't mean you're using their labor. Their "work" (there are different types of bosses, from small business owners to corporate robber barons, and their relationship to your production differs accordingly) centers around the exploitation of the workers. Your work, on the other hand, is centered around being exploited.

The reason you sit there making things is due to the power structure. You wouldn't work for wages if there were no wages to work for (I hope this is making sense).

At any rate, you do sit there making stuff, the question is the system and how it deals with you making things. Capitalism gives the fruits of that labor to the bosses, while socialism would use those same fruits for the good of all (the workers).

and on edit, the bourgeoisie doesn't labor at all, they just own the workers' labor (the petty-bourgeoisie may work with their employees, but that is still not the same at all).

[GOTV]

132. To do things that are required, but that I don't want to do...

... Yes, I think what you're saying is making sense to me, and maybe we're talking about different classes of people when thinking about who is doing the exploiting.

I make widgets, but if all I did was sit here making widgets, I'd just get a big pile of widgets. I could go out and try to sell my widgets but I hate doing that stuff. So I join forces within a company where I can make the widgets and give them to someone who doesn't like to make them but likes to sell them. I get some of the money and they get some of the money and some of the money goes to corporate profits.

Now, could I make more money if I sold my own widgets? I don't know that that's true. If I had to sell them too, I'd spend less time making them and have less to sell. Also, since I don't like selling widgets I might not be very good at it.

Anyway, I'm using the labor of other people in the company, including my boss, to do stuff well that I would do poorly, or not at all.

Now, why am I not getting thr fruits of my labor as well as the fruits of the labor of talented individuals I work with?

[manic expression]

136. OK

first, exploiting labor is required?

Second, I'm glad it's making sense.

Look at the whole picture. You live in a system which requires workers to sell their labor to survive. Therefore, you seek to be employed in something that you can do, make widgets. Your employer takes your labor and makes a profit, while you get a far smaller wage. In essence, the individual MAKING the products gets less, while the individual who OWNS the labor of the worker gets more. The fact that you are bad at selling things is indicative of the fact that the people who own the production and subsequently sell the fruits of others' labor MAKE MORE MONEY. Selling products is a central part of USING someone else's labor, so, in effect, you make less because you are not in the position to exploit people that your boss is in, or you are not as adept at exploiting people as your boss.

Next, who says that your widgets have to be sold? That is a construct of capitalism, a system which caters to the bourgeoisie. Capitalism creates a society where you MUST work for someone else who sells things to survive. It doesn't have to be this way.

Think about this: what if you work and make widgets, and instead of your boss selling them and keeping the vast majority of the profit (made by your labor no less), the community distributes those widgets to where they are needed most. Instead of profit and capital dictating society, ability and necessity are the driving forces. Instead of exploitation, there is cooperation.

Next, you are not getting the fruits of your bosses labor for many reasons. First, your boss doesn't "labor" in the sense of production, s/he uses your labor first and foremost. Next, you only get a fraction of what you produce in the end, while your boss profits the most. That means that you get a small bit of YOUR fruits. While you may say that your boss did the selling, the process of selling your produce inherently exploits what you did, and that process does not have to be a part of society.

[GOTV]

141. Hopefully, I can get back to this later....

... right now I should get back to making those widgets but, as a quicky, I just want to respond to this part:

> first, exploiting labor is required?

"exploit" has numerous connotations and so I'm not trying to say whether I think exploiting labor is required or not. When I said that I use my boss and others to do work that is "required" what I meant was, to get products from those that produce them to those that consume them requires more than simply making the product. Even in the system you were describing, the consumer has to be made aware that the product is available, it has to be moved from producer to consumer, if there are more people that want the product than have been produced, some system has to arbitrate who gets what first.

This is all work that is required and out of all those things that need to be done, I only like the making widgets part. So I use others to do those other steps that are required but which I don't like to do.

Anyway, hopefully this conversation is still going on later but even if not, I'll at least read any additional posts. Write now I'm going back to the widgets.

[manic expression]

150. Exploitation

isn't a vague term.

Production is done by labor, not by the seller. "To get products from those that produce them to those that consume them" is done within a system of profit and capital, which means that the labor is a commodity and the end result is profit. Outside of such a system, there is not a single purpose of the seller. The seller is making money OFF OF the worker's labor, and the system caters to this exploitation. More importantly, the "work" of selling things contributes exactly nothing to production, which begs the question of why the seller gets more than the producer.

You can produce things and distribute them without someone owning the labor and enriching themselves OFF OF the work of others. It comes down to this: selling things has nothing to do with producing them, and a worker ONLY needs a seller if that worker produces within a system of profit. The worker can work fine without the capitalist, society can distribute fine without the seller, and so the capitalist (the seller) is making money off of labor that is not his/hers.

W needs a job, and so takes a job producing x for B. W produces x through W's own labor, and B takes what W labored over and sells x for m; most of m goes to B while a very small portion goes to W. Therefore process of B selling x is both unnecessary and wholly unfair.

The worker needs the seller like the serf needs the lord.

Anyway, in the system I was describing, no one makes profit off of what is produced. Sure, things are moved from point A to point B, but is anyone making capital off of the worker? Of course not, and that is the fundamental difference: labor is being used for what society needs, not what the bosses want.

[GOTV]

198. This just doesn't seem right to me....

... I've read your replies to others and I just can see discounting the work of others who didn't directly produce the widget.

If you need a widget, everyone who is responsible for getting the widget into your hands contributes to its value and deserves some of the money. If I, "W", make a widget that I'm willing to sell for a dollar and you, "C", want a widget and are willing to pay a dollar - great! I can do business directly with you and get a full dollar.

But, what if you're not close by? What if I'd sell you the widget for a dollar but not if I have to go all the way over to where you live to make the trade, and you're not willing to both pay a dollar and travel over to where I make the widget? No sale.

Maybe you're willing to pay $2.00 then as long as it's delivered to you but I'm still not willing to travel for $2.00. Maybe, in the time I'm traveling to deliver your widget I could make and sell 3 widgets locally while you think $3.00 is too much for a widget.

Maybe I know a guy, B, that's heading your way anyway who'd be willing to bring the widget to you for $1.00. Great, we're in business again. You were willing to pay $2.00 for one of my widgets delivered and I was willing to accept $1.00 as long as I could stay home making more widgets. You pay this third guy $2.00, he keeps one and I get one.

Any exploitation there? B got a dollar from a widget he didn't produce. I'd say that's fine. B added additional labor and increased the value of the widgets for which he was compensated.

How is this different than your example of W and B?

Well, I guess one difference is I didn't say B was my boss. How does it change if B is my boss? Suppose he can see to it that my widgets can be sold for higher prices, farther away then I'm willing to travel and still see that I get $1.00 a widget.

Your example seems to have a faulty assumption as well in that you say that "W needs a job". In my case, and I'd say in the case of a lot of people, W could work for himself. W need only take a job from B if B can offer something to W such as relief from the need to travel to customers homes.

In some situations I guess you probably would NEED to have a job. If what you loved was drilling for oil for example, I suppose you'd need a company for that.

[gravity]

142. Everyone must be exploiting everyone then

Business owners provide just as much value in their products just as much as anyone else. Just because you pay a worker to do something, it doesn't meant that the worker would be making that much money if they were working by themselves. The worker exploits the business for the capital and management needed to make more money than they could have done themselves. If it wasn't the case, the worker would have worked by themselves.

When you are using someone else to sell your products, you are exploiting them in order to sell more products, and they are exploiting you for products to sell. Its just a mutually beneficial exchange of goods and services. If one person was getting shafted, than the exchange wouldn't have taken place.

[manic expression]

152. Workers are exploited

they don't exploit.

Business owners depend upon the labor of their employees to operate. Their job consists primarily in managing OTHER people's labor (sometimes business owners work alongside their employees, but their primary role remains unchanged). Next, the owner does not give value to anything, the owner owns things, sells other things and profits from that exchange.

The worker produces for the business because s/he needs to sell his/her labor to survive. They aren't exploiting anyone if they get less than what they produce (which is exactly what happens).

Workers cannot work by themselves in most cases because the system is built around capital, not bartering, and so capital must be had. Change the system and you change the ability of the worker and their relationship to the means of production.

The worker has nothing to do with how many units his/her boss moves, that is simply the variable of exploitation that the boss exacts upon the worker (sell more, do better). One person is getting shafted when their labor is being utilized for the gross enrichment of someone else.

[gravity]

188. In your view...

hiring a plumber to fix your house is exploiting.

Broken plumbing could be costing a business thousands or even millions of dollars in business, it doesn't mean that someone would have to charge you that much money though. They can try, but you could probably find another person to do the same job for a fraction of the cost. Oh no, they helped you made millions of dollars that would have been lost without their service and you only paid a fraction of the cost. The plumber isn't making the million dollars though, they just help the business make that much money, since no one would have been making squat without the business.

Just because you are making X amount of money for a business, it doesn't mean you would be making that much money if you worked for yourself, or even if you started your own business.

If a business sells something for $5 dollars but you are willing to spend $100 dollars if you really had to, you aren't considered to be exploiting the business. Its the same thing when you sell your labor to someone, its all just how you look at it.

Business owners have to feed their family too, and sometimes they lose money while still paying their employees salary.

[manic expression]

189. Let's look at the picture

if the plumber is working for a business which takes a portion of that payment, then yes.

If s/he is working solely alone, then it is less clear.

Which do you mean?

Broken plumbing might cost a company that much, but that is accumulative cost, so it's not really valid here.

If you are making X amount by working for a business, it is almost a given that you are producing more than X. Therefore, you are getting exploited.

Bosses do sometimes lose money, that is due to the nature of the market. Due to this, bosses must be sure to make as much money as possible OFF OF the labor of his/her workers. The boss who exploits the most "succeeds".

[gravity]

190. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts

A successful company enables the workers to be productive and the workers enable the company to be more productive. Either party would contribute nothing with out the other so you can't say one or the other solely produces the value.

An army would fail if there were no generals, no matter how strong the troops were. Its the same with business, government or any organization. The leader can mean the difference between success and failure, just look at the leaders of our own country. The value of an owner to a business can be huge. Apple wouldn't be where it is today if it wasn't for Steve Jobs.

Only a competent business owner will be able to make it, and market forces will remove anyone who isn't up to the job or is in the wrong business. It doesn't mean that the best business exploits its people the most. They could just have better innovation or spent more money on their employees since they think that taking care of employees helps their business and attracts the best labor away from the competition.

[manic expression]

192. The parts which work

are more important than the owner. Such is the distinction between workers and bosses.

A successful company exploits labor for its own profit.

Workers without bosses would contribute to each other's welfare, not the pocketbooks of the rich. Bosses without workers would be nothing, like parasites without a host body.

The best generals of history, Hannibal Barca, Caesar, Alexander and others all shouldered the burdens of warfare with their troops EQUALLY. They fought the same pitched battles, marched the same miles, ate the same food and more as fellow soldiers. That is how any good general operates, not like the Byzantine Emperors who had personal baggage trains almost as large as the army itself.

You can have leaders without bosses.

[Yavin4]

135. You're Ignoring Other Forms of Exploitation, No?

What about the retailer that sells you goods for more than what he/she paid for it? Is that not also exploitation?

What about the home owner that sells their home for more than what they paid for it?

Labor exploitation is but one form of exploitation, and in a fluid, regulated, market-based capitalistic system, workers move in and out of the exploited role all of the time. Today, you may be a temp for a large corporation. Tomorrow, you own your own corporation. Today, you borrow money. Tomorrow, you lend it.

No one is forced into an exploitative labor role. No one.

[manic expression]

138. Not in the same way

exploitation is the use of a worker's labor. A worker produces something, the boss profits more. That is exploitation.

Pricing something high isn't exploitation of labor, it is just screwing over the consumer. That is not the same as taking someone else's production and using it for self-enrichment.

Today, I am exploited. Tomorrow, I exploit. That changes nothing, it only changes my own lot. There is a better way.

And workers are forced to sell their labor. If they didn't, they'd live in abject poverty (and/or eventually die). The Lockian concept of people "choosing" their work ignores the necessity of things like food and all that. The boss puts the gun of starvation to the worker's head and tells him/her to work (an "offer you can't refuse").

[Yavin4]

139. Rebuttal

exploitation is the use of a worker's labor. A worker produces something, the boss profits more. That is exploitation.

Pricing something high isn't exploitation of labor, it is just screwing over the consumer. That is not the same as taking someone else's production and using it for self-enrichment.


The exact same thing is true of a retailer. I need groceries to live. Is not the grocer exploiting me every time I buy anything from him/her? No matter how "cheap" it is, I'm paying more for it than what the grocer paid for it.


And workers are forced to sell their labor. If they didn't, they'd live in abject poverty (and/or eventually die). The Lockian concept of people "choosing" their work ignores the necessity of things like food and all that. The boss puts the gun of starvation to the worker's head and tells him/her to work (an "offer you can't refuse").

What about the person that sells property or lives off of a portfolio of investments to survive? There are other ways of surviving without selling your labor.

[manic expression]

151. Exploitation refers to labor

first and foremost. If you wish to extend the meaning of "exploitation" to describe the way retailers fleece consumers, do so by all means, but know that it is not the accepted usage.

Exploitation is about labor and the use of the products of that labor, not a consumer's need. There are many differences there that need to be recognized.

The person that sells property is not a worker, and so s/he has a completely different relationship to the means of production. There are many other ways to survive without selling your labor, but the fact is that most workers have very little access to them, and those other jobs are all based on exploitation as well.

As I said, today I am exploited; tomorrow I exploit. My relationship to the means of production may have changed, but the system and the end result did not.

[seabeyond]

143. from my conversation above. this is what i conclude. all co., employees,

all people in some way exploit and are being exploited.

[Yavin4]

144. Exactly

It's the tradeoff that matters.

For some people, being a temp is worth being exploited because they can gain valuable work experience and contacts.

For some being a laborer is worth it because they may get a generous pension which will pay them throughout retirement.

Whenever we buy anything from anyone, we're being exploited because we're paying more than what the retailer paid for it. However, we live with this arrangement because we place a value on the good that's in line with the price.

[seabeyond]

145. whose to say it is only monetary. a parent is exploited by their childrenr

because of the love the child holds over the parents head. happens to me every day and the other way around.

[uppityperson]

124. No. I've been a worker and an owner. Both have good/bad points.

After being an owner of a small business, I went back to being an employee for a while and greatly appreciated the simplicity of going to work, doing my work, getting paid. The owner had to do all the business stuff, had to seek out work to keep us all employed, had to do all the paperwork, etc. All I had to do is go to work, do my work, get paid. I have worked for a wide variety of wages and yes, have felt exploited at some jobs when the income distribution was not based on work and responsibility, but on paying me, the worker, as little as legally possible. So long as I got paid what I consider a fair wage, the owner could make brazillions. All that would do is encourage me to look at the possibility of becoming an owner of the same sort business.

I like being a small business person again, but do get tired of the constant job interviewing I must always do, always being "on" for potential customers. And am getting tired of the paperwork and insecurity of not knowing how much I will make each month. I do like being able to take time off if I want, and have gotten my customers someone to help them in the meantime.

[Skidmore]

140. Take my son-in-law, please...

as an example This young man is in his 30s and works for a fortune 500 company. He works as many as 60 hours per week most weeks and lives in constant fear of losing his job. His supervisors are abusive and make unfair demands to begin, and when he not only meets their expectations but exceeds them, still want another pound of flesh. Recently, he came in a full 6 hours ahead of the deadline handed him when he arrived at work that morning. The supervisor immediately gave him a deadline for the following Monday. he completed it by noon and she gave him another task and informed him that she would "cut him a little slack because he had ben ahead on the last one." This is the same supervisor that had him working up through Christmas Eve even though he had requested and been given the time off. Boss lady was already safely ensconced in the bosom of her family enjoying her holiday. That young man is a wreck right now. He's bright and reliable and right now is so stressed that he's having blood pressure problems. I'm worried for him and so is my daughter. He keeps the job because they need the health insurance throughout at least through April, when their baby comes. I've heard him recently talk about looking for another job then.

Americans are said to be the hardest working people in the world. Americans are corporate slaves. The boss man will suck the life out of you and when you are a husk, turn around and give your job to someone else to exploit in the same way. Then you are expected to take your income and buy, buy, buy to help them line the CEOs pocket as well. When confronted, they always turn to worship at the altar of fiduciary responsibility. At some point, there has to be someone who insists that businesses have a responsibility to the community and to their employees, not just their stockholders. If you think that exploiting people is good, then just institute slavery in fact and don't put lipstick on the pig and call it something else.

[Yavin4]

146. The Concept of Exploitation Is Neutral

It's neither good nor evil. It occurs whenever one party benefits over another party. Some people are willing to be exploited by their employers because there's another benefit to it. Job satisfaction, pay, quality of life, etc.

In your SIL's case, he's being exploited because of healthcare issues. For him, it's a negative exploitation experience. However, even if he totally loved his job and only worked 40 hour weeks, he'd still be getting exploited.

[Skidmore]

156. That exploitation is a neutral concept is one of those myths

perpetuated by the MBA school of business ethics--the same one that brought us the bottom line is everything. Exploitation is an agressive act.

[stillcool]

147. "A difficulty in writing about corporations...

is that the idea of a corporation brings different things to people's minds. What people usually think of when they think of corporations is the engineering structure owned by the corporations. People sometimes visit corporations, as they say, by which they mean they visit their plants or offices.
Nevertheless, nobody, not even a corporation lawyer, has ever seen a corporation, which as a juridical concept is beyond sensory experience and almost as impalpable as a metaphysical abstraction. Yet one can sue or be sued by a corporation, injure or be injured by one. The corporation is actualized, concretized, only in a set of papers, the provisions of which the courts stand ready if necessary to implement. Whatever is tangible about the corporation is in these papers-its charter of incorporation, its by-laws and the titles to its properties. Even when a corporation owns a single plant and office combined, one cannot go and look at it; one can look only at its properties, which it can sell or otherwise dispose of and still remain intact in full corporativeness."....Ferdinand Lundberg

[davekriss]

149. In the words of Big Bill Haywood...

"For every dollar the boss has and didn't work for, one of us worked for a dollar and didn't get it."

Exploitation of labor is fundamental to capitalism. Such light and airy terms as "managing for shareholder value" have real, painful human consequences as local production is uprooted and local markets captured by the fat-cat purveyors of near-monopoly capital (the natural outcome of unfettered capitalism). Now they pit workers of one nation against another and answer only half-seriously to any democratically-determined sovereign state.

The owning class of all first-world nations has done fabulously well these last 27 years of capitalist frenzy. Meanwhile, the quality of life of labor has stagnated or retreated. It proves my point. That is not to say that the mom-and-pop drug store owner (and just how many of those are still around?), or even the CEO of a benevolent major corporation, intend the harm that's done. They are simply bound to a system of production and distribution that is fundamentally exploitive and conflict-prone.

[Selatius]

159. Yes, all PRIVATELY OWNED AND OPERATED enterprises EXPLOIT workers

Profit maximization dictates that one must "maintain" labor costs and "produce" revenue above total operating costs. In other words, you underpay workers and overcharge customers in terms of what the market can tolerate. This is what it means to be a business owner.

Now, in a world of grays, we usually make our own decisions regarding a lot of exploitation vs. a more tolerable a little bit of exploitation. In a practical sense, it is fine to tolerate some level of exploitation of all workers as long as it does not pass a societal threshold (like child labor). Now, this does not mean I am in favor of abolishing every private corporation or private enterprise. I may favor some amount of abolition or nationalization like nationalizing Exxon-Mobil but not for every enterprise.

No, a realistic approach to the situation in terms of maintaining a lid on exploitation of workers would be to enforce labor standards and to provide a choice to workers who wish not to be exploited at all and wish to enjoy the fruits of their own labor instead of having it "harvested" by the owners.

In worker co-ops, the workers have no bosses but themselves. If most workers were aware of worker co-ops and were honestly given a choice between working in the co-op sector vs. the private sector, a good number of workers would likely remove themselves from the private sector of their own free will. Unfortunately, Joe America probably does not know what a worker co-op is.

For all workers who are not in the co-op sector, forming a trade union is the best way to keep exploitation in check.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

161. Which Definition Of Exploit Is Being Referenced?

I took the context here to be the reference of exploitation along the lines of taking advantage of workers unethically.

If that is in fact the intended contextual definition of the OP, then the answer to the OP is ABSOLUTELY NOT. There are plenty of corporations out there who treat their employees fairly and do not act unethically towards them.

[Selatius]

163. I was mainly answering his second question, which was...

"What would you consider exploitation"?

All workers are taken advantage of in private enterprise. The only question is to what degree. A well-compensated worker is obviously less exploited than one who is being paid 15 cents an hour in Nigeria to make Nike shoes. The practical question is do workers tolerate it. Most do, up to a certain extent. Then they either quit or form a trade union after a threshold has been hit.

There's a lot of gray in between because the definition tends to change from person to person. I obviously defined mine differently.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

164. So You're Using An Innocent Definition Of Exploitation Then, Making It Sound Negative.

The definition I referenced, the one requiring unethical behavior, is the main one of negative connotation. Using that definition, would you agree that a statement along the lines of "Absolutely! All private businesses exploit!" is completely and utterly false and misguided?

But the definition you are using is a benign one. You are simply stating that companies use employees for their own gain. Well DUH! Obviously companies hire employees in order to gain something from them. That's a no brainer. But under that definition workers exploit companies as well since they also use businesses for things like healthcare, wages, paid sick time, vacation time etc. That is why your interpretation is benign, because it is simply the reasonable relationship between employer and employee.

But if we are talking about the negative definition, along the lines of abusing workers unethically for selfish purposes, then it would be completely false, silly and misguided to make any claims that ALL private businesses engage in such activity.

[Selatius]

165. Yes, using that definition, the answer to your question is affirmative. The statement is...

absurd. However, I was answering the second question, not the first, and then defining what is exploitation. More to the point, my definition is benign in that it attempts to describe the situation as it is. It does not attempt to assert if it is wrong or right. Whether or not one wants to call it exploitation or something else is not my concern, and I frankly find such exercises beside the point of the relationship between employers and employees in real life.

As I had said: "In a practical sense, it is fine to tolerate some level of exploitation of all workers as long as it does not pass a societal threshold (like child labor)."

Using my own definition, the only question worth answering is to what degree the exploitation. Workers in the past were unhappy in the context of the employee-employer relationship where the employee is paid a wage with all the surplus going to the employer, and everything else under the sun was largely left up to the owner to decide. People were not happy, and the result was things like the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Wagner Act, the Family Medical Leave Act, etc.

However, my post was not merely an exercise in definitions but also my own opinion on what should happen to workers who are not happy with the existing relationship between themselves and their employers, hence the mentioning of worker co-ops and trade unionism. Otherwise, I would've omitted those.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

179. Just For The Record,

You keep saying you were answering the second question, but your initial declaration and leading title of "Yes, all PRIVATELY OWNED AND OPERATED enterprises EXPLOIT workers"; especially with all the emphasis put in; makes it seem glaringly intended as answering the first question. Furthermore, it was a declaration stated as if fact, not opinion. Even reading it now, it still seems clear that you were in fact answering the first question with that declaration as opposed to the second. Due to that fact, that's the aspect of your post I chose to respond to and challenge.

As far as the other parts of your posts or what you just typed above, they do in fact deal with the second question which I had no problem with; since anyone can have any opinion they want on what they consider to be exploitation or what their opinion is on how to deal with it. To each their own perception, right?

[GirlinContempt]

194. Dude

I'm butting in again. But, anyone can have any opinion they want on what they consider to be exploitation? Uh, huh?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

195. Dude, No One Said Otherwise. n/t

[GirlinContempt]

197. Sorry

I guess what I mean to say is, I don't understand how it's an opinion based sort of thing.

[GirlinContempt]

174. The 'innocent' can still be negative

depending on perspective, but it is not inherently negative.

[Unvanguard]

166. More or less, yes, but this is built in to the structure of a modern economy

and probably cannot be avoided without getting rid of, say, everything since right before agriculture (and maybe not even then.)

That said, there are more and there are less exploitative relations; I'm an anarchist-communist largely because I hold that a participatory, radically democratic and egalitarian economy will come closer to non-exploitation than any other variety.

As for what it consists of, it amounts to the treatment of someone as a tool to fulfill your wishes rather than as a person whose freedom, dignity, and welfare are non-contingent.

[FlaGranny]

167. I know of one business that

did not. Some years ago, after being in business for many years, a local family-owned business sold out. They had been a good employer. Everyone had health insurance, excellent pay and job security. When they sold the business, every single employee received a percentage of the sale. Older employees became millionaires and even newer employees got a nice check. The business owners said they couldn't possibly use all the money and wanted to make sure loyal employees got a share. Quite a few millionaires were born that day. It was the nicest business story I've ever heard and completely true. The company is still in business with new owners, but I'll bet they don't hold a candle to the old owners. I don't know for sure but they must be Democrats.