sundin13 on 07 October 2014
| Blouge said: >Whether or not there was an agreement, that doesn't mean one party can't be exploiting the other. This idea of "exploitation" is frivolous. When I buy a loaf of bread from the store for $5, it means I prefer having the bread over having the $5. I'm not exploiting the store: mutatis mutandus, the store prefers having $5 over having the loaf of bread. It's the same with an employee and an employer voluntarily exchanging labor for money. |
But when the only store in your vicinity buys/makes the bread for $0.50 and sells it for $10, when a reasonable markup would be $3, that is exploitation of the consumer. When the decision is between "eat for a ridiculous fee" and "don't eat", its a pretty simple decision, but that doesn't mean that it isn't an exploitative relationship.
PS: The quote button is quite useful here, because it lets me know when you've replied to me...
