| 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. |
Ah, but there will always be other customers and other loaves of bread. This does not hold true for employers. Your skills can be poorly matched for the job market, or in a small market monopolized by a few large employers who then abuse the fact that labor is abundant but employment is scarce.
Capitalism's biggest failure is the problem in dealing with abundance: a saturated market on one end leaves the other end with great power, and this holds quite true for the labor market. Too many laborers and too few employers then means that the latter will exploit the former, and when there are few or no options for employment, the laborer is forced to choose between a number of bad choices, and so misery is created, along with poor opportunities for economic growth (miserable, impoverished workers can't consume what is made, and so businesses do not grow).
Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.
