1.Is it exploitation when you own capital and pay your workers the market price(wage)?
2.Is it exploitation when I make more money then my workers(profit)?If yes, why, I own the capital and I payed the workers a fair market price ? What makes them think they have more right to my profit?
3.Why do most leftist believe its not fair for a manager(who apparently, doesnt work as much as the worker) to earn more? Is backbreaking work supposed to get priority?
Isnt this like saying, that the man who brings water with the bucket(hard worker) yet produces less, should get payed more then the man who has a pump and does more in 10 min then the man with the bucket does in 4 hours? Arent we supposed to reward productivity?
A party is ‘exploited’ when it has to consider the interests of the party with which it is dealing and reach a compromise, rather than just considering and fulfilling its own interests at the expense of the other party’s interests.
Actually the Marxist definition of “exploitation” is the “surplus labor” the capitalist supposedly reaps from the worker by selling the product of the worker’s labor. That is, the product sells for price X, and the worker is paye wage Y. Then, X-Y=Z, where Z is the “surplus labor”, which to them is profit.
This of course, they ignore things like time, risk taken on by the entrepreuer, and use of the capital (oh but private property is wrong!).
However, a lot of people simply have started to use it as a synonym for “treating unfairly”, or “taking advantage”.
In Marxist theory exploitation is when a worker is paid less than the value he produces. In colloquial use it often means that meanie capitalists pay poor employees less than we think they should.
Yes, because according to leftists by owning capital you have unfair power over workers. They have to work for you or go hungry, so you have an advantage in the transaction. The market wage is nothing more than a reflection of your ability to exploit them.
As above. The market price is not fair because it’s just a reflection of your unfair advantage as the owner of capital. The value of everything is how much work went into it, so managers are not doing anything. Their profit is stolen from the workers.
Yes. It’s not fair if anyone makes more than anyone else, because to them fairness means sameness.
They think that we don’t have to reward productivity because progress “just happens”. And monetary incentives are actually counter-productive, because they fuel peoples greed, which is always socially destructive.
No, it’s just the irrational sentiments about economics we all had when we were 10. Just that they never grew out of it. But never underestimate stupid people in large groups.
But if the worker gets payed the “true value” (we have to also make this assumption, that products has their own original value) of his product, then the entrepaneur has no reason to hire a worker at all in first place. How then can the market work?. It’s like adding and substracting the same thing. There is something more complicated than marxists want it to be. One possible solution is subjective value theory. And I am more likely to believe that unless someone (some marxists) can give more reasonable explanation/solution.
Worker gets payed whatever he agrees to get payed. There is nothing inherit (if this is the right word) in his product that shows value. Gold has absolutely no value to an average person dying from thirst. I say average, because there may be some people who would prefer gold in this situation, lol.