Posted on 03/11/2019 10:33:28 AM PDT by O6ret
Slave and worker do NOT mean the same thing. By definition, a slave does not receive compensation for the work performed. The Master / slave relationship is different than an management / worker relationship. Please do not use the left’s tactic of false equivalency and attempt to confuse the two.
Again, a worker (someone who is compensated for their efforts by management) CAN NOT be exploited. There is the possibility of defrauding wages agreed to but that stops when the worker no longer works for management. In other words, when management executes an act that is viewed by the worker as a breach of the employment contract, the worker stops being a worker.
A worker who dies on the job because of hazardous working conditions isn't an exploited worker, either, because once he's dead he's not a worker. Added bonus, for this reason as well, it will be permanently impossible to exploit him.
Yup, looks like you've solved the problem, all right.
A person who ACCEPTS “bad” working conditions is not exploited. If the person is unable to REJECT their working conditions (usually by leaving their employment), they are a slave.
“slave” and “worker” are not the same word and have different meanings. Slaves can be exploited, that is part and parcel of the term “slave”. Workers requires acceptance of the work conditions. A worker that does not accept their work conditions or compensation leaves that situation and is then, no longer a worker. A person who CAN NOT leave their conditions is a slave.
Confusing the two terms is a common tactic of the left. In their Socialist/Marxist/Communist diplopia world view, people who accept less than optimal conditions are being exploited - when often that is not the truth. The truth is that the worker has agreed and accepted the work conditions as they meet the person’s needs. For example, Walmart is often used as the measure of exploited workers by the left. Yet anyone of those workers are free to leave the employment of Walmart and seek other positions.
That is not exploitation. That is the market condition and the supply and demand of labor skills coming into play.
You will never be paid more than it costs to replace your skills and value that you bring to the company.
You will never be paid less than what you are willing to work for.
This is so perfect. Even if he dies, because then he's not aworker. Yeah, I get it.
And no matter how low the wages go, and how lethal the working conditions get, it's never exploitative because it was chosen every single time!
American agricultural employers using contratistas to bring in wave after wave of workers to underbid each other, forcing wages down, down, down for what are already the lowest-paid and most hazardous jobs in America--- that's OK because the workers chose it! If they didn't like it, they could leave their jobs!
So maybe they do leave their jobs and end up on welfare (or maybe SSI-Disability payments for work-related injury) in Bakersfield or Oakland by the hundreds of thousands. Is that exploiting YOU, the American taxpayer who's picking up the tab on the Section 8's, SSI's and EBT's?
Why, no! It happens you voted for it, or the representatives chosen by the class known as "voters" voted for it, and in practice you pay for it and tolerate it. If you don't like it, you could always leave the country.
Choice. Sweet.
It comes down to this. If you can not choose then you are a slave, not a worker. If you can choose, then you are a worker. If you are a worker and choose to remain, you are not exploited.
I have worked for low wages and in a highly dangerous if not lethal environment (US Army Infantry). ~$700 / month before taxes for a 24 x 7 job - about $1.00 / hour.
Still, I was not exploited because I chose to accept those conditions.
Little risk of actual starvation exists in he U.S., where there are all manner of safety nets both public and private. If millions of people's level of actual benefits would go down if they got low-paid jobs, they make the absolutely rational choice of intentionally staying permanently unemployed and dependent on public benefits.
But in some countries --- and in this country not so very long ago --- people have had their livelihoods destroyed by public policy, and have been herded into jobs which kept them in abject need before putting them in an early grave.
My grandfather (1890-1934) had that kind of job, one that killed him. My father (1914-2007) had the choice of working a dangerous job in an iron foundry at age 16 for abysmal wages, or seeing his parents (both invalids by that time) and younger brothers and sisters die in destitution.
Yes, my father and grandfather were exploited. And when you're hungry and desperate,it's hardly a choice.
Your error is falling for the liberal trap of false equivalency and redefining words.
Trying to equate “worker” to “slave” is only one of the many lies that the left attempts to use to control the conversation. I wont fall for it because it is not true.
That's the default definition.
If you need to posit a different meaning in a special context for clarity, it has to be established beforehand.
A whole lot of pointless arguments persist here at FR because of people --- mostly inadvertently ---using different definitions.
I am Catholic. I apologize to all of you that this jerk-weed exexists. This, too, shall pass.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.