Third-world workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited.

[emacknight]

Okay, I have a new thought experiment for you to try, based on this quote in the sister thread:

@carm

If the firm can make more out of an extra worker’s input than it will cost to hire them, they hire them. Up to the point where they haven’t enough capital to make it worth hiring more. But everyone who was employed up to that point is producing more than they are being paid for.

This extra production is what makes profit for the firm, pays for materials, land etc, and pays the salary of the guy who hired them.

I asked if that is then the definition of exploitation, leading to:

@carm

No. Coupled with child labour, no unions, 18 hour days, no maternity leave, beatings for mistakes/being late, etc - then yes.

When he said this I chuckled a little because my sister in law in Canada just had twins and went on maternity. Meanwhile a good friend living in the US just had a baby and went on maternity. Why did I laugh? In Canada it’s a year, in the US it’s about 6 weeks.

Now, you don’t need to argue the specifics of those numbers, I’m sure everyone knows someone with a different schedule. What I find funny is that we in the developed world have tried to give workers rights in such a way that they are no longer exploited the way workers in the third world are.

So consider two first world countries, one with reasonable working conditions, and one that goes a step further: capping the work week at 38 hours, mandating a min 3 weeks vacation, over time rules, 2 years maternity, safety standards, etc etc.

Shouldn’t we thus conclude that a company hiring employees in the “lesser country” is exploiting those workers? Of the few dozen industrialized countries, some are going to have the best working conditions, some the worst.

I think working conditions in Canada are better than in the US. So a case could be made that:

" American workers working for a Canadian company are being exploited. "