Just so we're clear - I'm not arguing that the Kenyans should not be offered the jobs, I'm arguing that they should have been paid at least $15/hr - that's what equal-pay-for-equal-work means. That they were paid only $2/hr is the exploitation.
Yes, my arguments are very direct and uncomfortable to hear, but if I may remind you, the judging started with your accusing me of hypocrisy, and of taking away rats from starving people, and of wanting poor people to die, when I neither said nor implied any such thing. You, Sir, even used "high morals" as a pejorative dog whistle against me. And now you want to go back to the very narrow argument? Don't dish it out if you can't handle the blowback.
Oh, don't get me wrong. Your statement in this case is hypocritical. And I stand by my argument and rat analogy.
It's just that I'm pointing out that I'm trying to discuss this particular event of offering 2$ jobs. Even if I use a rat as an analogy we are discussing this topic.
You're attacking my whole person and belief system strawmanning it by talking about e.g. my opinion on taxes or other stuff.
> I'm arguing that they should have been paid at least $15/hr -
I'm arguing that
1) you are acting against Kenyan interests if you prefer status quo over this 2$ opportunity.
2) And you think you do morally right thing by doing so.
Which of those two statements are incorrect? And please focus your answer without using angry aggressive language or I will not humor you with more replies.
Here is a timeline:
- there are poor people with no opportunities
- you don't even know our think about it
- someone offered them 2$
- you say, No! They should be paid 15$
- hypothetical: the company decides to comply with your argument and stops offering 2$ jobs
In this htpothetical case:
- have you done favor to the Kenyans?
Yes, because they would be getting $15 jobs instead of $2 jobs. I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand, that the Kenyans getting $15 is better than them getting $2. You are acting against the Kenyans' interest if you want them to get only $2 instead of the $15 that they deserve.
You might have your realpolitik moralizing that poor people should accept the $2 because they are starving but they should be getting the $15 that is rightfully theirs, and that additional $13 will help many more starving people than $2 will because the additional $13 will create more opportunities in their economy.
> Yes, because they would be getting $15 jobs instead of $2 jobs
No. They would get nothing instead.
I totally agree that 15$ would be likely better for them. But the 15$ isn't rightfully theirs. With this opportunity gone they will go back to their <1$/hr but without you thinking about them being exploited.
The $15 is external too. OpenAI should have paid $15/hr for the work, not exploited them by paying only $2/hr.
Why is it exploitative? Because the money (OpenAI, "Capital") can move across borders easily to get cheaper costs, but labor cannot move across borders easily to get higher salaries, so labor is forced to accept a lower wage. If that asymmetry was not there and both labor and capital had similar freedom AND ease of movement, then it would not have been exploitative.
And I believe this is why the EU enshrines freedom-of-movement as one of its basic principles along with a common market. Otherwise capital in a common market would be easily able to move and exploit labor in various regions, because labor wouldn't have been able to move. But the freedom-of-movement right reduces that asymmetry.
It doesn't completely eliminate the asymmetry because it's still hard to move to a different language and community, but at least there's no artificial barrier like a border, and money also has the same barriers around language and not being trusted automatically in a different community.
> If they have to pay 15$ they will hire better educated, closer geographically and culturally workers.
1. For a minimum wage temporary job that doesn't need better educated, geographically or culturally closer workers? And for which they've already shown that they are willing to hire people outside North America?
2. When there is a large shortage of workers in their local continent? [1]
> the ideological manifest that is only tangentially related to the topic and I don't want to discuss it here for several reasons.
Core EU regulations against the exploitation of workers and the reasons behind them are an "ideological manifest" [sic] ?
> Shoulda, woulda, coulda.
That attitude is the reason bad people get away with exploiting labor, and why starving people exist.
I think I'm finished with this conversation. I don't believe you are having this discussion in good faith. Good luck for your future.
The reality being that labor in place A is different than in place B for many reasons unrelated to exploitation. 2$ in Kenya is terrible exploitation?? How about 4$ in EU?
You name EU as a great example.
Do you realize there are millions of legally employed EU citizens working for 4$/hr? And more working for less.
just Google minimum salary in Poland or Romania and Google how many people make that minimum.
Why a cleaning lady in Munich makes 5 times as much as cleaning lady in rural Poland?
If you don't understand why then why do you think you understand Kenyan situation?
Yes, my arguments are very direct and uncomfortable to hear, but if I may remind you, the judging started with your accusing me of hypocrisy, and of taking away rats from starving people, and of wanting poor people to die, when I neither said nor implied any such thing. You, Sir, even used "high morals" as a pejorative dog whistle against me. And now you want to go back to the very narrow argument? Don't dish it out if you can't handle the blowback.