Lets say I am injured and urgently need medical attention and you are the only doctor that I have access to. You quote your price which is signing away all my wealth to you, immediately. I have no choice but to agree. Is that fair?

That is an extreme example, to get the point across. These workers didn't agree to your offer of $1 out of choice, they agreed because they have no other option. This is where governments need to step in and create laws and regulations so a small group of people do not screw the majority of the population.

We do not live in a jungle where the strong survive the weak starve. Not everything should be tied to supply and demand. A huge portion of jobs done by humans today will be done by robots soon (for example, truck driving). What happens then? You don't pay even that $1, because you don't even need humans at that point to drive your trucks. You just let millions of truck drivers starve? These are not pure economics problems, these are societal problems. If not handled correctly and early, we'd have bloody revolutions on our hands.

> I have no choice but to agree.

Another option is to refuse and leave wealth to your descendants.

Even with an example this extreme I don't see what's unfair here. Why is the onus of provided high wage jobs in India is on Apple? Why would it be preferable to regulate it and potentially drive Apple to another country, leaving those workers without any jobs at all?

free market economy doesn't mean no rules.

Saying "leave if you don't like it here" is a poor argument. I am not sure you want to debate in good faith?

I didn't say that. If you have a free market, you don't have the lockins described above. So you a market where people decide whether to do business or not.

Oh YOU like a free market economy, so it's okay to enslave people in third world countries. As long as YOU'RE happy.

How about we cut your pay to 70 cents per hour and see if you still like it?

Then I just go work for somebody else. It's pretty simple.

What free market economy do you like best? I live in the US, and we have a minimum wage, safety regulations, mandatory breaks, etc. We’re generally considered wildly free market compared to most of the developed world, but we’re still a far cry from a totally free market because we acknowledge that people have certain rights, and the government is the guarantor that those rights aren’t trampled by sociopaths. We don’t do a perfect job at it— not even close— but I think things would be much worse for the average worker here without some of that regulation.

That view is missing human consideration, however, and is a cynical take. People in those non-free economies you speak of simply do not have the choice and can not just choose to emigrate to a free market at will. We must have some constraints to protect those who cannot protect themselves.

What, if any, interventions should government provide in a free market economy?

Massive bailouts are fine apparently.

I'm sure the cyclical recessions that require repeated government intervention are because free market economy isn't free enough.

Any notions to the contrary can only be communist.

I’ve never really understood why people object to me holding a gun to their head and telling them to give me all their money. I’m not reaching into their pocket and taking it, they are choosing to accept the deal I’m offering.

Absolutely nothing is making them their arm reach into their pocket and pull cash out, it’s their choice. They are free to say no and get shot in the head.

Is that how you think a free market works?

If the market is so free, how does Wistron have any employees? As soon as they didn't pay, you'd think all employees would have quit and went to work somewhere else.

Do you really think these people would be working for an unlivable wage if they had the choice of a fair one?

So basically these companies offer something better than what they already have, no?

Are you asking if I believe that externalities exist? Yes?

> I never really understand the exploitation argument. If I offer you $1 an hour and you agree, is it exploitation then?

I'd tell you to check your privilege, but then I'd be reading your comment incorrectly. You're being intellectually dishonest.

Realistically, you could staff your company with homeless people and pay them $1/hour. That's a slave wage but any adult will end up at the same conclusion; that you will still find people willing to work for you.

> Maybe if you demand $6 I just go somewhere else. And maybe if I offer $1 you go somewhere else.

Amazon pays more than the minimum wage. Based on your thinking, why then are Walmart et al. still employers? They pay less than AMZN yet are still in business. Why is that? Why are people not going somewhere else like you say? A cursory reading of retail labour practices tells a different story.

Say what you will but please, don't think we actually believe that you "never really understand the exploitation argument". It may be inconvenient for you but any thinking person understands plenty people have no choice between making less than $10 a day vs going hungry.

> The point is that the job market is also a market with supply and demand. If we can agree on a price, why is it exploitation?

HNers think the labour market consists entirely of folks with a complete grasp of market dynamics, have good credit and zero financial burdens. Taking on an exploitative job does not mean I agree on price. It simply means I'm in no position to decline said job.

Even if pay is good, I can't think of one employer I holistically agreed with but I took the job because I have responsibilities.

"It's just supply and demand, stupid!!"?!? eye roll

Offering someone $6 an hour and paying them $1 is definitely exploitation, though.

I definitely agree with that.

It's exploitation because of the imbalance of power.

This is also why unions exist, to try to redress that imbalance via collective action.