The government can mandate a "fair" wage, but the government never employs everyone at that rate. These "exploiters" are actually giving Africans money for their labor - I think I'm more on the side of those who pay money for an African's labor vs. those that stand on the sidelines and try to determine what is fair.

Are there rules and regulations preventing access to the official forex markets?

The Naira's value plunged against the dollar. The Central Bank still insists the Naira is worth around 453/$1 while the free market insists it's much worse.

So, the Central Bank continues to advertise N453/$1 but you can't swap your Nairas to dollars - only at black (i.e., free) market dealers who will give you the true market rate.

Come to think of it, that's true of all "black markets". The only thing that makes a market "black" is the existence of some ridiculous official alternative.

[1] For example: when I land in Japan, I don't get Yen from the JCB -- I get it from a private entity who sells it to me for dollars, usually at a worse than officially stated exchange rate. The Travelex booth at the airport is literally a private market for cash. When I swipe my credit card in a foreign country, the intermediary banks are more than happy to sell me currency, on the spot, for a small fee.

Check Argentina -- their "blue rate", used by hotels and other cash-based businesses on site, is often twice as favorable as the official rate that you get with plastic.

If a black market exists, that means the "official" markets are corrupt.

I was going to comment, "was it mutually-beneficial? was it consensual? If so, then where is the harm done?" but your firsthand experience said it much better.

Glad you are succeeding (relatively).

Over time this lifts those economies up which then forces their pay to go up; it's like slow arbitrage over time. But as it's happening, yes, the paying companies get a better deal. Temporarily. And that is fine.

Would you describe their attitude as colonial or paternalistic?

Only free trade, preferably between rich and poor countries, can lift the poor out of poverty. Initially, it starts in a way you might consider "unfair" but soon, that unskilled labor learns better skills and starts to negotiate better wages.

So, like I said, many of these "do-gooders" sincerely want to help Africans but their approach hurts even more.

The fact that it’s good for Africans doesn’t absolve rich Silicon Valley tech companies from doing better.

Silicon Valley have developed an eye rolling bad reputation for many reasons.

The CEO of such an organization would be a fool not to realize that this looks bad to the rest of the community.

If I was a tech CEO id be extremely wary of paying anyone $2/hour. What about safety, entitlements, conditions, potential for child labor, hours worked etc.

I totally agree that it’s good for African people to get the work but rich companies have to do a whole lot more than just agree to that and pay $2/hour. They have to ensure that if they’re going to do this sort of thing that not only are they paying the $2, they have 100% ensured the working rights of the people.

And if they’re remotely smart they would go well beyond, for example sponsoring computer science university for 500 young people.

So you want every corporation to have a law enforcement or investigative journalism arm? How would that work exactly?

What rights, specifically, should they be enforcing? European rights? American rights? Australian rights? The UN's human rights?

We've seen this experiment in China - in one generation, hundreds of millions of Chinese have made the leap from farm labor to the iPhone-owning middle class.

I think companies can choose to pay better, but even if they choose to be "evil, greedy capitalists" it still beats the majority of local alternatives.

And thus wouldn't pay Kenyans to do this labor. Not sure that makes any Kenyans better off.

She's an anarcho-communist. Cuban communism is famously the opposite of an anarchy.

I think the discussion is great, but don't think we've concluded therefore that $2/hr is a fine thing for Africans to be paid and all is well again, because one user has said a similar job helped them get out of poverty.

The key thing to remember about "SJWs" is that they want to improve the world for the folks who need it most. Sometimes it does involve changing patterns people fall into without realizing, and sometimes "SJWs" get it terribly wrong. Poor people aren't stupid, but they are often stuck in some way of thinking or behaving (as anyone in their situation would be), and it's not always productive or helpful to "just" give them what they ask for directly.

But to deride someone for wanting a better life for another person strikes me as needlessly cynical. Why put that out into the world, why justify the hate?

Companies are 100% exploiting cheaper labor in other countries - they are only interested in the bottom line.

opportunity and exploitation are not mutuality exclusive, nor does one person's opportunity erase another's exploitation.

Creating opportunity is great: do that without exploiting people - that isn't a requirement. Praise opportunity given. Denounce exploitations not to remove opportunities - but to improve them.

How much should they pay the workers though? It's already stated that they are paid well above average wage in said country.

You probably would need to lead all your corporate messaging around the points you have raised, and how much further your company goes than the minimum.

You would need to be actually ethical rather than marketing ethical - I don't know you so I don't know if you know the difference. Certainly there's no shortage of Silicon Valley "characters" who don't.

It's a very powerful "good news story" to sell to potential clients:

--> lower cost workforce

--> positive life benefit for the African people, lifting people to better lives

--> western style work protections at African costs

--> "publicity positive" for buyers versus "publicity negative"

You would not believe the power of "lower cost workforce" in gaining new clients.

If you know a bunch of African programmers then it should not be hard to find work for them at $x/hour to western clients.

Any employer that wishes to show it cares for African people and wants to help them to a better life really SHOULD be buying services from your new company.

It's not a zero-sum game - you don't have to treat people like trash to get any value out of their labor.

One can try to build an alternative company with all those extra benefits you laid out but it still has to deal with the economic reality of clients like OpenAI not willing to pay more.

If gp's hypothetical Nigeria outsourcing company costs +3x or more to label data than Sama Kenya (https://www.sama.com/) -- because they have to fund those extra benefits, then game theory economics predicts that OpenAI would choose the less expensive Sama Kenya.

This means the hypothetical Nigeria company doesn't have revenue to fund those extra wages and benefits.

Just because a company has an alternative (and more expensive plan) to compensate employees, it doesn't mean customers will pay more for it.

This is the virtuous upward cycle, slow as it may be.

As a formerly underpaid third-worlder (I am now a Canadian) I would’ve LOVED more Western companies coming in to exploit me for my labour.

The only thing "the west" (or rather, the world bank) has done to address poverty is redefine it out of existence.

China has seen an uplift in wealth because they could leverage co-dependence to enforce better conditions. That isn't going to happen everywhere.

When people have more economic opportunities that are rooted in a solid reality, they acquire more of the only real power on this planet - economic power.

Reading the history of the working and middle classes in the West, it becomes clear that as they very gradually got more options over the centuries, they started building various edifices to cement that power. Unions, parties, laws, political traditions.

Next I would argue that human greed is not unique to us but is simply a form of price optimization. Corporations and consumers in the West, or planet Zog for that matter, will always want their sneakers manufactured for ten cents a pair if they can get it.

For that reason, sending these economic options to the third world is a very real and sustainable economic situation. Contrast that with artificial political solutions like regular aid packages (I’m not talking about disaster relief or aid for countries at war like Ukraine, I’m talking about funding some African country because they are poor).

Eventually, a situation similar to middle class life here in the West will develop there. Keep in mind this took centuries here even when the West owned the world.

Eventually, as the sweatshops move from country to country, they will run out of poor people to make sneakers for ten cents a pair. We’ll live in a world where everyone is too rich to accept that job. I want to live in that world asap, and the fastest way to get there is through free trade.

Take Raspberry Pi's new partner factory, also in Kenya.

https://www.raspberrypi.com/news/made-in-kenya/

Don’t get me wrong - chatgpt could be a great tool for learning. At the very least, it can teach a person on how to ask the right question.

"""After the match, I ask Coulom when a machine will win without a handicap. "I think maybe ten years," he says. "But I do not like to make predictions."""" - https://www.wired.com/2014/05/the-world-of-computer-go/

On the other hand, in 2009 I said "ten years" about consumer purchasable self driving cars good enough to not bother with a steering wheel, and that didn't happen. Seemed plausible to me even during the intervening years, given the videos Tesla was putting out. But, didn't happen.

But however long it takes, if companies like OpenAI et al can no longer benefit from humans rating the results (which is what I was replying to), then their AIs are going to be ready to replace us too.

As a social justice warrior, I recognize that the experiences shared in this statement are indicative of a larger systemic issue of exploitation and inequality. The fact that someone was paid a mere $16 a month and $1 for 100 words of work highlights the gross disparities in wages and working conditions between developed and developing countries.

While I understand that the individual in this statement found these jobs to be a stepping stone to upward mobility, it is important to acknowledge that not everyone has the same opportunities and resources to do so. The fact that Nigeria's minimum wage is still not enough to provide a decent standard of living for many people is a clear indication that more needs to be done to address these issues.

Furthermore, the idea that "free trade" is the solution to lifting people out of poverty is a narrow and problematic perspective. While trade can certainly play a role in economic development, it must be implemented in a way that prioritizes the rights and well-being of workers and marginalized communities, rather than solely benefiting corporations and the wealthy.

Instead of settling for exploitative work as the "least worst option," we must actively work towards creating a more just and equitable global economy where everyone has the opportunity to earn a living wage and work in safe and dignified conditions.

I'm not against paying workers more - not at all. But, most often, "exploiters" are willing to pay $2 per hour while social justice campaigners are willing to pay "thoughts, prayers, and rhetoric."

It's an easy choice between $2/hr and thoughts and prayers, especially when $2/hr is miles ahead of what the worker is getting at the moment.

You support the idea of a just and equitable economy, but until it comes you'll sit on the sidelines and perpetuate and support entities that maintain the opposite? Look, I admire where you came from and your success, but you've internalized capitalism and justified its side effects as a result. I too came from nothing and am now successful (relatively).

I don't want conceptual help; I want actual dollars & "exploitative" companies actually pay workers real dollars. I care for the poor, and I support any system that gives them real cash instead of "thoughts and prayers."

I'm an atheist, and I don't offer thoughts and prayers. I offer discourse, and change starts with that. I think you're trying to generalize an entire group of people because you've seen several politicians grift. There are leftists out there that genuinely want to help. But the left and the right is has been infiltrated with fallacious ideas of a self-regulating market, a concept that we've seen exploit children and poor communities across the globe over and over again. And the only thing you have to say is "well at least these poor people are getting paid more dollars than they would be?"

Their goal was simple: make a dowry or funds to support the family in the village. Once that was achieved they'd not return after Chinese new year.

Every year 15-20% of assembly workers would not return after CNY.

Absolutely not. There's no reason to accept sweatshops just because workers are being paid to be exploited. There's no reason at all that workers in those places couldn't be paid just as well (if not better really) without all of the other issues commonly found in sweatshops like horrific and dangerous working conditions, child labor, sexual abuse, and human rights violations.

There's no giving corporations a pass on their use of sweatshops just because they're giving the desperate people they exploit a little more than they could get themselves. That's not "trending in the right way" it's just greed and exploitation.

For example, a person who is starving to death will be extremely grateful when someone gives them even rotten and moldy food. They'll accept the food even if the person offering it makes them first perform horrible immoral acts to get it, but that doesn't make it right and the person forcing starving people to do terrible things for spoiled scraps is still an asshole even if it fills that person's stomach for the night

Not exploiting starving men in exchange for spoiled food can be proven to result in increased deaths too. Doesn't make the exploitation okay. Companies can continue to employ overseas labor at attractive rates without allowing those workplaces to be sweatshops and we should insist that they do, not give them a pass to abuse people for profit just because they throw the people they hurt scraps in the process.

Is for google the phrase site:ke data entry or maybe a more targeted search

Or maybe find local job sites?, to hire (virtual assistant) workers directly to cut out freelancer site commission ( but with increased risk .... etc )

Fact: a lot of jobs (in Kenya, at least) from corporations and international NGOs, come with a deadline to submit your application - yet, the job isn't posted anywhere until 1-2 weeks before the deadline, AND then only on the company's website!

Kenya has private job posting sites that obviously crawl the company's pages for listing updates; and this helps to at least get the jobs publicized. But none of these sites have the sophisticated scraping systems like i.e. Indeed.com

For "social enterprises" work, it's all made worse because of the bad press and lawsuits that Sama/Samasource -YET AGAIN- and similar companies have been getting into within the last year, re: https://www.wired.com/story/social-enterprise-technology-afr...

These Companies have now stopped (i.e. hidden, temporarily) their listings for "content moderators" and "image labelers".

I guess the only way Kenyans are going to find about these jobs are through some connection with current employees; informal sources like Whatsapp groups; or Sama's recruiters sourcing exclusively within the country, so as to not put more international spotlight on their company.

Minimum wage in Kenya is twice that in Nigeria at $122 a month.

Besides, the government doesn't guarantee every Kenyan $122 a month so the real heroes are those who actually pay that money out-of-pocket.

I'm happy this is work that can help uplift people in third world countries and I don't want the work moved elsewhere.

However, Open AI can absolutely afford to pay more than $2 an hour for this sort of job, irregardless of the local economy and who does it - and they absolutely should.

Thinking you can have both higher wages and jobs in unstable countries is either advocating for state-mandated outsourcing or is wishful thinking.

Your statement is problematic, because (a) clearly at some point "less bad" stops being what anyone defines as exploitation, and (b) if you're not living in the tradeoff space, you're not qualified to judge where that crossover is.

There certainly is exploitation to be found*, but paying a multiple of all other opportunities, even if that multiple is below what is available in a different context, is not exploitation.

It's putting a thumb on the scale, accelerating the tilt towards equity.

* There are articles about labeling or screening done by workers in USA that are as PTSD-inducing as the linked stories, where people were paid US wage and had to quit. Don't confuse the job with the pay, these are two different issues.

// Disclosure: I grew up in central Africa. In my teens I worked in the local tech economy, not the expat economy.

> 16:07 my father once said to me, I'll never forget this as long as I live, he doesn't like a reformer or as he used to call em a "do-gooder" in office. He used to call em do-gooders. > > I said "why pop?", he said "because every time they get in office it seems like all the businesses go out. Nothing happens in business. They make it tough for a guy to operate in business."

I did see this occur personally with this breakfast joint that closed down when some law changed that required some minimum benefits or something or other that added to the payroll expenses and made the venture not worth it. I remember the owner going around informing the guests at their tables that they'd be closing in the next month and if anyone knew of any jobs for their employees they'd welcome the suggestions. It was one of the rare breakfast places in town so it was very missed by us when it bailed. Eventually that location became a Five Guys. It took several years but eventually another breakfast place moved into town.

Sure, you were able to "pull yourself up by your bootstraps". On the other side of the equation, the company paying you a pittance used your capitulation to drive down wages elsewhere, including in its home country. There's a reason why maybe women as a group in this day and age continue to earn only 82 cents on the $ that men make [1]. It is easy for a company to play off the "Nigerian" group of workers willing to accept a pittance against the "Women" group of workers living in a High COL area. Sure, you got your quadruple pay, while some woman here went without money for medicine and died before her time.

Nigerian Low COL today can be attributed to colonialism - Europeans extracted the multi-generational wealth in that region and left it impoverished within a short period of time, and it takes time to build that wealth back (real rate of return is typically 2-3%) so everything costs less because that's all the people living there can afford to pay for local consumables and durables like, well, food, or housing.

Now the (actual or philosophical) descendants of those Europeans play off the impoverished Nigerians against the local Women to exploit both groups.

So instead of fighting to correct the structural injustices of either colonialism or labor exploitation, the English-speaking Nigerians 'pulling themselves up by their bootstraps' lobby for the continued abrogation of equal-pay-for-equal-work and deride the people advocating for structural justice in the form of equal-pay-for-equal-work as "social justice warriors in SF or NY" or "self-anointed do-gooders". Bravo!

1. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/01/gender-pay-ga...

Well, that's exactly the point.

The hypocrisy is to pretend it is concern about exploiting poor people while actually it's about protecting own high wages.

Just so I don't misunderstand, are you suggesting that equal-pay-for-equal-work is about protecting high wages?

But in this context as an analogy it's seeing a poor starving man eating a rat to survive. You basically want to take the rat away from him and shout "don't eat that! 'Someone' should give him a chicken!"

Unless you immediately offer to be that 'someone' personally you're not fighting for his good. You want him to die.

Let's analyze your argument shall we, with some historical context - first let's make the man poor, force him to starve through colonial theft from his family, then refuse to pay him to right the historical theft (oh no, it would reduce our standard of living, we can't have that!), then oppress a local group (like women or minorities) and when they ask to be paid a fair amount (equal pay for equal work), tell them - do you want to take the rat from the starving man??? Funny how it's always one group of oppressed people that must make sacrifices for other groups of oppressed people, never people like kuboble or ninjagoo.... noooo our standard of living mustn't be affected, we can't have our taxes going up.

>Unless you immediately offer to be that 'someone' personally you're not fighting for his good. You want him to die.

Did you offer to be that someone? Or is that all on me? You're happy to let the starving man go ahead and eat the rat as long as you don't have to do anything?

You might have your high morals and and what is morally rightest or who was at fault for me being born poor etc.

But knowing how it is at the bottom you have to realize that X offering me a better job does me a favor and anyone calling X to don't do that due to some moral concern over my well being is caring more about his ideals than about my actual wellbeing. You can let them give me this job while trying to improve my position in other ways. It's not a dichotomy.

Why do I think so? Because here's what's really going on - there are two injustices here- the lack of equal-pay-for-equal-work, and starving poor people in poor countries. Paying a higher pittance to the poor people resolves the second injustice, which is beneficial to people like yourself while they are poor, and benefits people like yourself when you are rich.

The solution to both injustices which involves equal-pay, and reparations/grants through taxes, benefits people like yourself when you are poor, but 'hurts' people like yourself now when you are rich - that solution you don't like because then you actually have to contribute something from your "earnings".

Paraphrasing, you only care about fixing the injustice where the fix benefits you in all scenarios, and not at all about any other injustice, because that doesn't affect you. Based on that, I wonder if you actually care about fixing an injustice at all, or whether you only care about yourself, and all these arguments about fixing the poverty are a smokescreen to continue a current benefit (lower costs and taxes) for yourself. I am having a real challenge discerning the true motives here.

You really want to resolve injustice(s)? You can support both equal-pay and reparations/grants.

You only want to resolve one injustice (donor fatigue is a real thing)? Fine, support reparations/grants to help the starving poor people in poor countries. These funds can pay for public works or factories that will create jobs with beneficial ripple effects throughout their economies. Just like the Marshall Plan for western Europe after WW2.

Which option do you choose? And why?

In this topic I'm just stating very narrow argument that 2$/hr is better than nothing. And a company who offers it here does more good than companies who don't offer those jobs and even more good than people trying to prevent it from doing so.

Most of your very long argument is judging me for things I haven't said, done or thought.

Yes, my arguments are very direct and uncomfortable to hear, but if I may remind you, the judginess 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.

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?

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.

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.

What's your basis for this claim? Or is it simply that is how it is structured in your hypothetical without regard to reality?

> I totally agree that 15$ would be likely better for them. But the 15$ isn't rightfully theirs.

Why do you think the $15 is not rightfully theirs? They did the work, didn't they?

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.

1) imo obviously false statement: > The $15 is external too. OpenAI should have paid $15/hr

Shoulda, woulda, coulda.

The open AI also won't pay Kenyans the 15$.

If they have to pay 15$ they will hire better educated, closer geographically and culturally workers.

2) the ideological manifest that is only tangentially related to the topic and I don't want to discuss it here for several reasons.

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.

[1] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.nr0.htm

I believe you're extremely ignorant of reality.

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?

-+-+-+

Equal pay for equal work is not a hard concept to understand - it is basic fairness. Deriding advocates of this as "SJW in SF or NY" or "self-anointed do-gooders" indicates a lack of empathy, lack of thought around the broader implications, or in the worst case, capitalistic psychopathy.

Sure, you were able to "pull yourself up by your bootstraps". On the other side of the equation, the company paying you a pittance used your capitulation to drive down wages elsewhere, including in its home country. There's a reason why maybe women as a group in this day and age continue to earn only 82 cents on the $ that men make [1]. It is easy for a company to play off the "Nigerian" group of workers willing to accept a pittance against the "Women" group of workers living in a High COL area. Sure, you got your quadruple pay, while some woman here went without money for medicine and died before her time.

Nigerian Low COL today can be attributed to colonialism - European colonialists extracted the multi-generational wealth in that region and left it impoverished within a short period of time, and it takes time to build that wealth back (real rate of return is typically 2-3%) so everything costs less because that's all the people living there can afford to pay for local consumables and durables like, well, food, or housing.

Now the (actual or philosophical) descendants of those European colonialists and colonial companies play off the impoverished Nigerians against the local Women to exploit both groups.

So instead of fighting to correct the structural injustices of either colonialism or labor exploitation, the English-speaking Nigerians 'pulling themselves up by their bootstraps' lobby for the continued abrogation of equal-pay-for-equal-work and deride the people advocating for structural justice in the form of equal-pay-for-equal-work as "social justice warriors in SF or NY" or "self-anointed do-gooders". Bravo!

[1] https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/01/gender-pay-ga...

How much do you think wages are in Nigeria to the US? A quick googling gives approximately 3 cents to the dollar. That's a 33x difference. You would rather not improve the wages of someone making $0.03 / dollar. Because it _might_ hurt someone making $0.82 / dollar. Yeah equal pay for equal work is about protecting the relatively high US wages. And I don't think it's at all clear that exporting these jobs specifically hurts women workers and not male workers.

> Sure, you got your quadruple pay, while some woman here went without money for medicine and died before her time.

The average life expectancy in Nigeria is TWENTY FIVE years lower than in the US. Quadrupling the pay of someone in Nigeria has a far greater impact to their health than it does to someone in a first world country where there is significantly more access to medicine and other resources. If you are trying to help someone, wouldn't you want to focus on the population that is dying 25 years before everyone else?

> Now the (actual or philosophical) descendants of those Europeans play off the impoverished Nigerians against the local Women to exploit both groups.

How are Nigerians being exploited here? If it had been a local Nigerian company offering them a wage of $2 an hour (which is over their minimum wage) would it be exploitation? Or is it simply because the company operates multi-nationally does it become exploitative.

> Equal pay for equal work is not a hard concept to understand - it is basic fairness.

What is your proposed change here? The minimum wage where I am is $18.50 an hour. Therefore under equal-pay-for-equal-work, if a company based where I am living wants to offer a job outside my area must pay $18.50? Which means, the jobs would never get exported to Nigeria. Sure that is a win for people living in the US, but not for the people living in deep poverty on the other side of the world.

Is it really that hard to wrap one's head around the equal-pay-for-equal-work argument? Around basic fairness? Offer the same pay across the board for the same work - whether that worker is a Woman or a Nigerian. That's the basic exploitation at play here: the value of the work is $1 (for argument's sake), the US man gets $1, but the US Woman gets $0.82 and the Nigerian gets $0.03. On what basis? Being born a Woman. Or being born in Nigeria. It's not even based on skills, which is this whole different ball of wax. No, it's based on what 'your kind' make. Not what the work is worth, not on any kind of rational basis, simply based on what your kind make or what those around you make. That's deeply unfair. Offer them all $1.

Sure, now the counter argument can be, life is unfair, it is what it is. If the follow on to that is that the status quo is acceptable and that no change needs to be made, then that indicates a lack of empathy, or in the extreme, capitalistic psychopathy (which needs to be regulated, within reason, for an actual greater good). If there is empathy, which there presumably is - because I see an argument above to export jobs to reduce poverty, or to improve African lifespans - let's start by changing structural injustices. And using impoverished Nigerians to exploit US Women is not it. Pay them that da** $1 for $1 of work! Not try to get away with $1.85 for $3 of work.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

> Offer them all $1.

Everyone regardless of where they are gets payed the same. Am I understanding this correctly?

So, like I said in my area the minimum wage is $18.50/hr. So a multi-national company that has people tagging data in my area would pay a minimum of $18.50/hr. And under your proposed equal-pay-for-equal-work, if that company were to hire people in Nigeria to tag data they would _have_ to pay $18.50/hr. Correct?

Would that company have an incentive to outsource work to Nigeria if they had to pay people the same $18.50/hr? This is a country ranked 154/180 on the corruption index. It is the 17th least peaceful country and has far worse infrastructure relative to the US. I think these companies would be significantly less motivated to outsource jobs Nigeria if they can hire people locally for the same price. Would you agree? If you think that companies would be more or equally likely to outsource jobs to Nigeria if they wages were $18.50/hr please elaborate.

Far fewer jobs being outsourced to Nigeria, means less job opportunities for Nigerians and worse economic outcomes. Right?

If requiring equal-pay-for-equal-work leads to worse economic outcomes for Nigerians then isn't it a bad policy?

Or am I confused and your concern only extends to reducing other people's (say for example less fortunate US women and unfortunate Nigerians) net income and definitely not your own income?

I'm surprised you think I'm conservative. :)

1. We can't overlook infrastructure issues or regional stability if we have to pay $18.50/hr but if we can pay only $2/hr, sure, we'll turn a blind eye to that.

2. The only way to increase wages in low-income countries is to decrease wages in the US.

3. Multi-national companies, which by definition operate in many countries, would hire people only in the US if they had to pay the same wages everywhere, even though they supposedly "operate" in other countries. These operations outside the US would happen without any people outside the US.

4. It's ok for the company to get $18.50 worth of work but only pay Nigerians $2 for it, after all if they had to pay $18.50 for $18.50 worth of work, they would only pay that to US men. Why should they pay US Women or Nigerians the full value of that work. Hey, haven't you heard, women are unstable, Nigerians are unstable. They deserve less of the share of the value of the work they produce. For reasons.

Is indentured slavery exploitative? Your statement can be applied to indentured slaves unchanged. Exploitation cannot be justified by the fact that the victims lot has improved (see indentured slavery), or that the exploiter has their victims consent (see indentured slavery).

I'm speaking here as an SF Social Justice Warrior...who also is sub-Saharan Africa born and bred, and to whom poverty is no stranger.

When it comes to "overpaying" tech workers regardless of their location, HN mostly has unified praise as a job ought to be paid what it's worth[1], regardless of workers location; that principle should not stop at the borders of the United States, or limited to the middle-class. People labeling data for AI should be paid by their worth, and not by cost of living.

1. The fact that your comment is at the top bothers me a little due to hypocrisy. Smacks a little of "Location-independent-top-market income for me, but not for thee"

Huh? That is in fact the normal state of indentured servitude. Slavery is also commonly a voluntary situation; that's the whole concept of "selling yourself into slavery".

> Until the late 18th century, indentured servitude was common in British America. It was often a way for Europeans to migrate to the American colonies: they signed an indenture in return for a costly passage.

( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servitude )

that's what the so-called "social justice warriors" would be calling for here. OpenAI will be making hundreds of billions on this product and should pay the workers who do all the labor a generous wage with humane working conditions no matter where they live. Additionally, workers here were actually traumatized by the work itself, so much so that the contractor itself cancelled the job eight months early (!). So this is not really ethical and kudos to this article for highlighting the social injustice that OpenAI is apparently built upon. A sweatshop is a sweatshop and US companies ideally should not be profiting from them.