Yes.
> If you can’t accept that, there’s no real point in any further discussion.
There’s a lot of assumptions packed in to this statement.
But you can be the arbiter of the Overton Window. I know that I am swearing in church.
But then literally every trade between two people—trading four sheep for one cow, say—is exploitation in both directions. I expect to benefit more from the product I receive than I can profit from what I give away. I have plenty of milk but need some wool for clothes. But to improve my own situation is somehow to abuse the other person!?
You’ve seemingly declared every form of economic transaction immoral.
No. That could be a win-win. One might be a sheep farmer, the other a cattle/cow farmer. They both gain from exchanging these livestocks.
For an employee? See the value produced versus the wages earned. There’s the exploitation.
The nice thing about one single universal value—money—is that it makes things like this obvious. Just look at the numbers. It’s just one, single currency. Much easier than comparing livestock...
> If employment is violence, we should end it. But then almost everybody would die.
Everyone would die? Are you assuming that employment gets eliminated and nothing is replaced by it?
Anyone who is against the employment relation wants something different. Not something farcical like voluntary self-elimination.