No, it is not. That employer is providing a service I can't provide for myself. And MARKET and an OUTLET for my talents. Say, for instance, I am good a machining things (using various lathes and other equipment to make things out of metal). I can't go out and buy the million dollars worth of equipment it takes to machine metal. Even if I had a crapload of equipment, I simply can't start milling things for a profit (due in part to the ridiculous amount of regulations dealing with starting/running a business). Now, an employer comes along and says "I have all that equipment. I have a building. I have money. You have talent. Let;s see if we can work out a MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL COMBINATION of all those things." THAT is what employment is. I TOO and PROFITING from my talents, only in a way that I could not have done on my own. And nobody (in the private sector anyway) "created conditions" that made it harder for me to start my own business than it was the guy who hired me to machine things.
Employment is NOT the exploitation of anything. It is a CONTRACT that is AGREED TO by both parties. You provide service X, Y, and Z. I provide money. It is no different than my hiring a good HVAC installer (and paying through the nose for a new HVAC unit by the way). He provided me with a new unit and the labor to install it. I could have gone to anyone of my choosing to get a new system. I provided money in return for the new system and labor. And we both agreed to a level of compensation/satisfaction. Employment. I employed him.
Nobody at Wal-Mart is being exploited. Those people went to an office, willingly filled out an application, and agreed to provide X, Y, and Z (unboxing materials, running cash registers, etc.) in return for an agreed-upon amount of compensation. Everybody volunteered. End of story. Exploitation nonexistent.
Now, the phrase "true worth" is where it gets murky. We hear speeches all the time that claim "If we can save one life, then (giving up liberties X,Y and Z and pouring a gagillion dollars into the problem) will be all worth it." In my view, this simply is not the case. However, if you accept the premise of speeches like this, then NOBODY can be compensated for his "true worth". So, I find that to be a false argument, as well as an undefinable amount. And, you are correct in the assumption that just jumped into your head. In a free market, you are worth what the market will bare for your talents. So, here, whatever the most you can make for doing a particular job (or minimum wage, whichever comes first) IS the "true worth" of your particular talent. David Ortiz (Go SOX!) can whack a baseball a country mile. That is worth miliions because the market says it is. People will pay dearly to watch him do it or wear a shirt with his name on it (even ..... dare I say it...... the poor). Unboxing towels at Wal-Mart is worth $7 and change an hour. Anybody can do it. It is not a talent at all. So it is worth less. That doesn't mean that the people DOING it are worth less. But they are providing a service to society that we find to be worth less. However, if those towel unboxers were to learn how to fwack the living daylights out of a baseball, they could go stand right beside Big Poppy (Otriz) and make a gagillion dollars a minute in this country, rather than being told "get back to work" as they are in many others.
There you have it. Simple. And, in my view, beautiful in its simplicity.
