Under capitalism, it is almost by definition. Glad you’re having a better time than the rest of us, but your personal anecdote is irrelevant to society at large.
You would not be employed if it wasn’t profitable. Which also means the surplus value of your labor, above and beyond what you’re being compensated for, is going to your employer. That’s exploitation. It’s mandatory in most employment under capitalist economics.
There is never going to be a 1:1 ratio between labour value and compensation. Even in a non-profit employee-owned cooperative, there will be external costs that will have to funded from somewhere.
It becomes exploitation when that ratio becomes disproportionate and the ownership starts extracting more than their fair share. Capitalism definitely does nothing to discourage this, but it’s not a mandatoy feature.
Even in a non-profit employee-owned cooperative, there will be external costs that will have to [be] funded from somewhere.
That somewhere being reduced labor compensation no matter what, meaning the labor is just worth that much less. That doesn’t entitle an “owner” to jack shit.
It becomes exploitation when that ratio becomes disproportionate and the ownership starts extracting more than their fair share.
Their fair share is nothing. A disproportionate ratio is any ratio greater than 0. No labor should be “owned” by anyone not performing it. There should not be “ownership” involved. Organizational leaders, sure. And they should also just be regular laborers, paid in the same manner.
I understand the surplus value argument and I’m not dismissing it, within that framework you’re technically correct. But reducing all employment to exploitation by definition flattens a meaningful distinction between a worker being genuinely mistreated and one who isn’t.
My point wasn’t that capitalism is perfect or that my experience is universal. It was that employment isn’t inherently exploitative in the lived sense, conditions, power dynamics, and how surplus is distributed all matter. A framework that calls everything exploitation equally makes it harder to identify and fight actual exploitation where it’s causing real harm.
Under capitalism, it is almost by definition. Glad you’re having a better time than the rest of us, but your personal anecdote is irrelevant to society at large.
You would not be employed if it wasn’t profitable. Which also means the surplus value of your labor, above and beyond what you’re being compensated for, is going to your employer. That’s exploitation. It’s mandatory in most employment under capitalist economics.
There is never going to be a 1:1 ratio between labour value and compensation. Even in a non-profit employee-owned cooperative, there will be external costs that will have to funded from somewhere.
It becomes exploitation when that ratio becomes disproportionate and the ownership starts extracting more than their fair share. Capitalism definitely does nothing to discourage this, but it’s not a mandatoy feature.
That somewhere being reduced labor compensation no matter what, meaning the labor is just worth that much less. That doesn’t entitle an “owner” to jack shit.
Their fair share is nothing. A disproportionate ratio is any ratio greater than 0. No labor should be “owned” by anyone not performing it. There should not be “ownership” involved. Organizational leaders, sure. And they should also just be regular laborers, paid in the same manner.
I understand the surplus value argument and I’m not dismissing it, within that framework you’re technically correct. But reducing all employment to exploitation by definition flattens a meaningful distinction between a worker being genuinely mistreated and one who isn’t.
My point wasn’t that capitalism is perfect or that my experience is universal. It was that employment isn’t inherently exploitative in the lived sense, conditions, power dynamics, and how surplus is distributed all matter. A framework that calls everything exploitation equally makes it harder to identify and fight actual exploitation where it’s causing real harm.