The opportunity exists only because this labor pool is composed of laborers who are vulnerable to such exploitation.
To me, this article isn’t about whether it’s good or bad for the laborers involved, but an invitation to look at the bigger economic picture, i.e. why their material conditions are such that there are opportunities for children to trade $2 for an hour of their labor.
I don't understand your word choice based on other remarks you've made in this thread. You seem to lean into the "exploitation has two meanings" angle to justify the word choice and how the article isn't about whether it's good or bad... But then much like the article you immediately return to obviously judgemental language like "vulnerable". In casual conversation do you talk about your coworkers in terms of vulnerability to exploitation when discussing their amenability to their job? It makes everything else you say come across as insincere.
> It makes everything else you say come across as insincere.
This person doesn't read as "insincere" to me at all. To me, they read as very deliberately and conscientiously conceding shared language and norms where possible, while also holding--and expressing!--a position on the edges of, if not beyond, this forum's Overton Window.
I find myself doing the same thing, often. It's a necessary component of discussing--with strangers--broad, complex and controversial subjects. The alternative is to simply agree, or to simply disagree--and with no understanding of how one's own beliefs relate to another's!--neither of which help us grow as a society.
I see you created this account STRICTLY to question my sincerity, which is interesting. But setting that aside, I just wanted to say:
> obviously judgmental language like “vulnerable”
I consider children to be a vulnerable population regardless of what the economics of their lives are like. So therefore, I judge the systems in the world that incentivize capitalizing upon that vulnerability. QED.
I started working after school as soon as I was legally able, which was before the age of 15.
Completely foregoing school to make more than average might be the wrong decision for someone who is 15 or it might completely change that family’s life. Balance would be great.
The opportunity exists only because this labor pool is composed of laborers who are vulnerable to such exploitation.
To me, this article isn’t about whether it’s good or bad for the laborers involved, but an invitation to look at the bigger economic picture, i.e. why their material conditions are such that there are opportunities for children to trade $2 for an hour of their labor.