It's worth mentioning that the society in which George lives has an influence on what kinds of exploitation/employment are allowed. If the potential employer/exploiter is compelled to offer employment only at or above a minimum wage, or having met certain health and safety standards then (assuming he obeys the law and that these rules are not so onerous as to eliminate his desire to employe George or move to a different society), then the employer still benefits and George benefits even more.
Figuring out how to set rules which strike a balance between incentivizing people to take on the risk and work of employing people on the one hand, and "acceptable" working conditions, seems like a difficult business that people will perhaps always debate and a disagree on.
I guess the really intuition-stressing edge case is: imagine a situation where an employer is paying George only as much as they can truly afford to keep the factory going. In this case it seems like a worse world if we say "they shouldn't employ George" since then George has to take an even worse job. But the reality is that most factories are not just paying what they can afford; they are pressing down wages as much as they can get away with to increase profits. I have a draft essay on sweatshops in particular that I haven't decided if I'll post yet that addresses this in more detail.
Great post!
It's worth mentioning that the society in which George lives has an influence on what kinds of exploitation/employment are allowed. If the potential employer/exploiter is compelled to offer employment only at or above a minimum wage, or having met certain health and safety standards then (assuming he obeys the law and that these rules are not so onerous as to eliminate his desire to employe George or move to a different society), then the employer still benefits and George benefits even more.
Figuring out how to set rules which strike a balance between incentivizing people to take on the risk and work of employing people on the one hand, and "acceptable" working conditions, seems like a difficult business that people will perhaps always debate and a disagree on.
I guess the really intuition-stressing edge case is: imagine a situation where an employer is paying George only as much as they can truly afford to keep the factory going. In this case it seems like a worse world if we say "they shouldn't employ George" since then George has to take an even worse job. But the reality is that most factories are not just paying what they can afford; they are pressing down wages as much as they can get away with to increase profits. I have a draft essay on sweatshops in particular that I haven't decided if I'll post yet that addresses this in more detail.