" there's nothing wrong with paying people what they're willing to work for"
This is where people miss something important, in my opinion. On the surface there's nothing wrong with paying people what they're willing to work for. But when you dig a little deeper, "what they're willing to work for" is really just a proxy for market forces and labor supply and demand. Just because someone accepts working for a certain price doesn't mean it's what they wanted. If they enjoy putting food on the table, they have surprisingly little choice.
Sure, that's true, but if the market doesn't pay you what you feel you are worth, then you have the option to build something that does pay you what you are worth. It's not up to me, as a boss, to take care of someone.
" then you have the option to build something that does pay you what you are worth."
It's just that simple then? Starting a business is a risky and difficult proposition, and few people are cut out for it - and of those, even fewer realistically have the option to do so. Not everyone can build their way out of a problem, and it has little to do with their free will. If that's the case you can't argue that it's their "choice."
There seems to be this ever present assumption on the Hacker News forums that if you don't like your job, why, it's just as easy as putting together a CRUD app and iterating until you get customers.
It's not. Plenty of people try the "build something" option and never get anywhere close to being paid what they're worth. You just don't hear about them because no one wants to hear about someone who tried and didn't make it.
"It's not up to me, as a boss, to take care of someone."
No one is implying that it is - but they are implying that that's part of the problem right there - a system where no one has to care about anyone else, only exploit them.
It's not easy, and that's the point. You can take the easy road, which is to get a job and work for someone, hoping that you haven't wasted your life away, or you can take the hard road and build something.
Both have benefits, and both have risks. There's no easy ticket, at least in this life, so employer and employee have to meet in the middle. The market helps that happen.
You had me until your last point, which was when you used the term exploit. I think that tells the tale right there.
As an employee, you have to do what your employer tells you. If you do not, you will not have the means to continue feeding yourself and putting a roof over your head. As an employee, the vast bulk of the wealth you create will never end up in your hands - it will end up in the hands of people who did not do your work.
How exactly is that not exploitation? What would you call it?
"The market helps that happen."
The market helps whoever has the most money, or the most of a scarce resource.
This is where people miss something important, in my opinion. On the surface there's nothing wrong with paying people what they're willing to work for. But when you dig a little deeper, "what they're willing to work for" is really just a proxy for market forces and labor supply and demand. Just because someone accepts working for a certain price doesn't mean it's what they wanted. If they enjoy putting food on the table, they have surprisingly little choice.