Bumvertising
 

As a conscientious capitalist. I want to pay bums to hold up signs advertising for other conscientious businesses instead of their spare some change signs. It doesn't make business sense to pay them minimum wage. So I want to get an exception from the state to legally hire these persons and not effect thier unmployment status, and whatever benefits that the state affords them. Can I get an exception for my business? Should I be able to?

In addition I would like to create an entire class of jobs that pay below the minimum wage, that still allows people to collect the dole. Are you for or against that?

Re: Bumvertising
 

exploitatiaments

Re: Bumvertising
 

two questions.

1: how is giving someone spare crack money to stop harrassing the public explotation?

2: Why on earth would I want to associate my business with a bum?

NeBlis

Re: Bumvertising
 

[ QUOTE ]
exploitatiaments

[/ QUOTE ] How in the world is this explotation?

Re: Bumvertising
 

[ QUOTE ]
two questions.

1: how is giving someone spare crack money to stop harrassing the public explotation?

2: Why on earth would I want to associate my business with a bum?

NeBlis

[/ QUOTE ]As a special employer I would probably implement some drug testing procedure. And work with the state to provide drug consouling to addicts. Many business would jump at the chance to get a public image as helping the less fortunate. Was McDonalds living on mars when they decided to start the Ronald McDonald house charities? Is every business owner that has a Jerrys Kid's bucket at the cash register stupid?

Re: Bumvertising
 

[ QUOTE ]
As a conscientious capitalist

[/ QUOTE ]

False premise, by definition.


q/q

Re: Bumvertising
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As a conscientious capitalist

[/ QUOTE ]

False premise, by definition.


q/q

[/ QUOTE ]Humourous, but not true.

Re: Bumvertising
 

bums definitely make more than minimum wage.

Re: Bumvertising
 

Hi Doug

I don't think you would get any bums to hold advertisements for minimum wage. A good pan handler can make up to $300 a day.

Stu

Re: Bumvertising
 

[ QUOTE ]
As a conscientious capitalist. I want to pay bums to hold up signs advertising for other conscientious businesses instead of their spare some change signs. It doesn't make business sense to pay them minimum wage. So I want to get an exception from the state to legally hire these persons and not effect thier unmployment status, and whatever benefits that the state affords them. Can I get an exception for my business? Should I be able to?

In addition I would like to create an entire class of jobs that pay below the minimum wage, that still allows people to collect the dole. Are you for or against that?

[/ QUOTE ]

One practical problem you will encounter is that they currently earn more than minimum wage in CASH under the table so to speak and do not pay taxes on that money. And their collecting all their various welfare monies are still in place while doing this. So you would have to make it profitable to them or your plan is impractical even if everyone else agrees it should happen.

Re: Bumvertising
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Doug

I don't think you would get any bums to hold advertisements for minimum wage. A good pan handler can make up to $300 a day.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]So i guess good pan handlers wouldn;t take my job. What about bad pan handlers?

Re: Bumvertising
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hi Doug

I don't think you would get any bums to hold advertisements for minimum wage. A good pan handler can make up to $300 a day.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]So i guess good pan handlers wouldn;t take my job. What about bad pan handlers?

[/ QUOTE ]
\
Check out 'spare changee newspaper' in Boston.

And you would have to deal with the negatives of the stigma that would be associated with your business as a result of having unkept people holding your signs.

I think it might make an interesting social experiment but those are a couple thoughts off the top of my head.

Re: Bumvertising
 

[ QUOTE ]
So i guess good pan handlers wouldn;t take my job. What about bad pan handlers?

[/ QUOTE ]

Bad panhandlers work just enough to "earn" enough money to buy a bottle of fortified wine. They're not trying to earn money rather they are trying to get wasted.

Stu

Re: Bumvertising
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hi Doug

I don't think you would get any bums to hold advertisements for minimum wage. A good pan handler can make up to $300 a day.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]So i guess good pan handlers wouldn;t take my job. What about bad pan handlers?

[/ QUOTE ]
\
Check out 'spare changee newspaper' in Boston.

And you would have to deal with the negatives of the stigma that would be associated with your business as a result of having unkept people holding your signs.

I think it might make an interesting social experiment but those are a couple thoughts off the top of my head.

[/ QUOTE ] I belive newspaper deliever doens't have to follow minnimum wage laws. These are the laws exempting employers from minimum wage laws in OHIO(just the first one I plulled up.)
by the United States;
as a baby sitter or live-in companion (whose principal duties do not include housekeeping);
in newspaper delivery;
in outside sales compensated by commissions;
in an executive, administrative or professional capacity;
in agriculture (if the employer did not use more than 500 man-days of labor in any one quarter);
in services of a charitable nature;
by a police or fire protection agency, and;
at a camp or recreational area for minors, if operated by a nonprofit organization.

Yes this would basically be like a homeless newspaper, but it would be a homeless advertiser.

From spare change newsparer
[ QUOTE ]
* to produce a product that poor and homeless people could sell while maintaining self-respect and dignity;
* to provide a vehicle for homeless, poor, and marginalized people to showcase their talents and tell their stories;
* to educate the public about the issues and realities of homelessness and poverty


[/ QUOTE ] My company wouldn't want to educate the public about the issues and realities of homelessness and poverty.

Re: Bumvertising
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As a conscientious capitalist

[/ QUOTE ]
False premise, by definition.


[/ QUOTE ]Humourous, but not true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Elaborating:

By definition, a rational capitalist pursues profit, not moral edification, so the premise of the poster's argument is, by definition, false.

The upshot is: either the sub-minimum-wage employer *is* pursuing personal profit (in which case his behavior should be addressed as such) or he is behaving as a *charity* (in which case the profitability of the arrangement is not the defining factor).


q/q

Re: Bumvertising
 

[ QUOTE ]
By definition, a rational capitalist pursues profit, not moral edification, so the premise of the poster's argument is, by definition, false.

[/ QUOTE ] I am pursing profit and moral edification. The terms arn't mutually exclusive. I don't wish to maximize profit at the cost of moral edification, just make a profit, while mantianing my standard of ethics.

[ QUOTE ]
The upshot is: either the sub-minimum-wage employer *is* pursuing personal profit (in which case his behavior should be addressed as such) or he is behaving as a *charity* (in which case the profitability of the arrangement is not the defining factor).


[/ QUOTE ] But in my case it would be. The profitablility of the business would be the deciding factor on if it is part of a workable solution to homelessness and poverty. While maintaining the self respect and dignity of the homeless and impoverished.

Re: Bumvertising
 

[ QUOTE ]
By definition, a rational capitalist pursues profit

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong- from dictionary.com

1. a person who has capital, esp. extensive capital, invested in business enterprises.
2. an advocate of capitalism.
3. a very wealthy person.

None of which mentions the reasons they have for advocating capitalism or for which reasons they have for investing in business enterprises.

Re: Bumvertising
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hi Doug

I don't think you would get any bums to hold advertisements for minimum wage. A good pan handler can make up to $300 a day.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]So i guess good pan handlers wouldn;t take my job. What about bad pan handlers?

[/ QUOTE ]
\
Check out 'spare changee newspaper' in Boston.

And you would have to deal with the negatives of the stigma that would be associated with your business as a result of having unkept people holding your signs.

I think it might make an interesting social experiment but those are a couple thoughts off the top of my head.

[/ QUOTE ] I belive newspaper deliever doens't have to follow minnimum wage laws. These are the laws exempting employers from minimum wage laws in OHIO(just the first one I plulled up.)
by the United States;
as a baby sitter or live-in companion (whose principal duties do not include housekeeping);
in newspaper delivery;
in outside sales compensated by commissions;
in an executive, administrative or professional capacity;
in agriculture (if the employer did not use more than 500 man-days of labor in any one quarter);
in services of a charitable nature;
by a police or fire protection agency, and;
at a camp or recreational area for minors, if operated by a nonprofit organization.

Yes this would basically be like a homeless newspaper, but it would be a homeless advertiser.

From spare change newsparer
[ QUOTE ]
* to produce a product that poor and homeless people could sell while maintaining self-respect and dignity;
* to provide a vehicle for homeless, poor, and marginalized people to showcase their talents and tell their stories;
* to educate the public about the issues and realities of homelessness and poverty


[/ QUOTE ] My company wouldn't want to educate the public about the issues and realities of homelessness and poverty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Regardless of what your company does, you have to make it worth the homeless person's while to do it. This would mean financially, as well as other considerations (panhandling they have no supervisor, are paid cash on the spot, have no fixed schedule, can move about at will, etc). The successfule one's make more than minimum wage and are paid cash immediately. Plus they can drink and use drugs 'on the job' if you will, if they want to do that.

You have to make it worth their while, in their subjective opinions, or they will not 'work' for you.

Re: Bumvertising
 

This would never work.

1)most every bum makes more than min wage begging
2)They either don't want a job or are bat [censored] crazy/on drugs and or booze... thats why they are bums

The only time I have ever seen this work is soliciting a homeless guy to mow your lawn. This is a good way for them to make a quick buck with little to no responsibility.

Re: Bumvertising
 

Um guys, it can and has worked, and for a poker site no less. It was in fact banned by concientious politions (contradiction in terms) who clearly hate the poor.

Re: Bumvertising
 

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:

[ QUOTE ]
By definition, a rational capitalist pursues profit



[/ QUOTE ]



Wrong- from dictionary.com

1. a person who has capital, esp. extensive capital, invested in business enterprises.
2. an advocate of capitalism.
3. a very wealthy person.

None of which mentions the reasons they have for advocating capitalism or for which reasons they have for investing in business enterprises.


[/ QUOTE ]

Dude. You looked up capitalist. This is not the same thing as rational capitalist. Not all capitalists are rational. Duh!

Re: Bumvertising
 

[ QUOTE ]
I am pursing profit and moral edification. The terms arn't mutually exclusive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Either one controls your behavior or the other does.

Case #1: If, at the point of conflict, you forego morality for profitability, then you are pursuing profit. This is the behavior of the rational capitalist.

Case #2: If, at the point of conflict, you forego profitability in order to "be moral", then you are pursuing morality. This is the behavior of a charitable organization.

Case #3: If there is no point of conflict, then it is irrelevent which you are pursuing, because you actions are the same either way.

Your hypothetical is built around the assumption of Case #1 (at the point of conflict, profitability controls and morality yields -- hence the request for a special "sub-minimum-wage" to make the "moral" action open to profiteering).


q/q

Re: Bumvertising
 

[ QUOTE ]
Um guys, it can and has worked, and for a poker site no less. It was in fact banned by concientious politions (contradiction in terms) who clearly hate the poor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really?

Source?

Re: Bumvertising
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
two questions.

1: how is giving someone spare crack money to stop harrassing the public explotation?

2: Why on earth would I want to associate my business with a bum?

NeBlis

[/ QUOTE ]As a special employer I would probably implement some drug testing procedure. And work with the state to provide drug consouling to addicts. Many business would jump at the chance to get a public image as helping the less fortunate. Was McDonalds living on mars when they decided to start the Ronald McDonald house charities? Is every business owner that has a Jerrys Kid's bucket at the cash register stupid?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you should be able to pay a bum whatever you want if he wants to accept your offer. But, I don't think your 'jump at the chance' argument compares very well. Collection buckets and other charitable donations are no-strings-attached forms of gifting. Only the most cynical call this advertising of charitable giving as exploitation of a cause for business PR. When you start 'helping the less fortunate' by making their help contingent on directly advertising your business, it offends more people, and much of your goodwill diminishes.

But, associating your business with bums is the most obvious reason that this is a bad idea.

Re: Bumvertising
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Doug

I don't think you would get any bums to hold advertisements for minimum wage. A good pan handler can make up to $300 a day.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

And the guys who hand out advertising leaflets were making around $10/hr last summer in NY. The guys who stand on the side of the road in chicken suits/pirate suits/big hands pointing to new home sites etc, were making around $12/hr.

Re: Bumvertising
 

[ QUOTE ]
And the guys who hand out advertising leaflets were making around $10/hr last summer in NY. The guys who stand on the side of the road in chicken suits/pirate suits/big hands pointing to new home sites etc, were making around $12/hr.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is your source for this claim?


q/q

Re: Bumvertising
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And the guys who hand out advertising leaflets were making around $10/hr last summer in NY. The guys who stand on the side of the road in chicken suits/pirate suits/big hands pointing to new home sites etc, were making around $12/hr.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is your source for this claim?


q/q

[/ QUOTE ]

New York City wages are some of the highest in the country.

NYC has also cracked down on the street activity so has taken away other options for non violent street people.

I am not surprised at all that this would happen in NYC. I have occasionally seen homeless people handing out fliers in downtown Boston in a shopping district.

Oh yeah, that $300 per day pan handling figure mentioned in a post above is not sustainable anywhere in the USA. A 'good' pan handler could make over $70 per day in Boston most likely. A top earner could probably earn more but not much more- much more than this and they have great salesmanship skills so they could earn considerably more in the straight working world if they can get their act together. Moving above that would be people dealing drugs, including 'bunk' or fake drugs, or shoplifting, etc. Or of course, honest work. And most of this is not going to be happening on a 5 day week, 4 weeks a month. Things are a lot more transient than that, with rare exeptions.

Re: Bumvertising
 

Bums certainly make more than min wage, and could even make a livable wage for someone with good financial sense.

Doesn't matter if they are a street bum or a professional athlete/musician/artist/gambler, if you can't manage your money, no amount of money will make you financially secure.

Re: Bumvertising
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Doug

I don't think you would get any bums to hold advertisements for minimum wage. A good pan handler can make up to $300 a day.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

Inflated - we did a documentary, and found that under the *best* conditions, (high traffic affluent area such as a public open air mall in Santa Monica) a pan handler is capable of making $15 to $20 an hour.

AB

Re: Bumvertising
 

[ QUOTE ]
And the guys who hand out advertising leaflets were making around $10/hr last summer in NY. The guys who stand on the side of the road in chicken suits/pirate suits/big hands pointing to new home sites etc, were making around $12/hr.

[/ QUOTE ]


You know those people that hold the big arrows, point to "open house" or "big sale"?

Not only do they make $12 to $17 an hour, they actually have to go to school to learn how to spin and waggle the arrow.

They give you a bonus if you figure out a new arrow trick.

I'm serious.

AB

Re: Bumvertising
 

An exception of the type I'm advocating to minimum wage laws, was recently done by a ps3 reseller. Link to paying homeless to stand in line.. Ethical or exploitation?

From the article
"We thought we could lend them a hand, throw them a few bucks, and at the same time make a little something off of it," he said.

Re: Bumvertising
 

[ QUOTE ]
An exception of the type I'm advocating to minimum wage laws, was recently done by a ps3 reseller. Link to paying homeless to stand in line.. Ethical or exploitation?

From the article
"We thought we could lend them a hand, throw them a few bucks, and at the same time make a little something off of it," he said.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems fine to me. Of course everything depends on ones definition of exploitation. A hundred bucks a day, cash seems like a pretty good deal to me for a homeless person. I would venture to guess that the stores would be the one's to have a problem with it if the homeless present as unkept, and especially if they smell.

Re: Bumvertising
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
An exception of the type I'm advocating to minimum wage laws, was recently done by a ps3 reseller. Link to paying homeless to stand in line.. Ethical or exploitation?

From the article
"We thought we could lend them a hand, throw them a few bucks, and at the same time make a little something off of it," he said.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems fine to me. Of course everything depends on ones definition of exploitation. A hundred bucks a day, cash seems like a pretty good deal to me for a homeless person. I would venture to guess that the stores would be the one's to have a problem with it if the homeless present as unkept, and especially if they smell.

[/ QUOTE ] Hundred bucks/24hr plus food. It's obviously not gonna solve homelessness, but I think the idea has merit. If the stores do start to complain about unkempt and smelly people in front of there store, would that provide a incentive for the homeless to clean up? That would be a good thing, right?

Re: Bumvertising
 

Sounds fine to me, I think you might draw the line here but that's just me.

On a serious note exploitation when both parties are voluntarily participating is somewhat of an oxymoron.

Re: Bumvertising
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
An exception of the type I'm advocating to minimum wage laws, was recently done by a ps3 reseller. Link to paying homeless to stand in line.. Ethical or exploitation?

From the article
"We thought we could lend them a hand, throw them a few bucks, and at the same time make a little something off of it," he said.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems fine to me. Of course everything depends on ones definition of exploitation. A hundred bucks a day, cash seems like a pretty good deal to me for a homeless person. I would venture to guess that the stores would be the one's to have a problem with it if the homeless present as unkept, and especially if they smell.

[/ QUOTE ] Hundred bucks/24hr plus food. It's obviously not gonna solve homelessness, but I think the idea has merit. If the stores do start to complain about unkempt and smelly people in front of there store, would that provide a incentive for the homeless to clean up? That would be a good thing, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am all for people hiring homeless people. There are homeless who will take day labor jobs when they would not want to go through the hoops necessary to get a 'permanent' job. Plus they get some dignity in the process and this may lead to them being more likely to consider/seek permanent employment in the future.

There are homeless people who go to the day labor sites and work on a day by day basis. There are also people who come by homeless shelters in pick up trucks looking to hire homeless for day labor to work at their house doing yardwork or whatever. I'm all for mutually benefitial voluntary transactions.

And a hundred bucks plus food for hanging out for 24 hours is a good deal when that is what you were going to do for free that day anyway.

Re: Bumvertising
 

[ QUOTE ]
Sounds fine to me, I think you might draw the line here but that's just me.

On a serious note exploitation when both parties are voluntarily participating is somewhat of an oxymoron.

[/ QUOTE ]Actually that story seemed fine to me. In that the bum offered his service. I don't believe that the story really happened. Voluntarily participating is an overrated idea. Although it's clear that forcing people into actions that are not what they want is generally bad. There are of course exceptions that we as a society determine. Say stoping a jonestown type suicede pack. Probably not a good example since ACist are found of drinking the kool aid. Secondly voluntarily participation isn't always an indication that parties involved are free of exploitation. Very good conmen and salesmen use influence to get someone to voluntarily consent to exploitation. I'm not even sure what the oxymoron label is suppose to accomplish. Jumbo shrimp, are really big for shrimp.

Re: Bumvertising
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
An exception of the type I'm advocating to minimum wage laws, was recently done by a ps3 reseller. Link to paying homeless to stand in line.. Ethical or exploitation?

From the article
"We thought we could lend them a hand, throw them a few bucks, and at the same time make a little something off of it," he said.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems fine to me. Of course everything depends on ones definition of exploitation. A hundred bucks a day, cash seems like a pretty good deal to me for a homeless person. I would venture to guess that the stores would be the one's to have a problem with it if the homeless present as unkept, and especially if they smell.

[/ QUOTE ] Hundred bucks/24hr plus food. It's obviously not gonna solve homelessness, but I think the idea has merit. If the stores do start to complain about unkempt and smelly people in front of there store, would that provide a incentive for the homeless to clean up? That would be a good thing, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am all for people hiring homeless people. There are homeless who will take day labor jobs when they would not want to go through the hoops necessary to get a 'permanent' job. Plus they get some dignity in the process and this may lead to them being more likely to consider/seek permanent employment in the future.

There are homeless people who go to the day labor sites and work on a day by day basis. There are also people who come by homeless shelters in pick up trucks looking to hire homeless for day labor to work at their house doing yardwork or whatever. I'm all for mutually benefitial voluntary transactions.

And a hundred bucks plus food for hanging out for 24 hours is a good deal when that is what you were going to do for free that day anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]I'm don't believe that I'm convinced that minimum wage laws should be thrown out completely. I would guesstimate that the day to day jobs that aren't meant to be a substitute for a 'permanent' job should get on the list. I'm not convinced of my own arguement in deciding where to place the line, I am perpared to make concessions that are obviously placed in the wrong category.

I do enjoy those suprising moments of agreement.

Re: Bumvertising
 

[ QUOTE ]
Actually that story seemed fine to me. In that the bum offered his service. I don't believe that the story really happened.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it's fine to, just wanted a way to work that thread into this one. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
[ QUOTE ]
Voluntarily participating is an overrated idea.

[/ QUOTE ]
how so?
[ QUOTE ]
There are of course exceptions that we as a society determine.

[/ QUOTE ]
society doesn't determine exemptions, people do.
[ QUOTE ]
stoping a jonestown type suicede pack. Probably not a good example since ACist are found of drinking the kool aid.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're right It's not a good example, but that's because I've never heard of a jonestown type suicide pack.
[ QUOTE ]
Secondly voluntarily participation isn't always an indication that parties involved are free of exploitation.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's an indication that the person participating is doing so because he believes it is +EV for him to do so. If the other participant doesn't welch on his side, and each party get's what is agreed upon, how can it be correct to say one side exploited the other?
[ QUOTE ]
Very good conmen and salesmen use influence to get someone to voluntarily consent to exploitation.

[/ QUOTE ]
Conmen are another story, and a case by case thing. Did the conmen welch on his side, or did he just trick the other person within the agreement?
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not even sure what the oxymoron label is suppose to accomplish. Jumbo shrimp, are really big for shrimp.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't like it either. I'll say the two conditions (voluntary participation and exploitation) are mutually exclusive when both parties hold up their side of the agreement.

Re: Bumvertising
 

[ QUOTE ]
society doesn't determine exemptions, people do.

[/ QUOTE ] What determines language? If you want to get into this semantic arguement I might as well take this one further and say the people don't determine exemptions genes and memes do.

[ QUOTE ]

You're right It's not a good example, but that's because I've never heard of a jonestown type suicide pack.

[/ QUOTE ]
Jonestown
"Jonestown was the communal settlement made in northwestern Guyana by the Peoples Temple, a cult from California. The cult leader, Jim Jones, for whom Jonestown was named, founded it in the mid-1970s, "

"Jim Jones called a meeting under the pavilion as night fell. It was another “white night,” which had been rehearsed before, but this time, Doctor Laurence Schacht, Nurse Annie Moore, and others mixed cyanide and Valium into a metal vat full of grape Flavor Aid. It was extremely effective, causing death within about five minutes"

[ QUOTE ]
It's an indication that the person participating is doing so because he believes it is +EV for him to do so. If the other participant doesn't welch on his side, and each party get's what is agreed upon, how can it be correct to say one side exploited the other?
Conmen are another story, and a case by case thing. Did the conmen welch on his side, or did he just trick the other person within the agreement?

[/ QUOTE ] Conmen are not another story, very good conmen don't need to welch on the deal or use fraud. Trick is a nice way to put it.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't like it either. I'll say the two conditions (voluntary participation and exploitation) are mutually exclusive when both parties hold up their side of the agreement.

[/ QUOTE ]

From dictionary.com "1. use or utilization, esp. for profit: the exploitation of newly discovered oil fields.
2. selfish utilization: He got ahead through the exploitation of his friends.
3. the combined, often varied, use of public-relations and advertising techniques to promote a person, movie, product, etc."

"1. to permit, approve, or agree; comply or yield (often fol. by to or an infinitive): He consented to the proposal. We asked her permission, and she consented.
2. Archaic. to agree in sentiment, opinion, etc.; be in harmony."
Explotative Consent: Permited, approved, or agreed to be used for profit.

Re: Bumvertising
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't like it either. I'll say the two conditions (voluntary participation and exploitation) are mutually exclusive when both parties hold up their side of the agreement.

[/ QUOTE ]

The defintion of the word exploited is problematic. It can be defined as "to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage". Which begs, how can any voluntary contract not be fair? I suppose you could say that if two parties reach an agreement, they deem it to be fair, services = worth the payment.

But if I was dying in the Sahara after a plane crash, and you came by with your camel, and charged me my life savings for a ride, I'd still feel exploited by the textbook definition.