Is it okay to exploit someone in the short term if you leave

There's a few things that matter from an ethical standpoint
>Are they an adult
>Are they sane
>Is it reasonable to assume they understand the situation

Also, these two part captchas are really getting annoying

>>1801225
It's not okay if they're going to be well off in the long-term anyway because who are you to judge what's better off, more money? What if the amount is insignificant to them? More friends? What if they'd be happier with less friends?

>>1801225
The answer is yes regardless of the circumstances in >>1801229.

>>1801229

Check
Check
Check

>>1801231

Moving someone from a third world country where entrenched social hierarchies insure a low quality of life to a first world country where they can enjoy a first world quality of life and the opportunity for advancement.

What if they become cognizant of the exploitation and walk away before the net gain over the long term manifests?

>>1801236

They are fully aware of the exploitation upfront. If they walk away before their own long term gain manifests then they return to even worse circumstances than the initial exploitation.

>>1801225
>Is that even exploitation at that point?
no.
exploitation has to be unfair by definition.

>>1801225
Legally? Yes, as long as you aren't breaking any laws.

Morally? That's subjective. Up to you.

Then I agree with >>1801242

You can't guarantee that payoff.
You are effectively trapping them in those working conditions.

>>1801253

The payoff is guaranteed at the three year mark. If they leave early the payoff is rendered null because it's an all or nothing thing. They know this upfront.

They aren't trapped, per se, in those working conditions, but if they leave early they have sunk in a great deal of time and effort for no reward.

>>1801273
Then it's a gamble of whether they can hang or not. A risk. A bet.

Slimy and unfair.

>>1801281

Slimy and unfair. But let's say that the reward was an increase in annual income that tacked on at least two zeroes to their annual income. Consequently one would go from poverty to great wealth.

It is still a gamble. Would not advise anyone to do it.

Something outside of those shitty working conditions (like a death in the family) could force them to quit and they'd get screwed.

>>1801225
The bricks make it look like she's peeing

>>1801285

Something like a death in the family is something that could be worked around. The inherent working conditions could not be.

Reminds me a lot of how some of those porn productions operate. They only pay if they get the footage they want. If there can't survive because her asshole and mouth are being torn apart while getting slapped in the face and punched in the stomach and farted on then she's shit out of luck.

Expectations will never align 100% with the job description, so this model fails there. Sounds like a legal ticking time bomb.

>>1801310

Legally it's all in the white. Ethically it's murky. Financially it's pure profit for the person running it. For the person being exploited short term for massive long term gains it's basically a gamble.

>>1801319
Well then I'd shelve that next to the pyramid and ponzi schemes.

>>1801328

It is a much lighter shade of gray than those though.

>>1801339
But a shade of grey none the less.

>>1801229
Those are legal elements, not ethics.

>>1801340

Oh yes. But so unethical as to be mothballed at face?

>>1801344
I can't think of application where this business model would seem socially acceptable.

>>1801356

It would not be socially acceptable, but neither are a great many business models when rendered bare of their superficial trappings. But ethics is my concern here.

Suppose that one pre-screened an employee who was more likely to pass through the gauntlet of working conditions and set aside some partial contingency in case of early egress. Would this be more acceptable?

Bump. I don't just want a balm for my ethics, I want to be told if I should scrap the idea outright or if the idea is ethically salvageable.

>>1801501
>Asking 4chan about ethics
Just go and exploit the god damn brown people, OP

>>1801910

Inadequate.

File: 345435435.png (5KB, 278x100px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 278x100px

>>1801225
you mean something similar to pick related?
long to benefit would be to never trust people in business.

>>1802376

Not quite. It doesn't create a pyramid of exploitation, just a single circumstance of exploitation that lasts for a finite period.

>>1801293
You wish pajeet, you wish

Op, are you making a labor camp?

>>1802383
Just tell us the job

>>1802903

Nope.

>>1802932

Several things, now that I think about it, fit this description. They all involve an all or nothing transformation in state though.

-Go to college and come out with a bachelor's otherwise you are a drop out
-Join the military and come out with an honorable discharge or it is forever a black spot instead of a boon

The particular business model that I am thinking of, however, basically involves exploiting the shit out of people needing a visa in a legal but ethically murky fashion.

>>1803262
those are two very profitable ventures so I would suggest doing it

>>1801225
Exploitation is a dirty word.

As a business owner you should never exploit anyone.
You pay someone for labour they deliver.

Exploitation is refusing to pay them for their skills.

This is what is destroying capitalism as a model. The model only works if people have honour and care about whatever product they are creating.

If you are a cowboy just profiteering from people's trust you are just a criminal. Its really that simple.