The $15 is external too. OpenAI should have paid $15/hr for the work, not exploited them by paying only $2/hr.
Why is it exploitative? Because the money (OpenAI, "Capital") can move across borders easily to get cheaper costs, but labor cannot move across borders easily to get higher salaries, so labor is forced to accept a lower wage. If that asymmetry was not there and both labor and capital had similar freedom AND ease of movement, then it would not have been exploitative.
And I believe this is why the EU enshrines freedom-of-movement as one of its basic principles along with a common market. Otherwise capital in a common market would be easily able to move and exploit labor in various regions, because labor wouldn't have been able to move. But the freedom-of-movement right reduces that asymmetry.
It doesn't completely eliminate the asymmetry because it's still hard to move to a different language and community, but at least there's no artificial barrier like a border, and money also has the same barriers around language and not being trusted automatically in a different community.
> If they have to pay 15$ they will hire better educated, closer geographically and culturally workers.
1. For a minimum wage temporary job that doesn't need better educated, geographically or culturally closer workers? And for which they've already shown that they are willing to hire people outside North America?
2. When there is a large shortage of workers in their local continent? [1]
> the ideological manifest that is only tangentially related to the topic and I don't want to discuss it here for several reasons.
Core EU regulations against the exploitation of workers and the reasons behind them are an "ideological manifest" [sic] ?
> Shoulda, woulda, coulda.
That attitude is the reason bad people get away with exploiting labor, and why starving people exist.
I think I'm finished with this conversation. I don't believe you are having this discussion in good faith. Good luck for your future.
The reality being that labor in place A is different than in place B for many reasons unrelated to exploitation. 2$ in Kenya is terrible exploitation?? How about 4$ in EU?
You name EU as a great example.
Do you realize there are millions of legally employed EU citizens working for 4$/hr? And more working for less.
just Google minimum salary in Poland or Romania and Google how many people make that minimum.
Why a cleaning lady in Munich makes 5 times as much as cleaning lady in rural Poland?
If you don't understand why then why do you think you understand Kenyan situation?
What's your basis for this claim? Or is it simply that is how it is structured in your hypothetical without regard to reality?
> I totally agree that 15$ would be likely better for them. But the 15$ isn't rightfully theirs.
Why do you think the $15 is not rightfully theirs? They did the work, didn't they?