Labor share of income in GDP: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LABSHPUSA156NRUG

It’s over 50% so on average this is not true. But it nearly became true in 2008; turns out the Great Recession was bad. The trend after that is somewhat positive.

Though a problem with “exploited” is it’s zero sum thinking and doesn’t include customer surplus. If you get life saving surgery, you could say it has infinite value to you. If the surgeon asks for an infinite price, they’re exploiting you. If they don't, since you are therefore getting infinite unpaid value, are you exploiting them?

nb the people in this article are certainly being exploited, this is covered in theory under “monopsony”…

Who said that the exploited labor had to be in your country?

Does everyone have collective amnesia about Nike’s SE Asian sweatshops, or the hazardous working conditions in Bangladeshi garment factories that manufacture the most of our cheap fashion (the most glaring example being the Tazreen Fashion factory fire [0]).

Someone, somewhere is getting screwed out of fair wages for the corporation to make its profits.

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Dhaka_garment_factory_fir...

It's convenient to forget them, so people forget them.

You can exploit workers without receiving 51% of the resulting income.

Also, that figure is before you consider the vast tax advantages of investing.

>"It’s over 50% so on average this is not true."

Curious on what basis bigger than 50% share of income constitutes non-exploitation? For example if there is one owner and 1000 employees.