Your post introduces a thoughtful definition of exploitation, but I don’t think narrowing the definition is necessary. The common understanding — say “gaining disproportionate benefit from someone’s work because their alternatives are poor” or so — is already clear and widely accepted. The real confusion lies in how exploitation can coexist with voluntary, mutually beneficial trade. This coexistence is entirely natural and doesn’t require resolution — they are simply two different questions. Yet neither Econ 101 nor its critics seem to recognize this.
Econ 101 focuses entirely on the mutual benefit of trade, treating it as a clear win-win, and dismisses concerns about exploitation as irrelevant. Critics, by contrast, are so appalled by the exploitative aspect of such relationships that they often deny the mutual benefit altogether. Both sides fail to see that trade can improve lives while still being exploitative. These are not contradictions; they are two truths operating simultaneously.
For (stylized) example, when rich countries (or thus their companies) offshore to places like Bangladesh or earlier South Korea, they often offer wages that are slightly better than local alternatives — a clear improvement for workers. However, those same companies leverage their stronger bargaining position to offer the bare minimum necessary to secure labor, stopping far short of providing what might be considered fair compensation. This is both a win-win in economic terms and exploitative in a moral sense. Recognizing this duality doesn’t require redefining exploitation — it simply requires acknowledging it.
This misunderstanding leads to counterproductive responses. Economists too quickly dismiss concerns about exploitation, while critics focus on measures like boycotts or buying expensive domestic products, which may (net) harm poor offshore workers. I think also Will MacAskill noted in Doing Good Better this issue, and that the elephant in the room is that the rich should help the poor independently of the question of the labor exchange itself, i.e. that the overwhelming moral point is that, if we care, we should simply donate some of our resources.
Exploitation isn’t about minor adjustments to working conditions or wages. It’s about recognizing how voluntary trade, while beneficial, can still be exploitative if the party with the excessively limited outside options has to put in unjustifiably much while gaining unjustifiably little. This applies to sweatshop factories just as much as to surrogate mother-ship or mineral resource mining—and maybe to Bob in your example, independently of they phone call details.
I think we agree on at least one of the main points thus.
Regarding
I did not mean to invoke a particularly heavy philosophical absolutist ‘ought’ or anything like that, with my “should”. It was instead simply a sloppy shortcut—and you’re right to call that out—to say the banal: the rich considering whether she’s exploiting the poor and/or whether it’s a win win, might want to consider—what tends to be surprisingly often overseen—that the exploitation vs. beneficial trade may have no easily satisfying solution as long as she keeps the bulk of her riches to herself vis a vis the sheer poverty of her potential poor interlocutant.
But with regards to having to (I add the emphasis):
I think there’s not much to update. “Exploitation” is a shortcut for a particular, negative feeling we humans tend to naturally get from certain type of situation, and as I tried to explain, it is a rather simple thing. We cannot just define that general aversion away just to square everything we like in a simple way. ‘Exploitation’ simply is exploitation even if it is (e.g. slightly) better for the poor than one other unfair counterfactual (non-exploitation without sharing the unfairly* distributed riches), nothing can change that. Only bulk sharing of our resources may lead to a situation we may wholeheartedly embrace with regards to (i) exploitation and (ii) economics. So if we’re not willing to bite the bullet of bulk-sharing of resources, we’re stuck with either being unhappy about exploitation or about foregoing gains of trade (unless we’ve imbibed econ 101 so strongly that we’ve grown insensitive to ‘exploitation’ at least as long as we don’t use simple thought experiments to remind ourselves how exploitative even some win-win trades can be).
*Before you red-flag ‘unfair’ as well: Again, I’m simply referring to the way people tend to perceive things, on average or so.