In general your statement is wrong. How do we define labor value? Suggest labor value = market price than you forget that in this market prices are the capitalist´s costs for insurance, rent etc. Furthermore there is the profit of the capitalist which is essentially the cost the capitalist takes for him to provide capital, which create jobs. That means the capitalist´s profit is the price for being employed.
Think about the wage-to-market price-gap as a price for distributing/providing capital. Take this every day example how people are being payed for distributing goods: You buy a chocolate bar at a retail shop. You pay the retailer for distributing the chocolate bar, because the wholesaler wants you to buy a minimum of 100 chocolate bars.
So workers are only being exploited if the wages are too low compared to market prices. If wages are too low respectively price for being employed too high depends on the situation. Manchester capitalism probably, poor countries probably. However, we have to address the problem of too high labour supply as well in these situations.
You might argue that the price for being employed is actually exploitation, but to get rid of that means to either live in a socialist society or that literally everyone works as an independent. The letter won´t work, because you need the big manufacturies in order to produce a high amount of goods which makes everyone more wealthy. The first will not lead to anything, because in capitalism the workers are able to save money, profit from deflationary tendencies of mass production and climb up the social hierarchy while in socialism the social hierarchy is fixed and manufacturies cannot react dynamically to changes in demand. Capitalism is only bad for workers if wages are too low, socialism is always bad for workers.
Furthermore why should everything have a price but being employed shouldn´t? Ultimately offering jobs is a service and we pay all kinds of services without complaining about being exploited.
Yes I agree that everything has a price (and needs to have) but I don't see the logical difference between poor and rich countries in terms of exploitation.
There is no logical difference. The differences between rich and poor countries are education, birth rates, property rights and their impact on wages.
In my original post I wanted to point out that the relationship between workers and capitalists is called exploitation, although we have similar patterns with other business relationships where nobody talks about exploitation.
Suggest an independent haircutter and you as a customer in terms of services. The haicutter cuts your hair. Your profit is a nice haircut, the haircutter makes a monetary profit. A capitalist hires a worker. The worker´s benefit is an income, the capitalist´s benefit is a monetary profit.