No, not really. If the bosses and investors are taking the surplus value, defined as the gap between wages+capital costs and actual revenues, then the worker is exploited.
That is technically correct (the best kind of correct).
Just as I exploit electricity to provide light in my house, or exploit Exxon/Mobil when I derive $5 of utility from a gallon of gas that I swindled them into selling me for $2.50 or exploit Apple when I'd be willing to pay 50% more (or more) for my Macbook than they actually charge, because I use it to make money.
As applied to labor, "exploited" generally means something much stronger than "employed to a productive end".
The market in this case is being kept artificially inefficient to benefit corporations to the direct detriment of foreign workers and indirect detriment of local workers.
It's technically correct if you are a Marxist as Marx used the term that way. Otherwise the dictionary has "The action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work."
I agree with you (at least assume strongly that I do), but I couldn't find a dictionary with that as the first definition. Most of the first definitions were more along the lines of "make full use of and derive benefit from (a resource)", making GP technically correct.
No, not really. If the bosses and investors are taking the surplus value, defined as the gap between wages+capital costs and actual revenues, then the worker is exploited.