3 ms·

The article is targeted at a Canadian audience, and more specifically policy-makers. I presume that the Canadian government has more control over regulation of

The article is targeted at a Canadian audience, and more specifically policy-makers. I presume that the Canadian government has more control over regulation of these matters than what has happened in SF. On your hypothesis of a general trend not specific to the present situation, outside of the US, your assumption (4) does not hold, and you've missed out on a reasonable assumption that a country with a majority or significant minority of unspecialized workers in a country with a democratic process can, by virtue of mass, encourage their government to regulate businesses that prey on them. As such, I'd say that unspecialized workers are not, in general, necessarily doomed to exploitation. edit: While I'd say that this alternative conclusion is pretty flimsy as well, I'd like to point out that while the parent poster's conclusions follow from their premises, the premises themselves warrant further investigation. In addition, an investigation needs to be made to better understand what is feasible, especially wrt the political dimension (which I found the parent poster's argument to be lacking in), before we can come to a better understanding of whether unspecialized workers are doomed to exploitation.

threatofrain 11y ago
I don't know that much about Canada, but I can accept that giving up assumption (4) is worth exploring, and that Canadians may have substantially less family and individual debt. This should increase the ability of Canadian workers to walk away from a deal, as their need is not as high. However, I would have trouble giving up assumptions (1), (2), and (3) because I think they fairly apply to Canada. While Canada supplies for college and medicine, if the government doesn't supply shelter, food, and transportation, that provides the imperative to work. This means a steady supply of people who cannot easily refuse a job offer, even if it skates by the bare minimum of the law. If you have a financial need to work, and others are willing to take your position, then it's hard to walk away as leverage. I also have trouble dropping the assumption that advantage begets advantage, and that disadvantage begets disadvantage. I think that one is inherent to a generally free market. I didn't include a political factor, and that's a gap that ought be plugged, but the only counter-balancing force I can think of are union-protection laws and progressive taxes, which many nations already have. I think these are good but partial remedies. Fixing industry abuses ad-hoc is a catch-up game where industry will always be ahead.

threatofrain 11y ago

I don't know that much about Canada, but I can accept that giving up assumption (4) is worth exploring, and that Canadians may have substantially less family and individual debt. This should increase the ability of Canadian workers to walk away from a deal, as their need is not as high. However, I would have trouble giving up assumptions (1), (2), and (3) because I think they fairly apply to Canada. While Canada supplies for college and medicine, if the government doesn't supply shelter, food, and transportation, that provides the imperative to work. This means a steady supply of people who cannot easily refuse a job offer, even if it skates by the bare minimum of the law. If you have a financial need to work, and others are willing to take your position, then it's hard to walk away as leverage. I also have trouble dropping the assumption that advantage begets advantage, and that disadvantage begets disadvantage. I think that one is inherent to a generally free market. I didn't include a political factor, and that's a gap that ought be plugged, but the only counter-balancing force I can think of are union-protection laws and progressive taxes, which many nations already have. I think these are good but partial remedies. Fixing industry abuses ad-hoc is a catch-up game where industry will always be ahead.