2 ms·
It's an interesting viewpoint, and consistent with a pure free market theory of labor I guess. But, other viewpoints might well be adopted when it comes to lab
by HillaryBriss 11y ago
It's an interesting viewpoint, and consistent with a pure free market theory of labor I guess.
But, other viewpoints might well be adopted when it comes to labor.
The government does constrain companies in other domains. Companies are subjected to pollution laws, tax laws, building codes/regulations/approvals, higher utility rates, incorporation fees, and industry specific rules (look at pharmaceutical companies and health insurers).
But, if the government requires companies to commit to training and giving hiring preference to the existing local employee base over people from outside the country (people who can't and don't vote in US elections) -- is that indefensible?
- saint_fiasco 11y agoI'm sure it's defensible. In a free country you can defend anything you want. But it certainly seems unfair because it makes a feedback loop that keeps people who are in most need of jobs from getting those jobs, even in the hypothetical case where they are more cheap, more competent, or at least less incompetent than they are cheap.
- HillaryBriss 11y agoThen it looks like the components of proper job allocation are competency and need, subject to whatever regulations (if any) a democratically elected government imposes. It's not hard to imagine situations where someone who is the most competent person for a job would not get the job because someone who needs the job more should get it. And, come to think of it, the government would probably be involved in the definition of "need" too. So that's a new regulation I guess. Elected lawmakers would be subjected to the will of the voters on that issue too.