4 ms·

Labor regulations are counterproductive because by making firing harder they make hiring harder.

andy_ppp 10y ago
I do think it's a balancing act though - we are incredibly lucky in tech where we can have infinite flexibility in what we do. If you are working at Walmart I actually think reasonable protections should be provided.
- witty_username 10y ago
  Why? "Reasonable" protections unduly impose costs on companies and may cause disemployment effects. Now I know you'll say "companies are evil", but shareholders and banks loan to companies. When companies make profit some people make a profit. If you have noble goals of helping the poor, a NIT (negative income tax) which transfers money to the poor would be more efficient.
  - andy_ppp 10y ago
    Sure, protect the disadvantaged is my only goal - it's definitely worth trying your idea to do it.
crpatino 10y ago
By the same logic, medical schools are counterproductive because by making getting a degree harder make giving healthcare advice harder. Ditto for law schools. If you are going to throw your lot with an employer, you want to be very sure that said employer is willing to go the extra mile to bring you up and see you succeed; and yes, that will be harder that going to work for the first john that waves a $20USD bill in front of your nose. Employment does not make sense otherwise. No regulation, or much relaxed regulation, would be the equivalent of owning a capital intensive company that signs a deal to work exclusively for one customer. No sane investor would want to put more than 5% of their networth there, and only in the case that said investment paid heads and shoulders above the next best option in the market. So why do you expect employees to invest 100% of their time and effort in such a Devil's deal?
- witty_username 10y ago
  > By the same logic, medical schools are counterproductive because by making getting a degree harder make giving healthcare advice harder. Ditto for law schools. They do make healthcare and lawyers more expensive. It is a question of whether the government should force a minimum standard on buyers which removes cheaper sellers that do not conform to the standards. > If you are going to throw your lot with an employer, you want to be very sure that said employer is willing to go the extra mile to bring you up and see you succeed; and yes, that will be harder that going to work for the first john that waves a $20USD bill in front of your nose. That's your opinion and you are free to ask your employer a contract that makes it harder to fire you. What I'm talking about is the government mandating this.
  - crpatino 10y ago
    As a corollary of 2nd Celine Law: Freedom of association is only possible between equals. What I am talking about is that it is good an proper to have employee friendly Labor Laws, because under ordinary circumpstances the asymetry of power between employers and employees is simply too great. The Japan case is simply an excesive case, - more suitable for a medieval society that our current one, - but the contrary of a stupid idea is another stupid idea. US style "employment at will" is the bane of all free people's everywhere. You cannot possibly be concerned with the multiple civic duties of free citizenship if your means of life are held hostage by a plutocrat elite.
    - witty_username 10y ago
      > As a corollary of 2nd Celine Law: Freedom of association is only possible between equals. Why? > What I am talking about is that it is good an proper to have employee friendly Labor Laws, because under ordinary circumpstances the asymetry of power between employers and employees is simply too great. The asymmetry of power between a manager and an employee is not large. The asymmetry of power between a company and an employee is large because a company is composed of much more people than an employee. Employees can negotiate for whatever conditions they want. > You cannot possibly be concerned with the multiple civic duties of free citizenship if your means of life As I said, such labor laws can make employment harder because the company doesn't want to hire the wrong person and be unable to fire that person. > plutocrat elite. Who?

I do think it's a balancing act though - we are incredibly lucky in tech where we can have infinite flexibility in what we do. If you are working at Walmart I actually think reasonable protections should be provided.

witty_username 10y ago
Why? "Reasonable" protections unduly impose costs on companies and may cause disemployment effects. Now I know you'll say "companies are evil", but shareholders and banks loan to companies. When companies make profit some people make a profit. If you have noble goals of helping the poor, a NIT (negative income tax) which transfers money to the poor would be more efficient.
- andy_ppp 10y ago
  Sure, protect the disadvantaged is my only goal - it's definitely worth trying your idea to do it.

crpatino 10y ago

By the same logic, medical schools are counterproductive because by making getting a degree harder make giving healthcare advice harder. Ditto for law schools. If you are going to throw your lot with an employer, you want to be very sure that said employer is willing to go the extra mile to bring you up and see you succeed; and yes, that will be harder that going to work for the first john that waves a $20USD bill in front of your nose. Employment does not make sense otherwise. No regulation, or much relaxed regulation, would be the equivalent of owning a capital intensive company that signs a deal to work exclusively for one customer. No sane investor would want to put more than 5% of their networth there, and only in the case that said investment paid heads and shoulders above the next best option in the market. So why do you expect employees to invest 100% of their time and effort in such a Devil's deal?

witty_username 10y ago
> By the same logic, medical schools are counterproductive because by making getting a degree harder make giving healthcare advice harder. Ditto for law schools. They do make healthcare and lawyers more expensive. It is a question of whether the government should force a minimum standard on buyers which removes cheaper sellers that do not conform to the standards. > If you are going to throw your lot with an employer, you want to be very sure that said employer is willing to go the extra mile to bring you up and see you succeed; and yes, that will be harder that going to work for the first john that waves a $20USD bill in front of your nose. That's your opinion and you are free to ask your employer a contract that makes it harder to fire you. What I'm talking about is the government mandating this.
- crpatino 10y ago
  As a corollary of 2nd Celine Law: Freedom of association is only possible between equals. What I am talking about is that it is good an proper to have employee friendly Labor Laws, because under ordinary circumpstances the asymetry of power between employers and employees is simply too great. The Japan case is simply an excesive case, - more suitable for a medieval society that our current one, - but the contrary of a stupid idea is another stupid idea. US style "employment at will" is the bane of all free people's everywhere. You cannot possibly be concerned with the multiple civic duties of free citizenship if your means of life are held hostage by a plutocrat elite.
  - witty_username 10y ago
    > As a corollary of 2nd Celine Law: Freedom of association is only possible between equals. Why? > What I am talking about is that it is good an proper to have employee friendly Labor Laws, because under ordinary circumpstances the asymetry of power between employers and employees is simply too great. The asymmetry of power between a manager and an employee is not large. The asymmetry of power between a company and an employee is large because a company is composed of much more people than an employee. Employees can negotiate for whatever conditions they want. > You cannot possibly be concerned with the multiple civic duties of free citizenship if your means of life As I said, such labor laws can make employment harder because the company doesn't want to hire the wrong person and be unable to fire that person. > plutocrat elite. Who?