3 ms·

This is why worker protection laws are so important. All big companies will behave sociopathically in order to maximize profits. It's only through government re

This is why worker protection laws are so important. All big companies will behave sociopathically in order to maximize profits. It's only through government regulation that such anti-worker behavior can be limited and controlled.

ploxiln 9y ago
This is why worker protection laws are so dumb. You just can't force other people to give other people money, they'll always find a way not to. Worst case they'll just practically never hire people in your country. So those people are desperate to get into another country without those worker protections, e.g. US or UK or NZ, so they can get a job and make some money. This is happening in France, Italy, Spain, etc.
- TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
  Sounds more like that's a side effect of globalization. When other countries can provide more labor for less cost, it leads to a race to the bottom to see what country can provide the lowest wages, thus decreasing the quality of life for workers. I understand that return on investment is important, but corporate profits are overall higher than they have ever been before. When is enough enough? When should we start to again prioritize the quality of life of our workers? edit: To those downvoting me, could you please explain the flaw in my logic? I don't see what's wrong or inaccurate with either of my comments.
  - arvinjoar 9y ago
    When is enough enough? No-one gets to say. For better or for worse, a race to the bottom is a coordination problem where the incentive is always to be the defecting party. This means that however well-intentioned you are, global capitalism marches on without you, your choice is to jump on the bandwagon or become irrelevant. Politics doesn't matter much, it can only stall the inevitable, usually at great cost.
    - TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
      > When is enough enough? No-one gets to say. Yet we do get to say. A big cause of the political instability in the US is due to increasing inequality and a declining quality of life for much of the country. If such economic forces cause protectionist legislation to be passed, isn't that the people getting a say? Also, the idea that you must jump on the global capitalist bandwagon to remain relevant is odd to me. Is being an economic powerhouse the only factor in a country's relevance?
      - justin_vanw 9y ago
        What political instability in the US? Please define what you mean by instability, the US has been the most stable national government since it was founded, with a big exception of the Civil War of course. Even then, compare it to the governments of any continental European or Asian or African nation that isn't part of the British Commonwealth, and we have had a stable democracy while basically every single non-commonwealth government has gone through collapse, been reformed, and collapsed again in the meantime. I mean it's easy to say 'inequality' as some kind of Marxist trump card that you think automatically ends all possible debate, but meanwhile things in the US are fine. Fine != Perfect, of course, but it is yet to be demonstrated that you can have a socialist/market capitalist welfare state that functions outside of the Nordic countries. Every other attempt at it has been a complete disaster.
        TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
        > What political instability in the US? The election of Trump and the near-election of Sanders. They are signs that a huge chunk of the population is discontent with our political system and with the direction of the country. A history of collapse isn't required for there to be instability in a nation. > it is yet to be demonstrated that you can have a socialist/market capitalist welfare state that functions outside of the Nordic countries. I didn't say that's what we should do to solve the problem, merely stated the fact that worker protection laws are important, then questioned when return on investment should supersede quality of life. A socialist welfare state wasn't involved in the 1930's when inequality declined in the US, which is proof that things can change without such systems. I worry that if we don't do something about the growing discontent among our lower and lower-middle classes, they'll continue electing populist candidates until someone truly dangerous gets elected, and I feel that correcting the inequalities caused by globalization and the strong dollar would be a good place to start.

ploxiln 9y ago

This is why worker protection laws are so dumb. You just can't force other people to give other people money, they'll always find a way not to. Worst case they'll just practically never hire people in your country. So those people are desperate to get into another country without those worker protections, e.g. US or UK or NZ, so they can get a job and make some money. This is happening in France, Italy, Spain, etc.

TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
Sounds more like that's a side effect of globalization. When other countries can provide more labor for less cost, it leads to a race to the bottom to see what country can provide the lowest wages, thus decreasing the quality of life for workers. I understand that return on investment is important, but corporate profits are overall higher than they have ever been before. When is enough enough? When should we start to again prioritize the quality of life of our workers? edit: To those downvoting me, could you please explain the flaw in my logic? I don't see what's wrong or inaccurate with either of my comments.
- arvinjoar 9y ago
  When is enough enough? No-one gets to say. For better or for worse, a race to the bottom is a coordination problem where the incentive is always to be the defecting party. This means that however well-intentioned you are, global capitalism marches on without you, your choice is to jump on the bandwagon or become irrelevant. Politics doesn't matter much, it can only stall the inevitable, usually at great cost.
  - TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
    > When is enough enough? No-one gets to say. Yet we do get to say. A big cause of the political instability in the US is due to increasing inequality and a declining quality of life for much of the country. If such economic forces cause protectionist legislation to be passed, isn't that the people getting a say? Also, the idea that you must jump on the global capitalist bandwagon to remain relevant is odd to me. Is being an economic powerhouse the only factor in a country's relevance?
    - justin_vanw 9y ago
      What political instability in the US? Please define what you mean by instability, the US has been the most stable national government since it was founded, with a big exception of the Civil War of course. Even then, compare it to the governments of any continental European or Asian or African nation that isn't part of the British Commonwealth, and we have had a stable democracy while basically every single non-commonwealth government has gone through collapse, been reformed, and collapsed again in the meantime. I mean it's easy to say 'inequality' as some kind of Marxist trump card that you think automatically ends all possible debate, but meanwhile things in the US are fine. Fine != Perfect, of course, but it is yet to be demonstrated that you can have a socialist/market capitalist welfare state that functions outside of the Nordic countries. Every other attempt at it has been a complete disaster.
      - TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
        > What political instability in the US? The election of Trump and the near-election of Sanders. They are signs that a huge chunk of the population is discontent with our political system and with the direction of the country. A history of collapse isn't required for there to be instability in a nation. > it is yet to be demonstrated that you can have a socialist/market capitalist welfare state that functions outside of the Nordic countries. I didn't say that's what we should do to solve the problem, merely stated the fact that worker protection laws are important, then questioned when return on investment should supersede quality of life. A socialist welfare state wasn't involved in the 1930's when inequality declined in the US, which is proof that things can change without such systems. I worry that if we don't do something about the growing discontent among our lower and lower-middle classes, they'll continue electing populist candidates until someone truly dangerous gets elected, and I feel that correcting the inequalities caused by globalization and the strong dollar would be a good place to start.