6 ms·

Short Uber etc. specific point: "Uber's market is not a free market". But more broadly… it depends whether someone is a dogmatic free-marketer fundamentalist o

Short Uber etc. specific point: "Uber's market is not a free market". But more broadly… it depends whether someone is a dogmatic free-marketer fundamentalist or just someone who was swayed by the arguments from that dogma. For the fundamentalists, forget it. For those actually open-minded, take the scientific argument. Start with confirming agreement that you're both pro-social instead of anti-social (you both actually want what maximizes overall flourishing and well-being and don't prioritize some other value or dogma). Then get them to acknowledge that the free-market argument is a model that needs to be backed by empirical evidence to be accepted as actually describing reality instead of being just an untested hypothesis. If you can get them to thus at least accept that understanding the complex factors in play is daunting and we can't just take an elementary principle and blindly apply it to any situation conclusively… well, then you can have a discussion with them over the next couple years about behavioral economics, psychology, culture, power… My general go-to is emphasizing that employer power comes largely from being organized. It's not like each interviewer completely makes their own decision about hiring anyone with no rules or restrictions from the company (unless the interviewer is a sole-proprietor themselves hiring one other employee or contractor). The power in the corporation comes specifically from the organized structure of the company. The individuals on the other side of a contract are divided. They use things like unions and government to have power in solidarity, and without that, they can never have comparable power in negotiations. So, either we accept the impulse for workers to build organizations or use government for solidarity or we insist that companies shouldn't exist either and need to just be free-market masses of independent actors too or we drop the pretense that we're describing some sort of equal-enough, voluntary free-market negotiation. Good luck!

autokad 8y ago
> "dogma" You have a dogma yourself. that's ok, just be aware that you have one, and are espousing one. > "Then get them to acknowledge that the free-market argument is a model that needs to be backed by empirical evidence to be accepted as actually describing reality instead of being just an untested hypothesis." The free market is one of the most tested ideas out there. > "They use things like unions and government to have power in solidarity, and without that, they can never have comparable power in negotiations." law is really important for most forms of economic systems to work. I think the fact that social media and perception drivings things so much could have a positive outcome in this area. Companies should see the welfare of their employees as an important role in making the world 'better'. I see a lot of tech companies saying they want to make the world a better place, yet for instance, they have abysmal 401k matching plans. melinials are not saving enough for retirement, and that bad behavior in tech is not helping the future crisis. I wish a tech company would decide to be a true leader on this
- nickthemagicman 8y ago
  It's ironic. The free market requires a form of socialism to actually work. Education, Infrastructure, Military, etc. All socialistic enterprises funded by the general fund. Free enterprise does not work without a socialistic framework to support it. For a pure unregulated free market see Ethiopia.
  - conanbatt 8y ago
    > It's ironic. The free market requires a form of socialism to actually work. Its not ironic, the requirement is called rule of law, and its a foundational stone from the philosophers that brought that royalty and religion from the State. The recognition of private property has been recognized as a necessity from the get go in classical philosophy and economics.
    - neilwilson 8y ago
      It needs more than that if you have a labour market based around money and full time jobs. Odd as it may sound, full time jobs are essentially what cause involuntary unemployment because you are not market testing your position on a daily basis. But of course you need full time jobs to have any sort of efficiency in a business using labour - and to have any stability in the customer product market where it uses debt (housing for example) or fixed pricing rather than auctions. The gig economy is an attempt to deskill working to such an extent that individuals can be hired and fired on a daily basis - which would correct for involuntary unemployment if everybody is hired and fired on that basis and everything is bought and sold at auction.
      - conanbatt 8y ago
        An interesting expose, though I dont know how this actually reinforces the idea that free markets need socialized services to survive (other than the aforementioned private property, life and liberty). I want to answer any way because its interesting tho! > Odd as it may sound, full time jobs are essentially what cause involuntary unemployment because you are not market testing your position on a daily basis. Sure, it might decrease labor flexibility which can increase unemployment, but how big an effect can that actually be? And what is the proposed solution to fix that if its an actual problem? > The gig economy is an attempt to deskill... The gig economy is not de-skilling workers, its consuming the labor of unskilled workers because the price-ratio works. Those very same companies pay 6 figure salaries to a lot of people, that provide utility to the company as well. Neither by design, or in theory, do companies increase their profits by reducing the skill of their labor, they do it by increasing their productivity. I see a tenuous relationship with the reserve army concept of Marx trying to be used here, but I'm not buying it.

autokad 8y ago

> "dogma" You have a dogma yourself. that's ok, just be aware that you have one, and are espousing one. > "Then get them to acknowledge that the free-market argument is a model that needs to be backed by empirical evidence to be accepted as actually describing reality instead of being just an untested hypothesis." The free market is one of the most tested ideas out there. > "They use things like unions and government to have power in solidarity, and without that, they can never have comparable power in negotiations." law is really important for most forms of economic systems to work. I think the fact that social media and perception drivings things so much could have a positive outcome in this area. Companies should see the welfare of their employees as an important role in making the world 'better'. I see a lot of tech companies saying they want to make the world a better place, yet for instance, they have abysmal 401k matching plans. melinials are not saving enough for retirement, and that bad behavior in tech is not helping the future crisis. I wish a tech company would decide to be a true leader on this

nickthemagicman 8y ago
It's ironic. The free market requires a form of socialism to actually work. Education, Infrastructure, Military, etc. All socialistic enterprises funded by the general fund. Free enterprise does not work without a socialistic framework to support it. For a pure unregulated free market see Ethiopia.
- conanbatt 8y ago
  > It's ironic. The free market requires a form of socialism to actually work. Its not ironic, the requirement is called rule of law, and its a foundational stone from the philosophers that brought that royalty and religion from the State. The recognition of private property has been recognized as a necessity from the get go in classical philosophy and economics.
  - neilwilson 8y ago
    It needs more than that if you have a labour market based around money and full time jobs. Odd as it may sound, full time jobs are essentially what cause involuntary unemployment because you are not market testing your position on a daily basis. But of course you need full time jobs to have any sort of efficiency in a business using labour - and to have any stability in the customer product market where it uses debt (housing for example) or fixed pricing rather than auctions. The gig economy is an attempt to deskill working to such an extent that individuals can be hired and fired on a daily basis - which would correct for involuntary unemployment if everybody is hired and fired on that basis and everything is bought and sold at auction.
    - conanbatt 8y ago
      An interesting expose, though I dont know how this actually reinforces the idea that free markets need socialized services to survive (other than the aforementioned private property, life and liberty). I want to answer any way because its interesting tho! > Odd as it may sound, full time jobs are essentially what cause involuntary unemployment because you are not market testing your position on a daily basis. Sure, it might decrease labor flexibility which can increase unemployment, but how big an effect can that actually be? And what is the proposed solution to fix that if its an actual problem? > The gig economy is an attempt to deskill... The gig economy is not de-skilling workers, its consuming the labor of unskilled workers because the price-ratio works. Those very same companies pay 6 figure salaries to a lot of people, that provide utility to the company as well. Neither by design, or in theory, do companies increase their profits by reducing the skill of their labor, they do it by increasing their productivity. I see a tenuous relationship with the reserve army concept of Marx trying to be used here, but I'm not buying it.