4 ms·

Both your proposals seem likely to result in increased automation, thereby reducing overall employment. To be clear, I'm not saying it's a good thing that some

by Alex63 8y ago

Both your proposals seem likely to result in increased automation, thereby reducing overall employment. To be clear, I'm not saying it's a good thing that some people feel they have to work a 12+ hour day, but isn't it better that they have that choice than that their job is automated out of existence? Also, if you mandate higher costs for suppliers (through limited hours and minimum wages) then you will create incentives for people to buy from suppliers that aren't subject to those regulations (i.e., foreign suppliers). You can try to prevent that through tariffs and duties, but they have their own problems.

sergiosgc 8y ago
> Both your proposals seem likely to result in increased automation, thereby reducing overall employment. To be clear, I'm not saying it's a good thing that some people feel they have to work a 12+ hour day, but isn't it better that they have that choice than that their job is automated out of existence? That is not a bug, it is a feature. I prefer to never have people in medieval working conditions. Pushing society to evolve past that need is a good thing. So far, we have been able to reallocate jobs so that automation does not cause widespread unemployment. When[1] that is no longer the case, we can as a society find another stable working model. [1] It is possible that automation is already exceeding society's "job reallocation rate". It is still difficult to tell, but something to be vigilant about. > Also, if you mandate higher costs for suppliers (through limited hours and minimum wages) then you will create incentives for people to buy from suppliers that aren't subject to those regulations (i.e., foreign suppliers). You can try to prevent that through tariffs and duties, but they have their own problems. You are describing one of the large flaws of globalization, which we should, as a society, have already tackled. It is not acceptable, for example, that Chinese or Indian workers get poisoned by producing chemicals without proper hazard protection in place. That it is possible to circumvent regulation is not a justification to abolish regulation. It is a justification to close the circumvention loopholes.
- Alex63 8y ago
  Hmmm. Lots to unpack here, but I'll focus on your comments about globalization. I suppose you could implement regulations to prohibit importation of goods/services from jurisdictions that don't have acceptable standards in place. By doing so, you would probably destroy the economies of India and China. Without a cost advantage (due to lower labour and environmental standards), the shipping costs would pretty much ensure that you would always buy from local suppliers. Wouldn't the destruction of emerging economies result in more victims than would poor labour/environmental standards?
krapp 8y ago
>but isn't it better that they have that choice than that their job is automated out of existence? Their job is going to be automated out of existence anyway, so the choice is between being paid less, or being paid more, until it is.

by Alex63 8y ago

sergiosgc 8y ago

> Both your proposals seem likely to result in increased automation, thereby reducing overall employment. To be clear, I'm not saying it's a good thing that some people feel they have to work a 12+ hour day, but isn't it better that they have that choice than that their job is automated out of existence? That is not a bug, it is a feature. I prefer to never have people in medieval working conditions. Pushing society to evolve past that need is a good thing. So far, we have been able to reallocate jobs so that automation does not cause widespread unemployment. When[1] that is no longer the case, we can as a society find another stable working model. [1] It is possible that automation is already exceeding society's "job reallocation rate". It is still difficult to tell, but something to be vigilant about. > Also, if you mandate higher costs for suppliers (through limited hours and minimum wages) then you will create incentives for people to buy from suppliers that aren't subject to those regulations (i.e., foreign suppliers). You can try to prevent that through tariffs and duties, but they have their own problems. You are describing one of the large flaws of globalization, which we should, as a society, have already tackled. It is not acceptable, for example, that Chinese or Indian workers get poisoned by producing chemicals without proper hazard protection in place. That it is possible to circumvent regulation is not a justification to abolish regulation. It is a justification to close the circumvention loopholes.

Alex63 8y ago
Hmmm. Lots to unpack here, but I'll focus on your comments about globalization. I suppose you could implement regulations to prohibit importation of goods/services from jurisdictions that don't have acceptable standards in place. By doing so, you would probably destroy the economies of India and China. Without a cost advantage (due to lower labour and environmental standards), the shipping costs would pretty much ensure that you would always buy from local suppliers. Wouldn't the destruction of emerging economies result in more victims than would poor labour/environmental standards?

krapp 8y ago

>but isn't it better that they have that choice than that their job is automated out of existence? Their job is going to be automated out of existence anyway, so the choice is between being paid less, or being paid more, until it is.