6 ms·

> Which is why passing laws against things generally hurts the poor. That's not a reasonable conclusion. Laws against usury protect the poor. Laws against dang

> Which is why passing laws against things generally hurts the poor. That's not a reasonable conclusion. Laws against usury protect the poor. Laws against dangerous workplaces protect the poor. Hell, laws against slavery and debt prisons protect the poor. > Only it hasn't actually forced a solution. But rents sure are high now. They may be high, but it hasn't increased homelessness. Homelessness is barely above a ten year minimum, lower than during the GFC. [1] That's sort of my point, at this stage people just barely get by, which is exactly the sort of situation legislators can ignore. > The unemployed youth in France are not having a good time. Cherry picking, but also not obviously related to the point. Are the unemployed youth in France unemployed due to minimum wage laws? Would they be better off if such laws weren't in place? Citation? > But more to the point, these kinds of laws tend to follow prosperity rather than the other way around. I'm not making an argument for maximising prosperity. A country with one quadrillionaire and everyone else broke would be the most prosperous in the world. I'm making an argument for protecting the poor. [1] https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/2018-AHAR-Part-1.pdf https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/2018-AHAR-P..., page 10

AnthonyMouse 8y ago
> Laws against usury protect the poor. Laws against usury subject the poor to illegal loan sharks who will break their kneecaps for non-payment rather than paying a high interest rate to a payday loan place that will merely ding their credit score and try to reclaim their loan money using the legal process. > Laws against dangerous workplaces protect the poor. Laws against dangerous workplaces protect shareholders from losing their investment when somebody gets hurt and sues the company. And give the company cover because they had their inspection done when somebody gets hurt regardless, so it's more difficult for the poor to sue them after an injury as long as their paperwork is in order. Moreover, the compliance cost for companies that were not operating an unsafe workplace to begin with imposes overhead on small businesses and reduces competition, which can lower wages. It's likely that they don't cause a major harm because there is no good reason to be operating an unsafe workplace regardless of whether there is a law against it, but they're still pretty close to breakeven. > Hell, laws against slavery and debt prisons protect the poor. Laws binding the legislature from instituting slavery or debt prisons, i.e. laws against certain laws, are not really canonical examples here. > That's sort of my point, at this stage people just barely get by, which is exactly the sort of situation legislators can ignore. We made things worse, but only by increasing inequality, not to the point of increasing homelessness. So we should make things even worse, that way when everything is really on fire someone will have to notice? What if we only get even more inequality and malaise? > Are the unemployed youth in France unemployed due to minimum wage laws? Citation? As part of a broad framework of high-overhead labor laws that discourage employers from hiring. https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1264&context=srhonorsprog https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1... > I'm not making an argument for maximising prosperity. A country with one quadrillionaire and everyone else broke would be the most prosperous in the world. I'm making an argument for protecting the poor. The best way to protect the poor is to get them out of poverty. Giving all the money to one quadrillionaire doesn't do that, but neither does binding everyone's hands or making it more expensive for anyone to start a small business.
- sooheon 8y ago
  To steel-man your point, I agree that legislature that amounts to surface level micromanagement is almost always counter productive. I like your macroeconomic approach to these issues. Still, I found your counterexamples here dismissive but unconvincing. Loan sharks and kneecappings are precisely the things we need legislature against. Contract law by itself can't prevent desperate people from signing loan-shark contracts. "No good reason to be operating an unsafe workplace" is still enough reason to use children in coal mines until actual labor laws get passed. Anti-slavery laws are pretty plainly laws against powerful individuals enslaving weaker individuals--not sure what you mean with the "laws against laws" card there.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago

> Laws against usury protect the poor. Laws against usury subject the poor to illegal loan sharks who will break their kneecaps for non-payment rather than paying a high interest rate to a payday loan place that will merely ding their credit score and try to reclaim their loan money using the legal process. > Laws against dangerous workplaces protect the poor. Laws against dangerous workplaces protect shareholders from losing their investment when somebody gets hurt and sues the company. And give the company cover because they had their inspection done when somebody gets hurt regardless, so it's more difficult for the poor to sue them after an injury as long as their paperwork is in order. Moreover, the compliance cost for companies that were not operating an unsafe workplace to begin with imposes overhead on small businesses and reduces competition, which can lower wages. It's likely that they don't cause a major harm because there is no good reason to be operating an unsafe workplace regardless of whether there is a law against it, but they're still pretty close to breakeven. > Hell, laws against slavery and debt prisons protect the poor. Laws binding the legislature from instituting slavery or debt prisons, i.e. laws against certain laws, are not really canonical examples here. > That's sort of my point, at this stage people just barely get by, which is exactly the sort of situation legislators can ignore. We made things worse, but only by increasing inequality, not to the point of increasing homelessness. So we should make things even worse, that way when everything is really on fire someone will have to notice? What if we only get even more inequality and malaise? > Are the unemployed youth in France unemployed due to minimum wage laws? Citation? As part of a broad framework of high-overhead labor laws that discourage employers from hiring. https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1264&context=srhonorsprog https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1... > I'm not making an argument for maximising prosperity. A country with one quadrillionaire and everyone else broke would be the most prosperous in the world. I'm making an argument for protecting the poor. The best way to protect the poor is to get them out of poverty. Giving all the money to one quadrillionaire doesn't do that, but neither does binding everyone's hands or making it more expensive for anyone to start a small business.

sooheon 8y ago
To steel-man your point, I agree that legislature that amounts to surface level micromanagement is almost always counter productive. I like your macroeconomic approach to these issues. Still, I found your counterexamples here dismissive but unconvincing. Loan sharks and kneecappings are precisely the things we need legislature against. Contract law by itself can't prevent desperate people from signing loan-shark contracts. "No good reason to be operating an unsafe workplace" is still enough reason to use children in coal mines until actual labor laws get passed. Anti-slavery laws are pretty plainly laws against powerful individuals enslaving weaker individuals--not sure what you mean with the "laws against laws" card there.