4 ms·

I didn't say that dangerous work should be banned. When a job has risks, the necessary precautions should be taken to minimize that risk. That's what a union wo

• byrneseyeview 20y ago
  At what point is a union or a legislature necessary, here? If I want to do something dangerous to myself, should I leave it up to Washington's Finest to assess the risks for me? Why on earth would I do that? They have every incentive to be cautious (they'll get blamed if they okay risks and I still get hurt) and no reason not to be (if my work is approved and I'm unhurt, I get the benefits; if it isn't approved, we'll never know if they were wrong). Regulators have less information than entrepreneurs. Regulators have a bias towards caution; entrepreneurs would suffer for it. So you're advocating a system in which uninformed people with a vested interest in my failure are responsible for choosing whether or not I have a chance to succeed. I'm afraid you need more of a defense for that than a smug smattering of "should"s.
  • jason13 20y ago
    That argument would make sense, if you were refering to say someone like evil-knivel, who may be compensated heavily for making extremely dangerous stunts. But in reality I imagine your talking about coal miners, who are not in the coal mining for the thrill of the mine, or the thrill of fame and money. But are in it to make ends meat.
    • byrneseyeview 20y ago
      And why on earth would you want to restrict the economic freedom of someone desperate enough to do that kind of work? If the money isn't worth the risk, they know it better than you do -- and if you disagree with them, it's probably because you're applying your assumptions to their situation, not that you know more about mining safety than they do.
      • jason13 20y ago
        I love the intellectual lengths people will goto to justify their own greed. This is a classic argument you are making. It makes me richer to exploit workers. But if i don't exploit my workers than I will be denying my workers their economic right to be exploited. So you see I am only exploiting my workers to help my workers, because my workers want to have the freedom to be exploited, really they want to be exploited, it makes them feel more free. Wow I am such a nice guy. I am spreading freedom.
        • lupin_sansei 20y ago
          How is employing people exploiting them? (In the bad sense of the word "exploit") The employees freely agreed to come and work for you in exchange for a certain amount of money, and they are free to leave at any time. If they were worth any more money than they were getting paid then they would change to a higher paying job.
          • jason13 20y ago
            Well this goes into the whole philosophical question of the word "freedom" and "free will"... It all depends what you mean by the word "freely". But unless you are actually rich, you don't really have the freedom to not get a job. So I would not describe this as purely a contractual agreement entered into by parties freely.
            • lupin_sansei 20y ago
              But you could say also that the employer needs a worker, and also isn't really freely entering into the contract. Utter nonsense! Both parties freely enter into the agreement. You might not have the freedom not to have a job, but you do have the freedom to choose which job to take. That freedom means that nobody can pay you less then you are worth, else you'll leave. Therefore nobody employer can exploit you. (That is pay you less then you're worth.)
              • 20y ago
  • jason13 20y ago
    That argument would make sense, if you were refering to say someone like evil-knivel, who may be compensated heavily for making extremely dangerous stunts. But in reality I imagine your talking about coal miners, who are not in the coal mining for the thrill of the mine, or the thrill of fame and money. But are in it to make ends meat.
  • natrius 20y ago
    Without regulation, the cost of someone dying on the job is the same as someone quitting: you just have to train a new person to do the job. That's not the type of society I'd like to live in. Regulation isn't perfect, but it's far better than no regulation. You keep on talking about regulators making a certain line of work illegal, but that's not what I'm suggesting. All work should be made as safe as possible.
    • Tichy 20y ago
      Presumably the person taking on the job would ask for an appropriate compensation for the risk.
      • natrius 20y ago
        That doesn't mean that the risk shouldn't be minimized.
        • omouse 20y ago
          Yes it does. The compensation to the worker for the risk may cost more than reducing the risk. Therefore the risk will be minimized if possible to save cash.