7 ms·

"below market" because Instacart (and uber, etc) forgo normal labor law, have by-default but not by-contract full-time workers without any full-time benefits. C

"below market" because Instacart (and uber, etc) forgo normal labor law, have by-default but not by-contract full-time workers without any full-time benefits. Companies can achieve great benefit by externalizing cost on society, but should they? (And should they be able to?) e.g. https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2019/12/16/is-uber-cheating-on-social-securityfica-taxes/#5289694a3ce4 https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2019/12/16/is-uber-cheat... https://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/#4e9896de720b https://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-...

godzillabrennus 6y ago
Free market idealists think the market can determine the minimum wage without government or organized labor enforcing higher wages.
- brorfred 6y ago
  Free market idealists also tend to be very against the natural way for workers to consolidate and leverage negotiation power: trade unions.
  - black_puppydog 6y ago
    Yeah, I never understood how "free everything" advocates tend to be so much against the freedom of the individual to refer decisions/actions to a collective when that happens to be the better course of action.
    - D895n9o33436N42 6y ago
      “Free market” isn’t “free everything”. In a free market the bid-ask spread is king. It’s just another kind of tyranny, which, like all such things, benefits those who are set up to take advantage of it, and leaves most others in the dust.
    - floor2 6y ago
      Maybe your lack of understanding is because you're arguing against an imaginary straw man? A group forming a collective and negotiating as such fits perfectly fine with free market ideals. This exists in many forms that all manner of libertarian, free-market, whatever label people are OK with. When that group uses violence, threats and coercion to their benefit is where people object. Examples - blocking an employer from hiring non-union employees, harming or threatening to harm workers during a strike, forcing people to join a union to get/keep a job, preventing new workers or new firms from entering the market through regulation, etc. If you want to say "You can hire these 20 union workers at a rate of $$$, we all stand together" that's fine. When you say "You need to hire these 20 union workers, and if you don't, we'll surround your business and threaten, harass and intimidate the people you hire instead" is where you've jumped into violence and extortion rather than free market negotiation.
  - WoodenChair 6y ago
    I think people in this thread are confusing "free market idealists" (usually libertarians) with conservatives/Republicans. A free market idealist has no problem with a free labor market that self-organizes into unions as long as the government doesn't mandate unionization. Conservatives and Republicans tend to advocate for big business and have therefore a natural antipathy towards organized labor.
    - joncrocks 6y ago
      I would also presume that in addition a `free market idealist` would also want to ensure that Unions aren't given any special status, and that employers could also come together to agree wages.
      - debouncy 6y ago
        If unions don't aren't somewhat mandatory then workers are trapped in prisoner's dilemma.
        sukilot 6y ago
        Yes. That's an argument against libertarianism, not an argument that libertarianism must include mandatory unions.
        erik_seaberg 6y ago
        The prisoner's dilemma is modeled with only two sides. A union might be better for average members, but it's strictly worse for non-members and employers and customers. Competition is a solution, not a problem to be avoided.
  - nfuiosdjkafndaj 6y ago
    Comments like these are why I've moved to Blind for more quality discussions.
  - bluGill 6y ago
    Not exactly. We are against the way unions are implemented and make work not a free market. I'm not against your union so longs as I can decide not to join and still have equal work with you.
    - zackmorris 6y ago
      Your thinking is a fallacy, because a union uses the same principle that the republican party uses to maintain control: solidarity. I'm curious why you would want to opt out of a union in the first place, since unions generally double workers' wages. I live in the right to work state of Idaho, which has some of the lowest wages in the country, especially for things like farm work. I realize that this is a bit of a straw man argument though, which doesn't touch your main point. I'm having trouble thinking of a case where a union charges more in fees than it provides in additional wages, benefits and other protections. So I think my main point is that you are fixated on a motivation that doesn't exist. It's like being angry that you must pay for a stamp to mail something through the post office, even though that costs a fraction of what UPS or FedEx cost. You're free to work somewhere else or use those other services. Maybe someone else can answer this better than I can. I really do want to understand why unions are so controversial, because I've only experienced the downside of not having them. Like when I was moving furniture 20 years ago and the warehouse charged $34/hr and only paid us $10/hr, even though we were doing all of the work. My feeling is that had we been unionized, we would have made at least $17/hr.
      - perl4ever 6y ago
        >since unions generally double workers' wages. >My feeling is that had we been unionized, we would have made at least $17/hr You can dismiss this as anecdotal if you wish, but I went from a non-union job to a union one, requiring much the same skills, and the latter pays less. On a per hour basis, my current job pays 95% of the non-union position, but the main difference is 7.5 hours vs. 8 hours a day. That means my yearly salary is more like 87%. On the plus side, you are guaranteed raises over time, which my former employer explicitly disclaimed, saying all pay raises were based on "merit". It's also nice that you know everybody at the same level is making the same amount. I'm not going to generalize about all union jobs from my experience, but from a theoretical perspective, if a union offers security and better benefits then it's plausible people would be willing to give up a certain amount of pay. One aspect of having a union that I hadn't considered was that in March, they had to have a lot of intensive negotiations about working from home, because the existing contract did not allow it.
  - missedthecue 6y ago
    A union is, in an economic sense, a cartel. Their job is to restrict supply of labour so that the price they can demand for it increases, making their members more money. This is why it takes over a year to join the plumbers or electricians union in many states and why it takes over 10 years to join the longshoremens union. I am against all cartels as a matter of principle, be they the ILWU or OPEC.
    - sukilot 6y ago
      OK. I'm against corporations as matter of principle. A corporation is also a cartel.
      - missedthecue 6y ago
        A corporation is a legal entity that provides some liability protection, and is not a cartel in any sense. Several corporation can collude to form a cartel, but a corporation in and of itself does not in any way meet the definition.
- specialist 6y ago
  The Freedom Markets™ faithful proclaim - efficient markets - rational actors - no transaction costs - power imbalances are moot Any notions otherwise are apostate and must be purged.
madsbuch 6y ago
> Companies can achieve great benefit by externalizing cost on society, but should they? Yes, indeed they should. But the government also needs to claim taxes from companies to pay for these benefits. This concept is not even new, heck this is how most of Europe works.
- mantas 6y ago
  Last time I checked, USA did have corporate tax. Just like we got in Europe.
  - pc86 6y ago
    Corporate income tax was just cut by 40% (from 35% to 21%). Almost 2.5% of the entire federal government's revenue.
    - mantas 6y ago
      So? It's not sky-high in Europe either. In my European country it's 15%, 5% for micro businesses.
- nogabebop23 6y ago
  The entire point of identifying an externalized cost is that it is not being paid for by the beneficiary. You can't both allow it and have them pay for it or it's no longer externalized.

godzillabrennus 6y ago

Free market idealists think the market can determine the minimum wage without government or organized labor enforcing higher wages.

brorfred 6y ago
Free market idealists also tend to be very against the natural way for workers to consolidate and leverage negotiation power: trade unions.
- black_puppydog 6y ago
  Yeah, I never understood how "free everything" advocates tend to be so much against the freedom of the individual to refer decisions/actions to a collective when that happens to be the better course of action.
  - D895n9o33436N42 6y ago
    “Free market” isn’t “free everything”. In a free market the bid-ask spread is king. It’s just another kind of tyranny, which, like all such things, benefits those who are set up to take advantage of it, and leaves most others in the dust.
  - floor2 6y ago
    Maybe your lack of understanding is because you're arguing against an imaginary straw man? A group forming a collective and negotiating as such fits perfectly fine with free market ideals. This exists in many forms that all manner of libertarian, free-market, whatever label people are OK with. When that group uses violence, threats and coercion to their benefit is where people object. Examples - blocking an employer from hiring non-union employees, harming or threatening to harm workers during a strike, forcing people to join a union to get/keep a job, preventing new workers or new firms from entering the market through regulation, etc. If you want to say "You can hire these 20 union workers at a rate of $$$, we all stand together" that's fine. When you say "You need to hire these 20 union workers, and if you don't, we'll surround your business and threaten, harass and intimidate the people you hire instead" is where you've jumped into violence and extortion rather than free market negotiation.
- WoodenChair 6y ago
  I think people in this thread are confusing "free market idealists" (usually libertarians) with conservatives/Republicans. A free market idealist has no problem with a free labor market that self-organizes into unions as long as the government doesn't mandate unionization. Conservatives and Republicans tend to advocate for big business and have therefore a natural antipathy towards organized labor.
  - joncrocks 6y ago
    I would also presume that in addition a `free market idealist` would also want to ensure that Unions aren't given any special status, and that employers could also come together to agree wages.
    - debouncy 6y ago
      If unions don't aren't somewhat mandatory then workers are trapped in prisoner's dilemma.
      - sukilot 6y ago
        Yes. That's an argument against libertarianism, not an argument that libertarianism must include mandatory unions.
      - erik_seaberg 6y ago
        The prisoner's dilemma is modeled with only two sides. A union might be better for average members, but it's strictly worse for non-members and employers and customers. Competition is a solution, not a problem to be avoided.
- nfuiosdjkafndaj 6y ago
  Comments like these are why I've moved to Blind for more quality discussions.
- bluGill 6y ago
  Not exactly. We are against the way unions are implemented and make work not a free market. I'm not against your union so longs as I can decide not to join and still have equal work with you.
  - zackmorris 6y ago
    Your thinking is a fallacy, because a union uses the same principle that the republican party uses to maintain control: solidarity. I'm curious why you would want to opt out of a union in the first place, since unions generally double workers' wages. I live in the right to work state of Idaho, which has some of the lowest wages in the country, especially for things like farm work. I realize that this is a bit of a straw man argument though, which doesn't touch your main point. I'm having trouble thinking of a case where a union charges more in fees than it provides in additional wages, benefits and other protections. So I think my main point is that you are fixated on a motivation that doesn't exist. It's like being angry that you must pay for a stamp to mail something through the post office, even though that costs a fraction of what UPS or FedEx cost. You're free to work somewhere else or use those other services. Maybe someone else can answer this better than I can. I really do want to understand why unions are so controversial, because I've only experienced the downside of not having them. Like when I was moving furniture 20 years ago and the warehouse charged $34/hr and only paid us $10/hr, even though we were doing all of the work. My feeling is that had we been unionized, we would have made at least $17/hr.
    - perl4ever 6y ago
      >since unions generally double workers' wages. >My feeling is that had we been unionized, we would have made at least $17/hr You can dismiss this as anecdotal if you wish, but I went from a non-union job to a union one, requiring much the same skills, and the latter pays less. On a per hour basis, my current job pays 95% of the non-union position, but the main difference is 7.5 hours vs. 8 hours a day. That means my yearly salary is more like 87%. On the plus side, you are guaranteed raises over time, which my former employer explicitly disclaimed, saying all pay raises were based on "merit". It's also nice that you know everybody at the same level is making the same amount. I'm not going to generalize about all union jobs from my experience, but from a theoretical perspective, if a union offers security and better benefits then it's plausible people would be willing to give up a certain amount of pay. One aspect of having a union that I hadn't considered was that in March, they had to have a lot of intensive negotiations about working from home, because the existing contract did not allow it.
- missedthecue 6y ago
  A union is, in an economic sense, a cartel. Their job is to restrict supply of labour so that the price they can demand for it increases, making their members more money. This is why it takes over a year to join the plumbers or electricians union in many states and why it takes over 10 years to join the longshoremens union. I am against all cartels as a matter of principle, be they the ILWU or OPEC.
  - sukilot 6y ago
    OK. I'm against corporations as matter of principle. A corporation is also a cartel.
    - missedthecue 6y ago
      A corporation is a legal entity that provides some liability protection, and is not a cartel in any sense. Several corporation can collude to form a cartel, but a corporation in and of itself does not in any way meet the definition.
specialist 6y ago
The Freedom Markets™ faithful proclaim - efficient markets - rational actors - no transaction costs - power imbalances are moot Any notions otherwise are apostate and must be purged.

madsbuch 6y ago

> Companies can achieve great benefit by externalizing cost on society, but should they? Yes, indeed they should. But the government also needs to claim taxes from companies to pay for these benefits. This concept is not even new, heck this is how most of Europe works.

mantas 6y ago
Last time I checked, USA did have corporate tax. Just like we got in Europe.
- pc86 6y ago
  Corporate income tax was just cut by 40% (from 35% to 21%). Almost 2.5% of the entire federal government's revenue.
  - mantas 6y ago
    So? It's not sky-high in Europe either. In my European country it's 15%, 5% for micro businesses.
nogabebop23 6y ago
The entire point of identifying an externalized cost is that it is not being paid for by the beneficiary. You can't both allow it and have them pay for it or it's no longer externalized.