4 ms·

It's really a problem with the EU. Its member states still compete with each other too much, companies shouldn't be able to shop around for the laxest labour la

It's really a problem with the EU. Its member states still compete with each other too much, companies shouldn't be able to shop around for the laxest labour laws like that.

kyuudou 6y ago
I disagree, consumers should be able to decide if they want to buy a product or not and do their due diligence investigating the producer. The countries where labor is cheaper benefit by getting more work and ultimately they uplift themselves. Now, if it comes out that such labor is abused or managed corruptly and so forth, that is a product I will not knowingly or willingly buy.
- anoncake 6y ago
  In the real world, customers don't actually do that and in fact cannot for everything they buy. Regulation is simply more efficient and effective.
  - kyuudou 6y ago
    >Regulation is simply more efficient and effective. And that efficiency and effectiveness benefit an elite few. If people continue to "wake up" globally, becoming increasingly empowered by technology and democratizing philosophies, they will come to the logical conclusion that they can "vote" with their currency. Companies will definitely fucking pay attention if people stop buying their shit. For example, I've taken the "buy local as possible" ethic to its logical extreme, realizing for example that I have to make compromises for things like consumer electronics. "The real world", as you say. But I think it's defeatist to just buy the cheapest junk you can afford in complete disregard of its means and origin of manufacture unless that's the only solution. Just today, I was shopping around where to buy Sid Meier's Memoirs book since I just learned about it today on HN. I could elect the easy, lazy, one-world-ruled-by-Bezos path and click Amazon to save a few cents and get it delivered a day less, or I could go the slightly less convenient but more positive route of Indiebound.
    - anoncake 6y ago
      You got that backwards. Elites are the ones that benefit from letting people "vote" with money – since they have more of it. That is the opposite of democracy. I'm not saying we shouldn't try to make ethical choices and just wait to regulation. But it is rarely sufficient. Boycotting a company as an individual has very little effect on the company but does inconvenience the individual. Doing that can feel good but it's actually pretty irrational. Organized boycotts are much more effective. And regulation is the ultimate (threat to) boycott. If technology turned people into enlightened, selfless beings things would be different. I don't see that happening, to the contrary. Furthermore, people have limited time and energy. They can't investigate in detail every product they consume.
leetcrew 6y ago
preface: likely an ignorant opinion from an american. from across the pond, it looks like the richer EU countries (eg, germany) essentially want to have it both ways. they want to have strong worker protections and prevent poorer EU countries from enabling labor arbitrage, all while having relatively unencumbered trade within the EU. at the same time, they don't want to provide the economic aid to the poorer countries that would reduce the incentive to do this sort of thing. seems like a "pick one" type of situation.
- jakub_g 6y ago
  This is absolutely true. Another example: - French (and German) companies own most of supermarket chains in Poland: good. - Polish long-distance truck delivery companies are among the most competitive in EU due to lower costs of workforce: bad, France has been lobbying hard against them for years.

It's really a problem with the EU. Its member states still compete with each other too much, companies shouldn't be able to shop around for the laxest labour laws like that.

kyuudou 6y ago

I disagree, consumers should be able to decide if they want to buy a product or not and do their due diligence investigating the producer. The countries where labor is cheaper benefit by getting more work and ultimately they uplift themselves. Now, if it comes out that such labor is abused or managed corruptly and so forth, that is a product I will not knowingly or willingly buy.

anoncake 6y ago
In the real world, customers don't actually do that and in fact cannot for everything they buy. Regulation is simply more efficient and effective.
- kyuudou 6y ago
  >Regulation is simply more efficient and effective. And that efficiency and effectiveness benefit an elite few. If people continue to "wake up" globally, becoming increasingly empowered by technology and democratizing philosophies, they will come to the logical conclusion that they can "vote" with their currency. Companies will definitely fucking pay attention if people stop buying their shit. For example, I've taken the "buy local as possible" ethic to its logical extreme, realizing for example that I have to make compromises for things like consumer electronics. "The real world", as you say. But I think it's defeatist to just buy the cheapest junk you can afford in complete disregard of its means and origin of manufacture unless that's the only solution. Just today, I was shopping around where to buy Sid Meier's Memoirs book since I just learned about it today on HN. I could elect the easy, lazy, one-world-ruled-by-Bezos path and click Amazon to save a few cents and get it delivered a day less, or I could go the slightly less convenient but more positive route of Indiebound.
  - anoncake 6y ago
    You got that backwards. Elites are the ones that benefit from letting people "vote" with money – since they have more of it. That is the opposite of democracy. I'm not saying we shouldn't try to make ethical choices and just wait to regulation. But it is rarely sufficient. Boycotting a company as an individual has very little effect on the company but does inconvenience the individual. Doing that can feel good but it's actually pretty irrational. Organized boycotts are much more effective. And regulation is the ultimate (threat to) boycott. If technology turned people into enlightened, selfless beings things would be different. I don't see that happening, to the contrary. Furthermore, people have limited time and energy. They can't investigate in detail every product they consume.

leetcrew 6y ago

preface: likely an ignorant opinion from an american. from across the pond, it looks like the richer EU countries (eg, germany) essentially want to have it both ways. they want to have strong worker protections and prevent poorer EU countries from enabling labor arbitrage, all while having relatively unencumbered trade within the EU. at the same time, they don't want to provide the economic aid to the poorer countries that would reduce the incentive to do this sort of thing. seems like a "pick one" type of situation.

jakub_g 6y ago
This is absolutely true. Another example: - French (and German) companies own most of supermarket chains in Poland: good. - Polish long-distance truck delivery companies are among the most competitive in EU due to lower costs of workforce: bad, France has been lobbying hard against them for years.