Re-written as: >The Economist is, therefore, enabling employers to do whatever they can within the confines of the law to help themselves. Saying 'greedy' jus

Re-written as: >The Economist is, therefore, enabling employers to do whatever they can within the confines of the law to help themselves. Saying 'greedy' just saves 13 words. But I'm being flippant with what I consider to be an important topic. Let me be be positive, this: Depending on independent actors in a free market system to act on specific moral principles rather than in their own best interest is not going to work in practice. Feels like a variation of a "tragedy of the commons[0]" / "race to the bottom[1]" situation, which is where this: government is the one responsible for regulating it is exposed as the causal failure - in large part because, I think, the same people that influence the angle The Economist is taking are those who 'donate' to various members of government. The more I'm talking through this, the more I see the problem as voter apathy. If a member of government only gets feedback from industry lobbyists, that's all they'll be able to base their decisions on. Write your local members! Use your voice! Vote! (I'm saying this to myself as much as anyone else). Only politics can solve politics. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_to_the_bottom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_to_the_bottom