> Negotiating is not "forced". Other than starting their own business (which most people don't or can't do), how else do you propose people earn livelihoods?

> Negotiating is not "forced". Other than starting their own business (which most people don't or can't do), how else do you propose people earn livelihoods? > People often have the notion that a functioning free market requires perfect information I didn't say "perfect information". Institutional investors have access to snap quotes accurate to a few milliseconds. Retail investors get delayed information. Information asymmetry is a spectrum. The stock market is on one end, and the job market is close to the other end (I can only think of healthcare pricing in the US that's worse than that). Risk only matters when comparing two otherwise-similar employees. Otherwise supply and demand are the dominant factors in pricing. Hiring someone to make sandwiches is very low risk (you can easily verify that they make good sandwiches) compared to hiring a software developer (any interview process gives imperfect signal). And yet the sandwich artist gets paid less than the developer. I ask you again: would you participate in a real estate market where you could only find out prices by asking friends and family, while the other side (let's say all institutional sellers) can share lots of information with each other? Would you invest in a stock market like that? Would it be good for you? Would you think it's fair? What if it was the only way to obtain housing (short of building your own house)? It's really weird that you're against legislation requiring market participants to receive more information. Perfect information isn't possible, but why is more information bad? Anyway, that's all I'll say on the topic.