5 ms·

The free market is a joke and big companies will always win against individuals unless they get protected by law. They have more people, more time and more mone

The free market is a joke and big companies will always win against individuals unless they get protected by law. They have more people, more time and more money. If you want to be an employer, you're the one taking the risks. Don't want to take risks? Don't become an employer, or better yet, don't do business, because that comes with risks too. And just in case people haven't thought about externalities or a more basic factor: people can be desperate, that doesn't mean you should therefore exploit them as an employer. We're not living in the 1400's anymore.

jmartrican 4y ago
Well I think the problem is many companies might decide to not take on that risk like you said. And we all lose. The trick is to figure out the right amount of risk that the government will help or hurt the employer.
- oneplane 4y ago
  And I think not, because in countries with much stronger employee protections it works out pretty well. The biggest 'downside' is a smaller concentration of power and wealth because the risk/reward calculation is different. But being bigger serves nobody except a few sub-1% shareholders/owners. There also is no "we all lose" scenario because of the same reason companies have been able to exploit desperate (or extremely poor) people; companies can be discarded and traded in for more respectful ones in the same fashion. Sure, a bunch of megacorps will not function any longer without a disposable workforce, but that's not really bad for society, or at the very least 'less-bad' when compared with disposable employees. The same "we have to give them tax breaks or they will move away" logic fails here; if you give a company that sort of leverage, you're essentially blackmailing yourself because they can use that leverage for anything they want. As long as there are locations to move to, that is. If there are no more locations, be it because they have used them all up, or because it's made useless by law, that leverage ceases to exist. Downside-wise there is only one thing I can consistently come up with, and that is the benefit of having a high concentration of resources and purpose (or vision perhaps) to develop something completely new (like re-usable rocket boosters fit for human flight). While I don't think we should trade that for disposable humans, there should probably some sort of avenue where we can have that benefit without having the human-downside factor. I'm not sure how such a thing would be implemented or work out in detail, but not having it (and in turn also not have people get discarded with great ease) might still be a net positive in the grand scheme. Rolling over going all "welp I guess this is just how it is" gets everyone nowhere, so before someone comes along and suggest that a better way is a waste of time and energy to look for: you're wrong. (not aimed at you, jmartrican ;-) )

jmartrican 4y ago

Well I think the problem is many companies might decide to not take on that risk like you said. And we all lose. The trick is to figure out the right amount of risk that the government will help or hurt the employer.

oneplane 4y ago
And I think not, because in countries with much stronger employee protections it works out pretty well. The biggest 'downside' is a smaller concentration of power and wealth because the risk/reward calculation is different. But being bigger serves nobody except a few sub-1% shareholders/owners. There also is no "we all lose" scenario because of the same reason companies have been able to exploit desperate (or extremely poor) people; companies can be discarded and traded in for more respectful ones in the same fashion. Sure, a bunch of megacorps will not function any longer without a disposable workforce, but that's not really bad for society, or at the very least 'less-bad' when compared with disposable employees. The same "we have to give them tax breaks or they will move away" logic fails here; if you give a company that sort of leverage, you're essentially blackmailing yourself because they can use that leverage for anything they want. As long as there are locations to move to, that is. If there are no more locations, be it because they have used them all up, or because it's made useless by law, that leverage ceases to exist. Downside-wise there is only one thing I can consistently come up with, and that is the benefit of having a high concentration of resources and purpose (or vision perhaps) to develop something completely new (like re-usable rocket boosters fit for human flight). While I don't think we should trade that for disposable humans, there should probably some sort of avenue where we can have that benefit without having the human-downside factor. I'm not sure how such a thing would be implemented or work out in detail, but not having it (and in turn also not have people get discarded with great ease) might still be a net positive in the grand scheme. Rolling over going all "welp I guess this is just how it is" gets everyone nowhere, so before someone comes along and suggest that a better way is a waste of time and energy to look for: you're wrong. (not aimed at you, jmartrican ;-) )