4 ms·

100-200 years ago your voice would be shouting about how government intervention in the labour market was hurting it. How giving workers more rights was big gov

by piva00 4y ago

100-200 years ago your voice would be shouting about how government intervention in the labour market was hurting it. How giving workers more rights was big government taking over the economy and that we should be free from it. Interventions might fail, just like leaving this to the market might fail. It's all a constant juggling of incentives, unforeseen consequences and catching up. UBIs and minimum wage are not designed to solve house affordability, so I'm not even sure why you'd lump it into capping rents, etc. Without interventions you leave all the power to the profiteers, to the ones seeking to rent-seek as most as possible, so I'm very sure your approach of "less intervention" would just bring another set of unforeseen consequences with a worse side: complete lack of accountability. At least a failed governmental intervention has someone accountable for it, leaving the system to regulate itself (free market™) leaves no one accountable for the suffering it causes. Or even worse, it becomes a personal responsibility™ issue and the victims will be blamed for not trying hard enough. Enough is fucking enough of this...

blfr 4y ago
I don't mind the interventions, and the goal of the economy is to serve the people, not the other way round, but narrative that government "gave the workers more rights" is largely false. We became richer, thanks to the industrial revolution, not government coordination, and could afford to abolish slavery and work less. Same way we stopped wars of conquest conveniently when they stopped being profitable compared to large scale manufacturing and trade. Government is at the mercy of these large trends just like the people.
- piva00 4y ago
  > but narrative that government "gave the workers more rights" is largely false. That's not my narrative. The government was forced to give more rights after a lot of bloodshed in multiple countries, it was ultimately a governmental intervention in the labour market which turned those protections into law. The industrial revolution made societies richer, the workers through social movements and the power of government made the industrial revolution livable. If left by its own devices the industrial revolution barons would still be requiring people to work 12-14h days, including children over 12 years old. Government is the collective voice of the people, we should let a decently democratic government have power over the markets, that's my narrative.
  - Fmdmdmfmfkfmf 4y ago
    - Symbiote 4y ago
      Much of Britain. "Research has shown that the average age at which children started work in early 19th-century Britain was 10 years old, but that this varied widely between regions. In industrial areas, children started work on average at eight and a half years old." https://www.bl.uk/romantics-and-victorians/articles/child-labour https://www.bl.uk/romantics-and-victorians/articles/child-la... And the first laws limited children to 12 hours work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factory_Acts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factory_Acts
    - piva00 4y ago
      https://www.striking-women.org/module/workplace-issues-past-and-present/working-hours https://www.striking-women.org/module/workplace-issues-past-... > Reformers took up the issue of the working hours from the end of the 18th century onwards. Their campaigns resulted in the passage of legislation in 1802 and 1819 regulating the working hours of children in workhouses and textile factories to 12 hours a day. > In 1833, the Factory Act banned children under 9 from working in the textile industry, and the working hours of 10-13 year olds was limited to 48 hours a week, while 14-18 year olds were limited to 69 hours a week, and 12 hours a day. Government factory inspectors were appointed to enforce the law.
djbebs 4y ago
And it was, and it did. Those laws should be abolished.
- piva00 4y ago
  Are you willing and ready to work 12-14h a day, every single day of the week? And for your kids as well? Or perhaps you are part of the strata of society who won't be affected by the abolishment of labour protections, in that case you either don't have empathy or don't care about having it. I don't think you completely understand what a regression to a world with no labour protections would mean. Either that or you'd be the one exploiting such lack of protections. What's your proposal for the abolishment of labour protections, exactly?
Fmdmdmfmfkfmf 4y ago
- vagrantJin 4y ago
  Thats just called corruption and has existed as long as people have. No need to get fancy.
- piva00 4y ago
  That's just plain old corruption... Which is already illegal and immoral as far as I know, no? Please, I expect deeper conversations than this from HN, don't just create a new account to use whataboutism and a dumb rhetoric of asking simpleton questions instead of refuting my arguments, that doesn't foster any stimulating debate. It just makes you look pathetically dumb.
the_gipsy 4y ago
I didn't mean to say that intervention is wrong. On the contrary, I believe in strong interventions. Just that they shouldn't be dismissed so quickly with the next hack. There is no trick to make a free market work, for certain things we are in this together and should funnel a lot of money to lift up the poor. The essence of civilization is helping out each other, that's why the first civilizations are defined as the ones where archeologists could find signs of medical procedures.

by piva00 4y ago

blfr 4y ago

I don't mind the interventions, and the goal of the economy is to serve the people, not the other way round, but narrative that government "gave the workers more rights" is largely false. We became richer, thanks to the industrial revolution, not government coordination, and could afford to abolish slavery and work less. Same way we stopped wars of conquest conveniently when they stopped being profitable compared to large scale manufacturing and trade. Government is at the mercy of these large trends just like the people.

piva00 4y ago
> but narrative that government "gave the workers more rights" is largely false. That's not my narrative. The government was forced to give more rights after a lot of bloodshed in multiple countries, it was ultimately a governmental intervention in the labour market which turned those protections into law. The industrial revolution made societies richer, the workers through social movements and the power of government made the industrial revolution livable. If left by its own devices the industrial revolution barons would still be requiring people to work 12-14h days, including children over 12 years old. Government is the collective voice of the people, we should let a decently democratic government have power over the markets, that's my narrative.
- Fmdmdmfmfkfmf 4y ago
  - Symbiote 4y ago
    Much of Britain. "Research has shown that the average age at which children started work in early 19th-century Britain was 10 years old, but that this varied widely between regions. In industrial areas, children started work on average at eight and a half years old." https://www.bl.uk/romantics-and-victorians/articles/child-labour https://www.bl.uk/romantics-and-victorians/articles/child-la... And the first laws limited children to 12 hours work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factory_Acts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factory_Acts
  - piva00 4y ago
    https://www.striking-women.org/module/workplace-issues-past-and-present/working-hours https://www.striking-women.org/module/workplace-issues-past-... > Reformers took up the issue of the working hours from the end of the 18th century onwards. Their campaigns resulted in the passage of legislation in 1802 and 1819 regulating the working hours of children in workhouses and textile factories to 12 hours a day. > In 1833, the Factory Act banned children under 9 from working in the textile industry, and the working hours of 10-13 year olds was limited to 48 hours a week, while 14-18 year olds were limited to 69 hours a week, and 12 hours a day. Government factory inspectors were appointed to enforce the law.

djbebs 4y ago

And it was, and it did. Those laws should be abolished.

piva00 4y ago
Are you willing and ready to work 12-14h a day, every single day of the week? And for your kids as well? Or perhaps you are part of the strata of society who won't be affected by the abolishment of labour protections, in that case you either don't have empathy or don't care about having it. I don't think you completely understand what a regression to a world with no labour protections would mean. Either that or you'd be the one exploiting such lack of protections. What's your proposal for the abolishment of labour protections, exactly?

Fmdmdmfmfkfmf 4y ago

vagrantJin 4y ago
Thats just called corruption and has existed as long as people have. No need to get fancy.
piva00 4y ago
That's just plain old corruption... Which is already illegal and immoral as far as I know, no? Please, I expect deeper conversations than this from HN, don't just create a new account to use whataboutism and a dumb rhetoric of asking simpleton questions instead of refuting my arguments, that doesn't foster any stimulating debate. It just makes you look pathetically dumb.

the_gipsy 4y ago

I didn't mean to say that intervention is wrong. On the contrary, I believe in strong interventions. Just that they shouldn't be dismissed so quickly with the next hack. There is no trick to make a free market work, for certain things we are in this together and should funnel a lot of money to lift up the poor. The essence of civilization is helping out each other, that's why the first civilizations are defined as the ones where archeologists could find signs of medical procedures.