3 ms·

While I understand your argument, and it has some legitimacy, particularly in relation to anti-trust regulation and moving back to actually enforcing the laws,

by rswail 4y ago

While I understand your argument, and it has some legitimacy, particularly in relation to anti-trust regulation and moving back to actually enforcing the laws, as opposed to what has been happening since the late 1980s. Low-skill workers only have the power to withdraw their labor (which is their only negotiating leverage) when their labor is required. As for unions getting higher wages for their members, that's their job (by definition). It's not at the expense of unemployment for their non-members. The "hard core" market solution you're proposing is what used to be implemented ever since the anti-trust laws and regulations were passed in the early 20th century. Standard Oil was broken up and the companies that exist as a result today (Mobil, Exxon, etc) have all done very well in spite of Standard Oil being split. The same applies to AT&T and IBM (less so, due to their own management) and Microsoft.

fsckboy 4y ago
> is what used to be implemented no, anti-trust laws talk about abuse of monopoly power, which can only be established after years of said abuse and which leave many of the negative patterns untouched. I'm talking about using market share itself as the metric > "hard core" market solution I call it hard-core because most of the arguments for "free market" solutions wind up protecting large businesses. I'm talking about making sure to subject large businesses to market forces for the benefit of consumers, whose jobs I'm not willing to protect. To put it in vulgar political terms, neither the socialist Democrats nor the capitalist Republicans would support what I'm talking about, that's how you know it's good. And it's more of a thought experiment, it's like saying "I know the answer, carbon capture!" when carbon capture is the unknown hard part, but you have to think this way to achieve a breakthrough. I'm focusing attention on the parts of the market that are failing. > not at the expense of unemployment you're writing patiently as if you're teaching me something (which i don't mind, i'm pedantic af, welcome friend), but unions getting higher wages at the cost of higher unemployment is standard econ 101, taught in every class everywhere, except maybe Political Economy where they talk about workers's feelings.

by rswail 4y ago

fsckboy 4y ago

> is what used to be implemented no, anti-trust laws talk about abuse of monopoly power, which can only be established after years of said abuse and which leave many of the negative patterns untouched. I'm talking about using market share itself as the metric > "hard core" market solution I call it hard-core because most of the arguments for "free market" solutions wind up protecting large businesses. I'm talking about making sure to subject large businesses to market forces for the benefit of consumers, whose jobs I'm not willing to protect. To put it in vulgar political terms, neither the socialist Democrats nor the capitalist Republicans would support what I'm talking about, that's how you know it's good. And it's more of a thought experiment, it's like saying "I know the answer, carbon capture!" when carbon capture is the unknown hard part, but you have to think this way to achieve a breakthrough. I'm focusing attention on the parts of the market that are failing. > not at the expense of unemployment you're writing patiently as if you're teaching me something (which i don't mind, i'm pedantic af, welcome friend), but unions getting higher wages at the cost of higher unemployment is standard econ 101, taught in every class everywhere, except maybe Political Economy where they talk about workers's feelings.