3 ms·

This equalizes companies but not workers. If we remove government restrictions to become a true free marker that's going to be removing labour laws as well. Giv

This equalizes companies but not workers. If we remove government restrictions to become a true free marker that's going to be removing labour laws as well. Given the already existing power discrepancy between employee and employer I can't see this helping.

flandish 4y ago
The problem with removing regulation for corps so they can work a “free” “market” is that they will exploit. It’s what they’ve always done. It’s what they will always trend toward. See also: kids in auto plans, meat facilities, etc. The issue is that the labor has no ability to correct the market - in the same fashion. (Ie: labor cannot exploit and downright _murder_ capital owners - like the owners can and have done. There are laws preventing that.) If humans are not treated with a higher priority than roi or profit, the business is inherently evil. (Hint; they all are.) If we have laws for some and not for all - that is to say privatization of all corps with no regulation - that is deplorable and will not end well. A solution, imho, is for all services required for life, health, education, and safety to be public owned and not corporations. All other services are owned equally by those that operate them, co-op like. Free markets can still exist like this. But hey. That’s not really what capitalists claim to want when they say “free market”; that phrase is a dog whistle for “legal exploitation of the labor pool.”
pdonis 4y ago
> If we remove government restrictions to become a true free market that's going to be removing labour laws as well. Yes, but it will also be removing all the sweetheart deals that companies now have with governments. (Btw, patents are a big part of this.) The power discrepancy you describe comes from those sweetheart deals. Without them large companies, being extremely inefficient producers of wealth, are open to all kinds of competition. Btw, the labor laws you speak of do not actually favor labor. For example, minimum wage laws make it harder for people in that wage bracket to earn a living--because minimum wage laws prevent many jobs in that bracket from existing at all. Companies don't mind that: they just automate those jobs. The ones who suffer are the workers who now find jobs much scarcer.
- SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
  > The power discrepancy you describe comes from those sweetheart deals I'm speaking of the power discrepancy between the employer and employee. Many of these sectors move towards a monopoly regardless of government interference. There's just no way a new infrastructure company is going to come in to destabilize, say, city sewers. > The ones who suffer are the workers who now find jobs much scarcer. This whole paragraph doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If the assumption is that a minimum wage job is the amount of money you'd need to make in order to survive (arguable) then the ability to create a ton of extra jobs below the subsistence level is useless to society but useful again to the employer. To be more precise, I was thinking of things like laws that protect people at their workplace (work place safety) or those allowing employees to discuss their wages. The first set are obvious why they are important, and it would take a truly ghoulish argument to be against them, but the second are important as well. Without those there would be complete information asymmetry between the employer and employee. Information asymmetry is a huge problem.
  - pdonis 4y ago
    > I'm speaking of the power discrepancy between the employer and employee. Which only exists because the employer is in a privileged position due to government regulations that favor employers over employees. That said, there is a fundamental power imbalance between someone who thinks of themselves as an employer (or more precisely, an independent wealth creator, who employs other people to help them) and someone who thinks of themselves as an employee--meaning, someone who just wants a "job" without wanting to think about the business risks that are inherent in any kind of wealth creation. That kind of employee will always be at a disadvantage in bargaining, yes. But you can't fix that problem by government regulation. You can only fix it by helping people to realize that they don't have to think of themselves as employees. > Many of these sectors move towards a monopoly regardless of government interference. What sectors are you talking about? Natural monopolies are extremely rare. The original meaning of the word "monopoly" was a government grant giving an exclusive right to sell a particular product. > If the assumption is that a minimum wage job is the amount of money you'd need to make in order to survive I made no such assumption. But it is true that many proponents of raising the minimum wage do make such an assumption, in order to argue that the current minimum wage is not enough to live on and so needs to be increased. > the ability to create a ton of extra jobs below the subsistence level is useless to society Nonsense. Every job I worked while I was in high school and college was below the subsistence level--I wasn't living on that money, because I was living with my parents (high school) or in a dorm the room and board of which my parents were paying for (college). I was using the money I earned to buy extras that weren't included in the room and board my parents were paying for, and to build up savings for the future. Doing that is a classic way of giving yourself a better start in life. But "you can't live on a minimum wage job" rhetoric takes all those opportunities away. > Information asymmetry is a huge problem. I agree. I don't agree, however, that the laws you say "protect" employees actually fix the problem. They don't. I have watched employer-union negotiations from up close. They don't actually help workers at all. In one case I saw, the union signed up to the same deal with the company on day ninety-three of a strike, that the company had offered on day two. Who suffered most because of those extra ninety-one days out on strike? The rank and file union workers. (In the next union election they voted out the union bosses who had managed the strike, but by then it was too late. Nor was the next set of union bosses any better.)

flandish 4y ago

The problem with removing regulation for corps so they can work a “free” “market” is that they will exploit. It’s what they’ve always done. It’s what they will always trend toward. See also: kids in auto plans, meat facilities, etc. The issue is that the labor has no ability to correct the market - in the same fashion. (Ie: labor cannot exploit and downright _murder_ capital owners - like the owners can and have done. There are laws preventing that.) If humans are not treated with a higher priority than roi or profit, the business is inherently evil. (Hint; they all are.) If we have laws for some and not for all - that is to say privatization of all corps with no regulation - that is deplorable and will not end well. A solution, imho, is for all services required for life, health, education, and safety to be public owned and not corporations. All other services are owned equally by those that operate them, co-op like. Free markets can still exist like this. But hey. That’s not really what capitalists claim to want when they say “free market”; that phrase is a dog whistle for “legal exploitation of the labor pool.”

pdonis 4y ago

> If we remove government restrictions to become a true free market that's going to be removing labour laws as well. Yes, but it will also be removing all the sweetheart deals that companies now have with governments. (Btw, patents are a big part of this.) The power discrepancy you describe comes from those sweetheart deals. Without them large companies, being extremely inefficient producers of wealth, are open to all kinds of competition. Btw, the labor laws you speak of do not actually favor labor. For example, minimum wage laws make it harder for people in that wage bracket to earn a living--because minimum wage laws prevent many jobs in that bracket from existing at all. Companies don't mind that: they just automate those jobs. The ones who suffer are the workers who now find jobs much scarcer.

SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
> The power discrepancy you describe comes from those sweetheart deals I'm speaking of the power discrepancy between the employer and employee. Many of these sectors move towards a monopoly regardless of government interference. There's just no way a new infrastructure company is going to come in to destabilize, say, city sewers. > The ones who suffer are the workers who now find jobs much scarcer. This whole paragraph doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If the assumption is that a minimum wage job is the amount of money you'd need to make in order to survive (arguable) then the ability to create a ton of extra jobs below the subsistence level is useless to society but useful again to the employer. To be more precise, I was thinking of things like laws that protect people at their workplace (work place safety) or those allowing employees to discuss their wages. The first set are obvious why they are important, and it would take a truly ghoulish argument to be against them, but the second are important as well. Without those there would be complete information asymmetry between the employer and employee. Information asymmetry is a huge problem.
- pdonis 4y ago
  > I'm speaking of the power discrepancy between the employer and employee. Which only exists because the employer is in a privileged position due to government regulations that favor employers over employees. That said, there is a fundamental power imbalance between someone who thinks of themselves as an employer (or more precisely, an independent wealth creator, who employs other people to help them) and someone who thinks of themselves as an employee--meaning, someone who just wants a "job" without wanting to think about the business risks that are inherent in any kind of wealth creation. That kind of employee will always be at a disadvantage in bargaining, yes. But you can't fix that problem by government regulation. You can only fix it by helping people to realize that they don't have to think of themselves as employees. > Many of these sectors move towards a monopoly regardless of government interference. What sectors are you talking about? Natural monopolies are extremely rare. The original meaning of the word "monopoly" was a government grant giving an exclusive right to sell a particular product. > If the assumption is that a minimum wage job is the amount of money you'd need to make in order to survive I made no such assumption. But it is true that many proponents of raising the minimum wage do make such an assumption, in order to argue that the current minimum wage is not enough to live on and so needs to be increased. > the ability to create a ton of extra jobs below the subsistence level is useless to society Nonsense. Every job I worked while I was in high school and college was below the subsistence level--I wasn't living on that money, because I was living with my parents (high school) or in a dorm the room and board of which my parents were paying for (college). I was using the money I earned to buy extras that weren't included in the room and board my parents were paying for, and to build up savings for the future. Doing that is a classic way of giving yourself a better start in life. But "you can't live on a minimum wage job" rhetoric takes all those opportunities away. > Information asymmetry is a huge problem. I agree. I don't agree, however, that the laws you say "protect" employees actually fix the problem. They don't. I have watched employer-union negotiations from up close. They don't actually help workers at all. In one case I saw, the union signed up to the same deal with the company on day ninety-three of a strike, that the company had offered on day two. Who suffered most because of those extra ninety-one days out on strike? The rank and file union workers. (In the next union election they voted out the union bosses who had managed the strike, but by then it was too late. Nor was the next set of union bosses any better.)