3 ms·

Speaking for US Employment Largely created by government treating labor differently than any other good. It is ironic how government regulations creates a probl

Speaking for US Employment Largely created by government treating labor differently than any other good. It is ironic how government regulations creates a problem for which then we need ever increasing amounts of regulations to fix... Asymmetry comes from the wide ranges of things we have linked to employment via regulation such as health care....

genocidicbunny 3y ago
I think people tend to forget how much of the regulations we have in the US related to labour arose because labour fought (and often bled and died) for. Sure we have problems like healthcare being tied to employment that are a result of some heavy-handed regulations in the WW2 era, but we also have things like a minimum wage, and overtime, workers comp..etc.
- phpisthebest 3y ago
  This is somewhat revisionist in alot of cases. A lot of employment law is bottom up, it is top down. For example Walmart is on record advocating for an increase in the Min Wage Federally, they have zero positions they are currently paying at federal minimum wages so to them it costs them nothing, and it may have the advantage to taking out small businesses. Lots of regulation is the same way, written by and for large companies so ensure their competition can never have a competitive advantage. This is why over the last few decades the market has been massively consolidated, where the top 5 companies in a market used to control around 20% of a market, 80% of the market share for most markets are controlled by less than 5 companies.
  - genocidicbunny 3y ago
    I think both things are true. There is a lot of regulation surrounding labour and employment that was hard won by labour, but you're right that there is also a lot that was similarly fought for by the employers. This is part of the asymmetry of power -- as employers pockets get deeper, they are more easily able to have regulations implemented that further deepen their pockets. The same would be possible with labour, but there's little concentration of power there. It's a lot easier to spend $1m as a company to get the regulations you want than it is to organize however many workers to spend $1m to get the regulations they want, especially since no one will have the exact same regulations in mind.
    - phpisthebest 3y ago
      Exactly which is why I oppose giving the government the power in the first place.
plagiarist 3y ago
I don't know how "regulations are the real problem" libertarian types are so numerous. You want to insist things were better when the children working the coal mines could purchase private health insurance (from the company store, with company scrip, naturally)?

genocidicbunny 3y ago

I think people tend to forget how much of the regulations we have in the US related to labour arose because labour fought (and often bled and died) for. Sure we have problems like healthcare being tied to employment that are a result of some heavy-handed regulations in the WW2 era, but we also have things like a minimum wage, and overtime, workers comp..etc.

phpisthebest 3y ago
This is somewhat revisionist in alot of cases. A lot of employment law is bottom up, it is top down. For example Walmart is on record advocating for an increase in the Min Wage Federally, they have zero positions they are currently paying at federal minimum wages so to them it costs them nothing, and it may have the advantage to taking out small businesses. Lots of regulation is the same way, written by and for large companies so ensure their competition can never have a competitive advantage. This is why over the last few decades the market has been massively consolidated, where the top 5 companies in a market used to control around 20% of a market, 80% of the market share for most markets are controlled by less than 5 companies.
- genocidicbunny 3y ago
  I think both things are true. There is a lot of regulation surrounding labour and employment that was hard won by labour, but you're right that there is also a lot that was similarly fought for by the employers. This is part of the asymmetry of power -- as employers pockets get deeper, they are more easily able to have regulations implemented that further deepen their pockets. The same would be possible with labour, but there's little concentration of power there. It's a lot easier to spend $1m as a company to get the regulations you want than it is to organize however many workers to spend $1m to get the regulations they want, especially since no one will have the exact same regulations in mind.
  - phpisthebest 3y ago
    Exactly which is why I oppose giving the government the power in the first place.

plagiarist 3y ago

I don't know how "regulations are the real problem" libertarian types are so numerous. You want to insist things were better when the children working the coal mines could purchase private health insurance (from the company store, with company scrip, naturally)?