3 ms·
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 incre
by 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 agoI 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 agoExactly which is why I oppose giving the government the power in the first place.