3 ms·
> Then governments passed laws requiring it because politicians are adept at taking credit for good things that were about to happen regardless With this attit
by ffgjgf1 3y ago
> Then governments passed laws requiring it because politicians are adept at taking credit for good things that were about to happen regardless
With this attitude we’d still be driving with leaded gas, living in lead painting rooms with asbestos roofs and spraying ozone layer destroying aerosols amongst a bunch of other things.
The mechanism you described only really works with short term safety issues. If it takes years or decades for health problems to develop neither workers nor their employers tend to be particularly bothered about solving them.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago> The mechanism you described only really works with short term safety issues. The mechanism I described works for employment issues, because employees can choose not to take a job and more dangerous jobs carry a risk premium that both employers and employees have the incentive to reduce when reasonable safety measures are available. With leaded gasoline and CFCs the victims have no option to refuse, and it's completely legitimate to prohibit harms and risks imposed on other people without their consent.
- ffgjgf1 3y ago> jobs carry a risk premium For some reason you’re making the assumption that most employees are as capable of estimating this premium as well as their employers and/or that it’s even possible to estimate this risk in advance?
- AnthonyMouse 3y agoIf it's not possible to estimate the risk in advance then how is the legislature supposed to do it? If only the employers and not the employees know of the risk then who is going to advocate for a law? And in the latter case the employer would presumably have liability for knowingly exposing people to something harmful without informing them of the risk.