4 ms·
Unfortunately, the "comparative advantage" in this case results mostly of self-inflicted woulds on the part of USG. For a company with highly productive employe
by mhartl 15y ago
Unfortunately, the "comparative advantage" in this case results mostly of self-inflicted woulds on the part of USG. For a company with highly productive employees such as Google, the large fixed cost associated with labor-law compliance isn't that big a deal, but for low-wage jobs it can be comparable to the cash compensation. There's no shortage of low-cost laborers in the US; it's just that onerous regulations price them out of the market.
- Karunamon 15y agoOnerous how? I'm not a business owner (well, I am, but with a staff size of one, which is mostly irrelevant to this conversation) - the regulations i've seen don't seem that bad. Could you be more specific?
- mhartl 15y agoSee http://www.dol.gov/compliance/topics/posters.htm http://www.dol.gov/compliance/topics/posters.htm (among many other examples).
- Karunamon 15y agoJust posting a number of laws does not explain how they are onerous or hard to follow. Let's see... Minimum wage stuff, no hostile work environment, no unsafe work environment, FMLA doesn't even apply unless you have more than 50 workers, etc. I know most of this stuff by heart just from being in the workforce, let alone an employer (who I'd assume worked for someone else at some point in their career).
- mhartl 15y ago"Onerous" essentially means "expensive to comply with", not necessarily "hard to follow". For more detail on these sorts of issues, see, e.g., http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1752 http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1752.