3 ms·
Not really about the framing of these policies. What it really should be is 'new rules to limit exploitation of workers reduces exploitation'. What the US has
by bfeynman 3y ago
Not really about the framing of these policies. What it really should be is 'new rules to limit exploitation of workers reduces exploitation'. What the US has too much of, is providing people just enough support that you have legions of people lining up for jobs that are effectively subsidized by tax payers. These services should not really exist at the current price point and scale.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> it really should be is 'new rules to limit exploitation of workers reduces exploitation' The transition is predictably painful. A foreseeable effect of raising labour costs in one part of the market, and an elastic one at that, is lower employment there. Passing a law like this without any support for the workers whose income you're destroying is hard to position as reducing exploitation. If anything, it's exploiting them as symbols, a modern White Man's Burden by Seattle's electeds.