3 ms·
Just taking the details from the original article, the answer is probably 'quite a bit', and probably without a massive economic impact: * Windows * Air condi
by lemmsjid 13y ago
Just taking the details from the original article, the answer is probably 'quite a bit', and probably without a massive economic impact:
* Windows
* Air conditioning
* Chairs (!!)
* Fewer hours and more breaks
* Disability and health benefits
That's a baseline of civilized-ness.
In fact, the act of purchasing the labor to install those things would also stimulate the economy.
The real answer to why the above don't exist is not economics, it's, "Because we don't have to do that." And worse (and this is on the conscience of 'first world' peoples), "Because it will marginally increase the cost of the goods, thus causing corporations to purchase from other countries without such protections."
- lostlogin 13y agoI'd argue that heath care for all is a baseline requirement for governments, not businesses. If you run heath care as a business... things happen. However I do agree that in the absence of government action, your solutions are best.
- iliis 13y ago> Because it will marginally increase the cost of the goods And this is not even a given. Even in blue-collar industries it can be quite profitable to improve working conditions and thereby raising employee productivity.
- PeterisP 13y agoYour examples such as * Fewer hours and more breaks * Disability and health benefits are definitely major issues with a massive economic impact. Unless 'fewer hours' is forced on all your competitors as well by effective labor legislation, anyone offering hour less for the same pay would quickly go out of business while the exploiters would grow - the effect of anything an employer can decide wouldn't cause any change to 'marginal cost of goods' - the price would stay the same as determined by the majority of competitors, and only loss would be to that owner.