4 ms·

Given a truly fair, free-market The reason the unions exist in the first place is because a completely free and unregulated market, in the past, produced gross

by e40 13y ago

Given a truly fair, free-market The reason the unions exist in the first place is because a completely free and unregulated market, in the past, produced gross human rights violations. For example: http://billmoyers.com/2014/04/23/us-workers-were-once-massacred-fighting-for-the-protections-being-rolled-back-today/ http://billmoyers.com/2014/04/23/us-workers-were-once-massac...

cookiecaper 13y ago
He said "a truly fair free market" which doesn't translate to anarchy. Some regulation may be necessary. He is just positing that the current regulations are not appropriate, not that regulations and/or law should be abolished entirely. Some regulation and law is required for a market to remain free.
- e40 13y ago
  Does anyone, anywhere believe a "truly fair free market" is anything but an ideal that could never exist? We'll find unicorns first.
  - cookiecaper 13y ago
    I don't think "truly fair" necessarily implies "perfect".
    - e40 13y ago
      "Truly fair" implies that regulation would not be needed, and that is only something that would happen in an ideal world.
      - cookiecaper 13y ago
        Why does it imply regulation would not be needed? It's truly fair because appropriate regulations are in place and inappropriate regulations are not. There may still be minor flaws, but once a certain fidelity is reached, I think "truly fair" is an apropos descriptor of a system even if it isn't 100% perfect.
- justinreeves 13y ago
  "a truly fair free market" doesn't translate to anything, because it's not attainable.
- vacri 13y ago
  A "truly fair free market" requires perfect information on the part of all stakeholders, which is impossible to achieve.
mycroft-holmes 13y ago
As if events like this were happening everywhere back then. Why is this outcome attributed to an unregulated market and not a group of horrible, horrible people? Unfortunately most people seem to think we need the government to protect us from an unregulated market of employers. But the reality is, we don't. Even during the Industrial Revolution, work-related fatalities were on the decline and the creation of OSHA had little affect on the trend [1]. It's most surprising to me that people in technology on HN make this argument. You see benefits at startups and larger companies like free meals, free transportation, remote work, free cell phones, gym memberships, on-site massages, free Kindles, health care, dental care, 401k matching, and so on. What percentage of the potential pool of benefits are mandated by the government? I would say an extremely small percentage. So what causes all of these employers to offer such amazing benefits and salaries without anybody from the government telling them to do so? Competition for labor. [1] http://mercatus.org/publication/evaluating-oshas-effectiveness-and-suggestions-reform http://mercatus.org/publication/evaluating-oshas-effectivene...
- _delirium 13y ago
  I don't think anyone doubts that a small slice of high-demand workers are in a favorable position to negotiate good terms. That's also why the original wave of unionization took off among occupations like coal miners and shipyard workers, not among stockbrokers or architects. Programmers don't need much government help because they, for the moment, are in high demand, so the employee has more market power than in most industries. Though even in tech, some aspects seem to still need the government to intervene: despite the shortage of programmers, employers still have enough market power to force noncompete agreements into the average worker's employment contract, unless the state bans them (as California did). One thing I like about living in Denmark, though, is that just about all employees have reasonable working conditions and decent perks, so there's less of a social gulf between different occupations. I get 6 weeks of vacation per year, along with benefits like paternity leave, good health coverage, a safe working environment, etc.— and so does everyone else. Actually I think even in my white-collar job the benefits are a little better here, though it depends on what you care about. I don't have free lunch or a masseuse available, but the work/life balance is good: at a Valley company it would be hard to negotiate perks like 6 weeks of vacation (especially if you want a real vacation, where you disconnect for at least 2-3 weeks at a time), and people don't seem to normally take paternity leave.

by e40 13y ago

cookiecaper 13y ago

He said "a truly fair free market" which doesn't translate to anarchy. Some regulation may be necessary. He is just positing that the current regulations are not appropriate, not that regulations and/or law should be abolished entirely. Some regulation and law is required for a market to remain free.

e40 13y ago
Does anyone, anywhere believe a "truly fair free market" is anything but an ideal that could never exist? We'll find unicorns first.
- cookiecaper 13y ago
  I don't think "truly fair" necessarily implies "perfect".
  - e40 13y ago
    "Truly fair" implies that regulation would not be needed, and that is only something that would happen in an ideal world.
    - cookiecaper 13y ago
      Why does it imply regulation would not be needed? It's truly fair because appropriate regulations are in place and inappropriate regulations are not. There may still be minor flaws, but once a certain fidelity is reached, I think "truly fair" is an apropos descriptor of a system even if it isn't 100% perfect.
justinreeves 13y ago
"a truly fair free market" doesn't translate to anything, because it's not attainable.
vacri 13y ago
A "truly fair free market" requires perfect information on the part of all stakeholders, which is impossible to achieve.

mycroft-holmes 13y ago

As if events like this were happening everywhere back then. Why is this outcome attributed to an unregulated market and not a group of horrible, horrible people? Unfortunately most people seem to think we need the government to protect us from an unregulated market of employers. But the reality is, we don't. Even during the Industrial Revolution, work-related fatalities were on the decline and the creation of OSHA had little affect on the trend [1]. It's most surprising to me that people in technology on HN make this argument. You see benefits at startups and larger companies like free meals, free transportation, remote work, free cell phones, gym memberships, on-site massages, free Kindles, health care, dental care, 401k matching, and so on. What percentage of the potential pool of benefits are mandated by the government? I would say an extremely small percentage. So what causes all of these employers to offer such amazing benefits and salaries without anybody from the government telling them to do so? Competition for labor. [1] http://mercatus.org/publication/evaluating-oshas-effectiveness-and-suggestions-reform http://mercatus.org/publication/evaluating-oshas-effectivene...

_delirium 13y ago
I don't think anyone doubts that a small slice of high-demand workers are in a favorable position to negotiate good terms. That's also why the original wave of unionization took off among occupations like coal miners and shipyard workers, not among stockbrokers or architects. Programmers don't need much government help because they, for the moment, are in high demand, so the employee has more market power than in most industries. Though even in tech, some aspects seem to still need the government to intervene: despite the shortage of programmers, employers still have enough market power to force noncompete agreements into the average worker's employment contract, unless the state bans them (as California did). One thing I like about living in Denmark, though, is that just about all employees have reasonable working conditions and decent perks, so there's less of a social gulf between different occupations. I get 6 weeks of vacation per year, along with benefits like paternity leave, good health coverage, a safe working environment, etc.— and so does everyone else. Actually I think even in my white-collar job the benefits are a little better here, though it depends on what you care about. I don't have free lunch or a masseuse available, but the work/life balance is good: at a Valley company it would be hard to negotiate perks like 6 weeks of vacation (especially if you want a real vacation, where you disconnect for at least 2-3 weeks at a time), and people don't seem to normally take paternity leave.