4 ms·

In general government regulation should prevent negative externalities, not restrict entry to certain occupations in order to keep wages high for those occupati

by swatow 12y ago

In general government regulation should prevent negative externalities, not restrict entry to certain occupations in order to keep wages high for those occupations. The issues you cite (healthcare, transportation, telecommunications, energy, etc) all involve externalities or market failures. Low wages are not an eternality or a market failure. Issues of redistribution are best dealt with by taxation [1]. Why does a person who earns a low income deserve more of a break, just because they happen to be a taxi driver? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_theorems_of_welfare_economics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_theorems_of_welfare...

fennecfoxen 12y ago
It's not just that. It's a question of why a person deserves more of a break just because they happen to be currently employed as a taxi driver whereas someone else seeks to be newly employed as an Uber driver. But then, systematic discrimination against new entrants to the labor market and similar barriers to entry have long been typical of many European nations, and it's one of the reasons that youth unemployment over there is such a big problem even in healthier economies than the current one. A quick Google suggests that Spain's youth unemployment rate is about 54% (... contrast with the #1 EU outlier, Germany, with the most liberalized economy and youth unemployment at 7.8%) Unfortunately, this is probably one of those economic systems typified by positive feedback cycles.
- boacon 12y ago
  Spaniard here. The main difference between political parties in Spain is whether they prefer to build or burn churches, so to speak. In economic matters they are all highly interventionist, and we like it this way, sadly.
- wdewind 12y ago
  > It's not just that. It's a question of why a person deserves more of a break just because they happen to be currently employed as a taxi driver whereas someone else seeks to be newly employed as an Uber driver. I don't think it's that simple. A taxi medallion is an agreement made with the government. If the government then turns around and allows Uber in, what other agreements that they've made will they go back on? It undermines the social contract and the reputation of the government.
  - fennecfoxen 12y ago
    Is that a procedural argument I smell? If you're sincere about this and if that's really the only objection, would you be willing to champion Uber (and its future competitors) if a way could be found to wind down the existing agreement in a manner that is not ostentatiously financially damaging to taxi medallion holders? Because as far as a "social contract" goes, this contract is basically selling out its people to private entities -- taxi customers as property of the medallion-holder. Under other circumstances this would be incredibly objectionable: imagine the outcry if a government decided to sell Uber the exclusive right to run taxis and car services in a city.
    - wdewind 12y ago
      > If you're sincere about this and if that's really the only objection, would you be willing to champion Uber (and its future competitors) if a way could be found to wind down the existing agreement in a manner that is not ostentatiously financially damaging to taxi medallion holders? Yes totally. > Because as far as a "social contract" goes, this contract is basically selling out its people to private entities -- taxi customers as property of the medallion-holder. Under other circumstances this would be incredibly objectionable: imagine the outcry if a government decided to sell Uber the exclusive right to run taxis and car services in a city. Yeah, believe me I'm not defending the medallion system (if we didn't have it I probably wouldn't support the creation of it, nor the exclusive rights selling to Uber), but here we are, we have them, and so the state has created a level of expectations that would be damaging to reverse on. Not only for the medallion holders, but also for the general reputation of the government's word, which I think is important.

by swatow 12y ago

fennecfoxen 12y ago

It's not just that. It's a question of why a person deserves more of a break just because they happen to be currently employed as a taxi driver whereas someone else seeks to be newly employed as an Uber driver. But then, systematic discrimination against new entrants to the labor market and similar barriers to entry have long been typical of many European nations, and it's one of the reasons that youth unemployment over there is such a big problem even in healthier economies than the current one. A quick Google suggests that Spain's youth unemployment rate is about 54% (... contrast with the #1 EU outlier, Germany, with the most liberalized economy and youth unemployment at 7.8%) Unfortunately, this is probably one of those economic systems typified by positive feedback cycles.

boacon 12y ago
Spaniard here. The main difference between political parties in Spain is whether they prefer to build or burn churches, so to speak. In economic matters they are all highly interventionist, and we like it this way, sadly.
wdewind 12y ago
> It's not just that. It's a question of why a person deserves more of a break just because they happen to be currently employed as a taxi driver whereas someone else seeks to be newly employed as an Uber driver. I don't think it's that simple. A taxi medallion is an agreement made with the government. If the government then turns around and allows Uber in, what other agreements that they've made will they go back on? It undermines the social contract and the reputation of the government.
- fennecfoxen 12y ago
  Is that a procedural argument I smell? If you're sincere about this and if that's really the only objection, would you be willing to champion Uber (and its future competitors) if a way could be found to wind down the existing agreement in a manner that is not ostentatiously financially damaging to taxi medallion holders? Because as far as a "social contract" goes, this contract is basically selling out its people to private entities -- taxi customers as property of the medallion-holder. Under other circumstances this would be incredibly objectionable: imagine the outcry if a government decided to sell Uber the exclusive right to run taxis and car services in a city.
  - wdewind 12y ago
    > If you're sincere about this and if that's really the only objection, would you be willing to champion Uber (and its future competitors) if a way could be found to wind down the existing agreement in a manner that is not ostentatiously financially damaging to taxi medallion holders? Yes totally. > Because as far as a "social contract" goes, this contract is basically selling out its people to private entities -- taxi customers as property of the medallion-holder. Under other circumstances this would be incredibly objectionable: imagine the outcry if a government decided to sell Uber the exclusive right to run taxis and car services in a city. Yeah, believe me I'm not defending the medallion system (if we didn't have it I probably wouldn't support the creation of it, nor the exclusive rights selling to Uber), but here we are, we have them, and so the state has created a level of expectations that would be damaging to reverse on. Not only for the medallion holders, but also for the general reputation of the government's word, which I think is important.