The Labor Pains Megathread

[Razgovory]

Also how aware a person must be the terms and conditions of a contract and how can they legally break the contract.

[Valmy]

Service workers should have rights too

If working evenings and weekends is so onerous and unpleasant, fewer people will be willing to do it and wages will have to rise accordingly.

Are you saying that in order to combat increasing working hours and stagnating wages for several decades in this country we just need to have a massive nationwide general strike?  To indicate our unwillingness to continue to work harder for less?  That this will bring about a massive improvement in wages and working conditions?  That is a very revolutionary idea Yi one I am very surprised you would advocate.  I have to say I am impressed.

I am not sure it is foolproof though.  It may just tank the economy and be socially destabilizing.  But I applaud your radical ideas.

[Admiral Yi]

Are you saying that in order to combat increasing working hours and stagnating wages for several decades in this country we just need to have a massive nationwide general strike?  To indicate our unwillingness to continue to work harder for less?  That this will bring about a massive improvement in wages and working conditions?  That is a very revolutionary idea Yi one I am very surprised you would advocate.  I have to say I am impressed.

I am not sure it is foolproof though.  It may just tank the economy and be socially destabilizing.  But I applaud your radical ideas.

A strike is not what I'm talking about.  A strike is an attempt to impose terms and conditions on an existing job. 

What I'm talking about is less people being willing to perform that job at the terms and conditions that exist.  Supply and demand.

[Valmy]

A strike is not what I'm talking about.  A strike is an attempt to impose terms and conditions on an existing job. 

What I'm talking about is less people being willing to perform that job at the terms and conditions that exist.  Supply and demand.

Exactly.  You are saying the cause of our labor conditions is willingness to work under them.  We need to refuse to work until those are rectified.  Supply and Demand.

[Martinus]

A strike is not what I'm talking about.  A strike is an attempt to impose terms and conditions on an existing job. 

What I'm talking about is less people being willing to perform that job at the terms and conditions that exist.  Supply and demand.

Exactly.  You are saying the cause of our labor conditions is willingness to work under them.  We need to refuse to work until those are rectified.  Supply and Demand.

You will always have scabs.

[Admiral Yi]

Exactly.  You are saying the cause of our labor conditions is willingness to work under them.  We need to refuse to work until those are rectified.  Supply and Demand.

A strike is more than a refusal to work under the existing conditions.  It's also a message that others who find the conditions acceptable should not take the job.

[Tamas]

I, on the other hand, can easily believe that you are missing the point entirely.

But I'll try once more:

Using your arguments of freedom to contract and allowing supply and demand, where and how do you draw the line between slavery and sub-standard working conditions?

Is this the gist of the crystal clear argument?

It's an attempt to understand your - or at this point, Tamas' - position. It is a question that proponents of a completely free market have to address, one way or the other. Are there things that cannot be contracted away? Do unequal bargaining positions matter or not, including at the extreme?

My argument proceeds differently, depending on the answer. When I was talking to you, I attempted to account for several potential answers, since none was forthcoming.

It is the usual tactic: I/somebody else mentions the idea of keeping regulation to a minimum in order to help the creation of jobs, and your side of the argument pretends we are calling for anarchy.

[Jacob]

It is the usual tactic: I/somebody else mentions the idea of keeping regulation to a minimum in order to help the creation of jobs, and your side of the argument pretends we are calling for anarchy.

I'm not pretending you are calling for anarchy. I'm saying that the argument you're making is facile, ill-considered, and morally bankrupt.

It has nothing to do with any given amount of regulation (or whether it "aids job creation"). I've stated several times in this thread already that I have no issue with 24-7 store openings in principle. My objection is to the argument you bring to the discussion.

You live in a society where your entire economic existence is predicated on a tight network of regulations and laws that ensure that unequal exploitation is lesser than it's been in pretty much any period or place in history; and that is to your benefit. Yet you dogmatically stake a claim that regulation is fundamentally anathema. Your contribution to any discussion involving regulation is always and unerringly that it is bad and inhibits the free market, with no allowances and no exceptions; thus you appear callow.

By all means argue that any given set of regulations are counter productive. That's completely legitimate and should be discussed on the merits; I agree that counter productive regulations should be done away with (especially if it helps with job creation). However, when someone points out problems associated with removing certain regulation, a sweeping reference to "the market will sort it out" or "supply and demand" is straight up juvenile.

My objection to what you and Yi have posted so far is not that you think 24-7 openings are okay. That's fine. It can be okay. It's that the only argument you have offered is "the free market is good" and "supply and demand will sort it out". It's the equivalent of a sophomoric Communist answering "collectivization" or "the will of the people" when asked to justify any given policy. The policy may be good, or it may not, but the justification for it is bunk.

[Admiral Yi]

That is absolutely not the only argument I've offered.

[Tamas]

I argued that little regulation in this particular case is good because it preserves jobs and is beneficial to the customer, and I did try to outline those. I concede of being dogmatic in some cases, but I was not in this one, hence my flipping over CC's claim of my support for slavery.

[Jacob]

I argued that little regulation in this particular case is good because it preserves jobs and is beneficial to the customer, and I did try to outline those.

Fair enough. Personally, I favour longer opening hours in Europe as well, though I do like the pace the closed-Sundays rule gives as well. It isn't a moral issue though, but a technocratic one of quality of life and efficiency.

I concede of being dogmatic in some cases, but I was not in this one, hence my flipping over CC's claim of my support for slavery.

I'm still curious on where, how, and on what grounds you (and Yi) are willing to place limits on the free market and contracting; but we can save that for some other time if you're up for it

[Jacob]

That is absolutely not the only argument I've offered.

What other arguments have you offered?

[Admiral Yi]

What other arguments have you offered?

If German workers find evening and weekend hours onerous, fewer of them will make themselves available.  This diminished labor pool will drive up wages.  Some German workers, who may be indifferent to working hours or who are willing to sacrifice for the higher wages, will see an improvement in their conditions.

People make money by doing what others are unwilling or unable to do.

[Jacob]

What other arguments have you offered?

If German workers find evening and weekend hours onerous, fewer of them will make themselves available.  This diminished labor pool will drive up wages.  Some German workers, who may be indifferent to working hours or who are willing to sacrifice for the higher wages, will see an improvement in their conditions.

People make money by doing what others are unwilling or unable to do.

How is "supply and demand will sort it out" not an accurate summary of what you just posted?

[Admiral Yi]

You're right, it is a decent summary. 

But to compare that to Marxist claptrap is ridiculous.