Unless, of course, those companies get together and say “You know what? If we sit around and constantly one-up one another on what we’re willing to pay, then our profit margins are going to get thinner and thinner. At some point, we’re going to get to a point where a cent (or a penny) less, and the job becomes not worth it - and either we all match that point, negating our advantage in value, or we have to go above or below, losing money either way. So let’s all agree to pay only a set amount, and no higher, to protect those profits.”
Really, they don’t even have to all get together. Conspiracy isn’t necessitated to a company to look at what their competitors are paying. Nor does this take into account situations where added value does not come from paying more. If we’re looking at a hi-tech job in Silicon Valley, then being able to pay a little more than Microsoft or Apple might well put you in better stead to hire the best, instead of the second-best, and that might well be a big difference. But if we’re looking at a job shelf-stacking, or fruit picking, there’s less of a demand for the absolute best candidate for that role. People don’t headhunt for such positions. There’s little value to a company in increasing their pay then, unless they absolutely have to. Which goes back to the industry set pay problem.
That doesn’t mean that those prices aren’t affected by a minimum wage. I mean, that’s your argument, surely? That companies will gradually pay more until they get to their bare minimu profit line? Doesn’t a minimum wage mean a guaranteed starting point for those increases? All your point shows is that in some fields, companies are willing to pay just a little bit more than the bare minimum that they are allowed to, not that pay is totally unconnected to minimum wage. If nothing else, wouldn’t we then expect to see statistics showing that pay and minimum wage fluctuate with no regard for changes to the other?
Well, there kind of are barriers to entry, unless you’re suggesting that I, tomorrow, could come up with a sellable product.
As far as Apple goes - i’m uncertain what your point is. Apple, and their success, exist under the current situation, which i’m (relatively, anyway) happy with. Monopolies are, certainly, not inherently bad things. A monopoly derived from genuinely superior product is something to be congratulated (at least while that reason lasts); I don’t see why pointing to, for lack of a better word, “good” monopolies existing now means that there would not be “bad” monopolies if government regulation were loosened.
By pointing out that the idea that companies will go just a bit above what they’re expected to do does not mean that they would maintain the same standards if they had no set standards to look to. By pointing out that situations where there are no set standards means that companies don’t do the bare minimum doesn’t mean that would also be reflected if laws prevented collusion or fair advertising practices were repealed.
It’s possible you’ve missed it, but i’m not saying the current situation is a good one. Quite the contrary. I’m just happy with it because I consider all other situations to be much worse. All of the things you mention are, indeed, bad. I just think that, absent government regulations, such things would be much worse.
With respect, I believe you’re tarring me with a straw brush. I don’t believe i’ve looked, starry-eyed, towards politicians and their honest, competent, fair dealings, to put forward my ideals. That’s silly. I disagree with you, but I wouldn’t accuse you of being some naive muppet, especially if you’d already made it clear you didn’t believe the things I was accusing you of. I understand, but i’d appreciate a little bit more respect that that, if possible.
Indeed. That’s why we should hand over that power to a different group, instead. Problem solved.
I actually live in the UK. But your point would still stand, I think.
That the government takes power from you is not theoretical - it’s the sole reason for the existence of government in the first place. But most of the fears I hear from the left of the wild excesses of capitalism ARE theoretical. They are worries about events that have not happeneed, and for which there is no evidence that they will happen.
With respect, I have not used such arguments. I understand that it is annoying to have some foolish points being made again and again, but I prefer trying to debate the other person. It tends to get complicated if we take time out every now and again to refute points that aren’t being made here.
Again, I don’t believe that i’ve accused you of living in some fairytale world where companies are all reasonable, competent people looking after their customer’s best interests at all times. That would be an unfair accusation to make of you.
I don’t earn anything. I’m unemployed, unfortunetly. So technically, you’re correct!
To the contrary, however, I don’t believe companies have the power to do so. That’s kind of my point; at this moment, government standards exist. If they were removed, I would certainly expect companies to drive down wages. Probably, given a change from the current system, in respect to current salaries. So i’d expect that if, let’s say, minimum wage laws were repealed, those earning close to it now would find themselves dropping back down below what it used to be before. Which in the current climate would probably also mean more jobs for a while, but hey, that’s another argument.
You keep repeating this alcohol and car thing and I’m confused. I buy alcohol on Sundays frequently, and my stepdad recently bought a car on a Sunday. More importantly I’m not sure what any of this has to do with federal safety regulations, what the post you quoted was talking about.
Why, what have they ever done to earn your trust? Is there nothing they could do to violate it? How many times does “the government” have to fuck up and kill people before you stop trusting it? How many corrupt/incompetent inspectors? Flawed regulations? Unintended consequences?
Again, why? Either way you’re dead and it’s of little condolence to your family that it was simply government incompetence/neglect that caused it.
And what about being the victim of corporate incompetence?
Or deliberately sacrificed on the alter of government greed?
How many young men were sent to die in foreign wars? How many died because Bush wanted to finish his father’s war? How many people died because Reagan wouldn’t acknowledge HIV/AIDS?
I’m sorry, I wasn’t aware people didn’t know about those, ignorance fought.
The point is that the same group of people bitching about libertarianism forget that the other side of the spectrum is authoritarianism. Happiness is somewhere in between.
Problem is, that people say things like, “we need the government regulating alcohol so people don’t go blind.” Which sounded good in theory, except it leads to Prohibition, look that up in you’re not familiar.
**Der Tris **claimed that having government regulations protected us from religion, but in reality it has entrenched it in the form of Blue Laws. Most of these discussions focus on the US, but regulations also do things like keep women from driving or being allowed to go to school. It was the US and state governments that kept schools segregated.
People like that marriage is regulated for a bunch of random reasons about child custody etc. But it also means that banning same sex marriage has been worked into 28 state constitutions.
Moving away from libertarianism means the government takes more and more control. Some times it seems nice and logical, other times its backasswords.
Why is weed illegal and tobacco not? Why is the drinking age 21? What is so scary about raw milk cheese? What is the correct temperature to cook pork?
In terms of food safety, there is another way to look at it:
Most if not all medium to large corporations (like Google, IBM, etc) will have a cafeteria in their building, which is a service provided by a handful of companies like Sodexo Mariott, Aramark, and Compass to name a few. These companies also provide cafeteria services to school and prisons as well. For anyone reading that went to university, there is a good chance one of those three ran the kitchen.
The contracts between the food service provider and the host company includes standards far in excess of the health department. And so the standards practiced by the providers will exceed those. Why? Because there is a ton of money to be made providing catering services, and getting people sick is the quickest way to break your contract. And if you get known as a company that makes people sick, you won’t get new contracts.
It’s not necessary for the individual consumer to worry about food safety in the cafeteria, because the contract takes care of it. The host company isn’t going to pay (many cafeterias are subsidized by the host) if people are getting sick. So the host company does its own inspections far more frequently than the local authorities, and with far more stringent standards.
The caterer wants to make profit, and that requires food safety. The host business is trying to make profit, and doesn’t want to waste money on an unsafe caterer. In between the employees benefit.
Without the government, the same thing would work itself out. Caterers would work on best practices in order to compete for contracts. Which may be either more or less strict that the current health code. Keep in mind, that a few years ago the government said pork had to be cooked to 160, but now it says 145. A company that cooked pork to 145 would have provided a better product without any increase risk of food poisoning.
Without the FDA it might be harder for the individual consumer to buy Aspirin, but there would still be a ton of money to be made off of real medications that don’t kill people. Obviously hospitals and pharmacies would need something to sell, and they wont’ want to be known as the place that sells deadly Aspirin.
What you will see is a price variance, which is why online pharmacies are such a huge hit. And the point people hate to face is that in the end the individual consumer is more than happy to go online and buy knockoff brand chemo treatment if it saves them a few bucks. People have no problem driving to Mexico and Canada to skirt FDA rules and buy something the FDA bans, especially if it costs less.
The problem with snake oil isn’t lack of government regulation, it’s that people really want snake oil. Especially if it’s on sale. So the government tries and tries some more. But eventually the majority decides it would rather be allowed to buy tobacco, I mean, snake oil because that’s what they want. And while they’re at it, might as well ban something they don’t like, you know, like weed and same sex marriage.
And you have no votes there. Supposedly, as mentioned above, that was the mechanism by which we can control the government bureaucracy - although I would submit that’s laughable.
And given the grotesque corruption and malfeasance of the African border patrol in many countries, the Mexican police, and their government functions in general, I suspect you might pause a moment before putting your trust in them.
Or am I wrong? As long as any “government function” supposedly exists anywhere, for the nominal purpose of controlling any thing, you’re ready to jump into the pool? They get your full faith and credit?
How about Chinese food safety? And railroad regulations? Ready to throw in your lot with them, as well?
The market is yourself. The market is a collection of voluntary transactions made by individuals. Replace “the market” with “yourself” in the above post and you have hit the nail on the head. The only person “sacrificing” you, is yourself. And the use of the word “victim” is nice cherry on top, revealing quite a bit more to boot.
Once you sign over the authority to regulate your behavior, the people doin’ the regulatin’ will be incented and driven by a whole host of things that have nothing to do with what you actually want. There will be Unintended Consequences.
But by then, it’s too late. You’ve lost control. And some of your money.
But you thought it was a good idea to allow them that authority in the first place for…some reason or the other. Damn. Things didn’t turn out the way I expected.
The Congo.
The FDA.
The CPSC.
Freddie and Fannie.
GE, Jeff Immelt and “Green Jobs”.
The helium reserve.
Fuel standards and airbags.
The Department of Education.
The Export-Import Bank.
Mohair subsidies.
Ethanol subsidies.
Farm subsidies.
The Army Corps of Engineers.
Amtrak.
Sematech.
ACORN and “Community Assistance”.
Windmills off Nantucket.
Support for Brazilian oil rigs.
The CRA.
6 bajillion buildings named after Robert Byrd in West Virginia.
Obamacare.
Dodd-Frank…the subject of the OP.
Less times than the death panels in corporate board rooms, to whom the suffering of the public is just a marketing calculus. They will do what ever they can get to make a buck, so long as the end result is profitable. If not enough people die to generate sufficient outrage to impact sales, they are all in.
I have precisely the same choice in who is elected to govern me as I have in choosing which products succeed in the marketplace. The difference is, stockholders don’t care if hundreds of people die, so long as it doesn’t impact sales. There is that sweet spot of death in the market where just enough families are destroyed to keep costs down, yet not so many that it affects the share price.
I thought you were in favor of private enterprise and the free market? Cape Windis a private development by Energy Management Inc. (EMI) a New England based energy company. I would have figured that since Ted Kennedy fought against it for years, it would have gained your support on that basis alone.
Cause lord knows that happens all the time, quickly, without political horsetrading, and without opposition from the people who benefit from a bad regulation. Congress just jumps right on it to fix things when they fuck up. Goes right to the front of their 8,000-item agenda, it does.
