6 ms·

Eh whether government should have the right to do this takes a backseat to the fact that the government is the only way we can do this. The government is the o

Eh whether government should have the right to do this takes a backseat to the fact that the government is the only way we can do this. The government is the only coordinating mechanism we have to enforce something like this, otherwise everyone is playing the prisoner’s dilemma.

artificialLimbs 4y ago
By prisoners dilemma, do you mean that people are free to negotiate amongst themselves as they see fit? Oh the horror…
- michaelmrose 4y ago
  We already saw what happens when people are free to negotiate for themselves with people who possess most of the money and resources. People including children were working 60 hours a week in horrendously unsafe conditions for barely enough to live. The government isn't an interloper inserting itself. The government is US. We are negotiating with employers in a fashion where we actually possess enough influence to make a difference.
- nostromo95 4y ago
  Yes I do mean exactly that. It's entirely possible for both these things to be true: - Everyone believes that if they and everyone else had a 32 hour work week, they'd be happier - Everyone stays at 40 hours per week when given the choice of independently moving to a 32 hour work week due to social / economic pressures In this case a government law helps everyone coordinate to get out of a local maximum.
- imtringued 4y ago
  They are free to negotiate their freedoms away. What I have never understood so far, is that all the advocates of markets simply declare them free, as if reducing government involvement is going to solve inherent imbalances in power. The end result is branded "free market" when it is anything but.
pc86 4y ago
Respectfully, this seems like a completely backward take. If you don't care about whether or not government should be able to do things, and are only concerned with whether or not it does things you like, you end up with a government that can do whatever it wants. Eventually, that power will be wielded by someone you find detestable, or even worse, someone who finds you detestable.
- nostromo95 4y ago
  Seems like we're mixing up couple things here--(a) the level to which a government represents the people and (b) the powers that a government should have. It's easy to lose sight of the fact that the government is--in its ideal essence--just a way for a population to collectively enforce compliance with / contribution to a social good. I don't think it's controversial to say that if 100% of people wanted a 32 hour work week, the government should probably pass a law mandating that. Separately we can argue about the tendency for the aims of government to diverge from the aims of the citizenry or there being a slippery slope, but the "legitimate role" of government is representing the people.
  - forbiddenvoid 4y ago
    It's probably more nuanced than that. If 100% of people wanted a 32-hour work week, a law wouldn't be necessary - we would just have a 32-hour work week. The fact that the number is less than 100% is the reason we need a law, because the incentives aren't aligned between those who want it and those who don't.
    - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
      The prisoner's dilemma is a toy example where everyone wants the same thing, but they can't achieve it without some external mechanism. Many regulations in the real world fall into this category, ensuring your competitors can't do things you don't want to do and thereby force you to do it to compete (and they in turn don't want to do it, but if their competitors do it...).
Cyph0n 4y ago
The primary alternative to achieving this is through formation of unions. But, I’d wager there is an overlap between people who are against enforcement via legislation and people who are anti-union.
- josephcsible 4y ago
  By "people who are anti-union", do you mean "people who believe unions shouldn't be allowed to exist", or "people who believe unions shouldn't be allowed to force workers to join as a condition of having the job"?
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    Hey, if they don't like it, they can get a job somewhere else, no need for authoritarian governments preventing people freely entering contracts with groups with much more power than they do individually.... wait, this reminds me of something?
    - josephcsible 4y ago
      Unions having the power to force employees to join is what's authoritarian. If I want to work for a company, and the company wants to hire me, we should be free to enter into a contract. A third party shouldn't have the power to say "you can't unless you pay us dues". And before you say "well not if the company and union entered into a contract that said the company would only hire union workers", that's not how it works today. The laws we have today give unions the power to unilaterally say that without the company agreeing, and this is what's bad and needs to go away.
      - salawat 4y ago
        Unions don't have that power last I checked, and there is nothing that requires an employer to sign away their ability to seek unaffiliated workers. Just as there is nothing forcing a worker to join a Union. The only thing is, if you don't join, you don't get the benefit of collective bargaining.

artificialLimbs 4y ago

By prisoners dilemma, do you mean that people are free to negotiate amongst themselves as they see fit? Oh the horror…

michaelmrose 4y ago
We already saw what happens when people are free to negotiate for themselves with people who possess most of the money and resources. People including children were working 60 hours a week in horrendously unsafe conditions for barely enough to live. The government isn't an interloper inserting itself. The government is US. We are negotiating with employers in a fashion where we actually possess enough influence to make a difference.
nostromo95 4y ago
Yes I do mean exactly that. It's entirely possible for both these things to be true: - Everyone believes that if they and everyone else had a 32 hour work week, they'd be happier - Everyone stays at 40 hours per week when given the choice of independently moving to a 32 hour work week due to social / economic pressures In this case a government law helps everyone coordinate to get out of a local maximum.
imtringued 4y ago
They are free to negotiate their freedoms away. What I have never understood so far, is that all the advocates of markets simply declare them free, as if reducing government involvement is going to solve inherent imbalances in power. The end result is branded "free market" when it is anything but.

pc86 4y ago

Respectfully, this seems like a completely backward take. If you don't care about whether or not government should be able to do things, and are only concerned with whether or not it does things you like, you end up with a government that can do whatever it wants. Eventually, that power will be wielded by someone you find detestable, or even worse, someone who finds you detestable.

nostromo95 4y ago
Seems like we're mixing up couple things here--(a) the level to which a government represents the people and (b) the powers that a government should have. It's easy to lose sight of the fact that the government is--in its ideal essence--just a way for a population to collectively enforce compliance with / contribution to a social good. I don't think it's controversial to say that if 100% of people wanted a 32 hour work week, the government should probably pass a law mandating that. Separately we can argue about the tendency for the aims of government to diverge from the aims of the citizenry or there being a slippery slope, but the "legitimate role" of government is representing the people.
- forbiddenvoid 4y ago
  It's probably more nuanced than that. If 100% of people wanted a 32-hour work week, a law wouldn't be necessary - we would just have a 32-hour work week. The fact that the number is less than 100% is the reason we need a law, because the incentives aren't aligned between those who want it and those who don't.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    The prisoner's dilemma is a toy example where everyone wants the same thing, but they can't achieve it without some external mechanism. Many regulations in the real world fall into this category, ensuring your competitors can't do things you don't want to do and thereby force you to do it to compete (and they in turn don't want to do it, but if their competitors do it...).

Cyph0n 4y ago

The primary alternative to achieving this is through formation of unions. But, I’d wager there is an overlap between people who are against enforcement via legislation and people who are anti-union.

josephcsible 4y ago
By "people who are anti-union", do you mean "people who believe unions shouldn't be allowed to exist", or "people who believe unions shouldn't be allowed to force workers to join as a condition of having the job"?
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  Hey, if they don't like it, they can get a job somewhere else, no need for authoritarian governments preventing people freely entering contracts with groups with much more power than they do individually.... wait, this reminds me of something?
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    Unions having the power to force employees to join is what's authoritarian. If I want to work for a company, and the company wants to hire me, we should be free to enter into a contract. A third party shouldn't have the power to say "you can't unless you pay us dues". And before you say "well not if the company and union entered into a contract that said the company would only hire union workers", that's not how it works today. The laws we have today give unions the power to unilaterally say that without the company agreeing, and this is what's bad and needs to go away.
    - salawat 4y ago
      Unions don't have that power last I checked, and there is nothing that requires an employer to sign away their ability to seek unaffiliated workers. Just as there is nothing forcing a worker to join a Union. The only thing is, if you don't join, you don't get the benefit of collective bargaining.