5 ms·

>> while the labor market has very little flexibility that would allow workers to "vote with their feet" and move to "better" employers without outside influenc

>> while the labor market has very little flexibility that would allow workers to "vote with their feet" and move to "better" employers without outside influence Have you heard of the Great Resignation?

bb88 4y ago
Most companies treat employees as necessary liabilities to make profit and not assets. Flexibility only went one way, and people felt that life is too short to be treated like shit, so they left. Usually the bosses/managers/execs had tons of flexibility, but the employees didn't. I'm not saying your wrong, it's just that it took a pandemic for people to realize that working in a shitty job for 20 years may not be the best use of their lives.
tanaros 4y ago
>> Have you heard of the Great Resignation? Isn’t the Great Resignation driven at least in part by the government’s influence? COVID lockdowns and regulations heavily incentivized employers to offer more flexibility around remote work, and COVID economic relief policies helped provide folks with the financial stability needed to look for better employment. I’m not sure this would have occurred organically without any government intervention.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- syshum 4y ago
  That would only explain remtoe workers, However non-remote jobs are having the same problems. Hell the MCD's in my area now has signs wanting people at up to $16/hr (min starting is $13 now) Government policies are never the correct way to solve societal problems, even taking the premise the the "evil profit motive" is the actual reason we have seen abuse in the past (which I disagree with), the resolution to that is NEVER government as any honestly look at government policies requires one to conclused that at best the government policy just takes credit for something that was happening anyway, but more often the government policy slows or stopps the trend to improving lives Just look at the "War on Poverty", at the start of that poverty was dropping FAST, then the government steps in to "solve" the problem of poverty that the evil free market could not (even though it was), and poverty rates flatlined. Trillions and trillions of dollars spent later, and the government still has not solved that problem, where the free market likely would have if allowed to continue...
  - medvezhenok 4y ago
    If someone thinks the Government doesn't solve problems, they can just look at the 1929-1934 and how problems got "solved" under free market capitalism (before the massive government interventions starting in 1934). (we now consider that period to be a giant mistake specifically because the government did not do enough and left free markets to their own accord)
    - syshum 4y ago
      No "we" do not, some people do, some people do not There is LOTS of scholarly economics works that shows government intervention in the markets not only lets to the crash, completely extended the length the crash. Specifically the fed actions in 1929 lead to prolonged pain not seen in other nations that recovered faster because their central bank did not try to "solvable the problem" To state that is a forgone conclusion that everyone agrees that "free market capitalism" was the cause of the great depression is highly ignorant
      - hedora 4y ago
        I suggest checking to see what policies changed in 1934, and who was in power before and after (and why).
  - dwaltrip 4y ago
    How do negative externalities fit into your picture?
    - syshum 4y ago
      And you believed these are resolved with government policies? Which ones? Point to some examples of government resolving these to the detriment of corporations? The examples I could provide would be government shielding corporations from these negative externalities, limiting their liability, and socializing the costs to the tax payers of that government.... I can point to no examples of govermment resolving the problem of externalities
pandemicsoul 4y ago
Yes. Are you trying to imply that the Great Resignation was not the result of the outside influence I mentioned – in this case government intervention (lockdowns, unemployment insurance expansion), and a global pandemic that removed hundreds of thousands of people from the workforce and changed priorities for companies and employees?

bb88 4y ago

Most companies treat employees as necessary liabilities to make profit and not assets. Flexibility only went one way, and people felt that life is too short to be treated like shit, so they left. Usually the bosses/managers/execs had tons of flexibility, but the employees didn't. I'm not saying your wrong, it's just that it took a pandemic for people to realize that working in a shitty job for 20 years may not be the best use of their lives.

tanaros 4y ago

>> Have you heard of the Great Resignation? Isn’t the Great Resignation driven at least in part by the government’s influence? COVID lockdowns and regulations heavily incentivized employers to offer more flexibility around remote work, and COVID economic relief policies helped provide folks with the financial stability needed to look for better employment. I’m not sure this would have occurred organically without any government intervention.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
syshum 4y ago
That would only explain remtoe workers, However non-remote jobs are having the same problems. Hell the MCD's in my area now has signs wanting people at up to $16/hr (min starting is $13 now) Government policies are never the correct way to solve societal problems, even taking the premise the the "evil profit motive" is the actual reason we have seen abuse in the past (which I disagree with), the resolution to that is NEVER government as any honestly look at government policies requires one to conclused that at best the government policy just takes credit for something that was happening anyway, but more often the government policy slows or stopps the trend to improving lives Just look at the "War on Poverty", at the start of that poverty was dropping FAST, then the government steps in to "solve" the problem of poverty that the evil free market could not (even though it was), and poverty rates flatlined. Trillions and trillions of dollars spent later, and the government still has not solved that problem, where the free market likely would have if allowed to continue...
- medvezhenok 4y ago
  If someone thinks the Government doesn't solve problems, they can just look at the 1929-1934 and how problems got "solved" under free market capitalism (before the massive government interventions starting in 1934). (we now consider that period to be a giant mistake specifically because the government did not do enough and left free markets to their own accord)
  - syshum 4y ago
    No "we" do not, some people do, some people do not There is LOTS of scholarly economics works that shows government intervention in the markets not only lets to the crash, completely extended the length the crash. Specifically the fed actions in 1929 lead to prolonged pain not seen in other nations that recovered faster because their central bank did not try to "solvable the problem" To state that is a forgone conclusion that everyone agrees that "free market capitalism" was the cause of the great depression is highly ignorant
    - hedora 4y ago
      I suggest checking to see what policies changed in 1934, and who was in power before and after (and why).
- dwaltrip 4y ago
  How do negative externalities fit into your picture?
  - syshum 4y ago
    And you believed these are resolved with government policies? Which ones? Point to some examples of government resolving these to the detriment of corporations? The examples I could provide would be government shielding corporations from these negative externalities, limiting their liability, and socializing the costs to the tax payers of that government.... I can point to no examples of govermment resolving the problem of externalities

pandemicsoul 4y ago

Yes. Are you trying to imply that the Great Resignation was not the result of the outside influence I mentioned – in this case government intervention (lockdowns, unemployment insurance expansion), and a global pandemic that removed hundreds of thousands of people from the workforce and changed priorities for companies and employees?