*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[BananaStand]

So we know for a fact that fewer or no workers rights results in very poor condition for workers in every scenario it has ever been tried in, but you say that you are convinced it would be better because you have a philosophical argument for why it works?

Are you talking about worker's rights? or anti-discrimination policies? If we're talking about worker's rights like safety protections and shit like that, then yeah....the gov't should definitely be enforcing that shit. But if we're talking about anti-discrimination policies.....like policies that seek to ensure that groups of races and genders are proportionally represented then those policies most definitely are bad for everyone. Paraphrasing Sowell here...

Imagine you have a taxi cab company. You want to hire drivers. You screen applicants by checking their driving records and you find that 4 out of 5 Irish applicants have drunk driving convictions. So you don't hire those 4 out of 5 drivers, but you do hire 1 out of 5. But now your staff is not directly proportional to your pool of applicants. Irish people are under represented.

Now imagine the government tries to correct that "injustice" by disallowing your ability to check the driving records of applicants. Because, they say, that screening policy disproportionally affects Irish people, therefore it is clearly racist against the Irish.

So now you go hire drivers again, but this time you have to guess who might have a good driving record and who might not. All you have to rely on is group data that says 4 out of 5 Irishmen have DUI's. So now you just don't hire ANY Irish.

That's a clear example of how an anti-discrimination policy increases discrimination. And it's not just a hypothetical. Obama signed an executive order making it so government subcontractors couldn't use criminal background checks to screen employees for staffing government projects. The argument was that a disproportional amount of young black men have petty criminal records from their youth, and that shouldn't hinder their advancement as reformed adults.

What do you think happened??

[oskar]

Obama signed an executive order making it so government subcontractors couldn't use criminal background checks to screen employees for staffing government projects. The argument was that a disproportional amount of young black men have petty criminal records from their youth, and that shouldn't hinder their advancement as reformed adults.

What do you think happened??

Fact check the shit you read on breitbart or the daily stormer, because this simply isn't true.

[BananaStand]

Fact check the shit you read on breitbart or the daily stormer, because this simply isn't true.

The only error I've found is that the order in fact did not affect contractors, just direct gov't employees. My bad.

The meat of the my point stands though.

[wufwugy]

Are you talking about worker's rights? or anti-discrimination policies? If we're talking about worker's rights like safety protections and shit like that, then yeah....the gov't should definitely be enforcing that shit. But if we're talking about anti-discrimination policies.....like policies that seek to ensure that groups of races and genders are proportionally represented then those policies most definitely are bad for everyone.

The principles are not any different for discrimination and safety policies.

Safety mandates that don't originate out of the employers and employees acting on choice make workers less safe.

[wufwugy]

[BananaStand]

Safety mandates that don't originate out of the employers and employees acting on choice make workers less safe.

Not sure about that.

If you're working with a highly corrosive acid, then it might not be bad for anyone if there were some kind of rule that requires your employer to maintain an up-to-date library of MSDS's and keep it prominently located in the shop.

I've worked in some places with some pretty nasty stuff. They all had eye-wash stations. However, in my 20+ year career, I've never actually seen anyone use an eye wash station. So it seems plausible that some corner-cutting company might just skip that purchase. It's highly plausible that a prospective employee would never think to ask about that. It only becomes a problem when there's a real fucking problem. An ounce of gov't regulation can save 100 lbs of eyeballs. So I'm not seeing how you can say that people would be more safe without that gov't regulation.

Also, it's not just employees and employers that have to be considered. Imagine a truck driver sitting behind the wheel for 90 hours a week. Maybe he likes the overtime, and maybe the employer is willing to pay it because the freight just has to get delivered. But if you're driving with your family, do you wanna be on the same road as that 90hr trucker?

[wufwugy]

If you're working with a highly corrosive acid, then it might not be bad for anyone if there were some kind of rule that requires your employer to maintain an up-to-date library of MSDS's and keep it prominently located in the shop.

At what dollar cost and what opportunity cost? Each of government and employers/employees/consumers care about safety and they each try to get as much *safety-value as they can. Using the price system and allowing employers/employees/consumers to choose makes the most amount of safety-value.

Do you propose that bureaucracy is more effective at creating safety-value for employers/employees/consumers than employers/employees/consumers are?

Also, it's not just employees and employers that have to be considered. Imagine a truck driver sitting behind the wheel for 90 hours a week. Maybe he likes the overtime, and maybe the employer is willing to pay it because the freight just has to get delivered. But if you're driving with your family, do you wanna be on the same road as that 90hr trucker?

You're right that I should have mentioned the choice of consumers as well.


*Since economic status depends on the perceived value of those who perceive it, every status, like safety, is thought of in terms of the value it brings. In obvious terms: if it costs $1,000,000,000 to implement a system that saves one life yet other systems would save more lives for cheaper, opting for the former system is reducing total safety even as it is increasing safety in isolated terms. Further, since nothing has an infinite value, not even safety, people can be better off when less safe if that safety costs too much since they would rather have other things instead of that costly safety.

[BananaStand]

At what dollar cost and what opportunity cost? Each of government and employers/employees/consumers care about safety and they each try to get as much *safety-value as they can. Using the price system and allowing employers/employees/consumers to choose makes the most amount of safety-value.

You're giving people too much credit for having the information necessary to make informed choices. Would you check to see if a company's MSDS's are up to date before you consider a job there? Are you verifying the adequacy of ventilation and lighting? Are you doing an asbestos inspection?

We know for a fact that safer workplaces are more productive and prosperous for everyone involved. We know this because we've acted it out for decades and it's pretty much proven to be true. however cutting corners on safety can sometimes prove more prosperous for just one party, the employer. You might say that a free market would prevent that guy from getting good employees and his business would suffer and die because of it. But the fact is, too many people just don't know any better.

I see it as the government's job to ensure that the marketplace is fair and accessible for everyone. And that means preventing exploitable people from being exploited.

[wufwugy]

You're giving people too much credit for having the information necessary to make informed choices.

We are both giving people credit for having said information. You are saying bureaucrats have better information. I am saying that the marketplace, making up the people acting in the marketplace, does.

We know for a fact that safer workplaces are more productive and prosperous for everyone involved.

Depends on what it costs.