Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

NetQuarterLatte t1_izf1jfb wrote

Reply to comment by brianvan in New York’s ‘zombie’ office towers teeter as interest rates rise by rootbeer_racinette

>So it should instead be too risky to work for anyone?

Employees should have negotiation leverage by being able to easily change jobs.

That famed bill will protect a minority of employees (who would've otherwise be fired), but it would weaken the available opportunities for everyone else. Ultimately, that will only help the big employers and the few employees who are no longer fit for their position.

7

brianvan t1_izf3cl4 wrote

Great. So then you don’t mind that we pass strong antitrust legislation that prevents industry consolidation above nominal market shares, and imposes stiff criminal penalties for collusion and union-busting? Sounds like you prefer a competitive market rather than one tied up in unilateral control from governments or corporations.

2

NetQuarterLatte t1_izf4jh2 wrote

Yup. Employer collusion distorts the market, so employers colluding against the employees hurts all the employees. Post-employment non-compete clauses are also really problematic, in my view.

On unions, I don't mind company-specific unions, though if we get to that point, in my opinion, the market should've been competition-friendly enough so that the employees should be empowered to just walk to a competitor or quit en-mass and create their own company...

However, I oppose industry-wide unions, because that also tends to hurts small businesses and most employees.

4

brianvan t1_izf56gg wrote

I think the point is that, while some of this stuff makes sense, any system has to work as a whole and not just add or remove discrete parts. The system we’re talking about is an ideological finish line that hasn’t been achieved. The system we actually live with fails workers constantly because legislators have removed worker protections while adding owner/stockholder safeguards across the board. Any new measure to strengthen workers’ position moves us a step away from the “free market” ideal but we’re nowhere close to it to begin with.

0

NetQuarterLatte t1_izfbs2f wrote

I think there's no finish line.

The fact that we have tons of empty storefronts and empty office space suggests it's too hard for new businesses to be created.

If existing employees are stuck in shitty jobs because they employers suck, creating new opportunities will move the needle on job safety and empowerment more than any regulation that intents to improve workers' position.

On the other hand, if we had physical limitations on commercial space available (all storefronts busy, say with skyrocketing commercial rents), I think the marginal low hanging fruit would be different and my criticism would be aimed at something else.

7

brianvan t1_izfcjaf wrote

Offices and storefronts are empty because landlords require a small fortune to lease one

2