undefined | Better HN

0 pointsAnthonyMouse1y ago0 comments

> Collectively (and sometimes even personally), we can't "go work somewhere else"

If Company A sucks and there are many other companies that don't, every single employee at Company A could quit and go work somewhere else, and then Company A can go out of business. That's a completely reasonable outcome for a company that sucks, and is what happens when there is actually competition.

> and we certainly can't not-work at all.

No known system satisfies the criterion that we all collectively don't have to work.

> Moreover, if an "employer sucks", it may suck in multiple ways - environmental impact, social impacting where it operates, impact of its products and services on society etc. None of that changes even if you do go "work something else". What's necessary is improving things, not finding another 'stall' in the 'market'.

These are not the "Soviet Shoe Factory" issue, they're externalities. If the company tries to make only baby shoes to save material but people want adult shoes and competition exists then people buy adult shoes from somewhere else and the shoe factory making unnecessary baby shoes goes out of business or doesn't have the perverse incentive to do that to begin with.

If the company is dumping toxins in the river, that isn't one of the problems that competition is expected to fix, in the same way that it isn't expected to prevent thefts or murders. And it's also not a problem the Soviets fixed either.

0 comments

4 comments · 2 top-level

ozim1y ago· 2 in thread

Parent mentioned that not everyone can just swap.

Like if company A is on NY but 20 competitors are better and all but only have the work available in L.A.

You are not going to just quit and move.

Hence efficient market might be so on scale that is not available for that employee.

ema1y ago

It's a question of degree yes people aren't going to move across the country for a slightly better job but if the difference becomes big enough they do.

AnthonyMouseOP1y ago

Not only that, for it to even happen you'd need one of two things:

1) You have a very specific skillset which has such a high market value that you're not willing to change roles, but is esoteric enough that there are no other local employers for that skillset even though there are plenty of local employers in general. This is obviously not the common case, and is generally not a huge problem, because the "victim" is someone who can still command high wages and extract concessions from the monopolist because they still have the ability to switch roles and get a job doing something else for someone else.

2) There are not plenty of local employers in general. This is the aforementioned problem case where the incumbents capture the government and use it to inhibit competition, which must be prevented.

roenxi1y ago

> No known system satisfies the criterion that we all collectively don't have to work.

The current system nearly satisfies that criterion. We'd just have to accept 1700s average living standards.

Turns out in practice if you give people a day of free time they spend it bettering their lives by working instead of being happy with nothing.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse