🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@comphys

> I think you can look at this from many angles. In my opinion, our institutions should be regulated in a way that optimises for things like improved living standards for the average citizen, average life expectancy, average level of happiness etc.

I would mostly agree here. The caveat is that regulating institutions improperly can have the opposite effect. Ergo to achieve that one must be delicate (and usually light-handed) in how that regulation occurs.

> When companies engage in price fixing, the result will almost invariably be higher prices for the majority of society. This is bad, because it will limit access to goods for the average person.

Agreed

> When individuals collectively agree not to work for less than some amount (you said "price fixing", which I suppose is accurate), the result will hopefully be higher pay for the individuals. This is good, because it improves access to goods for the average person. You might say the price of goods will increase, but prices in a competitive market can't be raised arbitrarily.

Strongly disagree. If that were true we would just give everyone infinite free money and everything would be great. In reality it doesnt work that way. when workers are providing **value** and being paid specifically for that value, and at a fair price, then and only then, is it good. Realized value makes everyone more wealthy, but free money that doesnt represent value does not.

Now what does need to happen to be good for everyone is to increase the value of a worker, ergo let that worker be paid more as they are of higher value, and then the extra money will be a boon to society for sure.

> Morally if not legally, companies are not people. They don't starve if they can't earn a living, they don't suffer when their kids are hungry etc. There are good reasons for companies to be restricted in ways that individuals are not. I see unions as a mechanism for individuals to collaborate.

I am totally fine with the restrictions we put on companies. Which is why i continue to support anti-trust laws. But regardless we must recognize they have less power than the people, intentionally so, and thats fine in its natural state (without unions).

@admitsWrongIfProven

Now you are getting it.. its because money doesnt define wealth.. When people take an unfair share through price-fixing then while it looks like they are taking more because they have more dollars and cents in reality the runaway inflation that results means you actually have less but are tricked into thinking you have more.

@ech

@admitsWrongIfProven @ech

> If the price is truly unreasonable, the industry dies because nobody can afford it. Not even the workers with unreasonable wages. That's the point.

This only works in a non-price fixed market.. with price fixing there is no such thing as unreasonable price since im able to force people to pay whatever I want.. thats why inflation forces kick in rather than market forces.

> I suspect you argue from the perspective of someone who has more than a fair share... only then is this a bad thing: no actual value produced, then one is a looser in this.

I grew up in the worst sort of poverty imaginable. I argue fromt he perspective of someone who has expiernced the hardship and learned what it takes to address it.

@admitsWrongIfProven

How would that cut off their own supply.. they fix an unreasonable price, make a ton more money as a result, company keeps producing goods but just sells the goods at a much higher price. Inflation goes haywire, you have total economic collapse long term, but short term pressures the employees think they are doing great, afterall they are paid a fortune.

@ech

@admitsWrongIfProven

No this isnt theory, this is reality.

Unions price fix **in reality** it is intentional and their stated purpose. This isnt theory or rules. The purpose of a union is to create a coalition and to use that collective bargaining power to price-fix their salary and other benefits. Calling that theory is absurd, its literally the stated purpose.

@ech

@admitsWrongIfProven

Didnt ignore it, just not relevant. Since price-fixing isnt allowed through anti-trust mechanisms, in the same manner unions wouldnt be allowed, this balances the price on both side. The company will want to sell the product and if people cant afford it they lower the price until the cost of production and demand reach a balance. So no problem reached there.

Now in an economy where you pay for value that means you do of course need to provide value. A company cant sell a 0-value product and expect to make money any more than a worker can expect to make money with 0-value to offer (no skills).

The answer therefore is assisting both companies and people in ensuring they provide value and thus can be successful.. For people that would involve a combination of welfare and free education... for companies it means none of the usual price fixing (like minimum wage or unions) to ensure companies can hire people who can make quality products at their value-appropriate price.

@ech

@admitsWrongIfProven

> It would make no sense for unions to price fix in the same manner, since they cannot profit - or do you see a realistic way to profit there?

Yes unions profit, or at least their members do. When they price-fix their salary they make more money through artificial scarcity (striking).. So yes it makes perfect sense for unions to price fix, and yes they profit from it. In fact most of the point of a union is to price-fix (or when not fixing price they are fixing it with other things of similar value like benefits).

So yes artificial scarcity of workers absolutely benefits workers. You need to realize to a company the "product" being priced are things, to unions the product being priced is the labour and the price is their salary + benefits.

@ech

@ech

> IIUC, “the problem” is monopolies charge unnaturally high prices because of lack of competition. If, instead, a monopoly is charging unnaturally low prices and losing money, then that particular problem is gone. yes? (At least temporarily – you saw my next paragraph…)

Well, no. For starters the problem is that competition cant come into existance. Which in turn leads to higher prices, but also other problems.

Second, this hasnt lowered the price. As stated the monopoly lowers prices within a 50 mile radius but raises prices everywhere else. So the average price hasnt changed, so the problem isnt solved. Moreover the lower price is only temporary, once the company goes out of business then the price is raised and the money made back by an even higher rate. Moreover, knowing competition is garunteed to fail no one even bothers to create said competition in the first place, so the decreased price is never even realized.

@JonKramer @trinsec

@admitsWrongIfProven

"control the price point of their work" is not the same as "price fixing".

Controlling the price of your work is what you do when no unions exist and you decide what price point you will work at and reject jobs below that point, and accept jobs above it.. This is controlling what price you work at but it is **not** price fixing.

Price fixing is where you manipulate the market to get a price that is contrary to market value but controlling all or most of the thing being priced. Unions artificially coordinating to raise their salary beyond the market value by creating artificial scarcity (striking) is price fixing.

The same is true of companies. Individual companies choosing to sell a product at whatever price they want is not price fixing, that is just controlling the price they are willing to accept.. When companies create coalitions and all agree to a fixed price regardless of market pressures to artificially inflate a price (and create artificial scarcity) then that is price fixing.

@ech

@ech

> My first reaction to “just undercut costs within 50 miles of the new station to rates so low it would operate at a loss” is: sounds good to me, problem solved!

How does that solve the problem? The company doesnt loose any money, they stay in business, and all new companies are prevented from forming that could possibly compete... what problem is being solved?

> I guess there’s an implicit argument here though that people will be scared away from entering a market dominated by someone with those kinds of economies of scale or whatever. But… do we see that much in practice? Megacorps don’t have an infinite capacity for scaring off newbies; a loss is a loss.

No its not that anyone will be scared away.. they are 100% garunteed to go out of business no matter how much they undercut. Why go into business if it is mathematically garunteed to fail?

@JonKramer @trinsec

@ech

The issue with undercutting has to do with niche "capture". Basically the barrier to entry to be able to compete is unreasonably high due to control over the whole niche.

Consider the historic example of the gas companies. If a new gas company opened up the mega-corp would just undercut costs within 50 miles of the new station to rates so low it would operate at a loss, they would also hike the price at all their other stations by a penny sot hey make up costs but dont really effect the cost much elsewhere. Then when the new startup goes out of business they restore the costs in the area to normal.

It effectively would make it completely impossible for small businesses to compete and enter the space. The only way to compete is by forming another megecorp right fromt he getgo, which of course no one could afford to bankroll that out of pocket.

@JonKramer @trinsec

@ech Right, it seems @admitsWrongIfProven is reducing my statement to something I didnt say (a typical tactic)...

Of course workers can control the price point of their work. This is easily provable by the tons of non-union jobs out there that are well paid (like programming).. Unions arent needed to negotiate good wages en masse. The issue with unions is that it is price fixing which is not the same as being to set your own price point.

@georgetakei The what now...

@ceoln

Thats not exactly true. I dont object. It just doesnt follow any standard nor the conventions already in use when it was coded. It makes it impossible to see edits for AP compatible clients. This causes some readers to be unable to see edits even when they are fully AP complient and it breaks the fediverse...

In short mastodon introducing fediverse breaking non-standard impmentations is troubling but as long as it becomes part of the standard or at least reasonably works well within the standard I am ok to adopt it.

@tripu @trinsec @olives

@BlahBlah@theblower.au Its just ashame that biden is the first political candidate in my life who made a career for themselves out of fighting to keep segregation alive. I am ashamed a man with such a disgustingly racist history was able to become president... but as you said, he was able to win against Trump. Lets just hope the next election I can vote against him and Trump wont even be an option... hope.

@thor Im not sure what year I started my account.. i need to check..