I think the Happy Meal analogy is a little backwards. When comparing it to workers and contractors, a more accurate one is:
Customers always got fries and a drink with their Happy Meal. Restaurants realize they can exploit their future customers by removing the fries and drink from the Happy Meal, but keeping the price the same. Customers are still hungry, so they're forced to continue to purchase this lesser meal for the same price.
Yes. The article sets up a false equivalence. In the case of the happy meal the power imbalance is not nearly as severe as it is in the case of employment. I think I tend to agree with the author regarding benefits, maybe, but either way I don't find this a convincing out productive argument.
The price of health insurance varies (generally, decreases) when the entire community purchases it vs. just the people who highly value it. This is because health insurance is priced based on the expected health outcomes of all of its customers.
This isn't quite the case with Happy Meals. I'm thinking that a regulation requiring everyone purchase happy meals vs regulation that everyone purchase health care have different overall welfare effects, but I'm not sure what they are.
The only fallacy here is the idea that workers always make rational choices. While some workers may be willing to work for less than the cost of staying alive -- or otherwise compromise on their needs (not wants) -- in order to compete for jobs, we (as a society) should not allow them to work for that rate because it creates downward pressure on wages (forcing more rational workers to compete at an unsustainable price), and otherwise undermines the stability of the economy.
This trope about the evils of regulation ignores that it is possible for the market equilibrium to exist below the cost of survival. Modern society has acknowledged that "survival" includes a number of things that haven't traditionally been included like healthcare, retirement, and more. Wages don't scale on a continuum, and there is a floor beneath which a worker cannot survive in a given economy. When these benefits aren't provided by an employer, they end up being subsidized by the government (particularly in the US).
It is reasonable, as a society, to require that the businesses that participate (and benefit) in our economy uphold a minimum level of compensation for their employees in order to increase social stability and reduce overall reliance on government support.
6 comments
[ 0.17 ms ] story [ 29.2 ms ] threadCustomers always got fries and a drink with their Happy Meal. Restaurants realize they can exploit their future customers by removing the fries and drink from the Happy Meal, but keeping the price the same. Customers are still hungry, so they're forced to continue to purchase this lesser meal for the same price.
This isn't quite the case with Happy Meals. I'm thinking that a regulation requiring everyone purchase happy meals vs regulation that everyone purchase health care have different overall welfare effects, but I'm not sure what they are.
This trope about the evils of regulation ignores that it is possible for the market equilibrium to exist below the cost of survival. Modern society has acknowledged that "survival" includes a number of things that haven't traditionally been included like healthcare, retirement, and more. Wages don't scale on a continuum, and there is a floor beneath which a worker cannot survive in a given economy. When these benefits aren't provided by an employer, they end up being subsidized by the government (particularly in the US).
It is reasonable, as a society, to require that the businesses that participate (and benefit) in our economy uphold a minimum level of compensation for their employees in order to increase social stability and reduce overall reliance on government support.