Hacker News Reader

Comment by honopu | Hacker News Reader

not relevant, free market, they decide to work there, or not.

> not relevant, free market, they decide to work there, or not ..

Yea they can decide to move to the next low-pay job, zero-hour contract, no benefits, wages barely pays the rent, on food stamps ..

Exactly. The implicit argument is that there is always some magical high-paying job with awesome benefits just round the corner if they just simply make the simple decision of switching jobs and/or pulling themselves up by their bootstraps. Right...

Rising tides lift all boats. The largest employers changing their hiring practices forces other employers to change as well, to remain somewhat competitive.

A free market would allow the employees to unionise to negotiate more effectively the employee side, like Amazon the company uses many people collectively to negotiate the employer side. But Amazon is anti-union and spends money to that effect.

If the free market is a fair market, unionising wouldn't make any difference as the negotiated rates would already be fair and couldn't be any more fair. Amazon wouldn't be spending money to block union efforts, because that would be wasted money. Therefore either this isn't free market, and your comment is wrong (not free market), or this is free market but it isn't fair so your comment is wrong (free market, yet still relevant).

That’s an awfully easy position to take when you don’t have to work at an Amazon warehouse. How many times have you been fired for using the bathroom?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com