Your Daily Reminder: Regulations and Job Quality Matter

Gabriel Conroy says:

Going meta for a moment…..

This OP seems to assume that just because someone opposes minimum wage increases, they not only believe it’s a good thing people earn very little money, but that they therefore oppose all government action whatsoever to help workers. That assumption is extended even to those who don’t necessarily oppose minimum wage increases, but who openly state they have reservations about it but might support increases in some circumstances.

Going non-meta…..

We have gone through several discussions about whether more bad jobs is better (morally, ethically, and policy-wise) than fewer good jobs. We have also discussed whether it is better to live in a world with low wages and low prices or high wages and higher prices. I think the New York Times article is proof that job quality and regulations to ensure job quality are basic human rights.”

The first two sentences are a mis-framing of the debate. And in this case, for once, I have to admit to some blame for the mis-framing because in my original post, to which this OP claims to be a response, I said something that sounds very much like “more bad jobs is better…than fewer good jobs.” (Actually, what I said was, “When it comes to hours and labor regulations, I favor the policy that creates more jobs, but bad ones, over the policy that leads to fewer jobs, but good ones.”) Rest assured, I think it is much, much better if we have more, better jobs altogether. I’m skeptical that certain regulations help us achieve that outcome.

I’ll point out a few things. First, in my post that so offends the OP, I spend as much time going over the limitations of my jobs first bias as I do about its virtues. It’s almost as if only the first part of that OP was read and the second part unread. If not unread, then unacknowledged. Second, in a later post I outlined a test by which I tried to assess when and how I’d support minimum wage increases. The author of the OP here seems to have read that post because he commented several times in that thread. But he doesn’t here seem to acknowledge that I wrote it and am willing to meet him halfway.

Another mis-framing, one for which I’m less inclined to take blame, is what I take to be the suggestion that my reluctance to endorse minimum wage increases means I don’t believe “job quality and regulations to ensure job quality” matters. I’m not sure what it means to say they’re “human rights,” and with @murali above, that strikes me as circular reasoning. I stated explicitly in my jobs first post that I’m much more willing to support health and safety regulations.

It isn’t all about mis-framing, however. The OP’s author asks a question that needs an answer:

Gabriel Conroy wrote in his post that he hoped bad jobs will lead to good jobs. The question is for whom. Will people in bad jobs gain enough experience to get better jobs down the road? If yes, when? Or will it just create a bunch of management roles that will never go to the workers doing the bad jobs? Why should we view the 100 dollars paid to work as economic opportunity and a sincerely free transaction instead of something that is done under coercion and duress?

For whom, indeed? I can’t deny completely that some would benefit much, much more than others, and I’m bothered by that prospect. Also, by saying “I hope” instead of “I predict,” I’m signalling that I’m not sure what the outcome is. But still, if there are more jobs, the workers will presumably have more power to quit and change jobs. Again, I hope. I realize quitting isn’t always easy and finding a new job, even at the same skill set, isn’t always easy.

I’ll underscore another sentence from that part I just block quoted, and here I’m going meta again:

“Why should we view the 100 dollars paid to work as economic opportunity and a sincerely free transaction instead of something that is done under coercion and duress?”

This is an example of a “complex question” of the order of “when did you stop beating your wife?” To my knowledge, compulsory pay-to-work schemes haven’t been in discussion in any of the OP’s regarding the minimum wage. In fact, it doesn’t directly concern the issue of minimum wage. It does concern the issue of government regulation, which would be important, if I denied that the government ever could or should regulate.

Fortunately, I make no such denial. And let me state that forcing people to pay in order to work is bad and should be illegal in most cases. (Maybe lawyers should be required to pay for a law license, and maybe other professions should require licenses, and then the payment doesn’t go to the employer anyway. But in general, I do believe it’s a bad idea to compel people to pay to work, especially if it’s a lesser skilled job for which there’s no rational reason to require something like licensing.)

I don’t deny there’s a lot of signalling going on in these discussions over and above the merits of a particular policy or set of policies. I can complain about being mischaracterized. But complaining just leads to “hypertension,” as the OP’s author has said elsewhere. So why don’t I point out points of common ground that I share even with the OP’s author:

1. We both believe that workers deserve to be well treated at their place of employment.
2. We’re both willing to consider some increase in the minimum wage and other wage and hours regulations.
3. We both believe in government regulation of the workplace conditions for health and safety.
4. We both would like there to be more jobs for people.
5. We both support robust welfare provisions to care for those less fortunate.
6. We both believe it’s generally wrong to compel people to pay in order to work.
7. We both are ambivalent, at best, about the prospect of a two-tiered economy where one tier, occupied by the likes of him and myself, enjoys most of the benefits, while another tier, occupied by a more numerous and diverse group of people of whom the manicure workers are a part, occupy the other, less advantaged tier.
8. We both believe workers should be free to quit their jobs when they wish.
9. We’re both uneasy about at-will employment.

I could probably name other points of agreement. Much of what we disagree on is how to address the issues, or when those points conflict, which one(s) should give way to others. Other points of disagreement is how we elaborate on or further define those points. For example, while we would both like there to be more jobs, I suspect the OP’s author probably puts more stringent requirements than I would on what those new jobs will be.Report