
02-28-2017, 02:19 PM
|
|
Aviak
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 56
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by fadetree
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
It would result in them being paid the worth of what they do. Worth is determined by how much people value the service and how scarce it is. If the service is not valuable, or if there are too many people providing the service, they won't get paid much. If it is, they will. If they don't get paid much, then workers will find something else to do that pays more, thus bringing down the number of people providing the service until its worth doing. It's a beautiful, natural, self-balancing thing.
Apart from silly crap like this game, in the real world, a free market is going to do better than any form of controlled market, period, as long as the entire system has free choice., including the workers. However, most workers are trying to live and they can't just all up and quit and go anywhere with a new skill set. This is where regulations and unions are valuable and necessary. We would have had a terribly damaging revolution in the 1930's without the rise of unions.
In another example, medical care is not suitable for a completely free market, because the choice of live or die is not a completely free choice.
However, while necessary in some situations, regulations and unions, and especially subsidies and government control via tax policies easily do more harm than good, and they must be kept to a minimum. There is a terrible attraction that politicians and voters have for having the government 'fix the problems', with the result that what usually happens over time damages the workers more than anything else.
So - TLDR;
Free markets are good. Some regulations and unions are necessary. 'Socialized' medicine is good as long as some elements of free competition are in place. Government meddling is terribly bad. Plus I like DaP.
|
Never expected a post like this here. Get ready for a shit-storm once all the know-nothing ideologues read this.
|
|
|
|