because people dont know how to bargain

and dont know their worth on the market

what country?

it's not about bargining

Employees would have to pay them a good amount to keep them

if they were needed lol

you can replace the woman that is cleaning corridors at your office in no time

we're not talking about IT guys that are very valueable on the market

and can very easily know their worth

i can see you are a very liberal guy so i guess i should also point out my liberal ideas on the market

low taxation is good

creating an enviroment where capital can be invested to create jobs is ideal

people should have acess to a variety of choices of their prefered services

etc etc

idk this is just standard stuff

lol

"you can replace the woman that is cleaning corridors at your office in no time
"

Yes there would be competition in the labour market

and employees would have to pay well

do you think there are more business looking for people to clean their offices than people looking for that sort of job?

because that would be the only way that the employee would have less to lose than the employer

Yes

lol

Well atleast in the US

theres more job openings than job less

wages are rising and will rise more than ever

because employers compete for labour too

but surely in the US a lot of people are constrained to their immediate area for job opportunities, since lot of people cant afford a car

and public transportation in the US i heard is kinda shitty

dude 90% of households owna car

and buses are easy to take

same with metro

And that isn't a problem since most of these jobs are local

idk these issues differ from state to state, some are easier to invest and create business than others

and there are many variables

of course

as a government, let's say a state government, you need a profound knowledge and many studies to be able to determine if more deregulation would lead to more investment, and if the trade off of less workers right for more finantial freedom would be justified

like if the trade off was something like a range of 2-5% more investment but in turn you cut minimum wage by $500 like why would you do that?

in some cases that would just be the equivalent of 2-3 new jobs, and everyone on the minimum wage would be worse off

you gotta balance it out

if you ordered an independent study that told you that investment would stay constant even if you added a labour law to protect workers i'd say thats a good trade off. no harm no foul