Message from @sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ
Discord ID: 522502211490807818
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
"you cut minimum wage by $500 like why would you do that?"
You would probably allow the employees to be paid more
since they save on money
yeah but you can get studies to tell you how likely that would be to happen
you cant assume ceteris paribus every time
It's more of economic theory
When you cut regulations you save the firms money
= economic growth, higher wages, lower unemployment
in theory, ceteris paribus, you would be correct, but in practice often times more regulation doesnt necessarly mean people are worse off than before
It's always like that
regulations don't do anything
it's literally not
apart from raise prices
limit consumer choice
cause high barriers to entry
again
you are correct
if you assume **ceteris paribus**
Let me give you an example
ISPs are monopolised you agree?
in USA?
yes
do you understand why?
because of regulation
Regulations such as net neutrality and zoning laws
correct
healthcare hospitals is monopolised
and prices are soaring
why?
Over regulation of the market
i dont think net nautrality caused the problem of ISP monopolies but ok
it's mostly the special status that some local governments give these ISPs
Net neutrality limited competition
this video explains it