*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[BananaStand]

Safety mandates that don't originate out of the employers and employees acting on choice make workers less safe.

Not sure about that.

If you're working with a highly corrosive acid, then it might not be bad for anyone if there were some kind of rule that requires your employer to maintain an up-to-date library of MSDS's and keep it prominently located in the shop.

I've worked in some places with some pretty nasty stuff. They all had eye-wash stations. However, in my 20+ year career, I've never actually seen anyone use an eye wash station. So it seems plausible that some corner-cutting company might just skip that purchase. It's highly plausible that a prospective employee would never think to ask about that. It only becomes a problem when there's a real fucking problem. An ounce of gov't regulation can save 100 lbs of eyeballs. So I'm not seeing how you can say that people would be more safe without that gov't regulation.

Also, it's not just employees and employers that have to be considered. Imagine a truck driver sitting behind the wheel for 90 hours a week. Maybe he likes the overtime, and maybe the employer is willing to pay it because the freight just has to get delivered. But if you're driving with your family, do you wanna be on the same road as that 90hr trucker?

[wufwugy]

If you're working with a highly corrosive acid, then it might not be bad for anyone if there were some kind of rule that requires your employer to maintain an up-to-date library of MSDS's and keep it prominently located in the shop.

At what dollar cost and what opportunity cost? Each of government and employers/employees/consumers care about safety and they each try to get as much *safety-value as they can. Using the price system and allowing employers/employees/consumers to choose makes the most amount of safety-value.

Do you propose that bureaucracy is more effective at creating safety-value for employers/employees/consumers than employers/employees/consumers are?

Also, it's not just employees and employers that have to be considered. Imagine a truck driver sitting behind the wheel for 90 hours a week. Maybe he likes the overtime, and maybe the employer is willing to pay it because the freight just has to get delivered. But if you're driving with your family, do you wanna be on the same road as that 90hr trucker?

You're right that I should have mentioned the choice of consumers as well.


*Since economic status depends on the perceived value of those who perceive it, every status, like safety, is thought of in terms of the value it brings. In obvious terms: if it costs $1,000,000,000 to implement a system that saves one life yet other systems would save more lives for cheaper, opting for the former system is reducing total safety even as it is increasing safety in isolated terms. Further, since nothing has an infinite value, not even safety, people can be better off when less safe if that safety costs too much since they would rather have other things instead of that costly safety.

[BananaStand]

At what dollar cost and what opportunity cost? Each of government and employers/employees/consumers care about safety and they each try to get as much *safety-value as they can. Using the price system and allowing employers/employees/consumers to choose makes the most amount of safety-value.

You're giving people too much credit for having the information necessary to make informed choices. Would you check to see if a company's MSDS's are up to date before you consider a job there? Are you verifying the adequacy of ventilation and lighting? Are you doing an asbestos inspection?

We know for a fact that safer workplaces are more productive and prosperous for everyone involved. We know this because we've acted it out for decades and it's pretty much proven to be true. however cutting corners on safety can sometimes prove more prosperous for just one party, the employer. You might say that a free market would prevent that guy from getting good employees and his business would suffer and die because of it. But the fact is, too many people just don't know any better.

I see it as the government's job to ensure that the marketplace is fair and accessible for everyone. And that means preventing exploitable people from being exploited.

[wufwugy]

You're giving people too much credit for having the information necessary to make informed choices.

We are both giving people credit for having said information. You are saying bureaucrats have better information. I am saying that the marketplace, making up the people acting in the marketplace, does.

We know for a fact that safer workplaces are more productive and prosperous for everyone involved.

Depends on what it costs.