I struggle to grasp how this kind of libertarian vision of the world can possibly be maintained by anyone who actually observes how the world works.
No, markets don't self-regulate. Companies won't stop working with Amazon across the board, and those that do will be replaced by companies willing to work for less, because they're full of people willing to work for less.
We know that's how this works. We know that people and organizations alike (since they're run by people) under this system don't have libertarian principles, let alone the will power to stand up for them.
Most people do not, in fact, feel the sense of righteous indignation needed to make such decisions, nor the ability to freely disassociate from sources of income, because they'll quite literally end up out in the street if they do, so they go along with anything, and rightly so, because survival comes first.
The only force that has the ability to stop powerful corporations from exploiting people in this way (hiring those willing to work under terrible conditions, for terrible pay, etc.) is the state, with its monopoly on violence, by quite literally threatening the executives of the corporations with death or prison time for not complying.
But the same libertarian-minded people who think the market self-regulates also stand against using state power to control the corporations by force.
So here we are. The Profit Motive destroying everything, and a fervent group of people fortunate enough to have the wealth to make independent decisions to disassociate with parties that provide their income lecturing those who don't have that luxury about how they too should make such decisions.
>The linked article is an example of the market self-regulating.
This is incorrect. Amazon controls the market, as the indie contractors are created out of Amazon's pockets, and Amazon solely determines the operational practices, business demand and contractual rules.
If you, by "Free Market Self-Regulation", mean "Monopsony Risk-Arbitrage by a Multinational Giant" well, now I'm on board.
> The linked article is an example of the market self-regulating.
Unemployed workers starving to death with their families due to lack of income would also be an example of the market self-regulating.
The market self-regulates, but it often self-regulates to optimize the wrong thing. The people who celebrate that self-regulation usually leave that qualification out, or just deny it completely.
> In this case it self regulated because the market rate for drivers was too high.
It what way has it self regulated? Amazon could setup a new set of captive small businesses to exploit and nothing will change. It's not like they were actually dependent on these people in any way. It seems like they're running a model that's at least partially about exploiting their vendors' hope and ignorance, and there's a sucker born every minute.
But the small business cannot hire, so even if they do find a couple more suckers, it won't matter as they will immediately be losing money on a per unit of delivery basis.
Small businesses being forced to decide between shutting down and operating unsafely with some minimal hope of profitability is indeed a perfect and inspiring example of how "markets self-regulate."
That's how all businesses operate. If you can't make it, you shut down. If you open unprofitable barber shop you will have to shut down too. But I guess it's hard to be upset at people for not wanting your hair cut.
If you start a business with Amazon it's probably a good idea to google other companies experiences.
I would like this to work, but I think Amazon won't really care.
They're big enough to work around the problem. Take advantage of that a bunch of drivers are suddenly without work, find another company willing to work with them, and soon enough things are back to the way they were at the start.
The parent commenter here (HighInquisitor) has employed an impressive number of techniques from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27595043 - an article detailing propaganda techniques.
Examples:
> No, markets don't self-regulate
Black-and-white fallacy, with a mix of Artificial Dichotomy
> I struggle to grasp how this kind of libertarian vision of the world can possibly be maintained
Appeal to fear, with parts of Ad Hominem (libertarian used in a derogatory sense)
> Most people do not, in fact, feel the sense of righteous indignation needed to make such decisions
Bandawagon
> But the same libertarian-minded people who think the market self-regulates
No, markets don't self-regulate. Companies won't stop working with Amazon across the board, and those that do will be replaced by companies willing to work for less, because they're full of people willing to work for less.
We know that's how this works. We know that people and organizations alike (since they're run by people) under this system don't have libertarian principles, let alone the will power to stand up for them.
Most people do not, in fact, feel the sense of righteous indignation needed to make such decisions, nor the ability to freely disassociate from sources of income, because they'll quite literally end up out in the street if they do, so they go along with anything, and rightly so, because survival comes first.
The only force that has the ability to stop powerful corporations from exploiting people in this way (hiring those willing to work under terrible conditions, for terrible pay, etc.) is the state, with its monopoly on violence, by quite literally threatening the executives of the corporations with death or prison time for not complying.
But the same libertarian-minded people who think the market self-regulates also stand against using state power to control the corporations by force.
So here we are. The Profit Motive destroying everything, and a fervent group of people fortunate enough to have the wealth to make independent decisions to disassociate with parties that provide their income lecturing those who don't have that luxury about how they too should make such decisions.