Re:Isaac Asimov Laments the “Cult of Ignorance” in the Unite...
by aninhumer on Tuesday March 14, 2017 @02:03PM
(#13869877)
>the capitalist perspective would be that companies that offer a more enticing employment package would naturally have an easier time hiring
This assumes that hiring costs are significant relative to wages, which is rarely the case.
>At-will employment seems to mess with that arrangement in the US but here in the UK it seems like a fair trade.
The notable difference being the state regulation in the UK which requires employers to provide that stability. And even that is eroding with the rise of zero-hour contracts.
>infrastructure such as water can be competed on (both directly as in a second water plant, and indirectly as in building home water tanks)
A second water plant isn't competition for the infrastructure, just the purification process. The water still has to get to your house, and the company which has already built a pipe is at a huge advantage compared to one that hasn't.
>As for network effects, there comes a point where pain from monopolistic exploitation outweighs the marginal utility of the product.
It's certainly possible for monopolists to push things too far and end up vulnerable to a market entrant, but the result of this is a brief period of competition followed by the winner returning to monopolistic behaviour. And the entry cost of this kind of disruption is sufficient that it happens very infrequently.
This assumes that hiring costs are significant relative to wages, which is rarely the case.
>At-will employment seems to mess with that arrangement in the US but here in the UK it seems like a fair trade.
The notable difference being the state regulation in the UK which requires employers to provide that stability. And even that is eroding with the rise of zero-hour contracts.
>infrastructure such as water can be competed on (both directly as in a second water plant, and indirectly as in building home water tanks)
A second water plant isn't competition for the infrastructure, just the purification process. The water still has to get to your house, and the company which has already built a pipe is at a huge advantage compared to one that hasn't.
>As for network effects, there comes a point where pain from monopolistic exploitation outweighs the marginal utility of the product.
It's certainly possible for monopolists to push things too far and end up vulnerable to a market entrant, but the result of this is a brief period of competition followed by the winner returning to monopolistic behaviour. And the entry cost of this kind of disruption is sufficient that it happens very infrequently.