There is more than just the owner and consumer involved here. it also includes any staff that the owner employs.

If you, as an owner, decide that you want to open 7 days a week, and you have staff that are happy to do 6 days and want/desire the 7th day off, what do you do in relation to those staff? Sack them? Employ others for that 7th day who are willing to work on that day and keep the others on for the other 6 days? Pay penalty rates for the privilege of having your business open 7 days a week?

I have come across many owners that would have no problems just straight up sacking people who are not interested in killing themselves for the business owner. They expect you to work under all and every condition that the business owner puts in place - seeing that since they have given someone a job then that employee is owned by the owner. I have even worked for some such people.

As the business owner, are you willing to work 7 days a week in your own business at the expense of your family life, health, relaxation, etc? These questions need to be carefully considered in a very personal way for there are much broader consequences than you may think.

I think most 7day employers like retailers having rotating staff rosters, so that the employees will be doing 4-5 day weeks only.

In fact perhaps having a mandatory closed holiday may mean that many people wouldn't have the jobs they have now.

It's not like the population will buy more things if you open one more day though (not sure how online shopping plays into this). So your revenue will just be spread out over more time, and your costs will be higher since you have to keep the shop open one more day. </speculation>

This is not just speculation. I live in a US state that recently allowed liquor stores to be open on Sundays. Biggest opponent of the law change? Liquor store owners. No increase in revenue, increase in employee and operating costs -- no win for them. That pressure to open if the neighbor shop is open means almost every liquor store is now open on Sundays.

True in part but there are still a significant number of employers that do not do this and expect you to comply to their whims and directions.

In terms of a mandatory closed day, how does the historical information align with the current information in relation to unemployment or under-employment?

Ridiculous argument. There are laws governing how many employees can work a week and no employee can be made to work 7 days per week. The only solution for an employer is to arrange shifts between different employees and this is how it works in practice.

Yes, there are laws that govern this. My point is that the person I was responding to was implying that only he, as the owner, and the customer were affected by his choice to be open. The effects are much larger than just him and the customer. So it is not a ridiculous argument as such. What works in practice will vary quite considerably to your idealised view. I have worked for such owners and was glad to see the last of them.

Irrespective of any laws that are in place, there are still many owners who will threaten sackings if people do not obey the owner's whim and decisions as to the hours the employee is to work. If that means that the employees are expected to be there 7 days a week then there are many owners who will sack their staff for only wanting to work 5 or 6 days a week. There are many employees who do not feel that they have any control over this and simply comply because they feel powerless and locked in. But that is a side issue here.

Just to play devil's advocate, why shouldn't the decision be up to the community that provides land and infrastructure to the business on the terms of following local regulations?

I'm not sure it's so cut and dry to assume that the individualist "free" "market" approach is always optimal. What are we optimizing for? If we're optimizing for freedom, freedom for who to do what? Freedom from what?

Ultimately it is up to government to set the rules by which businesses operate, because market forces (and shitty business owners) tend to maximize profit at the expense of everything else. Government dictating certain bounds means that businesses which want to do things that don’t maximize short-term profit - like paying employees a living wage, not dump pollutants into rivers, or manufacturing non-contaminated foods and drugs - aren’t competing against businesses which are willing to burn down the world for profit.

I'll advance a more American/Individualist comment for perspective.

Government should be limited in what it can control. Let the people and social norms make the decisions. The problems with government are worse than those of the free market in the long run, because they create friction and power imbalance between what people want and what another entity tells them is OK.

If your core value is the Government is too strong a force to be allowed to do much anything, then this makes sense. (Personally, it makes some sense to me -- limit the power of the gov't then the worst thing a Trump administration can do is deadlock. Imagine if he had more power?)

what right do they have to decide which day you can work or not? Asia has thriving commerce in comparison with Europe precisely because there is no fixed day to close and you can always go out and find something open.

> When I was in France, mandatory closing was horrible.

You get used to it. It's not like French people can't buy stuff the other 6 days of the week.

> It should be the choice of the business owner and the consumer what they’d like to do.

Not that simple as there are several externalities. Suppose you're a business owner and your competitor opens on Sunday. You suddenly have no other choice than opening on Sunday as well.

I appreciate the convenience of shops being open all the time when I travel to the US or Asia. But I believe it makes a lot of people miserable and it's not a necessity.