Just to be clear, in this case "free market rules" include:

1. Most customers choose to buy from the seller with the lowest price.

2. Employees are free to leave their employment if they find the conditions intolerable.

Which of these rules do you want to change?

I'd like to indirectly change:

> 1. Most customers choose to buy from the seller with the lowest price.

By setting a floor for the lowest operational cost, defining such basic concepts as:

1. Maximum work schedule (12h/day mandatory is not acceptable);

2. Minimum wage.

If every seller must abide by the same rules, the market is fair. Costs won't be absurd and no worker will work under medieval conditions. I know costs won't be absurd because I live in Europe, where these rules are in place, and we can still buy gadgets and books.

Both your proposals seem likely to result in increased automation, thereby reducing overall employment. To be clear, I'm not saying it's a good thing that some people feel they have to work a 12+ hour day, but isn't it better that they have that choice than that their job is automated out of existence?

Also, if you mandate higher costs for suppliers (through limited hours and minimum wages) then you will create incentives for people to buy from suppliers that aren't subject to those regulations (i.e., foreign suppliers). You can try to prevent that through tariffs and duties, but they have their own problems.

> Both your proposals seem likely to result in increased automation, thereby reducing overall employment. To be clear, I'm not saying it's a good thing that some people feel they have to work a 12+ hour day, but isn't it better that they have that choice than that their job is automated out of existence?

That is not a bug, it is a feature. I prefer to never have people in medieval working conditions. Pushing society to evolve past that need is a good thing.

So far, we have been able to reallocate jobs so that automation does not cause widespread unemployment. When[1] that is no longer the case, we can as a society find another stable working model.

[1] It is possible that automation is already exceeding society's "job reallocation rate". It is still difficult to tell, but something to be vigilant about.

> Also, if you mandate higher costs for suppliers (through limited hours and minimum wages) then you will create incentives for people to buy from suppliers that aren't subject to those regulations (i.e., foreign suppliers). You can try to prevent that through tariffs and duties, but they have their own problems.

You are describing one of the large flaws of globalization, which we should, as a society, have already tackled. It is not acceptable, for example, that Chinese or Indian workers get poisoned by producing chemicals without proper hazard protection in place.

That it is possible to circumvent regulation is not a justification to abolish regulation. It is a justification to close the circumvention loopholes.

Hmmm. Lots to unpack here, but I'll focus on your comments about globalization. I suppose you could implement regulations to prohibit importation of goods/services from jurisdictions that don't have acceptable standards in place. By doing so, you would probably destroy the economies of India and China. Without a cost advantage (due to lower labour and environmental standards), the shipping costs would pretty much ensure that you would always buy from local suppliers. Wouldn't the destruction of emerging economies result in more victims than would poor labour/environmental standards?

>but isn't it better that they have that choice than that their job is automated out of existence?

Their job is going to be automated out of existence anyway, so the choice is between being paid less, or being paid more, until it is.

Sure the issue is when employees don't feel like they can leave, because they can't afford a period of unemployment and don't have the time/energy to seek new employment whilst working 12 hour shifts and potentially supporting a family.

How is that Amazon’s fault or problem?

Is your issue with Amazon, or with the system of capitalism in general? If the latter, why are people criticizing Amazon specifically?

It's a general criticism of the system. Highlighting Amazon's particular behaviour is useful as a demonstration of how/where the system fails, and may produce short term wins if it incentivises amazon to stop being inhumane.

I sincerely don't want to oversimplify your argument, but it seems like the logical end-point would be a global socialist/communist society. Is that your desired/intended outcome?

What...?

You get a more functional labour economy by having labour able to access better opportunities. If there's a killer sales agent that won't apply for my sales position because Amazon is dunking him with 14 hour days repeatedly, no one benefits besides Amazon.

I agree, and I would not want to see regulation or laws that prevent labour access to other opportunities. But asking people to work overtime for specific reasons/period doesn't prevent them from looking for other opportunities. That seems like a straw man.

That's a deceptively complex question. I don't necessarily agree that that's the logical endpoint to my reasoning: it might be that we have to continue to appeal to basic human greed/power drives - in a regulated way - in order to progress and develop as a species. It might be that a global socialist society can't do that. I'm not sure. I just think that right now, many developed countries could certainly do with reinforcement of labour rights.

To answer from another perspective, a society resembling something like socialism or anarchism is what I personally would prefer to live in. I have doubts about whether we can move towards that from the current situation or whether it's workable, full stop. But it sure would be nice.

As a side note, I'm curious about what down votes mean in this context. Are people registering their feelings about the free market? Are they suggesting that the content of my comment is in some way inappropriate or offensive? Or that I have not followed the rules of HN?

Personally, I'm not too concerned about HN karma, but I'm curious about the incentive system that it creates. Does the karma system simply promote adherence to the majority/popular view, or does it improve the quality of discussion?