Re:"Equal pay for equal work" in remote jobs
by whimsicalism on Wednesday November 18, 2020 @01:58PM
(#25140836)
Reread the thread.
> 'Market failure' is a term of art, and it's generally best to avoid redefining terms of art unless there's a very compelling reason to do so.
The person conflating "market failure" with what they were talking about is the GP.
The original comment was about the market failing to accomplish a goal, which is a perfectly idiomatic usage.
Re:"Equal pay for equal work" in remote jobs
by nickff on Wednesday November 18, 2020 @02:01PM
(#25140885)
I sort-of agree with you, but I was directly responding to the phrase:
>"... they'll never think a failure to meet society's need is a market failure..."
Re:"Equal pay for equal work" in remote jobs
by whimsicalism on Wednesday November 18, 2020 @02:04PM
(#25140925)
Fair, I didn't actually read that comment that closely.
Re:"Equal pay for equal work" in remote jobs
by dontbeevil1992 on Wednesday November 18, 2020 @02:45PM
(#25141496)
I was the one who first used the phrase market failure (wrongly, I gather). But the GP only used the idea that a market failed at something: "a failure of the marketplace", which is what my point still stands on.
If they only meant to talk about "market failures" as such, then they are guilty of pedantry
Failing to meet people's needs is definitely a problem, but not a uniquely market-driven one. If there is a specific phenomenon which causes markets to fail in the delivery of socially desirable goods, it would be good to come up with a specific description and corresponding term of art.