Food safety laws are a good example. By acting as a floor on manufacturer and restaurant hygiene and ingredient quality, they help the poor a fair bit more than the rich.

They also conveniently keep volunteers and churches from feeding the homeless, so subsidized corporations can handle that.

One needs only to taste legit French cheese, compared with, say, Austrian manufactured French cheese, to know food quality laws have little to do with actual food quality, and Austria has one of the strictest food legal systems in the World.

> One needs only to taste legit French cheese,

Not sure how you got from food safety to how much you like the taste of particular cheese, but to me they're very different problems. I'm only talking about food safety.

> They also conveniently keep volunteers and churches from feeding the homeless, so subsidized corporations can handle that.

Not generally, but perhaps in your area. Where I am there are special exemptions for charitable organizations giving out food: https://www.sfdph.org/dph/EH/Food/lscfo.asp

There are still some requirements, which I think is good. Nobody, homeless people included, should receive unsafe food.

Real French cheese is made from raw milk, which is banned under USA food safety laws. It is objectively much tastier than the pasteurized stuff, and nobody dies from eating it.

It may be subjectively more tasty, but it's objectively more dangerous. E.g:

https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2017/05/what-are-the-odds-840...

https://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/rawmilk/rawmilk-outbreaks.htm...

But this all seems pretty far afield from my point, which is that food safety laws benefit the poor. I am happy to believe that some dangerous food, like casu martzu or blowfish sushi, is also very tasty. But taking risks for exotic, connoisseur food experiences is also generally the provenance of the rich. So it seems like this also proves my point.

In France around three people per year die from eating it. It's seen as an acceptable cost.

Ah, yes, taste, the most objective of the senses ...

'the dress' would like a word with you

Could you link me to something showing that that's an issue? Because the issues people run into as volunteers that I've hard about tend to be city ordinances, not state or federal food safety requirements.

Further I'm aware of Food Not Bombs winning a case by claiming an expressive first amendment right to share food.

This is just one of many ordinances countrywide, that was fought during #OperationFeedTheHomeless

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/crime/os-homeless-feedi...

Though local ordinances, they require certified and licensed establishments, so it still rolls back to the original issue.

At least in this case, it is not done through food safety laws. They specifically ban "group feeding". From the article: "It requires groups to obtain a permit and limits each group to two permits per year for each park within a 2-mile radius of City Hall".

Food laws are about safety, not taste.

The rich also need to well... eat. It benefits them as much as anybody.

For example milk started to be regulated more only after someone in Al Capone's family got poisoned and he bribed the right people to make it a thing. You're kidding yourself if you think any of that was to benefit the poor in the first place lmao, just happens to be a side effect.

The rich do need to eat, but they can and generally do eat from places with much higher margins and higher-value brands. Those places have less incentive to cut corners and more incentive to keep their customers healthy. The poorer you are, though, the more constrained your choices are and the more risk you may have to take. Food safety laws act as a quality floor (or a risk ceiling if you prefer), so they help poor people more than the rich.

While this is true, the OP's argument could also include other reasons they wanted this such as avoiding costly sickness in their employees.

I can assure you that amazon and walmart care at least a little about the health of the minimum wage workers they depend on to move inventory.

Amazon is famous for not caring about the health of their workers, compared to competitors in the same industry. They pay above the market and replace the market's healthy workers with workers with health issues. They don't care to optimize their process towards worker health as currently the supply outstrips their demand.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/12/study-amazon-workers-suffer-...

But I do agree with your general argument, a healthy workforce is better for a country's economy.

The sources rich people buy their food from have historically been less likely to be unsanitary.

A lot of our food safety regulations are a result of public outrage over horrendous conditions in factories that produced low cost foodstuffs primarily eaten by the poor in the early 20th century.

Though you could easily argue that the rich still benefit from these laws because they help insure a healthy labor pool.

Rich people can eat at at places to nice and clean that the work areas are probably cleaner than some of the tables and chairs in the customer areas of low end dining places.

Compliance with those laws help big ag and Starbucks WAY more than small farmers and small cafes, and pose barriers to entry.

How does compliance help them more? I'd think it's just the opposite. E.g., I live in a city that posts health department scores in every restaurant. This makes me more likely to eat at a small place because I can know that they're not cutting corners on safety. Whereas, having worked in high school at a large chain restaurant, I would expect those places to do well just through corporate persnicketiness.

I agree they pose a barrier to entry, but I think that's good. People not ready to run a clean kitchen should are not ready to serve food. Now it's possible that the bar is unnecessarily high in places. But I live in a city with lots of restaurants and a relatively low number of chains, so I'm sure it's not always the case.

Regulatory capture. Make complying with rules burdensome enough, and only the bigger players can stay in compliance.

For a long time, Wisconsin was a perfect example. Home canned goods were allowed to be sold, but home baked goods were not, even though canning involves many more safety risks. The Wisconin Bakers Association successfully lobbied against legislation, but home baked goods were eventually allowed after a two year lawsuit. Even after the lawsuit, the Wisconsin agricultural department insisted that "baked goods" were limited to those items that contained wheat flour. It took another lawsuit concluding in 2021 to expand baked goods to include all non-perishable baked goods (gluten-free products, etc).

Most states don't even allow this "cottage food" industry.

Granted, I'm not arguing that some grandma selling kolaches down at the farmer's market is going to build the next Hostess brand, but everyone starts somewhere.

So in your example, "big ag" is... people who do canning? The industrial bakeries supposedly threatened by home bakers selling at farmers' markets?

I'm willing to believe there are actual examples out there, but this is not it. Starting a bakery is not hard. I've traveled extensively in Wisconsin and there are plenty of small bakeries. And at least here in CA, a common way to get started building a food business is to rent time in a shared industrial kitchen. That suggests there are plenty of ways for people to get started, and that food safety laws are not a big burden.

This seems like an odd question to me. Social security? Medicare? Free education? The entire welfare state? The vast majority of regulatory apparatus, which is generally implemented when wealthy/owner class people cause damage to employees/poor people to a degree that political action is taken (NLRB, FDA, OSHA, EPA, CFPB, etc.)? The great volume of services provided to all citizens, for free - weather forecasting, GPS, state/federal parks, federally funded research; laws like the CRA, VRA or ADA which help those disadvantaged by racism, disability, etc.

Look, I'm not going to say regulatory capture doesn't exist, or that the wealthy don't have advantages in getting laws passed that favor their interests, but there's a great deal of stuff that gets done that is specifically for the poor or the average citizen.

> This seems like an odd question to me. Social security? Medicare? Free education? The entire welfare state?

These benefit the wealthy. They are used the quell the thirst for wealthy blood that would otherwise be prevalent. They are crumbs thrown to the masses to keep them from revolting during uncertain times.

> The vast majority of regulatory apparatus

I'd argue most regulatory bodies are captured agenies in the US. The delineation between state and industry has been fading for decades. They either look the other way, or overregulate to choke out any competition that would unseat existing players. Regulation in the US is almost entirely in service to capital.

> weather forecasting, GPS

Again, these are likely more in service to the economy (capital) than normal citizens.

> state/federal parks

Fair enough. I'd add libraries to this list as well. These institutions are actually kind of an odd exception to America's complete obsession with privatization, consumerism, and capital.

> laws like the CRA, VRA or ADA which help those disadvantaged by racism, disability, etc.

Again, fair enough.

> federally funded research

Yes, often funded by the citizens such that private industry can sell the result without recompense.

> Look, I'm not going to say regulatory capture doesn't exist

It's the the rule, not the exception.

> These benefit the wealthy. They are used the quell the thirst for wealthy blood that would otherwise be prevalent.

By that standard, a law completely redistributed wealth from top to bottom could still be viewed as primarily "benefiting the wealthy"...

> These benefit the wealthy. They are used the quell the thirst for wealthy blood that would otherwise be prevalent. They are crumbs thrown to the masses to keep them from revolting during uncertain times.

This is how Germany got some of its welfare state way back in the 1800's. Monarchy and statesmen realized they had to quell the masses or they'd get socialist revolutions from the burgeoning socialist movements at the time, and headed them off by implementing things like universal healthcare under Otto von Bismarck.

US automotive lemon law for example doesn’t specifically benefit the wealthy or large corporations.

What muddles the picture is people do benefit from economies of scale. So, if you make the law actually hostile for large companies both the general public and corporations are worse off.

Lemon laws only apply to cars sold with warranties. Wealthier people are more likely to buy new cars, or used cars with warranties. Poor people are relatively much more likely to buy cheaper used cars without warranties. Rich people also buy more cars over their lives, increasing their chances of coming across a lemon. Therefore, lemon laws are relatively more beneficial for wealthier people.

I get what you're saying, but if a construction worker buys a new Ford F150 that is constantly breaking, that is a much bigger problem to him than if a wealthy person buys a Range Rover as a 3rd vehicle for Tahoe runs and that vehicle has some recurring check engine lights.

Unless we're calling construction workers buying F150s with 72 month loans wealthy these days.

No, I think the OP is suggesting that the more likely scenario is some professional-class "weekend-warrior" type bought the F150s with the 72m loan, which later on was resold to the working-class construction worker on the secondary market.

I suppose. Even lemon laws are funny if you follow them to their conclusion, so maybe OP is right.

Once a vehicle gets lemon lawed, it gets sent to auction where it is disclosed to dealers, and then it's just sold again to the public as a used car without the ability to be lemon lawed at that point.

Sold yes, but also marked as a lemon. https://www.lemonlawlawyerscalifornia.com/2022/08/how-to-kno...

There is nothing wrong with buying a lemon car at a sufficient discount.

There are some laws around maintaining the history the car. Sales must be recorded, certain accidents. I think certain types of flood damage. Getting a carfax is a must if you are buying a used car.

I mean, yeah I would call someone in a brand new $75k vehicle wealthy, even if they did take financing to afford it. Especially if they took dealer financing. Who buys new and who can qualify for a loan like that these days? But if you’re talking a $15k used model and taking financing on that, that’s a different story.

Every car initially comes under warranty and if a used car was returned under lemon law you can find out before buying it. https://www.lemonlawlawyerscalifornia.com/2022/08/how-to-kno...

Thus lemon law benefits every single consumer whether buying a new or used car.

> if you make the law actually hostile for large companies both the general public and corporations are worse off

What an overly broad thing to say!

Hostile as in preventing the existence of rather than simply detrimental.

social security, medicare, medicaid, WIC Programs, public schools, public transportation, all come to mind.

I mean, no coincidence that they are always on the top of the list to threaten and scheme to cut by the right wing.

Progressive taxation?

+1 for being the most concise rebuttal. What an asinine statement that poster made