If you still aren't convinced, consider that the benefits package routinely offered to employees is worth around 40% of their pay.
Do you have evidence of this?
> consider that the benefits package routinely offered to employees is worth around 40% of their pay
Please define "routinely" and "employees". Part-time employees do not get benefits packages, much less benefits packages worth 40% of their pay. PTO, Sick time, family leave, and other "benefits" are actually legally mandated and I do not see any evidence that companies would offer this if they were not mandated to do so.
Yes. Part time work.
Google sez: "Total compensation generally exceeds base salary by 30% to 50% for many roles, meaning salary often represents only 60% to 70% of an employee's total worth to the company."
Google sez total compensation includes bonuses, commission, stock options, employer-paid insurance (health, life, disability), retirement contributions, paid time off, tuition reimbursement, student loan assistance, gym memberships, employee discounts, Childcare assistance, commuter benefits, and relocation expenses.
None of those are mandated by law.
Meaning it can be changed and adjusted.
Every well functioning market has ground rules. We call that laws.
And every well-functioning market has enforcer of said ground rules. We call that government.
Believing that the market is unregulated is faith-driven nonsense, which flies in the face of evidence.
"Your signature on the contract or your brains" is not a free market transaction.
A check against fraud and protection of property rights can be achieved through force and violence and the threat of violence, so that answer seems inadequate.
Likewise, supply and demand is definitely affected by government policies. The supply of labor, for example, by allowing or disallowing near shore or off-shore work with steep penalties. Or allowing/disallowing gambling.
So that also flies in the face of evidence.
It’s a self-serving, faith-based belief that that desires to put “market forces” beyond the reach of voters. It’s also a colossal delusion.
The idea is that transactions then become mutually beneficial.
You cannot vote away the Law of Supply and Demand any more than you can legislate pi=3.00
It’s a strange blindspot you have where you understand there is clearly some government role to have a free market, yet can’t see that this also means the government can influence—not eliminate, you’re the one making this claim not me—supply and demand.
The government clearly has levers to influence supply, but I’m failing to make it clear it seems.
As for making transactions beneficial between two parties: Which two parties?
Why does this belief not extend to workers and businesses?
Why doesn’t the lobbying by firms to support H1Bs and off-shore prove that government policies clearly impacts labor supply?
The 40hr work week didn't come by as a consequence of the profit maximization mentality, but as a consequence of hard fought battles by the workers/employees against that mentality. And when I say "hard fought" I mean in the literal sense, with at least 1,000 workers killed just in the US in those days. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_worker_deaths_in_Unite...