There's a road, they say, that leads to a very bad place - and it's paved with good intentions.
The concept of job security has four different meanings, in increasing order of regulatory strength:
There are three major problems with trickle-down economics. First, the fact that nobody wants a poxy trickle of wealth filtering through to them in the cheap seats down below. A trickle? Not acceptable. "Thanks for that trickle!" are the words they will never cry. Luckily, there is a better and faster way to Get Rich Quick.
The world looks like a rational place, everything functioning according to immutable universal principles, economies growing and people thriving as they experience lives of increasing abundance…until you bring in the twin notions of Justice and Equality. That’s where it all begins to unravel.
Employment ‘at will’ is the idea that a worker can quit at any time for good reason, bad reason, or no reason at all. Similarly the employer can fire any of the workers at any time for good reason, bad reason or no reason at all.
The aim of Employment law is to regulate the voluntary exchange made between employer and employee. Voluntary? Why should a voluntary exchange require any form of regulation? There are two main reasons.
If you begin by denouncing capitalism, the problem of inequality becomes quite easy to fix and it is pretty obvious what governments have to do. Matters become slightly more complex if you begin by acknowledging that 'the degree of freedom enjoyed by the community' is very important, and if you therefore take 'the view that wherever possible people should make their own decisions about their lives.' That is where Frank Field begins his discussion of inequality in Britain, and that's much more interesting than the 'kill all the bankers' style of commentary you get these days.
There is a great yawning divide between those who care very much about economic inequality and would do anything [Editor: anything?] to make sure that henceforth everybody will have the same amount of stuff, and those whose only response to the reams of data proving beyond doubt that some people are richer than others is to ask: ‘so what?’
If we start by asking whether we can reduce inequality while still enhancing market efficiency, we are assuming that ultimately we want to continue enhancing market efficiency; or at least we don’t want to push inequality-busting policies beyond the point at which efficiency would begin to erode.
The board of directors is the corporate seat of power. Those are the guys to lobby if you want to see corporations dishing out money to the poor and hungry instead of hoarding it for the greedy shareholders.