Is the Economist seriously suggesting we should roll back workers and renters rights because AI makes it too easy for the average Joe to actually get those rights?
Yes, both of these pieces of legislation are extremely badly designed feel-good nonsense, which I personally hope will be shown to be so by an avalanche of claims automated by AI.
The employment rights legislation we have at the moment literally abolishes the market for labour - the final decision as to if your salary is "fair" is made by a judge.
The employment rights legislation we have at the moment literally abolishes the market for labour - the final decision as to if your salary is "fair" is made by a judge.
Can you explain this? I can't find anything on this from a quick google. Employment rights act seems to say very little about salary beyond the minimum wage.
Ah, I see, an argument that there was gender discrimination in pay for 'equal value' jobs despite the actual job being different. I agree this decision seems like a bit of a strange reach, but it's far from saying it abolishes the market for labor entirely.
(Also, this is more part of the Equality Act, a piece of legislation that is in pretty dire need of redrafting for a bunch of other reasons, as opposed to the Employment Rights Act)
That has nothing to with the recent legislation referred to in the article. The principle (which I disagree with BTW) has been part of equality law for decades.
The reality is that curtailment of abusive zero hours contracts provided by the employment rights legislation was direly needed and renters desperately needed protection against landlords who would habitually jack up rents and kick you out.
These are probably the only two good bits of legislation done in the last few years.
The renters rights act has led to buy to let landlords selling up all over leading to a decline in property prices. It's hardly feel good - it means first time buyers can get on the property ladder easier and renters cant be kicked out as easily.
The UK rental rights don't really have rent controls as they're normally conceived: the two limits are rent can only go up once a year and that it must be roughly in line with similar properties in the market or area, i.e. explicitly rents follow the market.
The renters rights act is already seemingly leading to distortion in the market - it's not really the price controls as per se but the inability to do things when the tenant is in place.
Some landlords believe that because it brutally eats into their profits and because it's a band aid which addresses the cost of housing without magically fixing supply shortages that it ought to be scrapped with extreme prejudice.
"Sure, it would be a tragedy if I tossed the nurse out of her apartment but has anybody considered the plight of the junior investment banker looking for a place to rent who could pay me more?"
People not being able to be evicted from their homes arbitrarily is a bad thing?
There's a counterparty to that transaction, and presumably has some reason to want to cancel it, so they're being harmed in some way. Even if you don't have sympathy for landlords though, there's still the second order effects where all landlords discriminate against tenants more, because they know that getting rid of bad tenants is going to be a pain. It's similar to the employment situation in Europe. Making workers harder to fire might sound like a great idea, but it also makes employers more reluctant to hire, especially if they can't easily get rid of them afterwards.
Does “The final decision is made by a judge” mean “workers rights can ultimately be arbitrated by a judge when escalated”, or “judges arbitrate all workers rights complaints”? If the former, i believe that’s reasonable; if the latter, thats nuts - and I might not balk at a statement like yours (“abolishes…”).
Comments
Yes, both of these pieces of legislation are extremely badly designed feel-good nonsense, which I personally hope will be shown to be so by an avalanche of claims automated by AI.
The employment rights legislation we have at the moment literally abolishes the market for labour - the final decision as to if your salary is "fair" is made by a judge.
Can you explain this? I can't find anything on this from a quick google. Employment rights act seems to say very little about salary beyond the minimum wage.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj0817jd9dqo
The judge decided that, despite prices suggesting otherwise, the two types of labour here were the same.
Ah, I see, an argument that there was gender discrimination in pay for 'equal value' jobs despite the actual job being different. I agree this decision seems like a bit of a strange reach, but it's far from saying it abolishes the market for labor entirely.
(Also, this is more part of the Equality Act, a piece of legislation that is in pretty dire need of redrafting for a bunch of other reasons, as opposed to the Employment Rights Act)
That has nothing to with the recent legislation referred to in the article. The principle (which I disagree with BTW) has been part of equality law for decades.
Why are these cases only happening now? The article is clearly talking about the wider principle anywwy
The cases have been happening for decades. I recall studying one in the early 90s so it probably happened in the 80s.
I think the article lacks evidence that anything has changed recently.
Scrooge would probably agree wholeheartedly.
The reality is that curtailment of abusive zero hours contracts provided by the employment rights legislation was direly needed and renters desperately needed protection against landlords who would habitually jack up rents and kick you out.
These are probably the only two good bits of legislation done in the last few years.
The renters rights act has led to buy to let landlords selling up all over leading to a decline in property prices. It's hardly feel good - it means first time buyers can get on the property ladder easier and renters cant be kicked out as easily.
Rent controls are great if you already have a place
The UK rental rights don't really have rent controls as they're normally conceived: the two limits are rent can only go up once a year and that it must be roughly in line with similar properties in the market or area, i.e. explicitly rents follow the market.
The renters rights act is already seemingly leading to distortion in the market - it's not really the price controls as per se but the inability to do things when the tenant is in place.
the distortion is the slow euthanization of the parasitic buy to let landlord class and a decline in property prices to more affordable levels.
Scrooge would agree wholeheartedly.
Some landlords believe that because it brutally eats into their profits and because it's a band aid which addresses the cost of housing without magically fixing supply shortages that it ought to be scrapped with extreme prejudice.
"Sure, it would be a tragedy if I tossed the nurse out of her apartment but has anybody considered the plight of the junior investment banker looking for a place to rent who could pay me more?"
Controlling real estate supply should be in every local government playbook.
They already do, you need permission from local government to build almost anything in Britain.
What part of ending no fault eviction is feel good nonsense? People not being able to be evicted from their homes arbitrarily is a bad thing?
There's a counterparty to that transaction, and presumably has some reason to want to cancel it, so they're being harmed in some way. Even if you don't have sympathy for landlords though, there's still the second order effects where all landlords discriminate against tenants more, because they know that getting rid of bad tenants is going to be a pain. It's similar to the employment situation in Europe. Making workers harder to fire might sound like a great idea, but it also makes employers more reluctant to hire, especially if they can't easily get rid of them afterwards.
Does “The final decision is made by a judge” mean “workers rights can ultimately be arbitrated by a judge when escalated”, or “judges arbitrate all workers rights complaints”? If the former, i believe that’s reasonable; if the latter, thats nuts - and I might not balk at a statement like yours (“abolishes…”).