They know there actually isn't any, because they make them.
Odds are good IMHO that all of this is coming from the same one or two suppliers. The final brand owners probably didn't know that there wasn't any aloe vera in their products, but that's because they didn't look. So the emphasis should be that the brand owners didn't do due diligence rather than that they knew something was wrong.
For some reason this went out the window with the latest technology for reasons that make no sense.
If you're referring to renewable energy, it's because it didn't make economic sense from more than one angle. First, you have to subsidize it. The Obama administration was quite hostile to oil production yet it still massively grew under his watch due to fracking and rail transportation of the resulting oil. If instead, he had been similarly hostile to renewable energy subsidies, he could have triggered a large collapse in the industry just by undermining the subsidies.
Second, solar power is the sort of industry where the US just isn't competitive any more. Once they figure out how to make cheaper solar panels that do the same thing, then where are you? This is very different from the software companies you referred to earlier.
Chinese firms can already figure out how to make cheaper hardware for iPhones, but they can't legally make the software to run the hardware. And the technical expertise to make hardware doesn't overlap with the technical expertise to make the software.
You can be a leader or a follower.
Being a leader doesn't mean much when followers will eat your lunch and take over the market. And being a follower is cheaper.
Apple are massively into manufacturing, they do all the design work, and own all the IP, then outsource the labour to cheaper markets.
That's a funny way to say that they don't do their own manufacture. Also, their product is the software that runs on their machines. Chinese companies can't duplicate the markets that Apple has made.
In comparison, what software runs on solar panels or wind generators? The hardware is the product and China excels at making hardware.
So do you think Elon knows something you don't, or you know better?
I think Tesla and SolarCity will probably go down together while before, there was a chance that Tesla would survive. I've seen mergers like that before and it's fine as long as the sick company isn't too sick for the healthier company to clean up (which I think will be a big problem here) and the leadership can fix the problems associated with the sick company.
It's not my strategy, but it's quite clear the decades of effort are finally paying off, and this is the time you want to throw in the towel? Are you the guy that sold your Microsoft shares in 1994?
I don't think it's "quite clear" to you. Solar and wind power just isn't that hard to figure out, technology-wise.
If I was in the appropriate office, I'd be considering starting a collusion investigation since it's amazing to me that so many "competitors" all decided to cheat the same way at the same time. No different than the group of kids at the back of the class getting the same wrong answers.
My bet is that they have a common source rather than collusion. This has happened before. For example, in 2007 pet food in the US and Canada was found to be adulterated with a toxic compound which happened to pass a popular nitrogen content test (used by multiple pet food sellers).
The Wikipedia page claims that about a dozen different businesses were affected. The US FDA apparently traced the contamination back to two vegetable protein sellers in China.
Left to their own devices, corporations would not provide a minimum wage, they would not limit work hours to 40 per week, safety would never be a concern, and they wouldn't bother with useless things like an employee's well-being.
Workers don't leave employers to their own devices. That is always the first line of defense against this sort of thing even in a regulated world.
Actually, consumers can perform these tests. Don't != can't. The real catch is not the capabilities of the consumer, but the vast number of products used.
This is where a non profit or regulator comes into play. It's vastly more efficient to have a few groups efficiently test the vast array of products we use than to have everyone test everything.
While I haven't investigated further, my suspicion is that this is probably a combination of a regulatory loophole about aloe vera-labeled products and a bunch of US-side resellers who aren't independently testing their products, which in this case may all come from one or a few lowest bid suppliers.
You didn't include the relevant quote in my post from the grandparent:
The supervolcano explosion or extinction-sized meteorite strike can't happen soon enough. We've proved beyond a reasonable doubt that we aren't worthy of surviving.
Because fake aloe vera gel, we must conclude that the extinction of humanity can't happen fast enough. There is a relevant concern here about the proportionality of the grandparent's concerns which a surprisingly large number of repliers to my post completely missed. I don't know about other posters, but I quote things for a reason and in this case, the quote explained why I wrote what I wrote.
The supervolcano explosion or extinction-sized meteorite strike can't happen soon enough. We've proved beyond a reasonable doubt that we aren't worthy of surviving.
Because having fake aloe vera in aloe vera lotion is a really big deal.
Here's why it's a straw man argument. Let us recall that you wrote:
You missed that I was presenting the undistorted market. Those would indeed be their three choices under those conditions. That is the un-distorted un-interfered with market you seem to like so much. Smelly dying workers, pay living wages, or close. That's not an attitude, it's objective reality. To be fair, there is a fourth possibility, the smelly dying workers decide they have nothing to lose and start taking what they need. If you can come up with another possibility that doesn't involve fantasy, feel free to speak up.
First, no you weren't representing the undistorted market, but rather a false dilemma argument with deliberate unpleasant choices. I'm not playing that game. Second, you don't have a clue what a living wage is. Some people have a really low living wage because someone else is already paying for their living expenses. Young adults in particular routinely fall in this category.
This is 100% irrelevant to the question of the minimum wage. However, OF COURSE they are holding back! Can you name ANY employer that, as a matter of policy, pays the maximum amount they are capable of paying as opposed to the smallest amount they can get away with and still have employees? For that matter, can you name any actor anywhere within a capitalist system that prefers to pay the maximum amount they possibly can for anything? "I'm sorry, this is simply unacceptable. We can afford to pay you twice this! Double your prices immediately or no deal!".
They wouldn't hire the person in the first place, if they were paying the maximum amount possible. There has to be enough return on investment to warrant hiring something especially in the employment-adverse developed world.
Job loss in the U.S. is being driven by our failure to use tariffs to prevent corporations from paying 3rd world wages while charging 1st world prices and collecting a windfall from the arbitrage. Even Trump can see that. That's why Wall Street is doing better than ever while Main street is still suffering.
And now, you're doing the usual protectionism. Because that's going to be the next magic button that will make the whole mess work. All I can say is that you should take a look at the US auto market. Even with protectionist tariffs, the US automakers lost huge market share to the Japanese and Europeans. It's because their cars were far lower quality. Now, imagine that we had high enough tariffs to block competition from those unfair workers elsewhere. Well, we'd still be driving dangerous, low quality vehicles because the US automakers, who would have an oligopoly, wouldn't have that incentive to make those significant safety and reliability improvements.
Protectionism in this case leads to stagnant cartels with big companies and with that limited pool of employers, more employment issues. Yet again, you propose to make the problem worse than it was before.
You missed that I was presenting the undistorted market. Those would indeed be their three choices under those conditions. That is the un-distorted un-interfered with market you seem to like so much. Smelly dying workers, pay living wages, or close. That's not an attitude, it's objective reality. To be fair, there is a fourth possibility, the smelly dying workers decide they have nothing to lose and start taking what they need. If you can come up with another possibility that doesn't involve fantasy, feel free to speak up.
Ah, straw man argument. I'm on the same page now.
Look, your argument is shit because you're not doing a thing to enable employers to pay a living wage. Cart before the horse. We're going to force employers to pay much high salaries and they'll do it because they were holding back somehow. The economy is what creates the jobs not vice versa. Demand driven model is convenient fantasy.
Another objective reality is that where the minimum wage has been increased, the economy has done better and jobs did NOT go away. The people with those jobs did become less dependent on the safety net and generally better off. Just google for any place you made gloom and doom predictions about last year for the data.
Two things to note. First, there's an awful lot of permanent unemployment for an economy where the jobs didn't go away. Second, weren't you just complaining about the absence of better paying jobs? That's a consequence right there.
Finally, job loss isn't the only negative consequence of universal minimum wage laws. They also force people to work in higher cost of living areas. For example, Puerto Rico has been devastated by the imposition of the standard US minimum wage laws. The story notes a lot of low end manufacturing just disappeared (but WE DIDN'T WANT THOSE JOBS ANYWAY) and a huge number of people migrated to mainland US (with of course, higher cost of living). But economically, it looks great. The US is still chugging along and those people are still employed.
Like Microsoft, Apple, Google, Ford, GM, Boeing etc.
Microsoft and Apple are the only two companies you mentioned founded since 1916. China has changed a wee bit since then. So has the US. I think it's ridiculous to speak of today's environment as it were the environment of pre-First World War US. That world hasn't existed for a long time.
Microsoft and Apple are notable both for their lack of manufacture and the amount of brainpower they bring to their respective industries.
Solar power doesn't require what those big companies have. And we've already seen a massive die-off of US companies in solar power at the expense of the Chinese, who fared far better when there was oversupply around 2011.
China has already won in this particular market with the only remaining significant US competitor being Elon Musk's SolarCity which is heavily subsidized and being propped up by Tesla Motors as well.
But no, we're too short sighted to see past subsidies=communism!
The obvious rebuttal is that the US already tried and just ended up giving a lot of solar tech to the Chinese. Seriously, there's 60 years of development of solar power in the US. Similarly, there's something like 20-30 years of history of solar power subsidies as well. You've had plenty of time to show your strategy can work. It's time to stop wasting our money on this crap.
So the Germans and Chinese will have it handed to them on a plate.
So what? You still don't get that they have to offer it cheaper than the alternatives or we don't buy it. Meanwhile Germany and China are squandering their wealth on these poor strategies. Works for me.
And once again, there's that "we didn't need those jobs anyway" attitude. Sorry, I think that subsidizing Walmart to employ poor people is a really good use of safety net spending. But then, maybe I'm not considering all the possible benefits of a large unemployed, starving population? You seem to have thought about this some, so could you tell me what those would be?
Libertarian philosophy is *explicitly* to "keep government out of the way", limiting government's role basically to defense and police work. Over the last 40 years, while demand for quality education has become strongly inelastic (it's necessary for individual economic survival, we'll pay through the nose to get it), the libertarians in our society have successfully reduced education funding at all levels, with college and grad school seeing the largest shift from public funding to students and families.
I think it would be educational for you to look at how much we actually spend on education in the US. Sure, there was a modest drop after the 2008 recession, but one would have to go back to the late 70s to find an era where less public funds were spent on college than now.
College funding hasn't significantly changed at all over the last 40 years. The problem is that costs have grown immensely. And they grew so because students could borrow arbitrary amounts of money and have the loan guaranteed by Uncle Sam.
Sorry, libertarians aren't to blame for this mess.
Employers create jobs when they think they have found a way for making a profit, and that specific way requires human labor. If the human labor is too expensive to make a profit, the work is automated or the investment doesn't happen; either way no jobs are created.
So who is the proxy that will stand for the financial, economic, and employment needs of the electorate? Who will stand in the way of Profit and future political contributions in order to make sure employment is not further sacrificed?
The obvious rebuttal is what changed? Answer: labor's pricing power. You're just speaking of another symptom of global labor competition.
Another way to look at this is, companies and the government are content with moving laborers off of the workforce and on to government subsidized living arrangements. Business and government are content with limiting the work force size to encourage efficiencies of labor and management that would not be derived without a tight labor conditions (under staffing.) How can we expect them to do a 180 on these proclivities, especially when faced with the prospect of further reducing labor force size and increasing their bottom line? They control the shoe strings, the shoes, and the concrete the shoes run on, all through economic lawmaking which is not only inaccessible and inscrutable to the average American, but also written by ex-industry-regulators and compromised academics specifically for their own purposes.
Employment is too important to leave to government or large corporations. What is missed here is that power should be in the hands of the employers. But we should be doing our best to expand the pool of employers and make that open to as many people as possible.
Instead the very rules that are meant to protect and enable workers, actually protect and enable the large corporations instead. They're the ones who can afford the staff that can navigate the resulting mess that is made.
It saddens me that people just don't get that employment is a transaction not a warranted gift. The more you warp the conditions of the transaction in favor of one party, the less parties you will get on the other side. And because people really need jobs, as opposed to say, Pokemon trading cards, we get huge market distortions due to the inelasticity of supply of labor.
This is why would-be employers need a bone. They need to be able to pay employees what they're worth in a competitive market, not what some bureaucrat decides a living wage is. They need to be able to fire employees without cause. They need to be able to negotiate with labor unions on equal ground. They need to be able to avoid all that abuse.
Else you're find that the only employers who can employ are the ones with the politicians in their pockets.
Looks a lot like trickle down economics, only with the onus of not soaking up the additional productivity as profit left to the business owners and the market place.
So? The problem here is that there are too many would-be employees and not enough employers. You have to start by recognizing what is important in the society and figuring out how to encourage more of it. Since employment is not physically limited, we don't have to worry about running out of it.
it's entirely possible to pay big bucks for entry into school
Education definitely is not a libertarian paradise. As to the rest of your US-centric criticism, where is the acknowledgement of the US government's decades old role as driver of inflating education costs at several times the rate of monetary inflation? That most definitely is not libertarian policy.
Slashdot Mirror
They know there actually isn't any, because they make them.
Odds are good IMHO that all of this is coming from the same one or two suppliers. The final brand owners probably didn't know that there wasn't any aloe vera in their products, but that's because they didn't look. So the emphasis should be that the brand owners didn't do due diligence rather than that they knew something was wrong.
Why are you replying to me instead of the grandparent? I quoted that post for a reason.
Your statement was that _reducing_ demand would _increase_ the value
No, it wasn't. Again, why all these mischaracterizations of my post?
Why aren't you hoping the grandparent was joking? I quoted that post for a reason.
So how often do you or everyone you know, recruit on college campuses?
The concept of innovation still exists.
Concepts don't pay the bills.
For some reason this went out the window with the latest technology for reasons that make no sense.
If you're referring to renewable energy, it's because it didn't make economic sense from more than one angle. First, you have to subsidize it. The Obama administration was quite hostile to oil production yet it still massively grew under his watch due to fracking and rail transportation of the resulting oil. If instead, he had been similarly hostile to renewable energy subsidies, he could have triggered a large collapse in the industry just by undermining the subsidies.
Second, solar power is the sort of industry where the US just isn't competitive any more. Once they figure out how to make cheaper solar panels that do the same thing, then where are you? This is very different from the software companies you referred to earlier.
Chinese firms can already figure out how to make cheaper hardware for iPhones, but they can't legally make the software to run the hardware. And the technical expertise to make hardware doesn't overlap with the technical expertise to make the software.
You can be a leader or a follower.
Being a leader doesn't mean much when followers will eat your lunch and take over the market. And being a follower is cheaper.
Apple are massively into manufacturing, they do all the design work, and own all the IP, then outsource the labour to cheaper markets.
That's a funny way to say that they don't do their own manufacture. Also, their product is the software that runs on their machines. Chinese companies can't duplicate the markets that Apple has made.
In comparison, what software runs on solar panels or wind generators? The hardware is the product and China excels at making hardware.
So do you think Elon knows something you don't, or you know better?
I think Tesla and SolarCity will probably go down together while before, there was a chance that Tesla would survive. I've seen mergers like that before and it's fine as long as the sick company isn't too sick for the healthier company to clean up (which I think will be a big problem here) and the leadership can fix the problems associated with the sick company.
It's not my strategy, but it's quite clear the decades of effort are finally paying off, and this is the time you want to throw in the towel? Are you the guy that sold your Microsoft shares in 1994?
I don't think it's "quite clear" to you. Solar and wind power just isn't that hard to figure out, technology-wise.
So why would increasing demand cause a decrease in value and therefore price?
What scenario caused this? I don't presently see the relevance to my earlier posts.
If I was in the appropriate office, I'd be considering starting a collusion investigation since it's amazing to me that so many "competitors" all decided to cheat the same way at the same time. No different than the group of kids at the back of the class getting the same wrong answers.
My bet is that they have a common source rather than collusion. This has happened before. For example, in 2007 pet food in the US and Canada was found to be adulterated with a toxic compound which happened to pass a popular nitrogen content test (used by multiple pet food sellers).
The Wikipedia page claims that about a dozen different businesses were affected. The US FDA apparently traced the contamination back to two vegetable protein sellers in China.
Left to their own devices, corporations would not provide a minimum wage, they would not limit work hours to 40 per week, safety would never be a concern, and they wouldn't bother with useless things like an employee's well-being.
Workers don't leave employers to their own devices. That is always the first line of defense against this sort of thing even in a regulated world.
Consumers can't perform these tests
Actually, consumers can perform these tests. Don't != can't. The real catch is not the capabilities of the consumer, but the vast number of products used.
This is where a non profit or regulator comes into play. It's vastly more efficient to have a few groups efficiently test the vast array of products we use than to have everyone test everything.
While I haven't investigated further, my suspicion is that this is probably a combination of a regulatory loophole about aloe vera-labeled products and a bunch of US-side resellers who aren't independently testing their products, which in this case may all come from one or a few lowest bid suppliers.
The supervolcano explosion or extinction-sized meteorite strike can't happen soon enough. We've proved beyond a reasonable doubt that we aren't worthy of surviving.
Because fake aloe vera gel, we must conclude that the extinction of humanity can't happen fast enough. There is a relevant concern here about the proportionality of the grandparent's concerns which a surprisingly large number of repliers to my post completely missed. I don't know about other posters, but I quote things for a reason and in this case, the quote explained why I wrote what I wrote.
The supervolcano explosion or extinction-sized meteorite strike can't happen soon enough. We've proved beyond a reasonable doubt that we aren't worthy of surviving.
Because having fake aloe vera in aloe vera lotion is a really big deal.
You missed that I was presenting the undistorted market. Those would indeed be their three choices under those conditions. That is the un-distorted un-interfered with market you seem to like so much. Smelly dying workers, pay living wages, or close. That's not an attitude, it's objective reality. To be fair, there is a fourth possibility, the smelly dying workers decide they have nothing to lose and start taking what they need. If you can come up with another possibility that doesn't involve fantasy, feel free to speak up.
First, no you weren't representing the undistorted market, but rather a false dilemma argument with deliberate unpleasant choices. I'm not playing that game. Second, you don't have a clue what a living wage is. Some people have a really low living wage because someone else is already paying for their living expenses. Young adults in particular routinely fall in this category.
This is 100% irrelevant to the question of the minimum wage. However, OF COURSE they are holding back! Can you name ANY employer that, as a matter of policy, pays the maximum amount they are capable of paying as opposed to the smallest amount they can get away with and still have employees? For that matter, can you name any actor anywhere within a capitalist system that prefers to pay the maximum amount they possibly can for anything? "I'm sorry, this is simply unacceptable. We can afford to pay you twice this! Double your prices immediately or no deal!".
They wouldn't hire the person in the first place, if they were paying the maximum amount possible. There has to be enough return on investment to warrant hiring something especially in the employment-adverse developed world.
Job loss in the U.S. is being driven by our failure to use tariffs to prevent corporations from paying 3rd world wages while charging 1st world prices and collecting a windfall from the arbitrage. Even Trump can see that. That's why Wall Street is doing better than ever while Main street is still suffering.
And now, you're doing the usual protectionism. Because that's going to be the next magic button that will make the whole mess work. All I can say is that you should take a look at the US auto market. Even with protectionist tariffs, the US automakers lost huge market share to the Japanese and Europeans. It's because their cars were far lower quality. Now, imagine that we had high enough tariffs to block competition from those unfair workers elsewhere. Well, we'd still be driving dangerous, low quality vehicles because the US automakers, who would have an oligopoly, wouldn't have that incentive to make those significant safety and reliability improvements.
Protectionism in this case leads to stagnant cartels with big companies and with that limited pool of employers, more employment issues. Yet again, you propose to make the problem worse than it was before.
Exactly. So why did you ask what you asked? Nobody is saying that. Not even you.
I didn't mention it, but there is Jevons paradox. When you make human labor far more valuable via automation, you get more demand for it.
You missed that I was presenting the undistorted market. Those would indeed be their three choices under those conditions. That is the un-distorted un-interfered with market you seem to like so much. Smelly dying workers, pay living wages, or close. That's not an attitude, it's objective reality. To be fair, there is a fourth possibility, the smelly dying workers decide they have nothing to lose and start taking what they need. If you can come up with another possibility that doesn't involve fantasy, feel free to speak up.
Ah, straw man argument. I'm on the same page now.
Look, your argument is shit because you're not doing a thing to enable employers to pay a living wage. Cart before the horse. We're going to force employers to pay much high salaries and they'll do it because they were holding back somehow. The economy is what creates the jobs not vice versa. Demand driven model is convenient fantasy.
Another objective reality is that where the minimum wage has been increased, the economy has done better and jobs did NOT go away. The people with those jobs did become less dependent on the safety net and generally better off. Just google for any place you made gloom and doom predictions about last year for the data.
Two things to note. First, there's an awful lot of permanent unemployment for an economy where the jobs didn't go away. Second, weren't you just complaining about the absence of better paying jobs? That's a consequence right there.
Finally, job loss isn't the only negative consequence of universal minimum wage laws. They also force people to work in higher cost of living areas. For example, Puerto Rico has been devastated by the imposition of the standard US minimum wage laws. The story notes a lot of low end manufacturing just disappeared (but WE DIDN'T WANT THOSE JOBS ANYWAY) and a huge number of people migrated to mainland US (with of course, higher cost of living). But economically, it looks great. The US is still chugging along and those people are still employed.
Like Microsoft, Apple, Google, Ford, GM, Boeing etc.
Microsoft and Apple are the only two companies you mentioned founded since 1916. China has changed a wee bit since then. So has the US. I think it's ridiculous to speak of today's environment as it were the environment of pre-First World War US. That world hasn't existed for a long time.
Microsoft and Apple are notable both for their lack of manufacture and the amount of brainpower they bring to their respective industries.
Solar power doesn't require what those big companies have. And we've already seen a massive die-off of US companies in solar power at the expense of the Chinese, who fared far better when there was oversupply around 2011.
China has already won in this particular market with the only remaining significant US competitor being Elon Musk's SolarCity which is heavily subsidized and being propped up by Tesla Motors as well.
But no, we're too short sighted to see past subsidies=communism!
The obvious rebuttal is that the US already tried and just ended up giving a lot of solar tech to the Chinese. Seriously, there's 60 years of development of solar power in the US. Similarly, there's something like 20-30 years of history of solar power subsidies as well. You've had plenty of time to show your strategy can work. It's time to stop wasting our money on this crap.
So the Germans and Chinese will have it handed to them on a plate.
So what? You still don't get that they have to offer it cheaper than the alternatives or we don't buy it. Meanwhile Germany and China are squandering their wealth on these poor strategies. Works for me.
or fold up their tents
And once again, there's that "we didn't need those jobs anyway" attitude. Sorry, I think that subsidizing Walmart to employ poor people is a really good use of safety net spending. But then, maybe I'm not considering all the possible benefits of a large unemployed, starving population? You seem to have thought about this some, so could you tell me what those would be?
Libertarian philosophy is *explicitly* to "keep government out of the way", limiting government's role basically to defense and police work. Over the last 40 years, while demand for quality education has become strongly inelastic (it's necessary for individual economic survival, we'll pay through the nose to get it), the libertarians in our society have successfully reduced education funding at all levels, with college and grad school seeing the largest shift from public funding to students and families.
I think it would be educational for you to look at how much we actually spend on education in the US. Sure, there was a modest drop after the 2008 recession, but one would have to go back to the late 70s to find an era where less public funds were spent on college than now.
College funding hasn't significantly changed at all over the last 40 years. The problem is that costs have grown immensely. And they grew so because students could borrow arbitrary amounts of money and have the loan guaranteed by Uncle Sam.
Sorry, libertarians aren't to blame for this mess.
Looking out my window I see frozen nitrogen falling like snow into a darkness that has never felt the warmth of a star. This global warming is a lie!
Wait... wrong channel.
I see sandworms. Yep, global warming.
Employers create jobs when they think they have found a way for making a profit, and that specific way requires human labor. If the human labor is too expensive to make a profit, the work is automated or the investment doesn't happen; either way no jobs are created.
Yep, I quite agree.
how does reducing demand for human labor increase its value?
How does increasing demand for human labor increase its value?
So who is the proxy that will stand for the financial, economic, and employment needs of the electorate? Who will stand in the way of Profit and future political contributions in order to make sure employment is not further sacrificed?
The obvious rebuttal is what changed? Answer: labor's pricing power. You're just speaking of another symptom of global labor competition.
Another way to look at this is, companies and the government are content with moving laborers off of the workforce and on to government subsidized living arrangements. Business and government are content with limiting the work force size to encourage efficiencies of labor and management that would not be derived without a tight labor conditions (under staffing.) How can we expect them to do a 180 on these proclivities, especially when faced with the prospect of further reducing labor force size and increasing their bottom line? They control the shoe strings, the shoes, and the concrete the shoes run on, all through economic lawmaking which is not only inaccessible and inscrutable to the average American, but also written by ex-industry-regulators and compromised academics specifically for their own purposes.
Employment is too important to leave to government or large corporations. What is missed here is that power should be in the hands of the employers. But we should be doing our best to expand the pool of employers and make that open to as many people as possible.
Instead the very rules that are meant to protect and enable workers, actually protect and enable the large corporations instead. They're the ones who can afford the staff that can navigate the resulting mess that is made.
It saddens me that people just don't get that employment is a transaction not a warranted gift. The more you warp the conditions of the transaction in favor of one party, the less parties you will get on the other side. And because people really need jobs, as opposed to say, Pokemon trading cards, we get huge market distortions due to the inelasticity of supply of labor.
This is why would-be employers need a bone. They need to be able to pay employees what they're worth in a competitive market, not what some bureaucrat decides a living wage is. They need to be able to fire employees without cause. They need to be able to negotiate with labor unions on equal ground. They need to be able to avoid all that abuse.
Else you're find that the only employers who can employ are the ones with the politicians in their pockets.
But you didn't do the math on maintenance costs for ICE vs electric, did you?
That's hammering nails into the coffin. You would have to include the cost of replacing the battery pack on an electric car.
Looks a lot like trickle down economics, only with the onus of not soaking up the additional productivity as profit left to the business owners and the market place.
So? The problem here is that there are too many would-be employees and not enough employers. You have to start by recognizing what is important in the society and figuring out how to encourage more of it. Since employment is not physically limited, we don't have to worry about running out of it.
In today's libertarian paradise
I'll note such a thing doesn't exist.
it's entirely possible to pay big bucks for entry into school
Education definitely is not a libertarian paradise. As to the rest of your US-centric criticism, where is the acknowledgement of the US government's decades old role as driver of inflating education costs at several times the rate of monetary inflation? That most definitely is not libertarian policy.