Has anybody done the math?

[Ra-89]

Hello fellow anarchists!

I was wondering if you know if anyone has done the math regarding what kind of world we would live in if it was an anarchist world. By this I mean:

If you are a taxi driver, waitress, cleaner and so on you are att the bottom when it comes to wages. However we have unions that makes sure that we have salaries above market based wages. In an anarchist world, financially speaking, would a taxi driver make more or less money. Be better or worse of?

 

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

Who knows?

Money is created by the state, so it's really impossible to predict what wages would look like when the state no longer controls it. It's a fun exercise to think about, but I think it can even be taken so far: would we even need taxis if there were no state?

[Ra-89]

The good old state... Well it would be nice to know these things. I have worked with a lot of low paying jobs. Morals aside, when you have rent control on your apartment and an inflated salary as a taxi driver (both apply for me) would people like me be better off? Thats the question. Since, for obvious reasons, I work with people with low paying jobs I find it hard to convince them of a better world, the anarchist one. People like to think of themselves and their survival. 

[Goldenages]

What can be said pretty safely is that the average standard of living is rising. Have a look here: Freedom of economy report    Countries are ranked by personal and economical freedom, and the correlation can bee seen on the first glance: The less state the the better for everyone, no matter what profession.

 

regards

Andi

[dan_s]

There are current barriers to entry to becoming a taxi driver. Uber is a pretty good example of how things work in a more free market.

Reducing regulation would help entrepreneurial taxi drivers to start new companies and compete. More competition will lower prices which is good for consumers. Taxi companies with high overhead may lose money and go out of business, some taxi drivers would lose out, but competitive entrepreneurial taxi drivers will benefit.

There's red tape and barriers to entry which varies by by jurisdiction; Licensing costs for taxis can be very expensive in some cities keep competitors from entering the market. There is an age limit of how old of a vehicle can be used as a taxi, removing that limit can make operating a taxi less expensive. Taxi drivers that own their taxis make more money, so less regulation on the vehicle used will be good for taxi drivers. Costs for consumers will go down, which would be bad for some taxi drivers. But as costs of taking taxis become more accessible/competitive with public transit or Uber, more people may take taxis more often.

More competition means inefficient taxi companies and drivers will go out of business. Competitive entrepreneurial drivers will benefit, and new taxi drivers will have an easier time entering the industry.

As in many cases, regulation keeps prices artificially high, and reduces competition in the market.

When protectionism is removed, people respond to shifting incentives, lowing barriers to entry can help less skilled people get work experience, and eventually move on to other jobs.

Reducing barriers to entry punishes inefficient high-overhead producers. The flip is that a more efficient market lowers the cost of living, which benefits low income people.

[_LiveFree_]

On 4/24/2017 at 11:35 AM, Ra-89 said:

The good old state... Well it would be nice to know these things. I have worked with a lot of low paying jobs. Morals aside, when you have rent control on your apartment and an inflated salary as a taxi driver (both apply for me) would people like me be better off? Thats the question. Since, for obvious reasons, I work with people with low paying jobs I find it hard to convince them of a better world, the anarchist one. People like to think of themselves and their survival. 

Before you give them a solution you have to help them understand the problem. Most people see the problem in their own personal circumstances. So when speaking with them, start with their circumstances. Forget talking big picture, just get them to shift a bit on the small stuff. 

Can you give an example of a conversation you've had? Maybe we can critique it a bit. 

[emil morin]

I think we will have better wages(or buying power) if there is no government.  We can assume that the union will keep your pay around the minum wages pay.  But the amount your money can buy will be much more powerful than if there was no government, Stefan said that if the government stoped the printing of money the minimum wage for an hour would be around 20 dollars.  But with no government a major cost will be services like police or fire fighters, there severs will most likely be provided to you by your insurance company raising the costs of insurance, if you can't afford the insurance than it will be provided by ether charity or by volunteers E.G. neighborhood watch.

[ofd]

Quote

In an anarchist world, financially speaking, would a taxi driver make more or less money. Be better or worse of?

Scenario 1: One or two companies have a monopoly on taxi rides. In this case, the taxi driver is screwed while the company gets rich.

Scenario 2: Competition among many small companies / independent taxi drivers. Since the skill level is low, the wages or earnings will also be low.

Scenario 3: No more taxis because of self driving cars.

[Jsbrads]

In a freer world, there would be more jobs & wealth. Taxes disincentivize hiring. Government destroys 1/3 of the economy thru taxation.

also with everyone at least 1/3 richer, charity would be more available and go where needed.