Seems to me that debates about (de)regulation often conflate two different things, which probably are not clearly separated but exist on a continuum. One is that people are different. Another is cooperation vs defection in Prisoner’s Dilemma (also known as sacrifice to Moloch).
From the “people are different” perspective, the theoretical ideal would be to let everyone do their own thing, unless the advantages of cooperation clearly outweigh the benefits of freedom.
From the “Moloch” perspective, it would be best for the players if defection was banned/punished.
As an example, should it be okay for an employee to have a sexual relation with their boss? From the “people are different” perspective, hey, if two people genuinely desire to have sex with each other, why should they be forbidden to do so, if they are both consenting adults? From the “Moloch” perspective, we have just added “provide sexual services to your boss and pretend that you like it” to the list of things that desperate poor people have to do in order to get a job.
And both these perspectives are legitimate, for different people in different situations, and it is easy to forget that the other situation exists (and to have this blind spot supported by your bubble).
Simply asking people about their genuine preferences is not enough, because of possible preference falsification. Imagine the person who desperately needs the job—if you asked them whether they are genuinely okay with having sex with their boss, they might conclude that saying “no” means not getting the job. People could lie even if a specific job is not on the line, simply because taking a certain position sends various social signals, such as “I feel economically (in)secure”.
But if we cannot reliably find out people’s preferences, it is not possible to have a policy “it is OK only if it is really OK for you”, and without an anonymous survey we can’t even figure out which solution would be preferable for most people. (In near future, an AI will probably compile a list of your publicly stated opinions for HR before the job interview.) So we are left guessing.
Interesting, your comment follows the frame of the OP, rather than the economic frame that I proposed. In the economic frame, it almost doesn’t matter whether you ban sexual relations at work or not. If the labor market is a seller’s market, workers will just leave bad employers and flock to better ones, and the problem will solve itself. And if the labor market is a buyer’s market, employers will find a way to extract X value from workers, either by extorting sex or by other ways—you’re never going to plug all the loopholes. The buyer’s market vs seller’s market distinction is all that matters, and all that’s worth changing. The great success of the union movement was because it actually shifted one side of the market, forcing the other side to shift as well.
I agree that in long term, seller’s market is the answer (and in the era of AGI, keeping it so will probably require some kind of UBI). But the market is not perfect, so the ban is useful to address those cases. Sometimes people are inflexible—I have seen people tolerate more than they should, considering their market position they apparently were not aware/sure of. Transaction costs, imperfect information, etc.
Seems to me that debates about (de)regulation often conflate two different things, which probably are not clearly separated but exist on a continuum. One is that people are different. Another is cooperation vs defection in Prisoner’s Dilemma (also known as sacrifice to Moloch).
From the “people are different” perspective, the theoretical ideal would be to let everyone do their own thing, unless the advantages of cooperation clearly outweigh the benefits of freedom.
From the “Moloch” perspective, it would be best for the players if defection was banned/punished.
As an example, should it be okay for an employee to have a sexual relation with their boss? From the “people are different” perspective, hey, if two people genuinely desire to have sex with each other, why should they be forbidden to do so, if they are both consenting adults? From the “Moloch” perspective, we have just added “provide sexual services to your boss and pretend that you like it” to the list of things that desperate poor people have to do in order to get a job.
And both these perspectives are legitimate, for different people in different situations, and it is easy to forget that the other situation exists (and to have this blind spot supported by your bubble).
Simply asking people about their genuine preferences is not enough, because of possible preference falsification. Imagine the person who desperately needs the job—if you asked them whether they are genuinely okay with having sex with their boss, they might conclude that saying “no” means not getting the job. People could lie even if a specific job is not on the line, simply because taking a certain position sends various social signals, such as “I feel economically (in)secure”.
But if we cannot reliably find out people’s preferences, it is not possible to have a policy “it is OK only if it is really OK for you”, and without an anonymous survey we can’t even figure out which solution would be preferable for most people. (In near future, an AI will probably compile a list of your publicly stated opinions for HR before the job interview.) So we are left guessing.
Interesting, your comment follows the frame of the OP, rather than the economic frame that I proposed. In the economic frame, it almost doesn’t matter whether you ban sexual relations at work or not. If the labor market is a seller’s market, workers will just leave bad employers and flock to better ones, and the problem will solve itself. And if the labor market is a buyer’s market, employers will find a way to extract X value from workers, either by extorting sex or by other ways—you’re never going to plug all the loopholes. The buyer’s market vs seller’s market distinction is all that matters, and all that’s worth changing. The great success of the union movement was because it actually shifted one side of the market, forcing the other side to shift as well.
I agree that in long term, seller’s market is the answer (and in the era of AGI, keeping it so will probably require some kind of UBI). But the market is not perfect, so the ban is useful to address those cases. Sometimes people are inflexible—I have seen people tolerate more than they should, considering their market position they apparently were not aware/sure of. Transaction costs, imperfect information, etc.