I've been asking: When the things that happen in a healthy free market aren't happening, what does that mean? (Maybe too abstract because I haven't got an answer from those I ask.)
Maybe another symptom of a broken immigration system? People with tenuous immigration status are easily exploited?
More generally, I think the specific question is: if a worker is choosing between two companies, one which offers water breaks and one which doesn't, wouldn't they choose the first? This makes sense in a case of labor demand >> labor supply.
An alternative question is: if companies face a cost for worker injury, why wouldn't they take better care of workers. But there's huge amounts of evidence (including my wife's as a resident at Ben Taub) that injured workers are discarded into the public health system (with no insurance). And by "discarded" I also mean "lose their job" as well.
Finally, the cities largely bear these costs with only local property and sales taxes to support them, but have found ways to get around barriers erected by undemocratic rural and suburban legislators, and no doubt will continue to.
Depending on this scenario, it could mean the free market doesn't actually have anything at all to do with certain policies or actions. If something goes right people are right on top of claiming it is a win for free markets, but how often is it really the free market at work and not other factors and incentives, be it political, cultural, historical, situational, emotional, or just a local quirk?
True. My full frustration behind this question is that some people oppose regulation saying that the free market will solve the problem, then later when the free market has not solved the problem I ask my question, then they say that it's not something the free market can solve or we just have to wait longer for the solution to arrive (meanwhile, people are suffering or dying). There is a balance to be found here, free markets have their merits, but I do hate to see ideas dismissed because of a hand-wavy claim that the market will fix it.
(A) there is no singular market. Each city, job, bidding process, and work crew is subject to their own specific market forces and expecting all to behave in an idealized way is silly.
(B) Your assumptions about what happens in a healthy free market are incorrect.
More generally, I think the specific question is: if a worker is choosing between two companies, one which offers water breaks and one which doesn't, wouldn't they choose the first? This makes sense in a case of labor demand >> labor supply.
An alternative question is: if companies face a cost for worker injury, why wouldn't they take better care of workers. But there's huge amounts of evidence (including my wife's as a resident at Ben Taub) that injured workers are discarded into the public health system (with no insurance). And by "discarded" I also mean "lose their job" as well.
Finally, the cities largely bear these costs with only local property and sales taxes to support them, but have found ways to get around barriers erected by undemocratic rural and suburban legislators, and no doubt will continue to.