As the Lift/Uber kerfuffle comes to a close, it will be interesting to see what is learned from the two year process of politicians acting as labor negotiators between the independent ride share drivers and the platform owners.
The Governor singed a bill amid grandstanding to settle a set ride fare which all parties found acceptable. This is a win as the service is valued by a spectrum of riders and sectors. The negotiations, however, were lengthy. As one council member recently observed, the final horse trading involved in getting to ‘yes’ from all sides used up the political capital that could have been used to get the bonding bill done this year. No bonding bill means no bonding money for all the projects requested across the sate. The loss is all the agreements that were left unconsidered due to the distraction of a relatively small pool of workers.
Economists refer to this as opportunity costs. If your capital is doing one thing, it can’t be doing another. Some might say the politicians are constrained by the amount of time they have in a session to review, discuss, and come to terms on items of public concern. But if public officials are in the profession of providing goods and services of value to their constituents, doesn’t it follow that their choice of which products to work on is actionable? To not make time for the bonding bill is a choice not a constraint
Rosolino and Pete continue to develop this argument that “opportunity costs be regarded not as constraints to which individuals passively respond. Rather they are the reciprocal of choice itself.” Paper in the link.
Home Economics 