The problem with any deregulation theory is that deregulation does not exist. Especially in a country like US.
HK65@sopuli.xyz 1 week ago
No. Trickle-down economics is the theory that deregulation and business-friendly laws result in more successful businesses who can pay their employees better. What it forgets is on one side, who are paying for those businesses to get successful, and that businesses in general are interested in low wages above all.
This would be “job creation” at best, with the G4S shareholders getting most of the spend, the actual security guards are underpaid peons like us.
However, it would at least show and remind the leeches every day that they have something to fear.
Also, security details can be great at their job, but a lot of it is theatre, and even a determined lone assailant can get very far. And they only have to win once, the security detail has to win every day.
Trump was almost killed despite the USSS, JFK was also shot way back when. Is G4S better than the USSS?
Aux@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
HK65@sopuli.xyz 1 week ago
In the US, unions are very strictly regulated, but aeroplane manufacturers are pretty much completely unregulated.
We see the results.
Or what exactly do you mean?
Aux@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
That’s a great point! Let’s discuss it!
You see, regulations can be split into two categories: consumer protection and business protection.
Consumer protection policies and regulations protect consumers from business malpractice. For example, here in Europe we have 1-2 years (depending on the country) of warranty for every product sold enshrined in the law. And that’s something unheard of in the US, because communism or something.
On the other hand, business protection regulations protect existing businesses against competition. A good example is software patents: so common in the US, non existent in Europe.
Somehow when lobbyists are brainwashing American public to get more regulations, they’re talking about business protection and when they want to deregulate something they’re talking about removing consumer protections and American public makes the wrong choice every time.
Speaking of planes you can see this in Europe again: no competition regulations for air lines, yet strong consumer protections resulting in loads of air lines popping up all the time.
obre@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Worker protection regulations, as enforced by OSHA in the US, are also a target for deregulation by the right.
PanArab@lemm.ee 1 week ago
Look up “regulatory capture”
PlexSheep@infosec.pub 1 week ago
Well they can pay their employees better. They just don’t want to
HK65@sopuli.xyz 1 week ago
So here’s a bit of Marx for you, no, they literally can’t.
Unregulated capitalism floats the most unscrupulous, must exploitative companies to the top, because if they stop being the arch-enemies of humanity, they will get outcompeted. Those at the top are just as much slaves to the system as those below, except most of them like it that way.
The only way they could really help is if they lobbied for getting money out of politics, or better workers’ laws. But they won’t because of the above point.
Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de 1 week ago
The key difference is that companies don’t need to be at the top to survive but willingly choose to be the biggest slaver in town for profit. Their choice to do this is what puts pressure on everyone because they are being exploited and still have to meet their bodily demands that they absolutely require to survive.
Calling companies equal slaves to the system is disingenuous, they have the privilege of not being a living entity.
feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world 1 week ago
That’s true, but doesn’t preclude the existence of premium or prestige services for those with money to burn - the cost in those examples becoming the point of difference, and a proxy for the improved service. Think visiting a tailor for your clothes.
IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
To be fair, trump was a candidate / forner president at the time, not the sitting president nor president-elect. The USSS probably just let their guard down and didn’t expect anyone to try anything.
HK65@sopuli.xyz 1 week ago
Who expected a multimillionaire to be targeted before very public figures like Musk? And will private security take their job more seriously than the USSS?
If they only kill the billionaires whose security lets their guard down because “no way it’s happening to us”, that still makes for a steady stream of blood.
chillinit@lemmynsfw.com 1 week ago
To be fair, trump was a candidate / forner president at the time, not the sitting president nor president-elect.
Red herring.
The USSS probably just let their guard down and didn’t expect anyone to try anything.
Minimization.
Ad hominem is usually next. But, you instead could choose to answer the question in good faith.
Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
Bit early in the thread for one word retorts and assumptions of bad faith isn’t it? I’m not even sure what’s supposed to be being argued right now.
chillinit@lemmynsfw.com 1 week ago
No, it’s not. If there’s no logic in the foundation then what’s built upon it is nearly useless.
dharmacurious@slrpnk.net 1 week ago
Granted, I’ve never done security for a billionaire CEO, but I worked security (including personal security) for well over a decade. And I can tell you without a doubt there is no security in security. Nothing we do matters, it’s all entirely for show. Now, at that high level CEO security detail type it may be different, but a security job is basically “be the one who call the popo,” and no one I knew in security, save one jackass, ever considered the job worth a damn to do anything over.
aesthelete@lemmy.world 1 week ago
I feel like there’s a Dwight Shrute in every type of job under the sun.
dharmacurious@slrpnk.net 1 week ago
Hang on, recently told the story and I’ll link it.