I don't think you can win this one.

The free market might as well be a religion for some people. Nothing (not even historical facts) is enough evidence for it to not be the answers to all economic issues.

Also, there are lots of US tech people here - with overly inflated salaries compared to approximately everyone else. And everyone knows those winning the game have a tendency to lose empathy and think the game is fair, no matter how much evidence against it.

> The free market might as well be a religion for some people. Nothing (not even historical facts) is enough evidence for it to not be the answers to all economic issues.

Aside from their lack of empathy and the ignoring of the distortion of the supply of labour happening that makes the "non-problem" an actual problem, what is incorrect about pointing out that supply and demand are, if not the most fundamental factor then close to it, in a market?

A close to most fundamental factor must survive close to most observations of the real world. That's not the case.

Monopolies have historically shit all over the notion that supply and demand is a good model to use for the market.

Much like most economic models, there are underlying assumptions about it that make it bad at actually predicting the real world. Things like perfectly competitive markets (haha), prices being adjustable (haha) and the forces that act on supply/demand being rational (extra hahaha).

There are lots and lots of cases where it fails, like the housing bubble, administered prices and wages.

Still, it might as well be a religion. Afterall, people can say it is close to a most fundamental law about markets with a straight face (despite it failling all the time).

Monopolies are the opposite of a free market. I'm not sure how a critique of using supply and demand to explain how free markets work will apply if you choose a monopolised market as your rebuttal. You may as well say that supply and demand doesn't hold under communist conditions.

What I would counter is that it that we can see that free markets work preferably to monopolised ones, or any of the other ones you've provided where selfish intervention of one kind or another has interfered with supply or demand.

So you're implying me the only place supply and demand actually works is in an idealized free market that doesn't exist? If that's the case, yeah, we agree on it.

All those cases I mentioned came arose under one of the most (maybe the most?) free market of modernity.

> So you're implying me the only place supply and demand actually works is in an idealized free market that doesn't exist?

No. I don't believe you're trying to create a straw man intentionally but if you're going to jump from black to white, and a large jump at that, then it produces the same outcome all the same.

monopoly is the goal of the free market, not its opposite. "supply and demand" are clearly forces at work in the economy, but the idea that an unspecified dynamic simply called "supply and demand" is predictive of anything is not accurate.

this false dichotomy between monopoly and its precursor is non sequitur.

> monopoly is the goal of the free market

Ignoring the fallacious teleological argument, I'm happy to rely on Wikipedia for this as this is basic knowledge:

> In economics, a free market is a system in which the prices for goods and services are self-regulated by buyers and sellers negotiating in an open market without market coercions.

What are market coercions?

> Examples of such prohibited market coercions include: economic privilege, *monopolies*, and artificial scarcities.

> "Also, there are lots of US tech people here - with overly inflated salaries compared to approximately everyone else. "

And even then, you're usually required to live within reasonable driving distance of the office. You don't make enough to buy a place. At least half your salary post-tax probably goes to rent. So yeah, you've got a few bucks in the bank probably, but it's not like you're saving up to buy your third Porsche or something lol.

People committing suicide rather than quitting and doing something else (declaring bankruptcy if necessary) means it's not just a supply and demand thing.

It's also important to distinguish between farm workers (hired hands) and the business owners.

At least in my limited knowledge, it's the small time farmers that commit suicide (so owner that works), and generally in the older population. What else are you going to do if you've been doing that your whole life, you're 50, no college (or it was for agriculture)? You likely can't stay where you are because many of the areas are depressed and they'll take your land if you can't pay the taxes, are foreclosed, etc. Just making it to the next year and all the hard choices become a heavy burden - one that you can struggle with for years and only make it that long because you've motivated yourself that it's the only way and only goal. So it's not just a job, but their entire way of life and identity that are lost.

Yes, people agree that farm works sucks and have low wage.

But the point that you and others are missing is that if farm works sucks, and pays low, then that means we should not be sending more people to become farmers.

And what exactly are we going to have them do that doesn't suck and isn't low wage?

The point you are missing is that jobs that suck still have to be done. If we ship many the low/medium skill jobs over seas and then automate many of the remaining ones, what are those people to do? Surely if they were able to get a higher paying job that didn't suck they would have done so.

The better solution is to make sure we appropriately value tasks that are necessary and have some level of potential self sufficiency should we find ourselves in a global event like conflict, famine, etc. Not to mention, the non-industrial farms are generally better for animals and the environment. This shouldn't be a race to the bottom.

> And what exactly are we going to have them do that doesn't suck and isn't low wage?

I am not saying that we need to retrain all existing farmers. Instead, I am saying that we should simply discourage more people going into that industry, instead of what the original poster was claiming, which is that we'd need more people there.

> The point you are missing is that jobs that suck still have to be done

We don't need more people in that industry, no. We can have less in that industry.

> what are those people to do

At a very minimum we shouldn't be adding more problems by encourage more people to go into these bad jobs, is the point though. That would just make things worse.

You didn't answer the question. What are these people going to do instead? If we keep eliminating low/middle skilled jobs, what is left for them to do?

This is quite convincing. We should ban independent farmers. It is too dangerous a job for independents. Industrialized commercial farming is the only acceptable recourse since we need to grow food.

As an escape valve for independents we could have them post a sufficiently large bond that will come due in the event of farm failure and bail them out.