Very first point: in a free market society, there would be less "free capital" (read: printed money, centrall planned interest rates( which would result in fewer mal-investments, and greatly reduce the number of companies/induestries that burst up and then suddenly collapse. It will still happen, but with far less frequency. What would be far more likely is that Route 128 would be slowly outcompeted, and the industry would shrink over time. Thus, available labour would tend to be more of a trickle, then a surge.

HOWEVER, let's take the extremely rare case that such a thing does happen in a free market society. What would happen with labour?

Well, first of all, the demand for tech-related jobs won't disappear immediately. Plenty of firms/people need assistance with tech, setting up systems, maintenance, etc. Some of the labour would be absorbed there. Some of the companies involved directly in Route 128 would survive, even if in a much reduced version of before, some labour would never lose their job.

Some of the companies in California would cherry-pick the very best talent and move them over (they do this already, and not just across States, tech companies in Silicon Valley will pay all the extortionate costs they have to just to import labourers from Europe). This will absorb a very small amount of labour.

But what about the other 70-odd% of labour? In a free market society, there would be hundreds of jobs that still need doing. I mean, I know my family would look to have a cook, gardener, driver, cleaner, but cannot currently afford them because labour is being pulled away in a million other directions. McDonald's always needs new cleaners, and I'm sure there are MANY jobs that Boston needs done but currently cannot. Hell, if it wasn't for all the interferences with licensing, fuel taxes, etc., somebody who just became unemployed could whack a "taxi" sign on the side of their car, and start driving around. Everybody benefits from this.

These are not fantastic jobs, but they would not be permenant, just long enough to keep people by until they retrain, or the demand for their current skills increase. And, even so, like I said, this would only happen extremely rarely, as sudden collapses just would not happen. The only industry where such a risk would be that great, in a free market society, would be the banking sector... and that's something that people training to enter the market would be aware of, such that there would be a lower supply, and thus greater wages, to accomodate the risk.

You never watched that one episode of The Simpsons about what happens in unlicensed cabs, did you? Granted, they were in Rio de Janeiro at the time, but still... licensing and regulations exist for good reasons just as often (or moreso) than they exist for poor ones.

That's all you got out of my post?

Licenses exist because taxi companies benefit massively from them. You know how much it costs to legally drive a cab in New York? About a million dollars. Who are the only people who can afford that? The big taxi companies.

Guess who the number one lobbyists are for taxi regulations and medallions? Taxi companies.

No, but your larger points have other issues, including the catch-22 of qualified, out of work individuals (like myself). Employers don't hire us for low-end jobs, because they know as well as we do that we'll hop as soon as a real opportunity comes by, and then they don't waste training on us. In a free market society, this problem would grow rather than shrink, as you'd have such out-of-work individuals hedged out by teenagers or underqualified immigrants or something.

The Free Market is a model like every other economic model, and like every other economic model, is flawed.

This is due to all the barriers put in place which make employment much harder/more expensive to do. The cost of training a new employee does exist, but it's only a small factor of  why companies don't like high employment turnover (which is effectively what you're referring to).

In a free society, there would also be a hell of a lot more employers out there. Like I said, my parents would love to have all sorts of stuff done around the house. People could just knock on other people's doors, and offer their services, or just drop a flyer through the door. Hell, if you live in a city, just offer a service where you bring people their lunches. People have short work breaks, and don't want to spend time in a queue. Buy their lunch for them, and put on a small markup.

Anybody could make money if they really want to. They can today, just make sure anybody down at the Government doesn't find out about it. They will try and shut you down.

Deregulated grey markets like that already exist, and yes, the government doesn't try to shut it down unless its getting large enough to notice, at which point its often getting exploitative somewhere along the line.

Believe me, i'm all for the reduction of regulations that are onerous, but where we'll reach loggerheads here is the matter of what is onerous, what is unfortunately necessary, and what is just.

Lemonade stands are large enough to notice?

But, we need to regulate that. After all, those kids could be mixing cyanide into the drink.

Also, if you're really struggling to find employment because employers are worried about training costs and you leaving shortly after, just stick a little note in your resumé/cover letter that says you'll happily negotiate terms/a contract with the employer in regards to minimum employment time. Promise to not leave for another job until X amount of weeks/months/years (depending on the nature of the job).

Doubt you can negotiate a contract with McDonald's or Wal-Mart, but that is a nice tip if i find myself applying for something low-end where the employer has more immediate leeway, thanks.

I suppose the latter is just down to a point of luck, and the police/board of health prioritizing poorly. To countervail your anecdote, i worked at an italian ice stand for $5 (US minimum being 7.15) a whole summer, and the place didn't even have on-site bathrooms.

Well, McDonald's and Walmart typically have a very high staff turnover, anyway. Particularly McDonald's. Their business models are as such that they deem the training costs to be less valuable than staff retention.

The majority of employers are small/medium businesses where such contracts would be much more realistic, also.

How does that countervail my point? I told you that people would do shit anyway, whether it's legal or not. If the Government found out about the wage violation, they'd shut down on it.

Either way, we've gone down a very windy path, here. I asked you to prove your claim that (paraphrased) "labour mobility is a ficticious as the tooth fairy". You didn't do that. My original post stands.