fagin@ucbvax.ARPA (Barry Steven Fagin) (07/10/85)
In article <777@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes: >Theoretical reasoning can wait; supply and demand (in the Smithian fashion) >can only be assumed to work in a system of near perfect competition. Many >towns exist in a near-monopoly situation with regards to the labor market >(it's work at Mecca Steel or leave town); only the most pig-headed >classicists would argue that supply and demand work according to their usual >fashion. > ("oink-oink") This notion of a "near-monopoly" has always bothered me. Consider the following situations: "It's work at Mecca Steel or work next door" "It's work at Mecca Steel or work across town" "It's work at Mecca Steel or work in another town" "It's work at Mecca Steel or work in the Sun Belt" "It's work at Mecca Steel or work in another country" Clearly Charles draws the line for coercive action in the third case, claiming that Mecca Steel exercises a "near monopoly" over the demand for labor. I would disagree, noting instead that the employees of Mecca steel *choose* to remain in town, for a variety of reasons. Some of them include wanting to be near their family and friends, keeping the security of the only life they've ever known, or just because they lack the desire to leave. After all, packing up one's life and setting out for greener pastures takes a lot of guts. And yet, that is exactly what the vast majority of American labor has done over time. Why does Charley ascribe such stupidity and lack of ambition to the American laborer, when demography shows otherwise? In fact, people can and do leave town when they see their chances for a better life diminishing. How else do you explain the rapid influx of new arrivials in Alaska and the Sun Belt? Where do all the people come from when a region of the country experiences economic growth? My guess is that they come from depressed areas of the country, including Meccaville. My point is that this "near-monopoly" business is questionable at best. It is not clear to me that coercion is called for. If you're really interested in improving the lot of laborers, you ought to stop paying them with inflated currency, taxing their paychecks, forcing them to contribute to a bankrupt retirement system, forcing them to subsidize the defenses of Japan and Europe, following economic policies which lower their standard of living, standard libertarian rhetoric etc. etc. >As for empirical evidence, why don't you read up on the early history of >labor movements. > When workers get together and organize to voluntarily withold their labor in order to advance their economic goals, well and good; they have a right to do so. Should they succeed in this endeavor without coercing their employer, their gains are justly obtained. And naturally they should be free from coercive acts by their employer and (especially) law enforcement agencies. The practical successes that the labor movement has enjoyed within this framework suggests to me that a free society is completely compatible with the efforts organized labor. Sorry if this repeats previous postings, but Charley seemed to have some misconceptions about libertarians and the labor movement. >Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe --Barry -- Barry Fagin @ University of California, Berkeley
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (07/11/85)
>/* mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) / 11:23 pm Jul 8, 1985 */ >Theoretical reasoning can wait; supply and demand (in the Smithian fashion) >can only be assumed to work in a system of near perfect competition. Supply and demand determine price to the degree that an economy is free. Thus, they may have a substantial effect even in a system that does not have near perfect competition. >>False analogy!!!! The correct analogy would be to say that the existence of >>the NAACP and the SCLC is sufficient demonstration of racial bigotry. Your analogy addresses a different point than mine. >(I >had really hoped that you had learned something about argument after all >this.) Would you like me to apologize? :-) >>They do not have the money to resist the illegal >>actions of their employers, nor do they have the choice of picking up and >>moving away. >Mike, I want to know what KIND of laws you are going to enact to >fix this problem, and how they are going to be enforced. Laws against the initiation of force or fraud. In this case, enforcement might go something like this: If a worker thinks that his/her employer has violated his/her contract of employment, he/she can go to the government and complain. After an investigation (and perhaps courtroom procedures, etc.), the loser must pay the cost of the investigation, etc. >If you are going >to have any sort of nebulous law, than I think it's readily demonstratable >that the current system is superior; it';s flexible, and your's isn't. How would you go about demonstrating this? What do you mean by "flexible?" Do you mean it is vulnerable to political tampering? >Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe Mike Sykora P.S. -- My account is being terminated, so I won't be arguing anymore. Goodbye, I've enjoyed arguing with you all.
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (07/15/85)
In article <1340264@acf4.UUCP> mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) writes: >>He is >>unwilling to recognize what US law has for close to a century: that the >>labor market is controlled by the employers, who are capable (and willing) >>to set the wages at whatever level they want, for whatever reason they want. >You must be joking, Charley! How about some theoretical reasoning to >justify this claim, including, of course, a refutation of the law of >supply and demand (there's a Nobel prize in it for you). How about some >empirical evidence to back up this claim. Theoretical reasoning can wait; supply and demand (in the Smithian fashion) can only be assumed to work in a system of near perfect competition. Many towns exist in a near-monopoly situation with regards to the labor market (it's work at Mecca Steel or leave town); only the most pig-headed classicists would argue that supply and demand work according to their usual fashion. As for empirical evidence, why don't you read up on the early history of labor movements. >>The fact that we have labor unions is sufficient demonstration that >>employers are quite willing to set unreasonable wages. >And the fact that there are bigots in the world is "sufficient demonstration" >that some ethnic groups are inferior, right? >Is this some new form of logic you are employing? Please expound. False analogy!!!! The correct analogy would be to say that the existence of the NAACP and the SCLC is sufficient demonstration of racial bigotry. (I had really hoped that you had learned something about argument after all this.) >>They do not have the money to resist the illegal >>actions of their employers, nor do they have the choice of picking up and >>moving away. >This is indeed unfortunate and should be corrected by law. The government >should protect these people from illegal actions of employers and anyone >else, THAT is its job. How? How? How? That's the whole point. That's why we have restrictive labor laws in this country. I'm much more inclined to rely on the present system, which can be adjusted as we go along, rather than Mike's system, which seems to rely on equal parts of optimism about human nature and economic magic. (And I had always wondered why they called it voodoo economics.) Mike, I want to know what KIND of laws you are going to enact to fix this problem, and how they are going to be enforced. If you are going to have any sort of nebulous law, than I think it's readily demonstratable that the current system is superior; it';s flexible, and your's isn't. >>Besides, if the secretary secretly runs the whole thing, why isn't she paid >>commensurately? >If the secretary runs the whole thing, why is he/she still a secretary? You tell me. I don't know, and besides, I'M not the one who thinks that her present plight is proper and just. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe "You've disintegrated Einstein!"