Hi Austrian folks,
From the daily observation of market issues associated with labor, it's easy to see countless manifestations of unbalance and waste of resources, for instance:
I would be willing to investigate, with the valuable help of LvMI readers, what would be the consequences to the labor market if we could somehow implement radical changes such as:
- Abolition of union-mandated jobs and government regulations on who may perform which jobs;
- Abolition of public service jobs, in case of a fully anarcho-capitalistic environment (or, if analyzing the issue from a minarchist viewpoint, cutting down most public service jobs except for the minimum deemed essential for this purpose);
- Abolition of government subsidies to all business areas, thus freeing resources to be applied as demanded by consumers while creating incentives to market competition;
- Abolition of taxes (or, in a minarchist case, keeping only the essential taxes to maintain the structure running);
- Abolition of tax-funded unemployment social security.
In summary, what do you think would occur in regards to unemployment, what kind of job distribution would arise, which professions would extinguish or drastically decline, which new job types would arise, which benefits the people would harvest from this change?
*AND* if this kind of thing is likely to happen anywhere anytime...
Thanks and regards from Rio de Janeiro,
R. Halevy.
Halevy:In summary, what do you think would occur in regards to unemployment, what kind of job distribution would arise, which professions would extinguish or drastically decline, which new job types would arise, which benefits the people would harvest from this change?
To be honest, this question can't be answered a priori by an economist.
Perhaps, an entrepeneur who knows about consumer demands can answer you.
Assuming you're talking about how unemployment rates would look after a sudden abolition of government I'd imagine it would go something like this.
That's my understanding of how unemployment would fall with the absence of government. I'm no expert and I'm probably leaving out a great deal of information though.
Prashanth Perumal: To be honest, this question can't be answered a priori by an economist. Perhaps, an entrepeneur who knows about consumer demands can answer you.
My questions are not intended to compose any kind of academic work, I'm just trying to compile some "serious" but objective information in order to be able to challenge long-time statists and union-lovers in debates regarding this subject.
You may speculate too and provide some hypotheses based on your personal understanding of economics...
socialdtk: Assuming you're talking about how unemployment rates would look after a sudden abolition of government I'd imagine it would go something like this. Massive unemployment (The government currently employees a lot of people so if it was to suddenly disappear it's employees would then be unemployed. With the absence of government comes the absence of any minimum wage laws. Because of this businesses that require unskilled labor would probably hire a majority of those seeking jobs. These would turn the problem of unemployment into a problem of underemployment. Meanwhile someone has to fill the void that the government has left. Roads must be maintained, courts must come into section, crime must be dealt with, healthcare must be administered eta... This is where entrepreneurs come into the picture. For every void the absence of government creates entrepreneurs see as an opportunity to make a profit. The ones that find efficient ways to provided the goods and services that where once provided by government monopoly make a profit and are able to stay in business. The entrepreneurs that fail to do this are driven out of business and another entrepreneur At this point the entire economy would look a lot like it does today only more efficient because entrepreneurs that combine resources and destroy value are replaced by entrepreneurs that combine resources in ways to create value. With the productive companies no longer having to support the non-productive companies they are able to hire more people to better supply products that people demand. That's my understanding of how unemployment would fall with the absence of government. I'm no expert and I'm probably leaving out a great deal of information though.
The end of government wouldn't mean the end of all government bureaucracies and all government employees being laid off. It would proceed like a business bankruptcy, where the assets would be auctioned off along with the employees that utilize them.
Microsecession as a strategy for revolution | Challenge to minarchist | How would a private road system work?
Stranger:The end of government wouldn't mean the end of all government bureaucracies and all government employees being laid off.
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
I guess keyword here is "all". I can't imagine all government bureaucracies and theirs employees being preserved with the collapse of the government. There would have to be a serious recession in order to correct the massive misallocation of resources that was enabled by the government and the recession would entail unemployment.
@ socialdtk,
From your response above I understand that the majority of the consumers of goods and services would be better off, however it would'nt be the case for government employees, who would have to take lower pay jobs.
BTW, their current pay is kept artificially high by the state, who relies on them as a great ideological "stakeholder" to justify its very existence.
Who would, in a perfectly sane mind, pay a high fee in a free market economy for, let's say, have a stamp smashed and a signature appended on some silly paperwork??
Halevy:however it would'nt be the case for government employees, who would have to take lower pay jobs.
It is impossible to say who would be payed what in any economic circumstance. All that can be said is that companies competing for a profit are always more productive then government monopolies. In the absence of the government productive companies would no longer be forced to set aside a certain precentage of their profit in order to support the governent. What companies would do with the extra income is unknown. They could invest it in capial, pay their existing employees more money, pay their executives fat bonuses, donate it all to the poor eta, but the less effcient they become in allocating resources the more profitable it becomes for entrepreneurs to compete with them.
What an ex-government employed anarchist would earn on the free market depends soley on the individual and his or her skill sets and would be determined by supply and demand like all other market prices. Individuals with little to no work experience tend to get payed less then individuals with highly specialized skill sets.
Halevy:You may speculate too and provide some hypotheses based on your personal understanding of economics...
Lol! I don't want to speculate.
But hey, try Market for Liberty by Morris and Linda Tannehill. Part III of the book deals with what you want to know. It speaks of how the displaced labor(due to the dissolution of the State) will be adopted by the market, for other needs. Hope you like it!
Prashanth Perumal:But hey, try Market for Liberty by Morris and Linda Tannehill. Part III of the book deals with what you want to know. It speaks of how the displaced labor (due to the dissolution of the State) will be adopted by the market, for other needs. Hope you like it!
@Prashant,
Thanks for your suggestion, I'll download this e-book and try to find out some more formal info on this subject [time for homework ]
@ Socialdtk,
Thanks also for your clarification.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap