Donny with an A: Ultimately, I think it's clear that workers can be mistreated in certain conditions, and it can be difficult for them to negotiate for what they deserve. Finding a new, better job can be difficult or impossible, especially if one is unable to absorb the transactions costs associated with moving between jobs. Accordingly, even if the market does provide better jobs, employees can still get "stuck" in unfair working conditions.
I agree with all of that except for one word - "unfair" - since it makes it sound like the employers owe the workers nicer working conditions, just by virtue of employment as Lisa seems to contend. "Unfortunate," I would say, is the correct word for the context.
I bring this up because whether the working conditions are "unfair" or merely "unfortunate" is the underlying topic of this debate.
Diminishing Marginal Utility - IT'S THE LAW!
So a long time ago there were these large capitalist monopolies and Trusts. These trusts monopolized commodies and large corporations dominated production. These operations were successful because they were able to provide services at low prices. For example Standard Oil. If millions of consumers benefited from these low prices, and entrepenuers reaped the benefits of low cost of capital, than how could anti-trust legislation get passed? We were a democracy so how could such an overwhelming majority of Americans who benefited from the low prices provided from the "Robber Barons" support politicians to break up these trusts? The only explanation is that these trusts were broken up by powerful and well funded special interests who lobbied for the competition.
The historical record does prove this assertion.
wowdavidp1: So a long time ago there were these large capitalist monopolies and Trusts. These trusts monopolized commodies and large corporations dominated production. These operations were successful because they were able to provide services at low prices. For example Standard Oil. If millions of consumers benefited from these low prices, and entrepenuers reaped the benefits of low cost of capital, than how could anti-trust legislation get passed? We were a democracy so how could such an overwhelming majority of Americans who benefited from the low prices provided from the "Robber Barons" support politicians to break up these trusts? The only explanation is that these trusts were broken up by powerful and well funded special interests who lobbied for the competition. The historical record does prove this assertion.
The historical record does not prove the assumption involved in your argument that such a scenario was in fact the product a free market economy. There was no free market economy in the 19th century in any consistant sense. Hence, even if one accepts the horror stories, the free market cannot be logically blamed for it. The "story" that you tell, in light of the incoherant assumptions therein, is a political myth - even if one accepts that there were some fairly horrid conditions in the 19th century.
Okay, fine, then you have no argument. You have no leg on which to stand, whining about "mistreatment".
-Jon
To darkness I condemn you...
Thanks, Mlee!
Solomon, I don't think it's completely illegitimate to use the word "unfair." Not "unjust," mind you; I don't think you could sue someone for offering you a job you accepted, even if they technically could have gotten a better job somewhere else, or if you could technically pay them more without making it useless to hire them at all. To the extent that people are getting less than they would command on the market, and they aren't able to do anything about it because of prohibitive costs to movement, they are in a situation where they aren't being treated as well as perhaps they should be. That seems pretty unfair to a lot of people, and I'm hesitant to disagree.
But that characterization needs to put in perspective. The free market is the most effective system known to humanity at raising wages, bringing people out of poverty, and satisfying the wants and needs of the people. By interfering with that system through coercive controls, we hamstring the market's ability to grow in new and unexpected ways. Milton Friedman's Free to Choose series (which might still be available online?) made this point very well with an example from Hong Kong: he found people happily working in pretty wretched workplace conditions so that they could make a higher wage (because the company didn't have to pay for their comfort). It's critical to remember that in economics, we face tradeoffs. We can increase worker comfort and everything nice, but then find that wages are dropping, fewer people are being hired, or other benefits are disappearing to pay for the new programs. It's impossible to predict exactly what will happen. So even if we see unfairness in the workplace, it's not clear that we can really help the situation through central planning. On this, Ludwig von Mises' various books on interventionism and Bureaucracy are pretty good resources.
http://libertarian-left.blogspot.com/
<I agree with all of that except for one word - "unfair" - since it makes it sound like the employers owe the workers nicer working conditions, just by virtue of employment as Lisa seems to contend. "Unfortunate," I would say, is the correct word for the context.>
I agree the employers owe the workers nothing,but the workers may owe it to themselves to improve there condidtions.
<The historical record does not prove the assumption involved in your argument that such a scenario was in fact the product a free market economy. There was no free market economy in the 19th century in any consistant sense. Hence, even if one accepts the horror stories, the free market cannot be logically blamed for it. The "story" that you tell, in light of the incoherant assumptions therein, is a political myth - even if one accepts that there were some fairly horrid conditions in the 19th century.>
Free Market Fundamentalists have a very convient way of promting there veiws. The First thing they do is say what is not the free market,and the second thing they do is rarely define it.
In any event the 19th century may have not been a free market according to your standards,but the Robber Barons acted on there own,and so did the workers.
Another way of promoting one's views is to spell properly. Of course, if you're going to apply free market economic analysis to a situation in which free market conditions are not in existence, you're going to make a mess of it. So far from being a way of "promting there veiws", it's good practice to actually refer to free markets then they in fact exist, and to call a spade a spade. Got that, Marxoid?
Lisa Hayes: Full employment is not considered possible and not everyone can find work
Full employment is not considered possible and not everyone can find work
Full employment cannot be achieved because unions, minimum wages, and regulations keep the cost of hiring artificially high. In other words, there would be no involuntary unemployment in a free market.
shouldnt i have the option to not only decide where to work,but also get the chance to decide what conditions i work under.
Yes. That happens when you choose between employer A and employer B. You can choose between the conditions they provide you.
Mises Community Natural Rights Discussion Group
<Full employment cannot be achieved because unions, minimum wages, and regulations keep the cost of hiring artificially high. In other words, there would be no involuntary unemployment in a free market.>
The effects of unions and Minimum wage can be offset by the employment of labor saving devices. what do you think of underemployment?
<Yes. That happens when you choose between employer A and employer B. You can choose between the conditions they provide you.>
This does not mean the Conditions that you have to choose between are that great.
Lisa Hayes:in any event i am going to claim that you are making an appeal to authority.
Okay, troll, I was trying to be helpful and give you an academic piece on the topic so as to understand the position of many of the people here. I figured you were actually wondering what the defenses of the robber barons are, rather than just being, well, a troll.
Lisa Hayes:The effects of unions and Minimum wage can be offset by the employment of labor saving devices. what do you think of underemployment?
Labor saving devices? Are you referring to capital?
In either case, artificially high wages cause unemployment because they cause a surplus of labor. Anyone with a basic understanding of economics accepts this. Here it is represented on a supply and demand model:
This is equilibrium price, where everyone is employed:
However, when wages are artificially raised by unions and minimum wages, we have surpluses of labor (unemployment):
As you can see, artificially high prices (wages) cause surpluses (unemployment). That being said, a free market does not have minimum wages or excessive union control, which eliminates wage rigidity and allows full employment to occur. There is no such thing as underemployment in a free market.
So you want to better the conditions for yourself at the expense of other people's jobs? That's quite selfish of you.
kaju, I'm quoting you just to respond, not to you specifically.
One thing that irritates me about the pro-labour debate, is that there is this assumption of a rigid class structure, and that workers and business owners/operators are two different groups. That the "Robber Barrons" are natural exploiters and will always be so, and that the "workers" are the naturally exploited and will always be so.
If you don't like your job options, START A BUSINESS! If you don't like factory A or meat packing plant B, ride around on your bicycle and deliver groceries! Or babysit children! Or wash windows! Or landscape! If you have a computer, there are literally thousands of job opportunities online, most of them in the entreprenurial mode.
I'm tired of workers whining. I am a worker, and I have always been a worker. You have options. If you refuse to use them and test your own merit you have nothing to complain about.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
<In either case, artificially high wages cause unemployment because they cause a surplus of labor. Anyone with a basic understanding of economics accepts this. Here it is represented on a supply and demand model:>
as long as prices continue to rise and wages are keeping up with inflation there will still be demand for a product,thus employers will hire more in order increase out put. For example if i get a paycheck i may use this money to either invest or buy some real assests.
<If you don't like your job options, START A BUSINESS!>
Not everyone has the skills needed to do so,or have enough money.
Lisa Hayes:as long as prices continue to rise and wages are keeping up with inflation there will still be demand for a product,thus employers will hire more in order increase out put. For example if i get a paycheck i may use this money to either invest or buy some real assests.
The key to this being "as long as prices continue to rise." The problem here being that unions often sign three year contracts. What happens if prices stop rising in 1.5 years? The wages continue to rise and businesses have to consequently lay off people until the union contracts expire. Also, minimum wages still act as a barrier to many poor, minority, unskilled labor, even during periods of economic growth.
Supply and Demand: 1
Lisa Hayes: 0
Case closed.
Unions do not just create better working conditions or make sure that workres see a bigger paycheck,but they also train there workers and may provide them with more skills. They do this because workers may need to learn a new skill in order to keep there job,or apply for a new job if there old one becomes obsolete.
Which has what to do with what he just said?
Lisa Hayes: Unions do not just create better working conditions or make sure that workres see a bigger paycheck,but they also train there workers and may provide them with more skills. They do this because workers may need to learn a new skill in order to keep there job,or apply for a new job if there old one becomes obsolete.
The problem being that unions still force employers to provide better working conditions and rising wages. This of course causes cost-push inflation, limits the supply of the goods produced, and limits the number of workers hired by the employer.
If an employer needs his workers to be trained, he can hire someone, which will come at a much lesser cost than union activities.
Lisa Hayes: <If you don't like your job options, START A BUSINESS!> Not everyone has the skills needed to do so,or have enough money.
If you don't have the skills to start a business (providing a basic service for money), then you don't have the skills to be an employee.
There are lots of businesses you can do for little or no money.
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