The same old mistakes

T. Knapp,

You got me, yes laborers . . . not labor if you want to define things that finely in order to avoid the point I was making. So what? The point stands. And if you want to be precise, labor is hired, not purchased. Again, so what? I know what you mean, but fact that a pencil is different from a laborer matters in the kinds of ways I have already alluded to. Open your mind a bit.

"Unlike other factors of production labor owns itself and brings itself to the firm"

Nope. Labor is owned by laborers, who bring it to the firm (if they've sold it to the firm).

There are certainly differences between labor and other commodities, but you're mistaken in assuming that labor can't be unitized just because the usual method for doing so ("man hours") isn't the best way of doing so.

"Labor retires, takes vacations, becomes ill, has children, and dies."

Nope again. Laborers retire, take vacations, become ill, have children and die. The terms under which they sell their labor may affect how and to what extent they do these things, but there's no essential difference between that fact and the fact that employers' profits (and under what terms they sell the products they've built using the labor they've purchased) affect how and to what extent those employers may retire, take vacations, become ill, have children and die (or buy yachts, or whatever).

Martin,

Yes, I agree completely; Adam Smith did too in his discsussions of, and book on, Moral Sentiments.

Knapp:

In point of fact, labor is no different than pencils, emeralds or coffee beans -- it's a commodity.

Neither pencils, emeralds nor coffee beans are commodities, and labor certainly is not. A "commodity" by definition has a price regardless of its source, because every unit of a "commodity" is essentially indistinguishable from every other, so for example, 24k gold (bullion) and light sweet crude are commodities, because these goods have a standard quality.

Pencils, emeralds and coffee beans come in many shapes, sizes and qualities and thus are not commodities. Coffee beans of some standard quality might trade in commodity markets.

Labor arguably is the least commoditizable good of all, despite the Herculean effort of state schools to make us all plug compatible automatons.

Jim:

... labor is different in a myriad of important ways from pencils, emeralds and coffee beans.

I agree. You don't even mention the fact that laborers are sentient beings experiencing joy and suffering and thus are the subjects of morality. This distinction seems most relevant in my utilitarian way of thinking.

T.L.Knapp wrote: "In point of fact, labor is no different than pencils, emeralds or coffee beans -- it's a commodity."

Well no; labor is different in a myriad of important ways from pencils, emeralds and coffee beans. Unlike other factors of production labor owns itself and brings itself to the firm; unlike other factors of production labor can shirk on effort (individually or collectively). Unlike pencils emeralds and coffee beans, labor is a living organism, making its ability to contribute to production much more sensitive to environmental and work conditions. Labor retires, takes vacations, becomes ill, has children, and dies. I could go on all day; these are just some of the reason that labor, which BTW is in most production processes the largest contributor to value added, is not "in point of fact [merely] . . . a commodity." In point of fact, this is simply not true and this, of course, is the reason that there is an area of economic devoted to the study of labor in particular.

One of the depressing parts of the New Deal was its willingness to help big labor and big business, ...

You write this clause, and you follow up with a post entirely about labor.

What do you mean "we", paleface?

Or, I could just say “Fuck you, you’re fired.”

Hypothetically, of course.

"Hey, great! Since labor contracts make the labor market "less dynamic," which is a BAD THING, let's apply that principle to the market for other factors as well. Let's eliminate rental contracts and leases so that everyone operating a business or residing in rental property can be evicted without notice. Let's eliminate all contracts with suppliers and outlets, so that the supply chain can be eliminated at any time without warning." - K. Carson

Actually I thought (in a true free market) the shop owner could turf pit the shop renter on a moment's notice if there's was no contract per se or the renter violated the terms of the contract. The same with suppliers and distributors, unless they're locked into some sort of contract, they too could go their separate ways on a moment's notice. Freedom to choose?

Adam,

I didn't suggest that discussion should be limited to state intervention in general. I suggested that state intervention is equally bad when applied to either side of a "capital/labor" matter.

The general tone and implication of most "right-libertarian" takes on unions is that "employers" are inherently entitled to cartelize to increase the profitability of their products, while "employees" are not only not so inherently entitled, but churlish in ever attempting to do so.

In point of fact, labor is no different than pencils, emeralds or coffee beans -- it's a commodity. The "employer/employee" relationship is no less a trade than the "store/customer" relationship or any other exchange; each side of the transactions involved works to maximize their own profit. And that's exactly as it should be.

I choose to occasionally point out, in rejoinder to that tone, that the enemy of both capital AND labor is the STATE, and that getting all huffy about "organized labor" is no more rational than, and just as damaging to the anti-state cause as, getting all huffy about "big business."

You just said you aren't anti-union except with respect to state privilege of unions. Make up your mind.

In spite of your cute word games, I think you get the substance of what I said. You can call me a "Sally" if you arbitrarily decide that that word means the position I just expressed.

As to the substance of your original comment:

Roberts essentially said "Look at these distorting interventions in labor markets."

To which you responded: "There are always distorting interventions in labor markets! What is the point of talking about labor markets specifically, just talk about intervention in general!"

Which, coupled with this second comment of yours, makes me wonder why you waste your time talking when you have nothing useful to add.

"Thuggish union leaders intimidating working housewives into joining their labor monopoly is the exact opposite of that relationship."

Why is it so hard for people to understand that Card Check will create a phony democratic system (Thug-ocracy maybe) along the lines of Saddam Hussein's Iraq and the former Soviet Union?

You'll vote for Saddam/The Party if you know what's good for you.

Or else.

Of course, maybe making us look more like the former Soviet Union is exactly the point.

Adam,

You just said you aren't anti-union except with respect to state privilege of unions. Make up your mind.

You can be pro-market or you can be anti-union. You can't be both.

You've got to love those simplistic binaries.

If there is a law prohibiting workers from entering a market unless they can obtain union membership, then you end up with a government-enforced monopoly.

From a free-market perspective, unions are fine, unless the law prohibits anyone outside of them from doing work.

So I am anti-union and pro-market. What a paradox!

The labor market has always been subjected to distorting state intervention. Instead of pissing and moaning about which side of which dispute gets which state privilege, why not agitate for elimination of state-dispensed privilege altogether?

A union, absent state support or opposition, is no different in principle than any other market entity. If anti-trust law is unacceptable as applied to capital cartels (and it is), it's equally unacceptable as applied to labor cartels.

You can be pro-market or you can be anti-union. You can't be both.

Kevin,

Contracts between renters and tenants are entered into freely.

Thuggish union leaders intimidating working housewives into joining their labor monopoly is the exact opposite of that relationship.

If unions were truly a blessing, workers would be able to recognize that benefit and join them willingly.

Instead unions demand all kinds of special treatment.

Hey, great! Since labor contracts make the labor market "less dynamic," which is a BAD THING, let's apply that principle to the market for other factors as well. Let's eliminate rental contracts and leases so that everyone operating a business or residing in rental property can be evicted without notice. Let's eliminate all contracts with suppliers and outlets, so that the supply chain can be eliminated at any time without warning.

Thanks for informing us that contractually-enforced stability is bad for the free market.

Oh, wait... you just meant for workers, didn't you.

So I guess you won't work up a lot of enthusiasm for eliminating all the monopolies that "make a small group rich at the expense of others," when the small group is Fortune 500 CEOs and billionaires. Like, for example, the utterly market-repugnant "intellectual property" [sic] monopoly, which is central to the business models of all the dominant sectors in the corporate global economy.

But wait... you did say that the NEW DEAL helped big business, so you must think it was a bad thing--but the phenomenon of government helping big business was just a brief anomaly associated with FDR, a bit of ugliness we've thankfully left behind, right? It's not like the main function of big government, from the beginning of the corporate economy 150 years ago, has been to subsidize the operating costs of big business, protect it from competition, and absorb its surplus output. It's not like we've got a state capitalist system of government-corporate collusion that was imposed from the top down in a massive act of social engineering, and that the market has only been allowed to operate to the extent that government-connected big business finds it convenient. Oh, no.

So by all means, let's avoid sullying the wonderful Free Market System we have by starting to grant special privileges to some small group of people. Can't start doing that, now, can we?

- Is the income of the "median working age household" the best metric to measure an increase in inequality? How do we know that the median 2007 household is similar to the median 2000 household?

- Please read the paper (http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/briefingp...) they refer to as "evidence" of the importance of unions. Not a word about those workers that won't find a job because of unions.

Sorry, my mistake. These workers will be happy to learn that "the role of unions in [Unemployment insurance] is pivotal". Pivotal in creating the problem, that is.

- Why should it matter that "leading economists" signed an ad that contained no economic analysis whatsoever? It's nothing but a clumsy attempt at a scientific imprimatur to a partisan, subjective position .