----- Original Message ----- From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 11:22 AM Subject: RE: Worth of a Worker RE: Gummint programs and stats (was RE: Presidents RE: Corruption ...)
> Hmm. Doesn't this make "if there are *no* other openings" moot? There are > always openings, even in times of high unemployment. People continue to > die, become handicapped, etc. > > More to the point, I'm having trouble reconciling "very happy to simply not > be employed" with never being satisfied with wages, as you seem to be > saying. Be happy with what you have, but never settle for it? Never lose > your ambition... I guess this does make sense now that I write it out. It > *does* seem reasonable. > > In fact, I would hope that our work at Plugged In and other organizations > working for social change would make people less satisfied with what they > have. Of course, the corrupt leaders of places like Guatemala have always > known this, which is why they tend to stomp on any kind of teaching. > I guess it's a simple equation -- raise a person's self-worth and they will > be less satisfied with what they have, all things being equal. However, > this makes much more sense in the context of the poor than the rich. The > notion that Bill Gates would benefit from greater self-worth is a bit odd, > at least. > I think that there are two separate, although linked, questions. One is the sense of self worth that each one of us should have. The second is the value of our labor, and how we can negotiate for as big a share of that value as we can. As a Christian, my argument for the self-worth of every person comes from my faith that each one of us is a son or daughter of God, created in the image and likeness of God. Others can ground this type of viewpoint in their own faiths. Humanists can take the inherent value of each life as a self evident truth. Given that, it is incumbent upon us to reinforce the sense of self worth that each one of us has. One aside on this is the amazement I have over the way self esteem has gotten to be an issue. In our house, our kids are treasured for who they are, apart from their achievements. They are expected to do their best, because it is incumbent upon them to do so. They have been given great gifts, and it would be terrible stewardship to not put them to use. With that attitude, it is OK to try and fail, trophies can be handed out to only the winners of the league, not to every participant...and the participants in a sporting event can take pleasure in having worked and made a good effort together. I reject both the attitude that one's self worth is tied up in successes and the idea that we need to make everyone succeed all the time. The second is the monetary value of our work. That should be the value created by our labor. When we work for somebody, we split that value. Even if we are independent contractors, we offer to provide value for the customer and expect him/her to give part, not all, of that value back to us. There are several things one can note about this. First of all, is the importance of negotiations. How well one can negotiate for the biggest split of the value is very important. As the Karras inserts in flight magazines proclaim, "you don't get what you earn, you get what you negotiate." The legal climate can influence this tremendously. Drawing on personal experience, the ability of a firm to sue someone who leaves the company for a better job for the stealing the knowledge in his/her head even before they design anything using that knowledge can have a tremendous impact on salaries. When one cannot sell one's skills to another bidder, management can laugh "who else will hire you?" when the issue of a lack of raises for engineers vs. big bonuses for executives is raised. This story happened to feature an engineer who's work was featured in an article on "The New Old Economy" that was in the Atlantic Monthly last year as the person who asked that question, and a VP as the person who laughed in his face. The second important thing is the absolute value of the labor. For example, the maximum value of a clerk at a home improvement store is limited by the willingness of people to shop at warehouse stores with a minimum number of employees in order to save money. It is also limited by the supply and the demand. The rise and fall of the price of natural gas shows how volatile price can be. Massive swings are observed from relatively small changes in supply. Last winter, prices jumped to $9.00, and now they are back under $2.00. (The semi-stable price for the previous 2 years was $3.00.) Clearly, production went up in response to price, and now is falling down. With labor this can be very problematic. Elimination of supply can occur when government subsidies for the unemployment are high enough so working isn't worth the effort. There can be an artificial floor on the price of labor: a minimum wage. This would require the government to pay benefits for those who cannot find work, even though work might have become available at a lower wage. I've seen conservatives tout this as proof the minimum wage hurts people. But, one needs to see what happens in other markets: prices often fall until supply is cut. Thus, wages would fall until the point where the low wages would eliminate workers...they die for lack of ability to buy enough food to be strong enough to keep their jobs. This doesn't happen in any first world economy, and probably doesn't really happen in emerging nations. But, I think it would if market forces were allowed to work for labor like they work for natural gas or gold. It appears that your arguments about raising the sense of self worth could address the problem of people negotiating a larger share of the value they create. People with self confidence can negotiate to keep more of the value they produce, instead of accepting arrangements where others get rich off their labors. However, it cannot address the problem of work not generating a great deal of value We cannot pay dry cleaner workers $100,000 per year and expect to pay a reasonable price for dry cleaning. Yard services that charge $35/visit will get more business than those that charge $150/visit. And, it also doesn't address the problem where there are more workers than are really needed. People will take a smaller fraction of the value they generate if there are other people who can create that value. I think that the increase in the Gini ratio for the last 30 years reflects both a reduction of the ability of people who earn in the bottom half of income to negotiate a favorable deal and a reduction in the relative value created by people in this bracket. The rise of the appeal of self serve and the fraction of the economy that is a service economy reflects this. The first can be addressed by empowerment, teaching negotiating skills, etc. The latter cannot. Ensuring that "a rising tide raises all boats" will require the distribution of income from the top value produces to the lower value producers. Health insurance subsidies, progressive taxes, extension of food stamps to the working poor are all means of doing this. I'm not sure how we will come up with an answer to this, but I think it is a significant problem. I think it is a reflection of the expiration of the classic idea that anyone can get ahead with hard work and determination. Dan M.
