At 02:56 PM 01/30/2005, Darcy James Argue wrote: >On 30 Jan 2005, at 12:05 PM, Aaron Sherber wrote: > >> Personally, as I've said before, I find the labor issue the least >> convincing of these three. > >Why? When corporations act in their own economic interests by cutting >jobs, people refer to "market forces," as if this was some immutable >force of nature or natural law. But when workers stand up for *their* >economic interests, suddenly that's "meddling with free markets." > >Frankly, I find this reasoning despicable. Free markets mean >*everyone* is free to fight for their fair share.
Yes. I don't dispute anyone's right to fight for their job, or to unionize to do so. My point, which I think I said before, is that no one has an absolute right to a job. In purely labor terms, a musician is no different from a welder or an ice delivery man. Certain changes in the market (economic conditions, technological advances, etc.) are likely going to result in some of those people losing their jobs. And while that's unfortunate to those people, it's not necessarily a good enough argument for artificially staying those changes.
Aaron.
_______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
