So business people are anti-union not because unions interfere with the running of their own businesses, but because unions interfere with their ruining of other peoples businesses?
I think we could get a whole new freakonomics franchise out of this. -- rec -- On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 4:22 PM, David Eric Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > You know what I find curious about the various econ conversations around > this topic? > > What I am about to say is not any deep insight, and I have heard Hanauer > say the same things in his TED talk (nearly verbatim to the article), but > just this time, reading it led to the realization. > > In the sense of where the agency lies, this is a simple non-cooperative > game played by the owners of firms _against each other_. > > Powerless labor is essentially a background fabric that responds > mechanically to the strategic choices of those who have the bargaining > power over terms of employment, in the society as we currently have it > structured. > > So essentially, as Hanauer says, every business wants its customers richer > and its employees poorer. That is: they want all _other_ employers to > provide richer citizens who can be customers, while they then return less > of that wealth to their own employees as members of the customer pool. > > It can be framed as one of the simple standard public-goods games, in > which a public resource (a non-desperate pool of people who both sell wage > labor and buy products and services) is either contributed to, or not, by > firms' wage-setting policies. The strategy of public contribution is > dominated under the non-cooperative equilibrium, so the "businessman's > tragedy of the commons" has everybody trying to cheat and not pay labor, > until the whole populace is decimated and there are no customers. This is > the descent into the Walmart effect on towns, though the way it plays out > into a final locked-in ruined state is more complicated than this simple > game has the structure to describe. > > All this is obvious, and putting it into a game-theoretic frame doesn't > really add anything to the substance of the argument, though for me it does > state more transparently who the players are and makes the useful point > that it is the firm owners competing with each other as adversaries that > drive this dynamic. Firm owners don't, as a class, destroy the economy > through low wages because they are colluding: rather, they are being > coordinated by the bad version of Adam Smith's invisible hand as they > jointly independently and competitively choose the same destructive use of > their power in the labor market. This is why the notion that firms will > "voluntarily" raise wages once a few do, mentioned by opponents in > Hanauer's essay, is false (and disingenuously so). Now, certainly, > maintaining market power over wages by putting a fence around the labor > pool is a collusive act, but it is carried out through different > institutions (particularly, lobbying legislators etc.) and other levels > than the competitive pricing one. Thus, the game has a few layers with > different structure that interact, but it wouldn't be all that hard to lay > out which parts are which. > > The thing that surprises me -- given how many statements of the obvious > Complex Systems academics make lots of press putting into formalism -- is > that I haven't seen anyone write this down in those terms. > > Maybe everyone realizes it would be kind of silly, and that is why they > don't bother to do it? Would make sense, except that we see it done in so > many other areas that are equally shallow and silly. > > ? > > Eric > > > > On Aug 6, 2015, at 6:24 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote: > > Nick Hanauer is clear that he is a multi-billionaire because Jeff Bezos > called him back before another guy when Hanauer had some venture capital to > invest. See: > > > http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014.html#.VcJ-ElDnbqA > > Frank > > Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Phone > (505) 670-9918 > On 08/05/2015 01:20 PM, Parks, Raymond wrote: > >> At the risk of being unpopular on this group, I would point out that >> many gun-owners have made the argument that none of their guns have >> spontaneously fired. Referring back to Ethics - an arm (whether or not it >> holds a sword) does not harm without voluntary movement by the person. >> > > I don't think that's true at all. It's not the voluntary movement that > concerns most. It's the involuntary movement that concerns most, > especially liberals, because most liberals (I think) tend to give more > weight to unintential or coincident circumstances than most conservatives. > > An analogous consideration is the (seemingly) popular conservative > position that if you have succeeded at something (e.g. making money), it's > because _you_ did it, not because you were lucky or fortunate. (The > alternative position that God did it for you, or allowed you to do it is an > interesting hedge.) Most liberals tend to place at least a little more > weight on luck or circumstance when considering one's success. > > So, it's not spontanous firing the gun control people are worried about. > It's not even the rational, intently intentional firing they're worried > about. It's the accidental and/or rash, semi-intentional firings they're > worried about. Hence the solution: remove the material cause. > > -- > ⇔ glen > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
