On Aug 6, 2015, at 7:59 AM, Roger Critchlow wrote: > 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?
Very nice! E > > 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
============================================================ 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
