A friend writes: X> Right or wrong, you probably just sent a new (now former) libertarian packing. <X
There was nothing in his message saying he wanted any more liberty on any issue, so I'm not so sure he was a libertarian earlier in the day. However, he might start becoming one if he follows any of the links I gave him. X> We need to engage newbies in the areas where they agree with us and completely ignore areas of disagreement. <X I agree with the former sentiment, and I'll concede I should have mentioned all the ways in which the LP lines up against corporate subsidies and special protections -- even though that could as easily just turn him into a better-armed anti-capitalism leftist. I did point out our agreement that the playing field should be level (even if he doesn't understand what that means). In the absence of his mentioning any other areas of potential agreement, it seemed reasonable to give him the pro-market perspective on collective bargaining. My biggest concern in this thread was that Carl's remarks could be misinterpreted to support the insidious myth that the long-run equilibrium wage level is determined by supply and demand. That myth leads to all the wrong policies on free trade, immigration, population, wages and hours rules, minimum and maximum working age, occupational licensure, etc. Economics textbooks tell us that the long-run equilibrium wage level is in fact determined by the marginal productivity of labor, because wages tend to be bid up by employers right to the point at which buying a marginal unit of labor no longer generates extra profit. See the graph at http://marketliberal.org/Lesson.html#Productivity for an illustration of how compensation and productivity tend to move in lockstep, regardless of labor laws and other factors. See http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/08/how-are-wages-and-productivity-relate d.html for more details. [It's true that the market value of the product of labor can temporarily drop if there is an exogenous shock increasing the labor supply -- e.g. an immigration policy change -- but in the long run, the market value of the product of labor is overwhelmingly determined by technology and capital intensity (including human capital i.e. education)]. I can think of only one other myth of folk economics that is more politically insidious than thinking that labor shortages can increase hourly compensation over the long term. That is the related (and thoroughly discredited) Labor_theory_of_value <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value> , which if accepted leads inexorably to socialism and command economics instead of market economics. Harland writes: HH> Tony sounded like a libertarian and you tried to disagree with him. He wanted less government. He did not "approach us seeking advocacy for more of the kind of market regulations that we're trying to repeal." He said exactly the opposite: "I don't want more laws just repel the ones against organizing unions." <HH Tony didn't mention (and probably cannot name) any general laws "against organizing unions" in arbitrary industries, but there is a lot of state and federal law that forces employers to recognize labor unions and bargain "in good faith" with them. Tony very clearly implied he wanted to add to those laws when he complained that one can be "fired for trying to organize a union". The 2004 LP Platform stated: LP> An employer should have the right to recognize, or refuse to recognize, a union as the collective bargaining agent of some, or all, of its employees. We oppose government interference in bargaining, such as compulsory arbitration or the imposition of an obligation to bargain. Therefore, we urge repeal of the National Labor Relations Act, and all state right-to-work laws which prohibit employers from making voluntary contracts with unions. <LP You continue: HH> If you want to appeal to that voter, tell him that the LP wants to repeal the Taft-Hartley act, a bunch of other labor laws, and get the government out of labor-management negotiations. <HH Getting the government out of the picture is exactly what I told him the LP wants when I said "LP wants a level playing field". The Taft-Hartley Act (never mentioned by name in any LP Platform) makes some pro-business amendments to the NLRA, but the net effect of the U.S. labor law is of course to tilt the playing field toward labor cartels. HH> Our platform may alienate YOU, but what reason do you have to think he would disagree? I only saw Tony quoted on labor relations. <HH Heh, let's ask Tony if he (like the LP Platform) wants employers to have complete freedom of association to hire and fire as they see fit. If he agrees with that, I'll donate $100 to the LP in your name. BH> If employees can be fired for organizing a union, they can also quit en masse and work for an employer offering a better deal. The right to fire and the right to quit are two sides of the same coin. The LP wants a level playing field too, but in America the field is clearly tilted toward unions. For details of all the special legislation giving unions monopoly powers [...] <BH HH> Quitting and firing are not "two sides of the same coin" at all in this country. Unemployment insurance, wrongful termination torts, etc make them quite different. <HH Thanks for changing the context, which before my "but..." was clearly about fundamental rights and not the status quo. Libertarians believe that the fundamental human rights to quit and to fire are symmetrical applications of the principle of freedom of association, and that this symmetry is independent of any restrictions that some government may now be imposing on some people. Do you dispute this? HH> Employees cannot "quit en masse" when the cannot legally strike <HH They most certainly would be able to quit en masse when the LP repeals all laws against striking.
