On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:25 PM, David Shemano <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Raghu writes: > > > > "Oh come on. You are far too intelligent to actually believe this > nonsense. Just because workers are not *completely* powerless (as in being > willing to work for minimum wage) does not mean there isn't a gross > asymmetry in the average workplace. Do you really think David Koch is as > terrified at the prospect of a janitor quitting as the janitor is of > getting fired?" > > > > I think of "employer-employee" as highly abstract conceptual categories > and interrelations-- what is an "employer" and what is an "employee," and > then think about whether those abstract categorizations and interrelations > have an inherent "gross asymmetry" that lends itself to inherent abuse, and > I conclude that there is nothing inherent in the relationship that creates > a "gross asymmetry." You, on the other hand, are more inductive -- you see > "employers" and "employees" in the real world, notice that there are many > fewer employers than employees, and the employers usually have a > significant bargaining advantage over the employees, from which you then > conclude the "gross asymmetry" in the relationship. > > > > I agree it would be nonsense for me to deny your evaluation of the real > life labor market. But I disagree that your evaluation is an inherent > product of the employer-employee relationship. > I am glad that we are getting somewhere, but I have got to say, this is a rather surprising argument. You seem to be saying that in the real world employers have a significant power over employees, but it is possible to imagine a fantasy world where there is no power imbalance between employer and employee. Surely then our policy preferences should be based on what is happening in the real world than in a fantasy world, no? In particular, shouldn't libertarians aggressively start supporting policies that will move our real world closer to that libertarian ideal where employment relationships act like contracts between equals? For e.g., shouldn't libertarians aggressively campaign for universal access to high quality health and education and a guaranteed minimum standard of living for everyone so that there is no need for something like the minimum wage? > Instead, I believe what you are actually evaluating is not the > employer-employee relationship per se, but instead the consequence of the > (relatively) "unskilled" worker offering his or her labor in the > marketplace. > Your definition of "skilled" and "unskilled" is tautological. Under your definition, someone like Robert Rubin is "highly skilled" because he manages to get people to pay him obscene amounts of money to do God-knows-what. > Presumably, we should be able to agree that the bargaining power of > individuals offering their labor services varies depending on the > (relative) skills offered, and the value of those skills vary depending on > time and place. > Yes, those things matter, but so does the political power and socio-economic status of the individual concerned even though you refuse to admit how significant these factors are. The world today is not even close to a meritocracy (though there are some admittedly important sectors that come close e.g. elite research labs, parts of Silicon Valley etc), and the right wing is pushing policies that make the world less and less meritocratic over time. -raghu.
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
