|
On March 09 2011 13:20 Rashid wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 12:20 Shanlan wrote:On March 09 2011 12:10 Rashid wrote:On March 09 2011 11:57 Shanlan wrote:
First, we examine the role of unions in a market where labor supply is less than demand. Companies in this scenario will be glad to increase wages, benefits, and conditions for workers. The problem arises when unions dictate that those increases apply to all employees. Even in a labor scarce market employers will want to replace poor workers with good ones, but the union will prevent that. So the result is less proficient workers will be hired than in a free market, so there will be better workers in a less profitable firm who could have been hired to a better wage and position but aren't due to union restrictions. Also overall the improvement to the rest of the workers will be less because the poor workers will need to be compensated as well. I don't feel the improvement to the poor worker justifies the losses sustained by the proficient ones.
You know, i have somebody in the neighborhood who owns a carwash business. He hires about 15-20 indian illegal immigrants and pays them each roughly US$100 a MONTH. Do you want any one of your loved ones to work like donkeys for US$100 a month? Your brother or sister perhaps? Or maybe your mother? Or even yourself? Perhaps you should actually read what I wrote. The excerpt you quoted refers to a labor scarce market, which in your case isn't. I also don't see how it applies.
I wouldn't work for $100/month and I doubt anyone I know would either. This is because I know I can get a better job that pays better. If I had a choice between not eating and working for $100/month then yes I would.Simply stating that low wages exist and asking if I would like to do it doesn't serve a purpose. I'm sure the Indians working there would like to work for more money or be a CEO and live in a big house, but they can't because they don't have the skills or abilities to do it. I'm sure you might have a valid opinion but I don't see one in this post or how it serves to further this discussion. That's the point. You yourself aren't willing to work for US$100 a month, and i'm pretty sure the guy who hired those indians isn't willing to do the same either, but for some reason you think it's ok for these indians to do the low-pay hard -labor job that you or even anybody you know is willing to do. But just because those indians are so desperate that they are willing to work for US$100 a month, doesn't mean that i should take advantage of them. JUST BECAUSE I CAN, DOESN'T MEAN I SHOULD. As a socially responsible employer, if i wanted to hire them, I should pay them the proper salary and give them the proper benefits, REGARDLESS of what he is willing to sell himself for.
You're assuming the employer can afford to pay them more. If the employer raises wages then he'll have to raise prices, which then makes the wage raise meaningless if we assume the price increase to affect the whole economy.
If the employer could afford to pay the workers more and keep the same price then it is the duty of the worker to ask for a higher wage, or find a job where he'll get paid more, ie another car wash where theoretically they could pay him more based on his performance. Alternatively, the worker can open his own car wash and charge a lower price and still earn a higher "wage".
You're example is really complicated because of the many factors affecting the wage and profits. The legality of the workers, and the competition of employers. These factors can force your example to be a non-ideal market which is inefficient and does not generate the most utility.
You're arguments are not ground in economic principles. If it was up to me I would pay everyone millions of dollars, but we live in a world of limited resources and we need a way to distribute it. I believe a free market is the most efficient way of doing it. Perhaps you have a better way, in which case I would love to hear it.
|
On March 09 2011 13:37 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 13:22 Shanlan wrote:
Good points, but I think the main cause stems from labor surplus, which makes firms price setters. There weren't any of these problems with unions when the economy was expanding and there was a labor shortage.
That's why I advocate for unions to be a lobbying group that promotes education, combating information asymmetry, and lobbies for market reforms. I believe in solutions that drive towards a more ideal free market vs ad hoc solutions that don't work in the long term. The 90s/tech boom were a nice time for most people indeed  And yes, unions could do a lot more to work on educating/improving their members as more skilled workers (that'd also give people more incentive to join). In many ways, unions have fought hard on a few issues that affect the workforce while completely ignoring others. A professor named Barry Pump pointed this out in contrasting state unionization vs state tax regressiveness and vs state welfare spending - his conclusion being that unions haven't done a good job making state/local taxes more fair for the lower class, but they may have helped people earn wages that get them off of welfare. But I think, especially in sectors where firms are consolidating, some form of collective bargaining is probably a necessity.
I agree, unions do act as a counter to monopolistic markets, but I think the goal there is to break up the monopoly not create another one. I have said before that unions do create benefits, but I don't think those benefits justify the harm they do. The ideal case would be for new policy to be implemented as unions are slowly limited to more of an activist group that influence policy making vs the decisions of firms.
To summarize, unions act on firms directly, when I believe the problems lay with the market. I believe the unions are addressing the issues at the result end vs the source.
Aside: I find it funny you point to Mr. Pump's papers when I have attended some of the same classes as he.
|
On March 09 2011 11:45 Offhand wrote:
That scenario is less and less true in today's world, as the rich/poor gap is increasing, companies are reporting record profits right out of the recessions (note, because people are willing to work for less). Americans earn, on average, less then they did 10 years ago.
TL:DR: The difference between high and low wages for workers isn't the difference between everyone on subsistence wage or a privileged few working while the rest starve. The difference is how many yachts the CEO has.
Actually it's worse than that. When adjusted for inflation, wages have declined since the late 70's. In the same time period, CEO pay has increased exponentially.
|
On March 09 2011 14:08 thebigdonkey wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 11:45 Offhand wrote:
That scenario is less and less true in today's world, as the rich/poor gap is increasing, companies are reporting record profits right out of the recessions (note, because people are willing to work for less). Americans earn, on average, less then they did 10 years ago.
TL:DR: The difference between high and low wages for workers isn't the difference between everyone on subsistence wage or a privileged few working while the rest starve. The difference is how many yachts the CEO has. Actually it's worse than that. When adjusted for inflation, wages have declined since the late 70's. In the same time period, CEO pay has increased exponentially.
Thats what you get when you open up a vast labor pool to be taken advantage of. The Chinese slave labor pool has made CEO's and Communist China very rich. The middle class has gotten material goods that price did not go up with inflation, but neither have their wages.
|
On March 09 2011 13:53 Shanlan wrote:
I agree, unions do act as a counter to monopolistic markets, but I think the goal there is to break up the monopoly not create another one. I have said before that unions do create benefits, but I don't think those benefits justify the harm they do. The ideal case would be for new policy to be implemented as unions are slowly limited to more of an activist group that influence policy making vs the decisions of firms.
To summarize, unions act on firms directly, when I believe the problems lay with the market. I believe the unions are addressing the issues at the result end vs the source.
Aside: I find it funny you point to Mr. Pump's papers when I have attended some of the same classes as he.
The issue I have is - I don't doubt that policy changes can be made to increase the number of firms in a sector at equilibrium. Things like reducing subsidies to established firms, eliminating corporate tax loopholes, restricting offshore "tax shelter" accounts, etc could lessen the advantage that existing firms have over potential competitors.
Still, economies of scale play a major role in determining market equilibrium, particularly in markets involving production of physical goods. Even if government-imposed barriers to entry/competition are removed, or even if they go further to say subsidize start-up costs (reduce entry fees), I think we'll still end up with monopolistic competition or oligopoly due to scaling and the importance of branding in the consumer market, with more firms than before but still not a great situation for unorganized laborers who would face an imbalanced market. What policy changes could be made to bridge this gap?
Offhand, I could see implementing a real full-throttle free market system, maxing out domestic firm competitiveness regardless of how hard it skews pre-tax earnings, eliminating wage/health/pension and some other worker laws (not workplace/environmental/consumer safety, but things that can be corrected later), then providing these essentials as social programs to those who are making too little to afford them. But while I can see that working in theory, I can't see Americans going for it in practice. And I don't see it going anywhere with our political parties.
Alternatively, how would you feel about multiple unions in the same sector that basically compete against each other? (ie, the 3 companies / 3 unions hypothetical I gave to another poster)
Hah, what a small world it is that you actually know the guy who wrote those posts. Are you a student/professor at UW? I found his blog via Nate Silver's twitter.
|
Unions are good.. if you are in them. I don't personally have a problem with them in the private sector, but not for all jobs. For example, teachers in WI. Teachers union donates to campaign - politician get elected, gives in to union demands on salaries for votes/future donations. Who cares right, he'll be out of office before the state is bankrupt and its someone elses problem then.
I am sorry but this won't work. It eventually does have to end.
|
On March 09 2011 14:27 TributeBoxer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 14:08 thebigdonkey wrote:On March 09 2011 11:45 Offhand wrote:
That scenario is less and less true in today's world, as the rich/poor gap is increasing, companies are reporting record profits right out of the recessions (note, because people are willing to work for less). Americans earn, on average, less then they did 10 years ago.
TL:DR: The difference between high and low wages for workers isn't the difference between everyone on subsistence wage or a privileged few working while the rest starve. The difference is how many yachts the CEO has. Actually it's worse than that. When adjusted for inflation, wages have declined since the late 70's. In the same time period, CEO pay has increased exponentially. Thats what you get when you open up a vast labor pool to be taken advantage of. The Chinese slave labor pool has made CEO's and Communist China very rich. The middle class has gotten material goods that price did not go up with inflation, but neither have their wages.
What is this middle class you speak of?
|
its not really that 'necessary' in a sense that every worker with a brain would be smart enough to form a union for collective bargaining.
|
In this age of twitter, facebook, and social networking which was used to help organize protests in Egypt, labor unions seem rather obsolete. Furthermore, unions charge their members for their services, and this drives up their pay which drives up costs of goods and services. Companies could pay their workers less and the workers would still be earning more than they are in a union.
|
Damn this thread is one economic hyperbole after another. Anyone feel like backing up their posts? At all?
|
YES. Unless you want to live like simple manual labourers in China.
|
On March 09 2011 13:38 Shanlan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 13:20 Rashid wrote:On March 09 2011 12:20 Shanlan wrote:On March 09 2011 12:10 Rashid wrote:On March 09 2011 11:57 Shanlan wrote:
First, we examine the role of unions in a market where labor supply is less than demand. Companies in this scenario will be glad to increase wages, benefits, and conditions for workers. The problem arises when unions dictate that those increases apply to all employees. Even in a labor scarce market employers will want to replace poor workers with good ones, but the union will prevent that. So the result is less proficient workers will be hired than in a free market, so there will be better workers in a less profitable firm who could have been hired to a better wage and position but aren't due to union restrictions. Also overall the improvement to the rest of the workers will be less because the poor workers will need to be compensated as well. I don't feel the improvement to the poor worker justifies the losses sustained by the proficient ones.
You know, i have somebody in the neighborhood who owns a carwash business. He hires about 15-20 indian illegal immigrants and pays them each roughly US$100 a MONTH. Do you want any one of your loved ones to work like donkeys for US$100 a month? Your brother or sister perhaps? Or maybe your mother? Or even yourself? Perhaps you should actually read what I wrote. The excerpt you quoted refers to a labor scarce market, which in your case isn't. I also don't see how it applies.
I wouldn't work for $100/month and I doubt anyone I know would either. This is because I know I can get a better job that pays better. If I had a choice between not eating and working for $100/month then yes I would.Simply stating that low wages exist and asking if I would like to do it doesn't serve a purpose. I'm sure the Indians working there would like to work for more money or be a CEO and live in a big house, but they can't because they don't have the skills or abilities to do it. I'm sure you might have a valid opinion but I don't see one in this post or how it serves to further this discussion. That's the point. You yourself aren't willing to work for US$100 a month, and i'm pretty sure the guy who hired those indians isn't willing to do the same either, but for some reason you think it's ok for these indians to do the low-pay hard -labor job that you or even anybody you know is willing to do. But just because those indians are so desperate that they are willing to work for US$100 a month, doesn't mean that i should take advantage of them. JUST BECAUSE I CAN, DOESN'T MEAN I SHOULD. As a socially responsible employer, if i wanted to hire them, I should pay them the proper salary and give them the proper benefits, REGARDLESS of what he is willing to sell himself for. You're assuming the employer can afford to pay them more. If the employer raises wages then he'll have to raise prices, which then makes the wage raise meaningless if we assume the price increase to affect the whole economy. If the employer could afford to pay the workers more and keep the same price then it is the duty of the worker to ask for a higher wage, or find a job where he'll get paid more, ie another car wash where theoretically they could pay him more based on his performance. Alternatively, the worker can open his own car wash and charge a lower price and still earn a higher "wage". You're example is really complicated because of the many factors affecting the wage and profits. The legality of the workers, and the competition of employers. These factors can force your example to be a non-ideal market which is inefficient and does not generate the most utility. You're arguments are not ground in economic principles. If it was up to me I would pay everyone millions of dollars, but we live in a world of limited resources and we need a way to distribute it. I believe a free market is the most efficient way of doing it. Perhaps you have a better way, in which case I would love to hear it.
No, i'm not saying that we should pay employees a kabajllion bucks. I'm saying that employers should pay their employees relative to how much they profit from their business. If business is making a lot of profit, companies should increase the pay of their employees in all levels, not just the top brass.
But this is rarely the case. Instead most employers strive to pay the least amount of salary to their employees as they can, regardless of how much they profit. That guy i mentioned who hired indians for US$100? He's got a big house and drives an S-Class now. What excuse does the guy have to not raise his employee's salaries to acceptable levels?
|
Unions are simply a way for workers to collectively bargain for their mutual interests. I don't see how anyone can be against that. The whole concept behind wage labor is that people are freely making an agreement to work based on their self interest, right? Unions are the logical way of promoting that self interest. Workers shouldn't have to prove they're being horrifically exploited to have the right to try and get the best terms possible in a negotiated contract.
Yes, unions push for higher pay and better benefits for their people, and try and protect their people from getting laid off. That's the whole point; they're just a tool for workers to fight for their own interests. Maybe you think sometimes they ask for things they don't "deserve," but how many times has your employer made a decision you thought was unfair? You don't have to support the things they are asking for to support their right to get together and decide to ask for them in the first place. Capitalism is about everyone trying to get as much for themselves as possible, not about everyone deciding what is fair for everyone else to have, right? If you oppose unions because they ask for too much, you should oppose corporations and private companies whenever they are "greedy" and try to make "too much" profit.
Also, it's easy to say things are pretty good now for workers in the west and they don't need unions anymore... But if you get rid of unions, workers next year or next decade may find some of those very freedoms and privileges you mention that unions helped earn for them withering away.
As for legislation to replace them... I like the idea of workers having a way to express their own demands and fight for them a lot better than trusting Congress to write one bill that anticipates every present and future need of every different worker perfectly. I don't even know what that bill would look like to begin with. Most of what unions do is negotiate pay and benefits. Are you suggesting it would be better to have Congress dictate how much every employer pays each of its employees? I think some people might object to that...
|
On March 09 2011 14:29 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 13:53 Shanlan wrote:
I agree, unions do act as a counter to monopolistic markets, but I think the goal there is to break up the monopoly not create another one. I have said before that unions do create benefits, but I don't think those benefits justify the harm they do. The ideal case would be for new policy to be implemented as unions are slowly limited to more of an activist group that influence policy making vs the decisions of firms.
To summarize, unions act on firms directly, when I believe the problems lay with the market. I believe the unions are addressing the issues at the result end vs the source.
Aside: I find it funny you point to Mr. Pump's papers when I have attended some of the same classes as he. The issue I have is - I don't doubt that policy changes can be made to increase the number of firms in a sector at equilibrium. Things like reducing subsidies to established firms, eliminating corporate tax loopholes, restricting offshore "tax shelter" accounts, etc could lessen the advantage that existing firms have over potential competitors. Still, economies of scale play a major role in determining market equilibrium, particularly in markets involving production of physical goods. Even if government-imposed barriers to entry/competition are removed, or even if they go further to say subsidize start-up costs (reduce entry fees), I think we'll still end up with monopolistic competition or oligopoly due to scaling and the importance of branding in the consumer market, with more firms than before but still not a great situation for unorganized laborers who would face an imbalanced market. What policy changes could be made to bridge this gap? Offhand, I could see implementing a real full-throttle free market system, maxing out domestic firm competitiveness regardless of how hard it skews pre-tax earnings, eliminating wage/health/pension and some other worker laws (not workplace/environmental/consumer safety, but things that can be corrected later), then providing these essentials as social programs to those who are making too little to afford them. But while I can see that working in theory, I can't see Americans going for it in practice. And I don't see it going anywhere with our political parties. Alternatively, how would you feel about multiple unions in the same sector that basically compete against each other? (ie, the 3 companies / 3 unions hypothetical I gave to another poster) Hah, what a small world it is that you actually know the guy who wrote those posts. Are you a student/professor at UW? I found his blog via Nate Silver's twitter.
I'll point to high tech as an example of relatively competitive market. It faces a lot of the problems other markets face, the only difference is the cost of entry is lower, less hardware. It also has a different type of labor force, one that is better educated and well informed. But this example does show that the true limits on a free market is the cost of entry and possibly the "informed-ness" of the labor force.
I believe this is why in an economic boom, markets tend to become more open and free, the loans available for start-ups are greater, and in the short-run sunk costs are ignored when calculating production costs. When the market becomes open then the wages become more competitive and reach a more natural equilibrium. It is also in economic booms where unions are the most harmful, they hinder the speed and magnitude a firm can expand and adapt. It is my opinion that only in a recession will labor rights require protection. When the market contracts the dual factors of labor surplus and lowered production give firms an advantage and shift the equilibrium to where they become price setters vs price takers.
If that is true then we can determine when government intervention, or greater vigilance over the labor market should occur. I say this because as much as I believe in minimal government interference I do understand that any human system is imperfect and require a tune-up in times of trouble. I believe the periodic government intervention, and/or policy change can replace the role of unions in protecting labor rights.
In my opinion, as we understand things more we can get peel off old systems and institutions that were needed as stop gap solutions to problems. I believe it is especially important in times of crisis to take the time to examine what we can get rid of. The less laws and barriers we have the smoother things can run, and that applies to everything in an ever more complex world.
I'm a senior at UW. I don't know Mr. Pump personally, but I've friends who've had him as a TA or maybe instructor.
|
On March 09 2011 12:39 Shanlan wrote:
That only serves to prove his point. Only the rich can afford to be "morally" righteous in their economic decisions. The next step is to force the rich who have worked for their money to turn around and support the rest of the country? Would you want to work hard and start a successful business only to have 99% of it taken away and spent on the drug-addicts on the street or the gangs roaming the ghettos? Social welfare doesn't fix the problem and wealth redistribution is theft with a prettier name.
This is such a bad argument. I might as well go to the other political extreme and say that property is theft. Letting capitalism run amok is not a fair way of distributing resources in the first place. Wealth redistribution is no more theft than wealth distribution is. Our entire economic system is just one big game we have designed. If we don't like the outcomes of that game, we can change the rules at any time.
|
To weak unions lead to harsh work conditions for employes which can lead to a ton of "bad" stuff like uprisings.
To strong unions lead to low profits for the business which leads probably to an unfair and posible to big advantage for organisations that are not "bound" by unions.
As long as neither side is "overdoing" it, everything is fine and unions wouldn't be needed... But that there are unions should tell you something  .
|
On March 09 2011 16:03 Rashid wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 13:38 Shanlan wrote:On March 09 2011 13:20 Rashid wrote:On March 09 2011 12:20 Shanlan wrote:On March 09 2011 12:10 Rashid wrote:On March 09 2011 11:57 Shanlan wrote:
First, we examine the role of unions in a market where labor supply is less than demand. Companies in this scenario will be glad to increase wages, benefits, and conditions for workers. The problem arises when unions dictate that those increases apply to all employees. Even in a labor scarce market employers will want to replace poor workers with good ones, but the union will prevent that. So the result is less proficient workers will be hired than in a free market, so there will be better workers in a less profitable firm who could have been hired to a better wage and position but aren't due to union restrictions. Also overall the improvement to the rest of the workers will be less because the poor workers will need to be compensated as well. I don't feel the improvement to the poor worker justifies the losses sustained by the proficient ones.
You know, i have somebody in the neighborhood who owns a carwash business. He hires about 15-20 indian illegal immigrants and pays them each roughly US$100 a MONTH. Do you want any one of your loved ones to work like donkeys for US$100 a month? Your brother or sister perhaps? Or maybe your mother? Or even yourself? Perhaps you should actually read what I wrote. The excerpt you quoted refers to a labor scarce market, which in your case isn't. I also don't see how it applies.
I wouldn't work for $100/month and I doubt anyone I know would either. This is because I know I can get a better job that pays better. If I had a choice between not eating and working for $100/month then yes I would.Simply stating that low wages exist and asking if I would like to do it doesn't serve a purpose. I'm sure the Indians working there would like to work for more money or be a CEO and live in a big house, but they can't because they don't have the skills or abilities to do it. I'm sure you might have a valid opinion but I don't see one in this post or how it serves to further this discussion. That's the point. You yourself aren't willing to work for US$100 a month, and i'm pretty sure the guy who hired those indians isn't willing to do the same either, but for some reason you think it's ok for these indians to do the low-pay hard -labor job that you or even anybody you know is willing to do. But just because those indians are so desperate that they are willing to work for US$100 a month, doesn't mean that i should take advantage of them. JUST BECAUSE I CAN, DOESN'T MEAN I SHOULD. As a socially responsible employer, if i wanted to hire them, I should pay them the proper salary and give them the proper benefits, REGARDLESS of what he is willing to sell himself for. You're assuming the employer can afford to pay them more. If the employer raises wages then he'll have to raise prices, which then makes the wage raise meaningless if we assume the price increase to affect the whole economy. If the employer could afford to pay the workers more and keep the same price then it is the duty of the worker to ask for a higher wage, or find a job where he'll get paid more, ie another car wash where theoretically they could pay him more based on his performance. Alternatively, the worker can open his own car wash and charge a lower price and still earn a higher "wage". You're example is really complicated because of the many factors affecting the wage and profits. The legality of the workers, and the competition of employers. These factors can force your example to be a non-ideal market which is inefficient and does not generate the most utility. You're arguments are not ground in economic principles. If it was up to me I would pay everyone millions of dollars, but we live in a world of limited resources and we need a way to distribute it. I believe a free market is the most efficient way of doing it. Perhaps you have a better way, in which case I would love to hear it. No, i'm not saying that we should pay employees a kabajllion bucks. I'm saying that employers should pay their employees relative to how much they profit from their business. If business is making a lot of profit, companies should increase the pay of their employees in all levels, not just the top brass. But this is rarely the case. Instead most employers strive to pay the least amount of salary to their employees as they can, regardless of how much they profit. That guy i mentioned who hired indians for US$100? He's got a big house and drives an S-Class now. What excuse does the guy have to not raise his employee's salaries to acceptable levels?
Employers have a constraint on them, the market, they can't pay more than they'll make from the product, and the reason they aim for lower wages is so they can produce the product at the cheapest price possible. You want cheaper goods? Then that means companies need to push for lower wages, simple as that. The employee needs/does push for higher wages, but when gathered together they can collude to raise wages above the equilibrium level, meaning more expensive product and less of it for everyone. Also when a company does well it generally pays it out to the employees as bonuses of some sort, stock, bond, etc.
For your example there are multiple costs you haven't considered. If the employer is caught with illegal workers he can be fined, and/or jailed. How much is a year in jail worth to you? 5 years? 10? 20? Also he's not saying you have to work here, and I'm only going to pay you $100. He gave them a choice, he can afford to pay them $100, and they accepted.
You're also effectively saying that people shouldn't be allowed to have X amount of money, because there are others who could use it. Well maybe you shouldn't have a computer, that money could've gone to feed the hungry in Africa. Why don't you take a pay cut so the janitor can make more? Or donate it to charity? Also have you thought about what would happen to luxury companies if everyone earned the same? All those workers that make Mercedes would be out of a job, all those people who build large houses would be out of a job.
If you're so against him making money, you should open a car wash and steal him workers over, since you're willing to earn less that means you're willing to pay them more.Instead of bashing on people who've found a way to make money and be successful, go out and make things better.
|
On March 09 2011 17:10 DrainX wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 12:39 Shanlan wrote:
That only serves to prove his point. Only the rich can afford to be "morally" righteous in their economic decisions. The next step is to force the rich who have worked for their money to turn around and support the rest of the country? Would you want to work hard and start a successful business only to have 99% of it taken away and spent on the drug-addicts on the street or the gangs roaming the ghettos? Social welfare doesn't fix the problem and wealth redistribution is theft with a prettier name.
This is such a bad argument. I might as well go to the other political extreme and say that property is theft. Letting capitalism run amok is not a fair way of distributing resources in the first place. Wealth redistribution is no more theft than wealth distribution is. Our entire economic system is just one big game we have designed. If we don't like the outcomes of that game, we can change the rules at any time.
Nice job of saying absolutely nothing useful.
I would like to hear you explain your reasoning behind "property is theft".
Wealth distribution via free markets doesn't involve forcefully taking something from someone and giving it to another, simply because the mob says so.
|
On March 09 2011 17:22 Shanlan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2011 17:10 DrainX wrote:On March 09 2011 12:39 Shanlan wrote:
That only serves to prove his point. Only the rich can afford to be "morally" righteous in their economic decisions. The next step is to force the rich who have worked for their money to turn around and support the rest of the country? Would you want to work hard and start a successful business only to have 99% of it taken away and spent on the drug-addicts on the street or the gangs roaming the ghettos? Social welfare doesn't fix the problem and wealth redistribution is theft with a prettier name.
This is such a bad argument. I might as well go to the other political extreme and say that property is theft. Letting capitalism run amok is not a fair way of distributing resources in the first place. Wealth redistribution is no more theft than wealth distribution is. Our entire economic system is just one big game we have designed. If we don't like the outcomes of that game, we can change the rules at any time. Nice job of saying absolutely nothing useful. I would like to hear you explain your reasoning behind "property is theft". Wealth distribution via free markets doesn't involve forcefully taking something from someone and giving it to another, simply because the mob says so.
I don't want to go too far off topic since this is a thread about unions but if you are interested, I was referring to Proudhon's book "What is Property?" and Atheist political philosophy in general.
In his 1849 treatise What is Property?, Pierre Proudhon answers with "Property is theft!" In natural resources, he sees two types of property, de jure property (legal title) and de facto property (physical possession), and argues that the former is illegitimate. Proudhon's conclusion is that "property, to be just and possible, must necessarily have equality for its condition."
His analysis of the product of labor upon natural resources as property (usufruct) is more nuanced. He asserts that land itself cannot be property, yet it should be held by individual possessors as stewards of mankind with the product of labor being the property of the producer. Proudhon reasoned that any wealth gained without labor was stolen from those who labored to create that wealth. Even a voluntary contract to surrender the product of labor to an employer was theft, according to Proudhon, since the controller of natural resources had no moral right to charge others for the use of that which he did not labor to create and therefore did not own.
Proudhon's theory of property greatly influenced the budding socialist movement, inspiring anarchist theorists such as Mikhail Bakunin who modified Proudhon's ideas, as well as antagonizing theorists like Karl Marx.
|
Property is an odd beast. It's obvious why a person who makes a thing should get to decide who can have that thing. But land and natural resources have no inherent owner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
