Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!fagin From: fagin@ucbvax.ARPA (Barry Steven Fagin) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Labor Market (re: Discrimination) Message-ID: <8943@ucbvax.ARPA> Date: Wed, 10-Jul-85 14:02:53 EDT Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8943 Posted: Wed Jul 10 14:02:53 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 12-Jul-85 01:34:55 EDT References: <8204@ucbvax.ARPA> <1340264@acf4.UUCP> <777@umcp-cs.UUCP> Reply-To: fagin@ucbvax.UUCP (Barry Steven Fagin) Organization: University of California at Berkeley Lines: 72 In article <777@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes: >Theoretical reasoning can wait; supply and demand (in the Smithian fashion) >can only be assumed to work in a system of near perfect competition. Many >towns exist in a near-monopoly situation with regards to the labor market >(it's work at Mecca Steel or leave town); only the most pig-headed >classicists would argue that supply and demand work according to their usual >fashion. > ("oink-oink") This notion of a "near-monopoly" has always bothered me. Consider the following situations: "It's work at Mecca Steel or work next door" "It's work at Mecca Steel or work across town" "It's work at Mecca Steel or work in another town" "It's work at Mecca Steel or work in the Sun Belt" "It's work at Mecca Steel or work in another country" Clearly Charles draws the line for coercive action in the third case, claiming that Mecca Steel exercises a "near monopoly" over the demand for labor. I would disagree, noting instead that the employees of Mecca steel *choose* to remain in town, for a variety of reasons. Some of them include wanting to be near their family and friends, keeping the security of the only life they've ever known, or just because they lack the desire to leave. After all, packing up one's life and setting out for greener pastures takes a lot of guts. And yet, that is exactly what the vast majority of American labor has done over time. Why does Charley ascribe such stupidity and lack of ambition to the American laborer, when demography shows otherwise? In fact, people can and do leave town when they see their chances for a better life diminishing. How else do you explain the rapid influx of new arrivials in Alaska and the Sun Belt? Where do all the people come from when a region of the country experiences economic growth? My guess is that they come from depressed areas of the country, including Meccaville. My point is that this "near-monopoly" business is questionable at best. It is not clear to me that coercion is called for. If you're really interested in improving the lot of laborers, you ought to stop paying them with inflated currency, taxing their paychecks, forcing them to contribute to a bankrupt retirement system, forcing them to subsidize the defenses of Japan and Europe, following economic policies which lower their standard of living, standard libertarian rhetoric etc. etc. >As for empirical evidence, why don't you read up on the early history of >labor movements. > When workers get together and organize to voluntarily withold their labor in order to advance their economic goals, well and good; they have a right to do so. Should they succeed in this endeavor without coercing their employer, their gains are justly obtained. And naturally they should be free from coercive acts by their employer and (especially) law enforcement agencies. The practical successes that the labor movement has enjoyed within this framework suggests to me that a free society is completely compatible with the efforts organized labor. Sorry if this repeats previous postings, but Charley seemed to have some misconceptions about libertarians and the labor movement. >Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe --Barry -- Barry Fagin @ University of California, Berkeley