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