In their
desperation to avoid talking about population, progressives will often claim
that the solution to poverty lies in the workers organizing and forming labor
unions. Unions are indeed useful. Unions equalize the bargaining
between individual workers and massive centralized corporations. There is nothing anti-capitalist about
unions: think of them as corporations whose product is labor and whose
shareholders are the workers themselves.
Perhaps the best arguments for unions comes from that famous progressive
Adam Smith, from The Wealth of Nations:
“Our merchants
and master-manufacturers complain much of the bad effects of high wages in
raising the price, and thereby lessening the sale of their goods both at home
and abroad. They say nothing concerning
the bad effects of high profits. They
are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people”
“What are the
common wages of labour, depends every where upon the contract made between
those two parties, whose interests are by no means the same. The workmen desire to get as much, the
masters to give as little as possible.
The former are disposed to combine in order to raise, the latter in
order to lower the wages of labour. It
is not difficult to forsee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary
occasions, have the advantage in the dispute and force the other into a
compliance with their terms. The
masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law,
besides, authorizes, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it
prohibits those of the workmen. We have
no acts of parliament against combining to lower the price of work; but many
against combining to raise it”.
Even in a tight
labor market, where labor is intrinsically valuable, an individual worker could
get screwed in negotiations with a centralized corporation that has a big legal
staff. Unions are vital in making sure
that workers get their fair share. However, unions cannot make what is worthless valuable! Unions can only ever get traction in a tight
labor market. There is effectively no
record of unions ever making significant gains in a third-world style economy. First
labor becomes valuable, then unions
ensure that workers get their fair share. It is never
the other way around.
No matter how bad
the overall labor market, in a competitive professional sport there is only
ever one best player, and the labor of this person is therefore of high
economic value. But these champion
athletes still need competent agents to avoid getting a raw deal, or signing
one-sided contracts. However, the most
skilled agent cannot get an elderly male with a bad back and sore feet and poor vision and no particular athletic
talent, a multi-million dollar contract with the National Basketball
Association. Agents for professional
athletes, like unions for more ordinary workers, must first have something
valuable to negotiate with. When impoverished people line up around the block desperate for any work at any rate,
unions cannot negotiate better wages. In this case unions only add extra costs and fees to the
workers, which is pointless because they cannot negotiate better deals, so the unions inevitably fade away. Nobody beats supply and demand, not
even unions.
Unions do not work miracles. They are only agents for average workers. They cannot turn Bangladesh into Finland. End of story.
The only chance
for workers in a third-world labor market lies not in unions, but in
guilds. A guild may superficially
resemble a union, but it operates according to very different principles. A guild protects its members by keeping
secret the skills and knowledge needed to perform a certain job, strictly
limiting the number of people who can join the guild, and thus creating a
monopoly of that class of labor. Guilds
are negative: they only carve out small islands of prosperity in oceans of
misery, and they cannot raise the level of an entire society like unions and a
tight labor market can. Guilds are also
anathema to the free exchange of information which underlies modern Western
culture.
Guilds mostly
faded away a couple of centuries ago (although medical doctors in the United
States and petrochemical workers in Mexico are effectively guilds), but as the
pressure on workers increases – as it becomes increasingly obvious that the
person you have trained in your skill today will likely take your job from you
or your children tomorrow – we should expect guild-like behavior to slowly make
a return. This turning away from
intellectual openness, this meanness of spirit, will be just one more symptom
of a coming dark age.
No comments:
Post a Comment