Walmart and the Welfare State

My friend Ned Resnikoff has a good summary of one of the more fascinating aspects of Walmart’s ongoing and escalating struggle with its workers, the recently leaked documents showing a systematic effort on the part of management to depress employee wages as much as possible. The Huffington Post  was first to report on the document, which was originally passed around among Sam’s Club bigwigs and is used by Walmart, too. A Walmart employee subsequently spoke to the media as well, describing what it’s like to sustain a family on Walmart wages:

Despite Walmart’s insistence that employees are paid fairly, low compensation ranks high among striking workers’ grievances. In a conference call organized last week by the campaign Making Change at Walmart, several employees of the company complained of poverty-level wages.

“I struggle to support my family on $14,000 a year,” said Sara Gilbert, a customer service manager at the company for three years. “My children are in state housing and we get subsidized housing and food stamps.”

Economist Julianne Malveaux said, “[Walmart] employees earn around $8 an hour. This is not a living wage, this is not a working wage, and especially not a living wage when they’re not working 30 hours a week, which would allow them to get health insurance.”

She said that many employees who would otherwise be working full-time were scheduled for 24 or 26 hours a week, so that Walmart would not obliged to provide them with full-time benefits.

Not to resurrect ugly memories, but you’ll recall that we just had a national election in which the mantra, for months if not years, was jobs, jobs, jobs. Implicit is the idea that a job is enough: enough to raise your family, maintain your dignity, and be a real, productive, valuable member of society. Enough to live the American Dream. In America, a job is supposed to be enough.

From roughly the end of World War II until the mid-to-late 1970s, that was more or less true. But we all know what started happening during the 70s, even if we can’t agree on why it happened or what to do about it. Wages stopped rising but the costs of necessities like health care, education, and housing did not. And so we have countless millions like Sara Gilbert, whose story reminds me of my favorite Bruce Springsteen lyric, from “The River,”

Is a dream a lie if it don’t come true / Or is it something worse?

More specifically, take a second and read about the donations the Walton family has made recently. Get ready to be not-surprised!

Alice Walton, daughter of Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton and (according to Forbes) the 10th-richest American, has given $200,000 to Restore Our Future, the super PAC backing Mitt Romney. So has her brother, Jim Walton (the youngest son of Sam Walton and the ninth-richest American). Jim Walton also gave $100,000 to Our Destiny super PAC – the organization backing former Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsmann. Christy Walton, the sixth-richest American, and widow of John T. Walton (another son of Sam Walton), gave another $50,000 to Our Destiny.

On June 30, 2011, Alice and Jim Walton, along with Jim’s wife, Lynne Walton, all contributed $30,800 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and another $30,400 apiece to the National Republican Congressional Committee.

In total, so far this cycle these three Waltons (and spouses), have contributed more than $813,000 to political campaigns or outside spending groups in this election cycle – every dollar to Republicans.

I’m not sure if the Walton family political worldview is best described as chutzpah or ignorance or fecklessness. Because without the big government welfare state that their chosen candidates promised to strip to the marrow of its bones, the Waltons would could not get away with paying their employees such a pittance. As the example of Sara Gilbert shows, Walmart’s willful near-immiseration of its workers is, today, only feasible due to big government programs like public housing and food stamps.

Please do be so kind as to share this post.
Share

1,077 thoughts on “Walmart and the Welfare State

  1. Here is my thing with much of the handwringing over Walmart: If they raised wages, offered health care, etc. what would happen to their prices? What would happen to the people who depend on Walmart’s low prices to get by? It just doesn’t seem quite as simple as it is often made out to be.

      Quote  Link

    Report

  2. We don’t know how much the prices would rise.

    If the prices increased such that a struggling family needed 1000 more dollars per year to buy the same goods then the wage increases would have a more negative effect than if the wage increases only caused price increases such that the struggling family only paid 50 dollars more per year.

      Quote  Link

    Report

  3. Gotta love the irony, but as I always ask commentators on both sides when issues like this come up – what do we DO about it? Calling out these inequities is the first step, and I’d love to see some enforcement against Wal Mart and others for their clearly illegal anti-union actions. But the publicity surrounding lack of living wages and health insurance has been around for, what, two decades regarding this company? The bad press certainly hasn’t hurt them any – they are as unwilling to engage in fair labor practices now as they were when I worked there part time a decade ago.

      Quote  Link

    Report

  4. And Wal-Mart doesn’t just depress the wages of it’s own employees, it’s practice of pressuring suppliers to meet it’s low price points forces those same suppliers to cut costs to the bone. And don’t even get me started on the corrupting and illegal practices they employed to secure retail locations in Mexico. Apparently Wal-Mart is the biggest single employer in Latin America as well. I wonder how those employees manage to get by?

      Quote  Link

    Report

    • Just to put your comment in some perspective.

      Down in Brazil, minimum wage is R$ 600 per month. Thats roughly U$300 per month – our usual ‘business months’ are considered to have 172 hrs of work.

      A big mac meal costs R$17 – roughly U$8.5

      A Chevrolet Camaro (first car that came to mind that exists here and in the US) – begins at R$ 203,000. Thats U$ 101,500. Yes, 100k.

        Quote  Link

      Report

  5. Ron Unz, writing for The American Conservative addressed raising the minimum wage, and tackled this question of ‘what would happen to prices?’

    . . .given the simultaneous rise in labor costs among all competitors and the localized market for these services, the logical business response would be to raise prices by a few percent to help cover increased costs while also trimming current profit margins. Perhaps consumers would pay 3 percent more for Wal-Mart goods or an extra dime for a McDonald’s hamburger, but most of the jobs would still exist and the price changes would be small compared to typical fluctuations due to commodity and energy prices, international exchange rates, or Chinese production costs.

    The resulting one-time inflationary spike would slightly raise living expenses for everyone in our society, but the immediate 20% or 30% boost in the take-home pay of many millions of America’s lowest income workers would make it easy for them to absorb these small costs, while the impact upon the middle or upper classes would be totally negligible. An increase in the hourly minimum wage from the current federal level of $7.25 to (say) $12.00 might also have secondary, smaller ripple effects, boosting wages currently above that level as well.

    The piece is worth a read; a good conservative argument for a liberal policy.

      Quote  Link

    Report

  6. Rather than beating up on Wal-Mart, we should be looking at why these people can’t find better jobs. Wal-Mart jobs are pretty useful as part-time jobs for teens and others who want a second job. If enough people currently working there move on to greener pastures, the need to fill those positions will push the wages up.

      Quote  Link

    Report

    • That’s an interesting question. They’re not qualified for those jobs. The larger question remains, in the game of Wage Limbo — (basso profundo Caribbean voice) “How lowww … can you goooo?”

      Want to sell something to Walmart? There’s a whole process for it. They’ve got the whole life cycle of your product mapped out. They’ll help you find an appropriate manufacturer for it (in China, natch), they’ll look at your numbers, tell you exactly where your price point will be every year you sell your product, predict exactly how you’re going to reduce your margins. Nobody who sells to Walmart gets a break.

      Many manufacturers refuse to deal with Walmart on those terms, in which case, Walmart will start competing with them via a house brand. They’ll steal your trademarked bottle design and put their own mouthwash in it and colour it to your exact shade of blue and sell it right next to your product.

      If there are greener pastures there are also browner pastures. A lot fewer green ones than brown ones. Walmart could pay its people more and pass the costs along to the consumer. But once you’re in the commodity space, you’re driven by ever higher volume and ever lower margins and that’s all Walmart does. You want an alternative to beating up on Walmart? Walmart beats up everyone, even their own suppliers. Care to comment on that? Coz this is what I know. Every bottle of Listerine going through Walmart flows through my web services.

        Quote  Link

      Report

      • This is really important. I’ve seen several businesses, small manufacturers, done in by WalMart (and here in ME, by LLBean) in just this way. Smaller producers cannot meet the needs, often end up growing their businesses too fast while shedding other, existing customers, and so fail, only to have their product co-opted by the monster they were trying to sell their product to.

        The end result is both fewer places to shop and fewer products to choose from. But hey, that stuff is cheap.

          Quote  Link

        Report

      • ” in which case, Walmart will start competing with them via a house brand. They’ll steal your trademarked bottle design and put their own mouthwash in it and colour it to your exact shade of blue and sell it right next to your product. ”

        House brands have been a thing since forever. It’s not something that started with Wal-Mart.

        Besides, you seem like the kind of guy who’d claim that it’s the mark of an anticompetitive loser to claim that they should have some kind of exclusive authority over putting a particular blend of chemicals in a bottle.

          Quote  Link

        Report

    • The problem is that there are a lot of jobs which are necessary for society but seem absolutely determined to pay a low wage. This is an issue I think about a lot.

      There was another story this week in Bloomberg that was indicative of this trend. It was about an African-American woman who worked as a care taker for the elderly. She has been making 12 dollars an hour since 2005. She also lost her dream house in the Fiscal Crisis. The story contrasted her fate with the guy who ran the Mortgage Department at Bear Sterns. He made something like 8 Million Dollars last year and seemed to suffer no punishment despite being the guy who ran the department that caused Bear Sterns to belly up.

      Why does the home care taker only make 12 dollars an hour and has not seen a raise since well before the fiscal crisis began? The United States has a rapidly aging population and we are going to need more people who take care of the elderly. No one can argue with a straight face that her job is unnecessary. Perhaps it is not quite skilled labor but there should still be a wage premium for necessary jobs.

        Quote  Link

      Report

    • Or her contrast her to me.

      I graduated law school in 2011. According to the statistics, only 55 percent of people who graduated law school in my year have jobs that require bar passage. Luckily I am one of these people.

      My job is on contract but it pays very well. Surely my firm could probably charge less because of the alleged overglut of recent law school graduates. Some firms have been trying to take advantage of this. Yet my firm luckily does not.

        Quote  Link

      Report

  7. Its also worth pointing out- again- that Wal-Mart only exists in its present form, due to the legal and regulatory structure that the taxpayers have constructed and pay to maintain and enforce.

    I say this in anticipation of the properety rights/ contract rights argument, that the labor agreement between workers and Wal-Mart is not the taxpayer’s business. The taxpayers have every right to ask if Wal-Mart’s very existance is in our benefit and if so, under what terms we allow them to operate.

      Quote  Link

    Report

      • I phrased it deliberately to make the point that Wal-Mart in its present form, has no right to exist.
        The corporate form of business has no natural right to exist- it was a legal fiction, a thing that we the taxpayers created for the sole purpose of being aconvenience to us, to facilitate our needs for commerce.

        We could, with a stroke of the pen, abolish it tomorrow and Wal-Mart revert back to a sole proprietorship.

        Further, as we’ve discussed on many other threads, all large corporations in America exist atop a massive pile of direct and indirect subsidies, market distortions, and outright welfare, given to them by the taxpayers.

        We have every right to ask if all of this privilege we create is in our best interests.

          Quote  Link

        Report

  8. This post is like a fly trap for those drawn to folk theory economics.

    1) Walmart pays market wages for labor. That is what they should pay if we want to optimize productive efficiency and prosperity.

    2). If you think market wages are too low, then I recommend rectifying it with non market fixes. Let’s see to it that these working poor get their fair share of the almost trillion dollars in means tested redistribution we spend each year in the US.

    3) Beware oversimplified models on the effect of coercively higher wage rates. If Walmart doubled wages, the market would respond not by getting the same people higher wages, but by different people becoming Walmart employees. You would just get substantially higher qualified and skilled people filling the slots. The major effect would be to subsidize skilled workers and encourage them to underutilize their skills.

    4). Beware oversimplified models of profits. The long term effects of raising rates cannot be paid out of long term lower profit margins. The market will respond to this and the net result will be less stores, higher prices, fewer employees and less competition. Profits are dynamic signals in markets.

    5). Considering the tone of this post and those on the left and their anti market, anti walmsrt vitriol, I cannot begin to imagine why the Walton’s donated money to the GOP. This is like a case study on why we want to encourage political contributions. To combat illogical pandering like this.

    6). Is anyone surprised that Walmart wants to reduce wages? You do know that this is what employers are expected to do to manage costs, right? Managers are paid to optimize costs vs benefits. If anyone thinks they have done so pooly, the market response is to prove it by doing so better yourself. Which you can do by working for or investing in Target.

      Quote  Link

    Report

    • 1) Walmart pays market wages for labor. That is what they should pay if we want to optimize productive efficiency and prosperity.

      This is a truism, and tells us nothing.

      It’s also why we need a strong labor movement. “We’re just paying you the market rate” is a pretty sorry excuse for paying people shit, but it seems to work for people who feel like the market determines the value of everything. The nice thing about the labor movement is that it says, “You know, we’re worth more than that to you, and we’re going to put pressure on you to pay us what we’re worth to you, not what you can get away with in the ‘market.'” This isn’t folk economics, it’s just not the facile economics of the “market” pure and simple.

        Quote  Link

      Report

        • Roger, I actually think you don’t understand them. At a given price-point, Wal-Mart generates a certain amount of profit. But how to divide that between workers and management? There are multiple viable equilibria on that one. Unfortunately, we’re in the one where the Waltons earn billions and wages for their employees are low. The way to move to a better equilibrium is to enhance the bargaining power of the employees relative to management–hence, unions.

            Quote  Link

          Report

          • Dan and Chris,

            As I mentioned to Kimmi below, the wage levels paid to workers can be viewed as a theory of how to meet consumer needs. Target’s theory might be let’s pay slightly higher wages and get better workers and see how that works. The theories then play out in the market. Profits are the signals that consumers give on how well those needs were met. They are like applause. Saying Walmart is wrong in a reasonably well functioning market is like saying the audience is wrong in their enjoyment of a concert.

            There are ramifications of viewing this as a struggle between the owners and the employees, it is inherently an act of cooperation, not conflict, with supply and demand determining the optimal weights. Assuming that we could take x from annual profits and move it to employees, ignores the effects longer term of lower expected risk adjusted rates of returns. This will reduce capital investment, numbers of stores, competition in the industry, raise prices and lower the number of required workers.

            Yes, short term we can enact a wealth transfer by taking from net worth of the Waltons and shifting it coercively to our favored groups. But this is called exploitation. I believe I have no right demanding they fund my conscience. Any fair system would not pick out the one party that is doing the most for those workers (paying them voluntarily agreed to wages) and penalize this by forcing them to pay above market wages. It isn’t just wrong and partial, it is counterproductive. It penalizes job creation.

              Quote  Link

            Report

            • Heh. About the time you get around to explaining how Walmart employees can be paid so little that they qualify for food stamps, then we can get back to the much-hated Wealth Transfer line of rhetoric. I’d prefer not to have my tax dollars subsidise goddamn Walmart’s wage structure.

                Quote  Link

              Report

              • The alternative is to demand that the one person actually providing the job pay for your conscience. There is a cost to manipulating markets, and the cost plays out in less effective markets, and since market’s create the wealth that we use to fund our conscience, this is very dangerous.

                  Quote  Link

                Report

                • Now yesterday was awfully productive, me talking about how Libertarians were trying to reduce friction in the economy. Don’t be posing absurd alternatives.

                  When we want more of something, we subsidise it. When we want less of it, we tax it. That’s the truism, nu? Subsidies are a form of market manipulation. If the taxpayers put Food Stamps in a Walmart employee’s pocket, it’s that much less Walmart has to pay them. Simple economic fact. In point of fact, by keeping its workers below the poverty line, they pay fewer taxes and their employees remain on assistance.

                  So whose conscience is being mollified by subsidising Walmart? Not mine.

                    Quote  Link

                  Report

            • Roger, ideally it would be “inherently an act of cooperation, not conflict,” but of course it’s not when the employer holds all of the leverage. That’s why unions can act as a counterbalancing force, and, dare I say, as one that can quite easily be considered a part of the market. To say that wages are at “market level” simply because that’s what wages are is to miss that point (and many others). Sure, Walmart’s profits would drop, or their prices would go up (the latter is probably more likely). If the prices went up, and then their profits dropped, we could have a conversation, but ya know, unions have been known to take wage cuts when profits fall.

                Quote  Link

              Report

                • Naturally. Refusing to hire men because they’re more resistant to blackmail is all a happy daffy supply and demand thing.
                  “Hey guys, we’re going to lower your wages!”
                  –Hell, no!
                  “Hey girls, we’re going to lower your wages!”
                  –my kids still have to eat, don’t they…?

                  Exploiting psychology is all part of supply and demand

                  How is chocolate like sex?
                  –a better Zen koan for you.
                  Not that I expect you to get it.

                    Quote  Link

                  Report

                • Roger, I didn’t claim that wages are set by leverage. However, there are two groups who have interest in wage levels, and often one of those groups has all of the leverage, or power, or whatever you want to call it, such that the only “market factors” that play a role in wage-setting are those related to the interests of that group.

                    Quote  Link

                  Report

                  • Chris,
                    This would be true in a market of one employer. In a market of lots of employers, wages are set not by the lowest wage that the employer can imagine but by the lowest wage that is simultaneously too high for another employer to entice the worker away. That is where supply meets demand.

                    And yes, this stuff is very complicated and above my pay grade. Every time I post my comments I realize that James K or Nob or James H or Brandon will correct me, and sometimes they do, and when I dig into it I usually find they were right and I was wrong. Damn! That said, the only way I can learn is to try to say it and then read their push back.

                      Quote  Link

                    Report

                    • Roger, except, as others have noted on this thread, the employer end works more efficiently when there are more employers too. It’s not as simple as the lowest wage they can pay without losing their employees to other employers, because the other employers aren’t the only variable in the equation. Labor is another variable, and one that can, by raising that lowest wage, raise the wages throughout the market.

                        Quote  Link

                      Report

                    • Chris,

                      Could you clarify please? I am assuming lots of prospective workers and employers and that the competitive cooperative dynamic leads toward full employment.

                      Raising the lowest wage, by such things as a minimum wage or a coercive union, would lead to more unemployment and lower net productivity and wealth. The key to a more prosperous working class pretty much comes out of increased productivity. Productivity is the path to prosperity. Not workers fooling themselves about solidarity.

                        Quote  Link

                      Report

                    • Roger,

                      Raising the lowest wage, by such things as a minimum wage or a coercive union, would lead to more unemployment and lower net productivity and wealth. The key to a more prosperous working class pretty much comes out of increased productivity. Productivity is the path to prosperity. Not workers fooling themselves about solidarity.

                      This is false, likely because the paragraph that precedes it is false. Again, look at the effects of unions in the first 60 years of the last century.

                        Quote  Link

                      Report

                    • Chris,

                      US Incomes and standards of living are substantially higher now than then. And the real gains have been in less developed nations.

                      Chris, I know this sounds goofy and all , but the past decade was the best decade ever for humanity and average incomes. By a long shot, by a country mile. This isn’t as good as it can get, but it is the best it has ever been.

                        Quote  Link

                      Report

                  • Hostess. Even the Teamsters told them not to strike. And now the union is complaining that Hostess was mismanaged. Well of course they were, which is exactly why it was a stupid time to strike. When you’re chained to a clumsy person at cliff’s edge, you don’t give them a push.

                      Quote  Link

                    Report

                    • And its not like the management had demonstrated any particular skill in running the company profitably.
                      From what I’ve read, that management team couldn’t run a whorehouse on a Navy base.

                        Quote  Link

                      Report

                    • Hostess (the company) was also a victim of leveraged equity investing Bain style. New investors, investing borrowed money, transferring that debt to company while paying themselves back, plundering pensions, etc.

                      That, btw, leaves taxpayers on the hook for the pensions.

                        Quote  Link

                      Report

                    • Hostess hasn’t been without its problems over the years. To blame their current demise on Private Equity is to purposely misread the facts. For decades the American eating habits have been to replace sugary bleached foods with more whole wheat, sugar free offerings. Yes everyone (except me) might cheat now and then and have a Twinkie now and then, but that’s nothing to hang a business hat on.

                      IF the union wanted to keep their jobs (5000 of them) AND wanted to keep their brethren not in the same union (13,000) employed , they could have accepted some concessions. Of course by not doing so they sure showed Hostess didn’t they? The word stupid doesn’t even begin to describe some people.

                        Quote  Link

                      Report

                    • Ward-
                      Your first paragraph describes how the management targeted the wrong product to the wrong market;
                      Yet this fundamental business error could have been- should have been- overcome by the workers taking a pay cut?

                      Is that really your argument?

                        Quote  Link

                      Report

                    • Other companies are doing well in the bakery business, companies NOT saddled with addled employment contracts as Hostess was. Those contracts paid over $65/hr plus unsustainable pension benefits. The word unsustainable is one that needs to make it into the vernacular of the liberal lexicon. Companies CAN NOT survive on unsustainable business practices. Governments CAN NOT survive on unsustainable practices either, although being able to print money and field armies gives them a bit more “runway” as the VC’s would call it.

                      And Nob is wrong about the Teamsters, they are no longer part of the AFL-CIO and /had/ agreed to concessions. Let’s talk about those concessions shall we? The unintentionally funny part of this scene was the antiquated work rules the Teamsters operated under, wherein delivery trucks would not commingle different Hostess products.

                      Unions have driven companies out of business before, they will continue to do so in the future. There is no antidote for stupidity. 18,000 people are unemployed because one of the unions at Hostess was at least as stupid as the management. Certainly 20 years ago they could have started working on better products and marketing if they hadn’t been making unsustainable concessions to their unions. Unions have ZERO interest in the long term viability of the companies they work for, they are only selfish interest agents, always have been, always will be. The rest is just window dressing.

                        Quote  Link

                      Report

                    • Lib, just like with the auto industry, when times are good mgt makes deals with unions that are mathematically and fiscally unsound. Would mgt have made those decisions in the /absence/ of the unions applying pressure? I leave the answer as an exercise for the student.

                        Quote  Link

                      Report

                    • Ward, shouldn’t that be a minority’s right, if their absence is crucial enough to the company that the company cannot survive without them? If a small company of seven has one superstar programmer, should that one guy (a minority) be prevented from threatening to leave without a raise?

                      If you think that the employees ought to have to act as a single unit, either they all strike or none do, then that’s a big union argument.

                        Quote  Link

                      Report

                    • I’m agreeing with you, Ward. It’s one thing for a corporation’s management to use corporate assets to influence an election — that’s protected free speech. But for a corporation’s employees to conspire to try to increase their wages? That should be a RICO violation.

                        Quote  Link

                      Report

                    • I think everyone’s missing my point about Hostess.

                      1. I agree that mismanagement is the reason for Hostess being in dire straits. I don’t really know whether it was sheer stupidity, inability to adapt to changing American dietary patterns, private equity, or what, but for purposes here that doesn’t matter–call it all management, and say it’s the reason Hostess already went through bankruptcy and was struggling in recovery.

                      2. I understand that Hostess’s employees had already made concessions. I also understand that Hostess had imposed unilateral changes (approved by a judge) in the contract that cut employee’s benefits even more.

                      3. When your employer is that close to the wall, what does a rational union do? The Teamsters said, take it, shut up, and come back to demand more when the company actually recovers (I may be paraphrasing a bit there). The Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers’ International Union (best union name ever!) instead made demands that led the firm’s owners to decide that actually closing the business down was their best option. And instead of getting anything remotely like they asked for, the workers all lost their jobs.

                      Clawback suggests the workers rationally “decided they’d be better off working somewhere else, so declined the offer.” No. Any worker who decided they’d be better off working somewhere else would have quit and gone looking for a job. What they actually did was to ensure elimination of the job itself. That’s a substantively different thing.

                      I’m not letting management off the hook here, but as I said, if you’re at the edge of a cliff and you’re chained to a clumsy person, you don’t push them.

                        Quote  Link

                      Report

                    • The workers evidently decided their prospects for finding other jobs, combined with their judgment of the expected value of holding out for a reasonable offer (i.e., the value of a successful strike times the probability of success) exceeded the value of accepting the crap management offer. Funny how economic actors are assumed to be generally rational except when they consist of some hated group.

                        Quote  Link

                      Report

                    • Clawback, that doesn’t explain why instead of just leaving their jobs they actually destroyed them. If I decided my job was no longer worth the pay, and that I had better prospects elsewhere, I’d resign, not make sure the job disappeared.

                        Quote  Link

                      Report

                    • If I decided my job was no longer worth the pay, and that I had better prospects elsewhere, I’d resign …

                      But that’s what they did. They just did it collectively, which they have every right to do.

                      … not make sure the job disappeared.

                      This is incoherent. The company is free to keep making Twinkies without the workers if it so chooses.

                        Quote  Link

                      Report

                    • “This is incoherent. The company is free to keep making Twinkies without the workers if it so chooses.”

                      Is it? I am not an expert on labor, but many of the reports I read made it seem like the company had to figure it out with the labor or they wouldn’t be able to staff the plant. Are there any requirements that they work with union labor? Was no one willing to cross the picket line? These are genuine questions… I’ve never been a part of a labor or worked in a union shop.

                        Quote  Link

                      Report

                    • It’s not i coherent at all. Management said “We’re going to go under unless we get these concessions”” and the Union said “Fish you, you’re lying. If things are so bad, why did you all give yourself raises?” It turned out the management wasn’t lying. This time. And they gave themselves raises because, you know, they could.

                        Quote  Link

                      Report

                    • Kazzy, proceeding without the union workers would have been complicated but possible. The company chose not to attempt it, which suggests they determined doing so would not be economic. Which in turn suggests they decided they cannot produce and sell Twinkies economically enough to attract qualified workers, union or none.

                      You’ll note none of this fits in with some “the union destroyed the company” trope.

                        Quote  Link

                      Report

                    • Mike, the decision to close was made by the company, not the workers. That it was preceded by a threat no more places the onus on the workers than my saying “your money or your life” before murdering you would make you responsible for your own murder.

                        Quote  Link

                      Report

                    • Kazzy,

                      I agree. Management should have had the freedom to renegotiate contracts or find new employees. If they in actuality did have this freedom, then so be it, the market hypothesis lost out in the competition of trying to serve customers. If they did not have this freedom, then they had their hands tied behind their backs, and we limited the responsiveness of the market.

                        Quote  Link

                      Report

                    • It seems to me that companies should be able to hire as they like (with certain limitations… no “Irish need not apply” rules) and employees should be able to organize as they like. I am sure there are real reasons why it is not quite that simple. However, it does appear to the untrained eye that it is needlessly complex.

                      Ultimately, if you can’t run a profitable business, you probably should go under. I mean, it’s not like we have the mayors of major cities putting forth legislation specifically targeted at certain industry…oh… wait…

                        Quote  Link

                      Report

                • And they’ve been known to push their firms over the cliff by refusing to take them.

                  The factory’s closing because it’s not profitable enough and the owner won’t invest in upgrading it!

                  Creative destruction is capitalism at work.

                  The factory’s closing because the bank won’t renew the company’s line of credit!

                  The bank’s is in business to make a profit; it’s not a charity.

                  The factory’s closing because the union won’t accept the latest round of pay cuts!

                  Fishing unions, always destroying jobs!

                    Quote  Link

                  Report

            • It is truly amazing that you can discuss the poverty wages the Waltons pay their employees (a practice that gives them a share of Walmart profits sufficient to make the Waltons among the wealthiest Americans out there), and somehow conclude that transferring some of their net worth to those employees would be exploitation!

              Sorry. I just can’t see this bunch of manipulative plutocrats as the victims here. T

              As to capitalism, the union movement started in this country precisely because of things like this. If you think unions are counterproductive and socialist and whatever, then it would behoove you not to defend the sort of business practices that ultimately lead to workers uniting.

                Quote  Link

              Report

              • Dragon,

                I do not support exploitation from any side. I dont support the Walton’s using force against employees or vice versa. Both lead to a worse world. The proven solution to this issue is to set wages based upon supply and demand, and supplement it with safety nets, public and private.

                  Quote  Link

                Report

        • Roger, I know you don’t, and that’s why I called your economics “facile.” It’s a convenient way of treating avoiding having to deal with real problems, and even suggesting that they aren’t the moral problems that they are.

          But, given that I know what happens when labor movements are strong, I don’t have to accept “facile” economics that treat wages as a simple product of a labor market.

            Quote  Link

          Report

          • Chris,

            I think you not ought to call Roger’s economic facile, and claim your approach isn’t folk economics, until you’ve put some serious study into the field. I know you’re aware of the concept of folk psychology, and I’m sure you’re aware of how little understanding of your field people who’ve never bothered with a serious study of it have.

              Quote  Link

            Report

                • James, what I find odd is that when someone else says what I’m saying (Mike S, for example, down thread), Roger has no problem accepting it. I can’t help but think that his take on my economic knowledge has nothing to do with my economic knowledge or his (which, I now suspect, is probably about as impoverished as mine).

                    Quote  Link

                  Report

                    • You’re no expert on this stuff? You talk like you are, so often saying that others absolutely are wrong, that they don’t get concepts that they absolutely must get, that you are absolutely right about, that there’s no chance you are wrong apply just as you think they do in the situation at hand. I would say that kind of talk requires the confidence of an expert in the subject-matter of his expertise, except that, especially in a field like economics that relies so heavily on stylized assumptions about behavior, but generally as well, in my experience real experts tend not to display it quite like you do. So I guess your behavior comports with your self-description as “no expert.” Perhaps it comports more with “ideologue” or “polemicist.”

                        Quote  Link

                      Report

                    • Speaking as someone who argues with Roger a great deal, I’d rather have someone directly oppose a point generally, then retreat specifically. Makes for a sounder debate, I think. The Devil is in the details as he usually is, but so are the angels who dance on the head of a pin.

                        Quote  Link

                      Report

          • But, given that I know what happens when labor movements are strong, I don’t have to accept “facile” economics that treat wages as a simple product of a labor market.

            Sure, unions can cartelize the labor market, and that changes the price and market-clearing quantity of the labor market for their industry. Every introductory economics textbook has a section on monopolistic markets, and how they differ from competitive markets. Specifically, they tend to result in higher market-clearing prices and more producer surplus, but also deadweight loss and lower market-clearing quantities.

            No one’s saying that unions don’t change the dynamics of the labor market. We’re saying that those changes are not good.

              Quote  Link

            Report

        • Me and my liberal friends were saying this just the other day, if only there were a business pro who could drop by and explain to us- slowly and clearly, mind you- How Business Works.
          Maybe even give us a primer in Econ 101 (“when demand rises and supply falls, prices A) Rise or, B) Fall . We can never get that straight!)

          And sure enough, here we go!

            Quote  Link

          Report

      • It’s also why we need a strong labor movement. “We’re just paying you the market rate” is a pretty sorry excuse for paying people shit

        There’s nothing to excuse. An employer makes an offer, and potential employees are free to take it or not. If the employee doesn’t have any better offers, that’s not the employer’s fault.

        The bottom line is that paying above-market wages is charity, not something that employers owe to their employees. The idea that there’s some connection between employing someone and having an obligation to give him charity is sheer non sequitur. The logic doesn’t even rise to the level of “facile”—there’s nothing there at all.

          Quote  Link

        Report

        • Here’s a brief primer of employment theory. To get money to cross the counter and into a cash register (the entire point of capitalism) someone has to ring up a sale, or these days, manage the cashier-bot at the self-checkout.

          An employer can only justify hiring someone if there’s some monetary benefit to the proposition. The employee must agree to work for somewhat less value than he brings into the firm. To illustrate this principle, when a gangster wants to extort money from a firm, one option is to featherbed: create a job for someone who does no meaningful or profitable work. Salesmen work on commission but they’re worth every penny if they can create value. But they still need a base salary, be it ever so low, to keep them in peanut butter between sales.

          But the employee is not privy to the accounting which goes into the justification for his hire. Nor would the salesman know the true cost of production of the goods he sells. Unless you’re waist deep in the accounting, it’s hard to know what the margin actually is. Nor would anyone know how much anyone else is being paid, unless others told him: in America, knowing everyone’s salary is very rare.

          There’s simple way to short circuit the Marxian employer-employee conflict. It’s often seen in Europe, where it’s actually the law in countries such as Germany. If an employee were on the board of directors, the employees would know the true state of affairs. This goes both ways: the employee-director could come back to the employees and say “Folks, times are not good, to keep this firm afloat we must cut salary costs for a while, until we get into a better patch.” But when times are good again, the board remembers the employees and rewards them for sticking it out through tough times.

          Employees are not cashier-bots. Employers aren’t ATMs. When I hear people talk about Market Rate for employees, there’s no market without meaningful information to support it.

            Quote  Link

          Report

          • Blaise this is where you’re screwed. There is NOTHING stopping a union from plunking some of the billions it collects in dues and BUYING shares in the company. But enough shares and you are /guaranteed/ at least a seat on the BOD. Problem solved

              Quote  Link

            Report

            • I’m not screwed. I just finished the paperwork for my consulting firm, turning the revenue over to the people I trained. Heaven forbid an employer would take an interest in the well-being of his employees, or consider them as valuable assets.

              You’re the one who’s screwed, thinking employees ought to have to buy their way into the good graces of the board.

                Quote  Link

              Report

              • You talk like you have a fishing clue how I run my businesses. I’ve NEVER had employees who didn’t have options to own shares in the company. I’ve also had employees continue buying shares above and beyond the ones they were granted outside of the option program (ie on the open market). I’ve made millionaires out of employees who bought into the business. However I’ve never had union employees either, the very concept of having an adversarial relationship with owners is anathema to me. My employees /are/ owners, so adversarial with me is adversarial with themselves.

                We could make fun of other unions, such as the pilot’s union at United Airlines. They had a crippling ALPA strike WHILE the pilot’s union was the /majority/ shareholder in the company. At the company meeting a pilot stood up and said, “My shares were worth $2.5 million and now they’re worth nothing” and management explained to the pilot how his OWN actions caused that to happen, just so he could get a few thousand a year more in wages. Braindead is as braindead does.

                If unions were such a great idea, unions should own companies and run them the union way. We’re all sitting by with bated breath to see how that all works out. Funny thing is, unions have been around for more than a century and the only outcome of the “union” running things was in the Soviet “Union”. We all know how /that/ particular experiment ended.

                  Quote  Link

                Report

                • Well, my crew of monkeys are pretty happy with the arrangement. Germany has this problem beaten. It’s obvious: put an employee or two on the board, the problem solves itself. You can even outlaw closed unions. Wouldn’t that be great?

                    Quote  Link

                  Report

    • So Roger I’m guessing you should be fully supportive of the employees of Walmart voluntarily organizing to pressure their employer to improve working conditions yes? You’re down with deregulating the old labor laws that currently restrict what activities and strategies labor movements are allowed to use (presuming of course that force and fraud remain illegal of course) yes?

      Also regarding your #2 I believe Elias already observed that Walmart specifically employs the redistribution you’re talking about as part of its employment model.

      But I do agree with you on one thing. Absolutely everyone who possibly can should patronize Target instead of Walmart.

        Quote  Link

      Report

      • North,

        Of course I support non coercive labor organizing in the private sphere. I don’t think it can lead to above market wages, though it may be able to slightly adjust what the market clearing wage plays out to. In other words, voluntary unions are a great idea, but probably not very effective in achieving much higher wages. The key word above was voluntary.

        By the way, I would really value any critiques you or Nob or either of the Patricks provide on this issue. You guys often disagree with the libertarians, but you always know what you are talking about. When you tell me I am wrong, I really listen, because there’s a very real chance you are correct.

          Quote  Link

        Report

            • That would presume the workers were volunteering to do their jobs. Please dispense with that Voluntary/Coercive line of rhetoric. It doesn’t work in the real world. There’s nothing voluntary about stocking shelves.

                Quote  Link

              Report

                  • Chris,

                    In the end, they chose it over entropy. Life requires constant problem solving to survive and thrive. Markets are systems that discover how to cooperate together to meet these needs in a world of entropy and scarce resources. If you master plan the market, you kill off the problem solving capability and the result is poverty, short life spans, and about 6 billion less of us. Please do not do anything to markets until you learn how they work.

                      Quote  Link

                    Report

                    • If you master plan the market, you kill off the problem solving capability and the result is poverty, short life spans, and about 6 billion less of us. Please do not do anything to markets until you learn how they work.

                      And again you’ve essentially created a straw man. No one is suggesting we master plan the economy, but instead that the reigns should be taken off another market force. One that you’ve even admitted is such a force.

                        Quote  Link

                      Report

                    • P.S., I’m trying to stay respectful, but arguing from the position that anyone who disagrees with you doesn’t understand how the market works, is a pretty shitty way of going about things. For one, your view is not the only one even among experts. So if you want to argue that your interlocutors disagree with you simply because they don’t understand economics, you’ve got some legwork to do before that becomes a convincing point in your favor. As it is, it just looks like you’re being dismissive.

                        Quote  Link

                      Report

                    • Heh. You’re already on board for subsidising Walmart’s crap wages. You’ll have to decide which you want, a world where we have equilibrium or one without it. As wages stagnate and executive compensation increases, that’s proof positive we don’t have market equilibrium and soon enough it’s into a death spiral, leading to your Hobbesian Dystopia.

                      Oh, by the way, poverty increases populations, not decreases them. Capitalism always concentrates wealth, no sensible person argues with that. The key to keeping capitalism working is to make sure the money keeps moving from hand to hand, and not into cash glaciers.

                      The Fiscal Cliff is provoking an interesting response on Wall Street. Corporations are currently holding roughly 6-8 trillion dollars in cash reserves: they can’t seem to find anywhere useful to invest that money. But faced with the prospect of higher taxes, they’re now disgorging that money as dividends.

                      That means there’s going to be a torrent of cash entering the economy. Until quite recently, he usual route to deal with that cash was to simply buy back stock. And it’s all going to be taxed, which will give the USA quite a boost. You don’t have to Master Plan the economy. You have to steer it toward some goal.

                        Quote  Link

                      Report

                    • It is not market distortion for unions to negotiate a higher price at which to sell the labor it is offering, no more than it is for a corporation to negotiate a lower price for the products it resells. That is the market. .. but only ideologues think markets, left on their own are inherently efficient,

                        Quote  Link

                      Report

                • Really.

                  And consumers, too. Though I never set food in them if I can help it, more and more I cannot help it because the alternative are no longer available.

                  And manufacturers, too, who chose to go out of business because of WalMart’s requirements for doing business with WalMart and the lack of alternative markets (see above).

                  WalMart. The Norman Bombardini of marketplace solutions.

                    Quote  Link

                  Report

            • Roger, the right to voluntary agreements is not an absolute–for instance, an eight-year-old can’t voluntarily agree to a 40-hour work week, and I can’t make a voluntary agreement to sell myself into slavery even if I had a willing buyer. So the small bit of coercion involved in what you call “non-voluntary unions” frankly doesn’t concern me all that much, when weighed against the large gains in human well-being that would come about from higher levels of unionization.

                Quote  Link

              Report

        • The current “market wages” result, among other things, from the huge disproportion in bargaining power between employees and workers. It seems to me that if you rectify that, the result is still a market wage.

            Quote  Link

          Report

    • 1) Walmart pays market wages for labor. That is what they should pay if we want to optimize productive efficiency and prosperity.

      “Market wages” is a fallacy. Wages are a result of price discovery. Supply/demand, you know, that sort of thing

      2). If you think market wages are too low, then I recommend rectifying it with non market fixes. Let’s see to it that these working poor get their fair share of the almost trillion dollars in means tested redistribution we spend each year in the US.

      Most Walmart employees don’t earn enough to pay taxes.

      3) Beware oversimplified models on the effect of coercively higher wage rates. If Walmart doubled wages, the market would respond not by getting the same people higher wages, but by different people becoming Walmart employees. You would just get substantially higher qualified and skilled people filling the slots. The major effect would be to subsidize skilled workers and encourage them to underutilize their skills.

      They won’t double wages. Walmart is in the commodity business. They don’t sell quality, they sell volume. The only way they could improve wages would be to get off the death spiral of low quality. You have it exactly backward: Costco pays its people more because they compete on quality and volume. Of course, you have to buy a lifetime supply as a minimum sales unit. Just sayin’.

      4). Beware oversimplified models of profits. The long term effects of raising rates cannot be paid out of long term lower profit margins. The market will respond to this and the net result will be less stores, higher prices, fewer employees and less competition. Profits are dynamic signals in markets.

      Profits aren’t the only signal in markets: beware of oversimplification yourself. Walmart’s dumping cash into dividends to avoid higher tax rates. It’s hardly alone in so doing.

      5). Considering the tone of this post and those on the left and their anti market, anti walmsrt vitriol, I cannot begin to imagine why the Walton’s donated money to the GOP. This is like a case study on why we want to encourage political contributions. To combat illogical pandering like this.

      Walmart wanted low tax rates. Such contributions were an investment to that end.

      6). Is anyone surprised that Walmart wants to reduce wages? You do know that this is what employers are expected to do to manage costs, right? Managers are paid to optimize costs vs benefits. If anyone thinks they have done so pooly, the market response is to prove it by doing so better yourself. Which you can do by working for or investing in Target.

      Which takes us full circle. Walmart can reduce wages because it can: so much for “Market Wages”.

        Quote  Link

      Report

      • You pretty much offered the same definition I would use to define “market wages.” Furthermore, I agree with many of your points. Just to clarify, number two relates to the need to ensure that working poor get their fair portion of means tested transfer benefits. My guess is that some of them do already.

          Quote  Link

        Report

          • I believe that if Walmarts wages do not meet my values, that it behooves me and those who agree to subsidize them. Asking Walmart to do so would be counterproductive to enhancing the prosperity of the poor. It would do more harm than good. In this case the moral high ground of paying for my values and the path which is most productive are totally aligned.

              Quote  Link

            Report

            • See, Roger… that’s a fine idea. And we should pay for that social largesse by taxing the crap out of the subset of the population that owns as much wealth as the the bottom 40% combined. That would be the Wal-Mart heirs, BTW.

                Quote  Link

              Report

              • The “wealth” the Walton heirs own is in the form of Walmart stock. Destroy Walmart and you’ve destroyed their wealth base. Tax them to death if you like but there is NO WAY you’ll receive the book value of that stock. Even selling their shares on the open market will drive down the value of the remaining shares, so $10Billion worth of shares will clear the stock market at something like $1B or less. Paper value is just that, paper. Much of the “wealth” of that top 1% looks exactly the same, good on paper, illusionary in reality.

                Bill Gates put a large percentage of his Microsoft stock into the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. They’ve been steadily selling the stock since they had it gifted to them. That has been a headwind against the Microsoft share price, which has been stagnant almost to the day since the foundation was formed.

                The US government owns a goodly chunk of GM. They couldn’t possibly recover their investment if they started selling. Only over much time could it /possibly/ get back to the price at which the gov’t paid for the shares and this was out of BANKRUPTCY! The debt was all cleared off the books already, it was a clean slate (except for the concessions to the unions, but I won’t go there in this tiny column).

                  Quote  Link

                Report

                • To pile on here, at the risk of being labeled a FYIGM toady of the oligarchy (only a matter of time anyway), I’d like to make two observations.

                  (1) If two members of the household were earning $14k each (and such arrangements are common, I’m told) then the combined income of $28k would put that household ahead of 1/3 of the households in the US. I don’t have stats on health insurance coverage, so there is a comparability issue, admittedly.

                  (2) If we were to expropriate the evil Walton clan, and could convert most of it to cash (contra wardsmith) to fund a pay increase for present and future Wal-Mart employees, it would work out to about $1 per hour. If instead, that perpetuity were put towards health insurance, it wouldn’t be enough – it would have to be more than 3 times that (see this).

                  Just trying to scope out the magnitude of this injustice.

                    Quote  Link

                  Report

    • Nearly everything that Wal-Mart sells comes through a port or harbor on the coastline of maerica.
      Nearly all of these ports were constructed by taxpayers.

      Suppose We decided to charge a fee for port use, commensurate with the societal cost that We estimate Wal-Mart is costing Us?

      Suppose We charged a trucking fee for the use of Our roads?

        Quote  Link

      Report

    • There is more to life and decision making than Market Justifcations. There is also ethics, morality, fairness and justice. Abstract notions but important ones that makes us human. Ghandi was onto something when he came up with the creed of no economy/commerce without morality. This is much better than the cheerful praise of The Dismal Science.

      So even if there is a perfectly market justified reason for Wal-Marts compensation practices, they are still morally and ethically wrong and therefore should stop. It is wrong to give people less than a living wage and causes more of a burden on the state. If Libertarians wanted less state than they would support higher living wages for unskilled workers. Of course you maybe you have a secret fantasy of meeting a Robspierre or Trotsky one day.

        Quote  Link

      Report

    • “these working poor get their fair share of the almost trillion dollars in means tested redistribution we spend each year in the US.”

      Well, about half of that trillion (that the right often lies about, implying that we spend a trillion on poverty) is medicaid paid by the states and federal gov’t. It’s not like there’s a bunch of wasted welfare-cash on medicaid that we can just use to help walmart employees.

      A lot of that “means-tested” money is not “welfare to help the poor” but is money that is absolutely necessary to keep the middle class, middle class.

      BTW, Rober Rector -the guy Heritage guy who authored the trillion dollar claim- is a hack and a liar (of sorts.). “In a 1994 congressional hearing, Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation unveiled one of the most repeated sound bites of the 90s: “Since the onset of the War on Poverty, the United States has spent over $5.3 trillion on welfare. But during the same period, the official poverty rate has remained virtually unchanged.” This is totally false; the poverty rate fell from 19 to 11 percent between 1964 and 1973. And the U.S. has spent only $700 billion on AFDC and food stamps since 1962. To get his inflated $5.3 trillion figure, Rector’s “war on poverty” had to include solidly middle class programs like student loans, school lunches, job training, veterans pensions and Medicaid, three-fourths of which goes not to the poor but the elderly and disabled. (6)”

      http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-thinktank.htm

      There is no “welfare” money sitting around to help Walmart workers. We spend very little on the working poor (outside of the bare minimum of medicaid.)

      That will need to change if the Walmartization of society continues apace.

        Quote  Link

      Report

      • Yes, of course the trillion bucks is being greatly spent on the middle class. We tax each other to pay ourselves, with politicians and bureaucrats standing in the middle and laughing at our folly.

        Your desire to fund the working poor by demanding others rise up to the challenge is not very fair, is it?

          Quote  Link

        Report

        • We don’t tax each other to pay each other. We tax each other, with the wealthiest and the upper-middle class paying the most (though that’s at risk) to pay those in the middle-class who might need help at the moment (say a lower-middle class student gets help paying loans or Pell Grants) who will then be more able to pay it back later. (For example, a lower-middle class student gets Pell Grants for Undergrad, does well in life, and then later becomes someone who pays more in taxes.)

          I think gov’t programs that help the middle class are good and necessary. But they are beside the point.

          Rector, the author of the trillion dollars for welfare dishonesty, seems to think all of those middle class programs count as welfare for the poor, or at least that’s what he wants the rubes to hear.

          The truth is, about 5 percent of the federal budget is spent on the non-working poor: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/02/how-much-do-we-spend-nonworking-poor

          It is harder to calculate how much is spent on the working poor as opposed to the those who are higher up in the middle class.

          My point is simple: as inequality increases, if we don’t keep increasing the minimum wage, if current trends continue, we will have to start spending a lot more on the working poor. And as we do that, Walmart will be -as others have pointed out- able to pay less.

          I think the solution we’ll eventually get is this: Everyone in America will get a basic living wage and basic healthcare along with the option of getting subsidized loans (paid back dependant upon how much you earn after your education.) You will then get more money on top of your government cash if you take a job at Walmart or some such, adding up to a good-living wage. If your job pays enough, you will forfeit your basic living wage, but you won’t care. If you continually don’t work at all for more than a year and lazily collect your basic living wage, you will be entered into a selective service (maybe for 1 year, not all military, maybe also peace corps or teachers aid or whatever, where you will be trained, and people with children will have to be given selective service options that allow them to stay with their child) lottery or you will be given the option to forfeit your basic living wage.

          Maybe.

            Quote  Link

          Report

        • “to fund the working poor by demanding others rise up to the challenge is not very fair, is it?”

          No, it is fair to have a system that redistributes wealth so as to benefit the worst off.

          Stanford Encyclopedia, Rawls on redistribution, fairness, and justice:

          “Rawls’s second principle of justice has two parts. The first part, fair equality of opportunity, requires that citizens with the same talents and willingness to use them have the same educational and economic opportunities regardless of whether they were born rich or poor. “In all parts of society there are to be roughly the same prospects of culture and achievement for those similarly motivated and endowed” (JF, p. 44). So for example if we assume that natural endowments and willingness are evenly distributed across children born into different social classes, then within any type of occupation (generally specified) we should find that roughly one quarter of people in that occupation were born into the top 25% of the income distribution, one quarter were born into the second-highest 25% of the income distribution, one quarter were born into the second-lowest 25%, and one-quarter were born into the lowest 25%. Since class of origin is a morally arbitrary fact about citizens, justice does not allow class of origin to turn into unequal real opportunities for education or meaningful work.

          The second part of the second principle is the difference principle, which regulates the distribution of wealth and income. With these goods inequalities can produce a greater total product: higher wages can cover the costs of training and education, for example, and can provide incentives to fill jobs that are more in demand. The difference principle requires that social institutions be arranged so that any inequalities of wealth and income work to the advantage of those who will be worst off. The difference principle requires, that is, that financial inequalities be to everyone’s advantage, and specifically to the greatest advantage of those advantaged least…

          The difference principle gives expression to the idea that natural endowments are undeserved. A citizen does not merit more of the social product simply because she was lucky enough to be born with gifts that are in great demand. Yet this does not mean that everyone must get the same shares. The fact that citizens have different talents and abilities can be used to make everyone better off. In a society governed by the difference principle citizens regard the distribution of natural endowments as an asset that can benefit all. Those better endowed are welcome to use their gifts to make themselves better off, so long as their doing so also contributes to the good of those less well endowed. “In justice as fairness,” Rawls says, “men agree to share one another’s fate.” (TJ, 102)”

            Quote  Link

          Report

          • Shazbot,

            I would not agree to live in that society, so it wouldn’t be fair to me would it? My guess is Walmart wouldn’t agree to it either, since you seem to be picking them at random in a totally partial way after the fact rather than before.

            I believe a better definition of fairness is as follows. A game or transaction is minimally fair if the players agree to the rules. To make it more fair, provide multiple alternatives and allow them to choose the best game or transaction for them. Thus you can get people with different values to agree with playing or interacting with others .

            If the players choose Rawls rules, then they will indeed be playing a fair game according to them ,and that is what matters. My guess is you and Rawls would choose his system. I would choose another based upon what really seems to work in the real world.

              Quote  Link

            Report

            • “I would not agree to live in that society, so it wouldn’t be fair to me would it.”

              So your definition of fairness is: X is fair if X maximizes Roger’s self-interest?

              I just took a break from the family, but that is crazy, no?

                Quote  Link

              Report

            • Sorry, I didn’t read the rest of your comment. You have a definition of fairness (which is a worse one than I thought).

              Rawls says the rules we select for society (i.e. how to organize the basic structure of society: the nature of democracy, economic issues, the extent of property rights) are fair to everyone if everyone would choose those rules (on the basis of pure rational self-interest) from behind the veil of ignorance. (The veil prevents you from knowing who you are in society, i.e. that you are rich Roger and not a poor black, blind person born to alcoholic, child-molesting parents.)

              The problem with your way of choosing rules is that no one would agree to any set of rules. The powerful would select rules that benefit them, the poor would slect rules that benefit the poor, but no set of rules could be agreed to by everyone. If we accept your method for determining fair rules, then there are no fair rules, because there are no rules that everyone would agree to.

              But from behind the veil of ignorance, everyone will view society similarly, because everyone is rational, self-interested, and equally ignorant of their own situation.

              But from behind the veil of ignorance, we would be very worried about being the worst off in society, so we would want opportunities and the resources needed to get those opportunities to the worst off.

              Happy Thanksgiving from a Rawlsian.

              Back to dinner.

                Quote  Link

              Report

              • Shazbot (and Murali if out there)

                I basically agree with Rawls veil, with caveats. First, what I like about it is that it leads to impartial rules. The classic example is the procedural fairness of dividing a pie… You cut and I will choose.

                Let me clarify how my views of fairness possibly* differ from Rawls’:

                I believe people have different values and will thus tend to choose different social arrangements that meet their values from behind the veil. This implies more decentralized institutional arrangements.

                I believe many people will tend to choose outcomes based upon lifetime expected value adjusted for time preference rather than at a point of time.

                I suspect I place a lot more value on incentives and the dynamic affects of actions and interactions. How we distribute the spoils of our efforts is the most important decision in what and how we create. And creating value, over the long term eats distributing value for launch. In other words, a creative society over the long haul is going to be unimaginably better for most than a more equal but uncreative society.

                I suspect most people would choose the society which would allow them to optimize their expected lifetime earnings, rather than minimize downside risk. In other words, I believe most people are less risk averse.

                Finally, I think people need to be able to choose not upon intellectual rationalizations, but based upon how societies actually work. Societies are complex adaptive systems, and how we think they will work in a thought process is not how they really work. Thus I would choose based upon empirical evidence of how people actually tend to perform according to my values.

                As to your argument that people would not ever agree to rules, this is both incorrect and yet at the same time more true for Rawls’ rule set than for mine. Why?

                First, rules and institutions tend to evolve. We can influence them in directions that make them more like Rawls’ or more like mine. Many institutional arrangements are established between two people and expanded out. I agree voluntarily to play with Dave, and he agrees to play with me. Agree to rules and others can join in.

                Over the last ten thousand years, millions of games and institutional and social arrangements have evolved, expanded, competed with each other, died out, flourished and proven themselves. Of course the rich would love to have rules that give them advantage, and the poor look for the same. Some societies have discovered ways for the two to work together voluntarily. One side cuts, the other chooses.

                * I say possibly, because I find Rawls, confusing, and really do not care whether he agrees with me or not, I seek wisdom on fairness not wisdom on what he thinks.

                  Quote  Link

                Report

                • Some basic Rawls stuff:

                  “I believe people have different values and will thus tend to choose different social arrangements that meet their values from behind the veil. This implies more decentralized institutional arrangements.”

                  Rawls idea is that X is fair if self-interested choosers would choose X from behind the veil. So, in that sense, their moral “values” are irrelevant to what is fair. This is one the advantages of Rawls’ theory.

                  “And creating value, over the long term eats distributing value for launch. In other words, a creative society over the long haul is going to be unimaginably better for most than a more equal but uncreative society.”

                  I’m not sure I understand this. I think you mean that socialism kills incentives and creativity, i.e. that we need to reward motivation and good choices and “winning” in economics. I think Rawls agrees. But we can redistribute goods and still have markets that reward winners and punish losers. In fact, if we took away all inheritance, the parents of rich kids would be more motivated to work, and the children of poor kids might feel more empowered (instead of believing, accurately, that their odds of success are grim) to compete. But to organize society so that there is fair competition amongst all requires distributing wealth from the top to the bottom. It also requires regulations to prevent the wealthy from gaming the system or passing off externalities to everyone else, etc. It also means redistributing resources and opportunities and wealth to those who were born unlucky to have certain disadvantages: born into poverty, bad education, disability, bad parenting, etc.

                  “n other words, I believe most people are less risk averse.”

                  I’m sympathetic to this criticism. But it misses the point. See here and Harsayani’s critiques on risk aversion.
                  http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/original-position/

                  In brief, you are somewhat risk averse if you -before the ACA- were young and bought health insurance. Different levels of risk aversion are all plausibly rational, but all Rawls needs to prove that the difference principle is what you would choose is that you would want, out of self-interest, to insure yourself against being born into horrible poverty or disability (or both) without some aid from the state. If you sometimes purchase insurance (or save your own cash as a kind of insurance) against massive loss, then you are risk averse enough to choose the difference principle from behind the veil.

                  “Finally, I think people need to be able to choose not upon intellectual rationalizations, but based upon how societies actually work. Societies are complex adaptive systems, and how we think they will work in a thought process is not how they really work. Thus I would choose based upon empirical evidence of how people actually tend to perform according to my values.”

                  Rawls agrees. From behind the veil of ignorance, you see society as it is. (You just don’t know who you are.) So, you know for instance that markets maximize overall wealth, including creating wealth at the bottom for the worst off. But you know that a safety net will not destroy the market and benefits the worst off. Etc. Etc.

                  The rest of your post is pretty much incomprehensible to me.

                    Quote  Link

                  Report

                  • To the extent Rawls does agree with me, I think he is right.

                    I have not yet picked out Harsayanis critiques, as the article is really long and complicated. I will try to work through it though.

                    As I stated I totally agree people would wisely choose a society with safety nets and with strong incentives for creating value.

                      Quote  Link

                    Report

            • A game or transaction is minimally fair if the players agree to the rules.

              But which set of rules is the one that people ought to agree on? That’s been your argument all along, actually – that people ought to adopt and play by different rules. Take unions as an example: the rules union members accept are that they get to leverage higher wages out of employers by collectively bargaining. The employer in turn accepts a rule whereby management gets to leverage lower wages out of employees by breaking the union, or hiring scabs or shipping jobs overseas. The problem is that management’s rules – that they permitted to seek and achieve the lowest possible labor rate – doesn’t require any agreement on the part of labor to be acted on.

              Of course, most liberals, it seems to me, are inclined to think that the desire of management to maximize profits isn’t negotiable, or contingent, or up for a public vote, or part of a contract. It isn’t an agreed upon rule, but an acceptance of a basic fact. But how that desire manifests is negotiable. (Those are the rules we’re talking about here, yes?) And liberals think that if management’s desire to maximize profits is entirely open ended, then labor needs some leverage to act as a counter-balance and make the game fair. And that means permitting labor to seek the highest wages possible thru collective bargaining, but other means as well.

                Quote  Link

              Report

              • SW,
                Just to clarify, I think people playing the same game need to play by the same rules.  I am encouraging as decentralized institutions as possible or practical so that those with different values can play different “games” with like minded individuals.  That said, over time, some rules prove themselves over time and become the standards.  Some rules need to be society wide.  To further complicate it, sometimes standards are better when set consistently so that people can experiment together without creating chaos.  

                I believe the rules that lead to the best long term prosperity of humans in regards to wage negotiations is loosely grouped around mutual agreement and open entry/exit and competition. This is a hypothesis on my part though, and I recognize both that I could be wrong or that it could be wrong tomorrow, or that it may not match others values. As such, I think it is good that people experiment around this rule set, especially if they can do so without using coercion. 

                I am of course fine with them bargaining collectively, or striking collectively. I am also fine with management firing them collectively.  It is a voluntary contract of employment and should be so on both sides. And the should comes because I see all economics facts pointing out that this leads to more happy smiling prosperous humans that spend their days debating on the Internet as opposed to toiling all day in the fields before they return to their clay huts. 

                The reason wage negotiations are fair is that they do have the same leverage. Employees are competing with other prospective employees for jobs.  Employers are competing with employers to hire people.  Characterizing it the other way is silly. Does this make sense?

                  Quote  Link

                Report

  9. If Wal-Mart raised wages, more people would apply to work there. Some of them would have more impressive qualifications than the current employees. “Job gentrification” would put them out of work.

    If that sounds good to you, by all means, advocate it.

      Quote  Link

    Report

      • Or, if you feel there’s a better way to improve the lot of the working poor, write about it! You say that you favor a functioning welfare state, and I take you at your word; but you almost never seem to get angry about the plight of the poor, the way you do about drug policy or drones. You don’t spend that much time writing about it, either; it’s usually an aside in a post, designed to deflect liberal criticism rather than bring about actual change (and the fact that the changes you favor are fundamental transformations that most likely won’t ever happen completely makes you even more vulnerable to this charge).

        In short, Jason, I believe that you favor “a no-deductions negative income tax with a substantial guaranteed minimum income, minus the entire welfare state”. But I also believe that it’s not a high priority for you; that you’re willing to sacrifice almost nothing to gain progress on this front. I don’t believe that someone trying to get by on $14K pisses you off the way that many other issues do, or the way that it obviously does anger Elias.

        And that’s why liberals and libertarians can’t agree on the welfare state. Not because our visions are logically incompatible–if we both wanted to, these are the kind of differences that could be hammered out in any form of coalition politics. But because we place drastically different weights on different priorities.

          Quote  Link

        Report

        • If for whatever reason they find their current jobs less desirable, sure. I had a friend who quit a high-paying job in the software industry to work retail. The heterogeneity of preferences is easy to underestimate.

            Quote  Link

          Report

          • I’m fine with accepting a certain amount of heterogeneity of preference, but if you think a.) the market is rational, and b.) people will leave better opportunities for worse one’s en masse because of a slight shift in the short-term attractiveness of the worse opportunity, then there’s something wrong in your thinking.

            <