Instead of falling into a pointless debate about whole who loves labor more non sequitur, e.g., those whose preferred system of economic organization creates ever growing inequalities of wealth or those who would like to find away to reverse the trend Neoliberalism has created, in favor of pointing out that Yglesias' claim that the
whole essence of all economic transactions is that you’re doing things for other people[,]
is misleading. If you leave the desire for profit out of you notion of economic exchange, its seems to me, that you have really got to brush up on your econ 101.Lo these many years ago Pierre Nicole, inter alia, made the argument that in the world as it is people exchange goods and services for profit. For Nicole, and others,in a truly Christian society would exchange goods and services out of love for their fellow man. He, and they, argued that God gave humanity greed to preserve the world because, they argued, greed led to commerce and commerce soften manners, improved society, caused warfare to decline, and generally encouraged toleration and mutual respect; although, they were quick to point out, it was all a sham and shield because each actor acted so out of base, indeed sinful, motives. I am dubious of the latter claim and find the condition of the world as it is sufficient proof against the former.
What these founding fathers[1] of Neoliberalism, Reaganism, Thatcherism, and Glibbertarianism didn't discuss, so far as I know, is what Adam Smith latter pointed out: owners tend to screw their workers in an attempt to increase profits. We see quite a lot of this in the world as it is. The various things against which Yglesias rails, teachers unions, state licensing regimes, and the like, are some of the ways in which workers seek to improve their material conditions. Others argue for the continued expansion of the state's intervention into the market place to increase economic equality. Yglesias tends to argue that the liberal big governments' era has passed and little tweaking is all that is in order.
So, I'll just suggest that given that 30 years of Neoliberalism have created world rather different than the one you suggest several decades of continued Neoliberalism will create runs rather counter to your high dudgeon induced songs of the dignity of labor. And your inability to capture the essence of exchange in a market capitalism does little to build up my confidence in your knowledge of how things work.
[1] You can read lots of this and other proponents of Yglesiasiam avante la lettre here for free, oddly enough.
I was going to leave a substantive rebuttal to your apparently longstanding Yglesias fixation, but nobody will read it so whats the point.
ReplyDeleteNaive cynicism. You're lame.
(Congratulations on your first comment btw. You're gonna make it! Keep punching above your weight class!)
AFV, thanks very much for the comment, I find the brilliance of your characterization of my naive cynicism's lameness especially pithy and too the point. You certainly put me in my place through the use of grammar, facts, and logic in manner most Yglesian. Chapeau.
ReplyDelete"and too(sic) the point."
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of Yglesian grammar...
Like I said, most lame. Enjoy your blog. Maybe someday you'll get a reader. Probably not until you get a clue though.
There is a way to reverse the trend, but your sect refuses to pay it mind.
ReplyDeleteThe single most powerful block of folks actually able to beat up the Fortune 1000 crowd / Banksters - are the guys who actually have the $ and numbers to pull off the win.
I speak, lo, of Local Wealth. The 2% of SMB owners for generate 50% of SMB revenues, and from that pool virtually all new job growth occurs. I liken the SMB pool to college ball, we don't know for sure which of the fuckers will go big, so we should treat them all as big men on campus.
I don't know how much you know about things like capital gains taxes, but it might surprise you:
1. If you make profits in selling a building, and buy a another building - you pay zero taxes.
2. If you run one SMB, and take profits, even if you invest them into another SMB, you have to count that under straight up income tax. Our tax system chases talent out of SMBs.
So, while I can understand your annoyance with Matty, I'll put to you the same basic issue, he's not yet grappled with:
New job growth come from only one place. Newcos that go big and go big fast. And they all come out of the pool of Local Wealth.
And while you might think taxes are lower (not really) historically, whats not lower is the level of regulatory capture that takes money and power from Local Wealth and hands it to Banksters.
Think of this as a slightly different spin on Supply Side. What matters is the gravity that the top 20% have against the top .1% - only they can chew ass and profits out of the oligarchs, and your side has partnered with the to .1% to allow the top 20% to get fucked.
And you reap what you sow. Putting up with 20M local millionaires each with their own tiny fiefdoms, might just be the price you pay for toppling 1K Billionaires.
Getting back to Matty's issue, what we really want is LOTS MORE people thinking paying high prices for fancy restaurants is an OK deal. And the solution there is different than you think.
afv, thanks for commenting. Just so, I think, although it's not clear, to me in any event, what you mean by my getting a reader in as much as you have read, no? And, of course, you're correct the grammar burn was less than dignified. Now, again as of course, if you'd like to make your substantive rebuttal, I would, again as of course, be interested in reading it.
ReplyDeleteMorgan, thanks for commenting. I have less than no idea of what you mean and find the final paragraph clear as mud. This is, no doubt, a consequence of my naive cynicism and grammatical deficiencies.
ReplyDeleteMorgan, what sect?
ReplyDeleteHaha Tom, now you've made it! You have an internet celebrity commenting on your blog!
ReplyDeleteMorgan Warstler was named one of the top 30 internet dudes under 30... ten years ago.
How'd that work out for you, Morgan?
Oh, and you have interesting ideas on politics and economics:
http://biggovernment.com/mwarstler/2011/01/04/guaranteed-income-the-christian-solution-to-our-economy/
I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter...
afv, Morgan seems an odd man. Your own defense of Yglesiansim is, in these parts, eagerly awaited.
ReplyDeleteIn so much as I don't think there is a unique ideology of Yglesianism, you'll likely be disappointed.
ReplyDeleteI would be happy however, time and interest permitting, to discuss particular criticisms you may have of points the generalist pundit may make.
The short version is I think he's a bright and clever liberal pundit, albeit possibly with some kind of grammar/spelling learning disability. I think he has some detractors on the internet left who don't like to acknowledge certain realities of economics or political science.
For example, when I found your blog earlier and skimmed it, I thought this post (http://ighomb.blogspot.com/2011/01/how-much-technology.html) made you sound like an absolute crank and luddite.
afv, I don't think it is crankish to point out that replacing people with robots leads to fewer people being employed is crankish. I would, as I did, argue that we need to balance technological innovation against, you know, employment. I would also,and have tried, to make the point that Ygelsias assumes that, what you call realities, are decisions made for the benefit of the haves rather than natural necessities. You seemed, in your initial comment, to find my opposition naive, cynical, and lame. I, for one, would be interested in knowing why, for example, the embrace of robots over humans in warehouses is an automatic social good instead of decreasing jobs justified on the basis of economic efficiency. I mean, to be as clear as I can be, why would anyone argue that society's purpose is profits instead of people? I am, of course, naive, cynical, and lame in my conviction that society exists to provide the greatest good for the greatest many. To press the point, why should the potential profits of warehouse owners trump the need of warehouse workers to have jobs that paid nearly enough. No doubt you have have a pithy rejoinder.
ReplyDeleteI meant, of course, to thank afv for commenting.
ReplyDeleteA few things to keep in mind:
ReplyDelete#1: Subsistence agriculture, the primary economic mode of living for 99% of the population of the human race for 99% of its history, is actually quite a lot more physically unpleasant than most service-sector work.
#2. Ditto for what we might call 'industrial' employment.
#3. I think you're conflating Yglesias' predictions of future labor profiles with some sort of preference expression. I seriously doubt that he sees this as a utopian outcome.
#4. What exactly is your point here? What exactly is the policy suggestion? Outlaw robots? Ban profit? How would you enforce it without conquering the world first? Why would China, in short, give a crap? How would we avoid being bankrupted, nationally, by countries producing goods and services for vastly less money?
#5. As far as I can tell, your primary addition to the debate is that technology-related job replacement is done because greed drives people to make money and that this is both Bad and not something worth defending. I actually agree with you, and while it's something worth keeping in mind, it also doesn't really say much about what any given person or government should actually DO about it. It's a banal insight.
So your comment unfortunately comes down to sneering at Yglesias' choice to soberly assess the future instead of sneering at it, which is ultimately a shallow argument. All style, no substance.
"So, I'll just suggest that given that 30 years of Neoliberalism have created world rather different than the one you suggest several decades of continued Neoliberalism will create runs rather counter to your high dudgeon induced songs of the dignity of labor".
ReplyDeleteYe gods, man. This what they call a coherent sentence where you come from?
"and so on based on his own denigration of barbering as profession, assault on economically successful licensed professionals,"
ReplyDeleteWhat the fuck? Seriously, are you fucking kidding me? Seriously, you have the gall to complain about Matthew Yglesias' lack of interest in defending the dignity of the working class while you defend elaborate licensing requirements on barbers? Do you know that creating artificial scarcity in a profession ends up elevating the few while depriving the masses of the chance to get their own employment off the ground? But hey, fuck 300,000 unemployed would-be barbers who can't scrape together the four grand neccessary to pass a six-month bullshit training program, let's shelter some incumbents!
Try not to explode from the massive hypocrisy of going after big business for the tilted playing field while defending it in your own wheelhouse.
I am not sure service jobs are that much worse than assembly jobs and they require a lot less upfront costs to create. It's much easier to open a restaurant or shoe shine shop than a plant that manufactures ipads.
ReplyDeleteThe real difference is that manufacturing jobs in the US used to also be union jobs and they are not anymore. Withough a union both manufacturing and service jobs are going to be low paying.
Points 1 and 2 have nothing to do with the discussion of how to better organize economic matters.
ReplyDeletePoint 3 assumes that Yglesias' policy preferences aren't driving the creation of the future he forecasts. My point is that the Neoliberalism he espouses ensures the world he describes.
Point 4, my point 1) profit is the essential characteristic of economic exchange not just exchange itself, and Y can't get that right. This might seem like sneering but it's also pointing out that he is titanically ill-informed. I am not all clear where you got the idea that I wanted to ban profit. You are, of course, aware that trade agreements eases the flow of goods and services across national boundaries and, like everything else, the beneficiaries of the liberalization of global trade haven't been the workers.
For the rest of your points, while I thank you for commenting, your basic assumption seems to be that economics follows some kind of natural law and the all Y is doing is assessing instead of ensuring. I disagree and my, attempted, contribution is to criticize his arguments. If it comes as across as sneering, sorry. You might, should you be interested, go and read Think Progress' other more, let's call them, progressive offerings.
Ye gods: the sentence is fine it's the circularity of Y's logic that has you confused. For the past 30 yrs we done what Y wants and things have gotten progressively worse, Y argues that the best way to fix the problem is more of the same. Sort of like sobering up by drinking more.
Barbers, 300K? Why just them. There's what 14 million unemployed? They could all barber one another. My point was that in the post Y suggested that people like me who deride his soberly assessed future are disparaging service workers, some of who get the added dignity of licenses. This position doesn't really square with his past discussions of the service industry. You explain to me how increasing the number people while decreasing their training and skills leads to better service for the customer and higher wages for the workers.
John Rove is, of course, correct. Guess what organization Y is lukewarm about?
Thanks all for commenting
Unions? I worked as a security guard briefly and tried to form a union. It did not go well. Even though two of the twelve people that I worked with had filed medical bankruptcy it was almost impossible to convince my coworkers that a union could help.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if "org y" is so much anti-union as justbunderstanding that right now they are disfavor.
ReplyDeleteYou explain to me how increasing the number people while decreasing their training and skills leads to better service for the customer and higher wages for the workers.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't increase wages for workers. But neoliberals are right that deals that increase the wages of workers by cutting off the ability of non-workers to become workers is a shitty deal that's bad for both the country as a whole and the largest number of disadvantaged people in it.
Wage increases on pain of lower employment are a false gain. You're rewarding those who are already some way up the ladder by pulling it up behind you the unemployed people who would like to be a barber but can't afford the downpayment required. Multiply this by 100 other professions and the impact on employment is quite profound.
Wages can be made to rise without that particular bad idea.
The better service for the customer is, in the case of barbers, not particularly goddamn important and not worth the suffering of the non-barbers. It is taken care of by networks, competition, and reputation.
Point 3 assumes that Yglesias' policy preferences aren't driving the creation of the future he forecasts. My point is that the Neoliberalism he espouses ensures the world he describes.
ReplyDeleteI don't consider myself a neoliberal. I find the vision he describes fairly unpleasant. And I see very little in the way of realistic alternatives. Fundamentally, it's a technology-driven process, and the scope of regulations that would be required to short-circuit it are literally mind-boggling. Not to mention that to do, whether under a free trade or tariff-happy system, it doesn't matter, would lead to the relative rapid impoverishment of our country. You can't make the same quality of goods with hands as you can with robotics. That's one reason why it happens.
Global trade may relate to wage stagnation for the privileged few that are left, but it's not the primary driver of the steady evaporation of high-skill jobs. That driver is replacement by the machine and the computer. I'm all ears for your plan to fix it.
I don't think Yglesias is enthusiastic about it as much as he's made his peace with the inevitable and is looking to mitigate the human suffering involved as much as possible. You're welcome to disagree with that, but you don't come off well assuming that everyone who doesn't see your vague yet shiny alternative future is an idiot.
"Wage increases on pain of lower employment are a false gain. You're rewarding those who are already some way up the ladder by pulling it up behind you the unemployed people who would like to be a barber but can't afford the downpayment required. Multiply this by 100 other professions and the impact on employment is quite profound.
ReplyDeleteWages can be made to rise without that particular bad idea."
Yes, let's deregulate the medical profession, and who needs trained electricians and plumbers, to say nothing of teachers. Why if we just increase competition the wisdom and discipline of the market will sort it all, like it did back before we had all these pesky regulations. A world without unnecessary and inefficient regulations allows the Dr. Nicks of the world the chance to cure syphilis with mercury.
That driver is replacement by the machine and the computer. I'm all ears for your plan to fix it..
"That driver is replacement by the machine and the computer. I'm all ears for your plan to fix it."
ReplyDeleteThanks.
"Fundamentally, it's a technology-driven process, and the scope of regulations that would be required to short-circuit it are literally mind-boggling. Not to mention that to do, whether under a free trade or tariff-happy system, it doesn't matter, would lead to the relative rapid impoverishment of our country. "
Well there's an end to all the ears.
"You can't make the same quality of goods with hands as you can with robotics. That's one reason why it happens."
You understand, of course, that this is wrong, right? Take, as example, Trek bikes the more expensive the bike the more hand welding. If you want really expensive bike, by say Sasha White, it's all hand welded. Or take clothing, hand stitched versus mass market machine which cost more?
"That driver is replacement by the machine and the computer."
Really? I would have thought a decision maker would have been driving things; you know, someone who thinks that the economically efficient Oliver Garden restaurant chain is the educational ideal or that libraries are good because of low carrying costs as opposed their role in storing and creating new ideas.
"I don't think Yglesias is enthusiastic about it as much as he's made his peace with the inevitable and is looking to mitigate the human suffering involved as much as possible."
Yes indeed, that's why he wants to lower barbers' wages and why his proposed solution to the non-problem of dental hygenists was to deregulate and deskill.
"You're welcome to disagree with that, but you don't come off well assuming that everyone who doesn't see your vague yet shiny alternative future is an idiot."
Welcome, am I? Thanks. He's an idiot because he argues idiotically, barely understands the terms he uses, and avoids facts in favor of ideologically driven solutions to non-problems.
Thanks for the comments.
"which costs more" ought to be which is of higher quality, think high fashion versus Old Navy.
ReplyDelete