Wrong emphasis. Society depends on people*, doing their jobs.
Let’s taboo some words:
Society: a sufficiently large group of individuals. Are we assuming a shared final goals? A power structure? A distribution of labour?
depends on: requires for its continued… What? Existence? Prosperity? What aspect of society depends on “people doing their jobs”? What does society depend on “people doing their jobs” for? For now, I’ll assume you’re using “depends on X” in the sense of “expects X to happen”… but that’s kind of weak.
people: individual sentient beings, not machines or tools, with needs other than being kept in optimal condition for the performance in the functions they perform, and existences that do not necessarily revolve around performing said functions.
doing their jobs: performing the functions that they have promised to perform reliably and within certain sufficient quality and quantity parameters
Again, given that it’s people we are talking about, they will only want to do their jobs in exchange for a reliable retribution in advantages in the shape of wealth and status in sufficient quality and quantity that have a utility to the people that is equivalent or superior to costs that “doing their job” entails for them. They will only be able to do their jobs if the compensation is sufficient to keep them alive so they can come back the next day.
Now, let’s use some basic economic theory: let’s assume work is a commodity, that is, let us do away with the “people” part and suppose the job-performers are emotionless, non-sentient machines, tools that will simply go irreversibly out of order if they are given insufficient resources for a long enough period of time, beings that exist only and purely to do their jobs, whose downtime is either spent in maintenance (and can be shortened or lengthened depending on where the optimal total productivity point between maximum duration and maximum instant output lies). Let’s also assume that their work capacity is distributed in an ideal free market, and that the machines are programmed to ask for as many resources as you are willing to give them. There’s a very close real-life equivalent to said machines: cattle.
Finally, let us assume that there is a steady influx of new machines, but that the work that the society needs to get done fluctuates.
This situation automatically results, thanks the to wonderful “Invisible Hand” that guides the self-regulating ideal market, into the jobholders being given *exactly as many resources as they need to work and keep functioning the next day, maintaining exactly the population that can provide the necessary amount of labour needed for getting the amount of job that society demands done.
Now, in the XIXth century, that is often what actually happened, except with people, specifically unqualified labour (heck, look at the very term: “unqualified labour”, as if labour was everything they are). And that was just unplanned market fuckery. The Nazis would actually planify killings by giving workers rations that were exactly calculated so that they would die soon upon completion of the project they were assigned to.
Why did this happen? Because those workers were powerless to make the people who had the right to set the conditions of the job agreement give them anything more than what ensured what was strictly needed for them to perform their task, which was basically them being alive for as long as they were needed and useful, and not an instant more. Which was what they ended up actually getting, because a free market ensures that’s where the Nash Equlibrium lies: they are locked in a prisoner’s dilemma in which if any single one of them refused to agree to work under those conditions, they would simply be replaced by another, willing person, and then die.
This is why as long as we assume that job-performers are people, more than tools to be used and thrown away, that their existence has value beyond the utility derived from them performing their jobs, and that it should not be entirely miserable, it is absolutely vital that job-performers have a form of power over those who set the conditions of the work agreement, that will allow them to protect themselves from being reduced, by the sheer strategic necessity, to the status of tools.
Now, strikes are a horrible way of achieving this: they are self-regulating too, in that, performing them is at the immediate cost of the job-performers (of course, since they are paid less than what their job-performing is actually worth, this costs whoever profits from their job even more) and risks the cessation of the demand for the job itself being performed. So, game-theory wise, it works, ideally resulting in the job-performers being assigned just under the amount of resources that would make the net utility of the job being performed inferior to that of it not being performed.
If you have suggestions for alternate ways in which job-performers can protect themselves from becoming cattle or machinery, I would love to hear them. I say this in all sinceirty: strikes are ugly. If you can additionally justify why people should not have the right to strikes, given those alternatives existing, I would love to hear that too
The Nazis would actually planify killings by giving workers rations that were exactly calculated so that they would die soon upon completion of the project they were assigned to.
Why did this happen?
Because the Nazis put industry under state control so that people had no choice but to work for companies guided by the state’s economic policy.
If you have suggestions for alternate ways in which job-performers can protect themselves from becoming cattle or machinery, I would love to hear them.
Sure, don’t centralize the hiring process under the guise of “economic planning” or maintaining an “economic policy” so much that hiring effectively becomes a monopsony.
The first point would be more of an issue in terms of that particular state’s particular economic policies: in a democratic state, economic policies that would not result in such an outcome would win out.
The second point… do you mean to say that, were there to be many job-assigning institutions competing to get the same job performed at the least possible cost, the equilibrium would fall into job-performers being given more resources than what they would receive were they to be considered disposable cattle? That only works if the work-performers are scarce, in which case it doesn’t matter whether there is one or many institutions competing. And if the work-performers are abundant, the equilibrium will fall into them being given exactly as many resources as they physically need to perform their job.
In a perfect market, centralizing or decentralizing doesn’t achieve anything: what matters is simply offer and demand.
Also, why do you put scare quotes around “economic planning” and “economic policy”?
The first point would be more of an issue in terms of that particular state’s particular economic policies: in a democratic state, economic policies that would not result in such an outcome would win out.
No, my point is that by and large states don’t need and shouldn’t have “economic policies”.
The second point… do you mean to say that, were there to be many job-assigning institutions competing to get the same job performed at the least possible cost, the equilibrium would fall into job-performers being given more resources than what they would receive were they to be considered disposable cattle? That only works if the work-performers are scarce, in which case it doesn’t matter whether there is one or many institutions competing. And if the work-performers are abundant, the equilibrium will fall into them being given exactly as many resources as they physically need to perform their job.
Are you trying to argue that monopsony power doesn’t exist? Without monopsony power an employer who pays low wages will have a hard time attracting employees. Whereas a monopsony employer can set wages arbitrarily low, his only limit is his own conscience and that at some point potential employees will prefer not to work. It’s possible to state the above more mathematically, for example here (Note: that article talks about monopoly rather than monopsony but the principal is the same).
In a perfect market, centralizing or decentralizing doesn’t achieve anything: what matters is simply offer and demand.
Except that centralizing destroys the perfect market.
No, my point is that by and large states don’t need and shouldn’t have “economic policies”.
You haven’t established that point to my satisfaction. Don’t try to: it’s not that I don’t expect you to succeed, it’s that, at this point in time, I am compelled away by urgent priorities.
Except that centralizing destroys the perfect market.
I now know that we are falling for red herrings, both of us. I also acknowledge that I am out of my depth, and that I will have to leave this sort of conversation for when my understanding of economics and game theory are sufficient to tackle it with ease. I advise you to do the same: I have the feeling that there is much cached wisdom and pre-rehearsed arguments in what you say, as I will acknowledge there is in mine.
Because society depends on people doing their jobs in order to function.
Wrong emphasis. Society depends on people*, doing their jobs.
Let’s taboo some words:
Society: a sufficiently large group of individuals. Are we assuming a shared final goals? A power structure? A distribution of labour?
depends on: requires for its continued… What? Existence? Prosperity? What aspect of society depends on “people doing their jobs”? What does society depend on “people doing their jobs” for? For now, I’ll assume you’re using “depends on X” in the sense of “expects X to happen”… but that’s kind of weak.
people: individual sentient beings, not machines or tools, with needs other than being kept in optimal condition for the performance in the functions they perform, and existences that do not necessarily revolve around performing said functions.
doing their jobs: performing the functions that they have promised to perform reliably and within certain sufficient quality and quantity parameters
Again, given that it’s people we are talking about, they will only want to do their jobs in exchange for a reliable retribution in advantages in the shape of wealth and status in sufficient quality and quantity that have a utility to the people that is equivalent or superior to costs that “doing their job” entails for them. They will only be able to do their jobs if the compensation is sufficient to keep them alive so they can come back the next day.
Now, let’s use some basic economic theory: let’s assume work is a commodity, that is, let us do away with the “people” part and suppose the job-performers are emotionless, non-sentient machines, tools that will simply go irreversibly out of order if they are given insufficient resources for a long enough period of time, beings that exist only and purely to do their jobs, whose downtime is either spent in maintenance (and can be shortened or lengthened depending on where the optimal total productivity point between maximum duration and maximum instant output lies). Let’s also assume that their work capacity is distributed in an ideal free market, and that the machines are programmed to ask for as many resources as you are willing to give them. There’s a very close real-life equivalent to said machines: cattle.
Finally, let us assume that there is a steady influx of new machines, but that the work that the society needs to get done fluctuates.
This situation automatically results, thanks the to wonderful “Invisible Hand” that guides the self-regulating ideal market, into the jobholders being given *exactly as many resources as they need to work and keep functioning the next day, maintaining exactly the population that can provide the necessary amount of labour needed for getting the amount of job that society demands done.
Now, in the XIXth century, that is often what actually happened, except with people, specifically unqualified labour (heck, look at the very term: “unqualified labour”, as if labour was everything they are). And that was just unplanned market fuckery. The Nazis would actually planify killings by giving workers rations that were exactly calculated so that they would die soon upon completion of the project they were assigned to.
Why did this happen? Because those workers were powerless to make the people who had the right to set the conditions of the job agreement give them anything more than what ensured what was strictly needed for them to perform their task, which was basically them being alive for as long as they were needed and useful, and not an instant more. Which was what they ended up actually getting, because a free market ensures that’s where the Nash Equlibrium lies: they are locked in a prisoner’s dilemma in which if any single one of them refused to agree to work under those conditions, they would simply be replaced by another, willing person, and then die.
This is why as long as we assume that job-performers are people, more than tools to be used and thrown away, that their existence has value beyond the utility derived from them performing their jobs, and that it should not be entirely miserable, it is absolutely vital that job-performers have a form of power over those who set the conditions of the work agreement, that will allow them to protect themselves from being reduced, by the sheer strategic necessity, to the status of tools.
Now, strikes are a horrible way of achieving this: they are self-regulating too, in that, performing them is at the immediate cost of the job-performers (of course, since they are paid less than what their job-performing is actually worth, this costs whoever profits from their job even more) and risks the cessation of the demand for the job itself being performed. So, game-theory wise, it works, ideally resulting in the job-performers being assigned just under the amount of resources that would make the net utility of the job being performed inferior to that of it not being performed.
If you have suggestions for alternate ways in which job-performers can protect themselves from becoming cattle or machinery, I would love to hear them. I say this in all sinceirty: strikes are ugly. If you can additionally justify why people should not have the right to strikes, given those alternatives existing, I would love to hear that too
Because the Nazis put industry under state control so that people had no choice but to work for companies guided by the state’s economic policy.
Sure, don’t centralize the hiring process under the guise of “economic planning” or maintaining an “economic policy” so much that hiring effectively becomes a monopsony.
The first point would be more of an issue in terms of that particular state’s particular economic policies: in a democratic state, economic policies that would not result in such an outcome would win out.
The second point… do you mean to say that, were there to be many job-assigning institutions competing to get the same job performed at the least possible cost, the equilibrium would fall into job-performers being given more resources than what they would receive were they to be considered disposable cattle? That only works if the work-performers are scarce, in which case it doesn’t matter whether there is one or many institutions competing. And if the work-performers are abundant, the equilibrium will fall into them being given exactly as many resources as they physically need to perform their job.
In a perfect market, centralizing or decentralizing doesn’t achieve anything: what matters is simply offer and demand.
Also, why do you put scare quotes around “economic planning” and “economic policy”?
No, my point is that by and large states don’t need and shouldn’t have “economic policies”.
Are you trying to argue that monopsony power doesn’t exist? Without monopsony power an employer who pays low wages will have a hard time attracting employees. Whereas a monopsony employer can set wages arbitrarily low, his only limit is his own conscience and that at some point potential employees will prefer not to work. It’s possible to state the above more mathematically, for example here (Note: that article talks about monopoly rather than monopsony but the principal is the same).
Except that centralizing destroys the perfect market.
You haven’t established that point to my satisfaction. Don’t try to: it’s not that I don’t expect you to succeed, it’s that, at this point in time, I am compelled away by urgent priorities.
I now know that we are falling for red herrings, both of us. I also acknowledge that I am out of my depth, and that I will have to leave this sort of conversation for when my understanding of economics and game theory are sufficient to tackle it with ease. I advise you to do the same: I have the feeling that there is much cached wisdom and pre-rehearsed arguments in what you say, as I will acknowledge there is in mine.