From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sat Apr 19 2003 - 15:48:30 MDT
Rafal writes
> Lee Corbin wrote:
> > [Rafal wrote]
> > > Barring contracts below a certain wage level will result in some
> > > transfer of income to the workers,
> >
> > Can you enumerate some of the assumptions behind this statement?
> > I don't know of any realistic ones, but enumerate them just the same
> > if you would.
>
> ### According to game theory, certain strategies are inherently unstable due
> to the coordination problem. Forced coordination, as in legislation to
> impose a monopoly bargaining entity in the form of labor unions, or to stop
> individual bargaining for wages, does solve the problem, which is why
> immediately after the imposition the law there is an increase in income to
> the beneficiaries of the law (as in unionized workers).
I don't know what this BS about coordination is all about,
but I do see that you are pointing out that for a particular
set of workers, their wages will go up if it's mandated some
way, or they achieve it some way through bargaining. Yes,
if tomorrow Bush passed an emergency measure (that he somehow
had the power to do) that said every teacher in the U.S. was
to get a 50% pay increase, then indeed every teacher would
make more money.
> In the long run, due to lower productivity, both the workers,
> the businesses, and the customers suffer, but this is a
> different story.
Okay. But what about the following *immediate* effect: if all
the janitors in the U.S. get their wages doubled overnight,
then fewer janitors are *immediately* with jobs. Likewise, if
all unions were busted tomorrow (by equally magical fiat), then
the total number of employed persons would *immediately* go up.
Right?
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Apr 19 2003 - 15:58:33 MDT