CS writes:
But people are willing to take those jobs at those wages.
Why should that be the only factor taken into account?
It shouldn't, but you were talking about justification.
Remember our striking truckers? Let's imagine that you are responsible for negotiating the pay deal for those unionised workers. Do you think the fact that the economic impact of the truckers not undertaking that work results in losses that run into the millions might be relevant to your position in those negotiations?
Sure, but that would be threatening the employer into coughing up the wage rather than obtaining the wage by showing that the truckers deserve it because of all the value they are adding.
If you were the negotiator would you say "The number of people who can do the job that determines its value"....? Or would that stance be a dereliction of your duties as negotiator on behalf of the striking workers?
If there were another group of truckers who were willing to take all the jobs for the current pay, then there wouldn't be anything I could do to eliminate that fact. And your argument on all the money that would be lost if my truckers striked would instantly vanish.
In such a situation the economic benefit the workers provide, the value of their labour in terms of utility, is very much a relevant factor in wage negotiation and determination.
But if there are other people who will provide the same utility at the lower wage, then they are going to win the job and your argument about how much utility is being provided loses all its weight.
Do you understand and accept this?
I think I get it, its just that it doesn't happen for the vast majority of jobs. There's plenty of people to do the jobs so the market forces end up dominating. You can't argue about how much money the company is going to lose if you don't do your job when there's somebody standing outside who's willing to take over.
The idea that value in terms of utility (aka economic benefit) be a factor in wage determination isn't the crazy-wild-eyed-naive-end-of-economics-as-we-know-it lunacy that you and Percy keep relentlessly insisting it is.
You're not getting what we're saying. Your ideal just isn't realistic, that's all.
It's a factor in any wage negotiation with any union. It's really rather common.
How common?
quote:
In 2010, the percentage of workers belonging to a union in the United States (or total labor union "density") was 11.4%
.
Can you see that the increasing exclusion of economic benefit as a factor in pay deals, the increasing reliance instead on pure supply and demand as the sole dictator of rewards, is a large part of the reason that wealth is distributed in the way that is the topic of this thread?
No, not really. It never really was there to begin with so it isn't being excluded. Its just not the way the real world works. You can't bring the economic benefit of your employment into argument when there's another person willing to sell the same benefit for a lower price. None of your arguments matter anymore at that point.
That being said, I suppose that if you
could somehow begin including the economic benefit as a factor in pay deals then the distribution of wealth might be able to be spread out a bit. Wait... I thought the idea that wage should be linked to economic benefit was just a strawman?
Can you see that if one wants to change the wealth distribution that is the topic of this thread then factoring in economic benefit to reward (through unionisation at the bottom and increased shareholder power over executive pay at the top) is very arguably a major part of the way forwards.
I'm not convinced its a major part, nor do I see how its very possible in the real world.
™ Version 4.2
