Do these employees control their, and contiguous, areas, or all the companies decisions? If the latter, is a republic, democratic, or union approach used? How many hours and resources are allocated preparing the information needed for the employees to make informed decisions?
Ok, so if by "without knowledge," you mean that I have not wasted my time reading and trying to understand a bunch of bull(*)(*)(*)(*), then yeah, sure, guilty as charged. Uh . . . yeah. That's what I've been saying. When there is only one firm, demand for labor is low, and therefore wages are also low. As the number of employers increases, the demand and competition for laborers increases, and so wages rise. ((As an aside though: AI demonstrates understanding of irony, a high level concept. Points earned. Perhaps an "A" after all.)) Ok, what does this sentence mean? Are you saying that the job search has to be modeled as a "dynamic form of monopsony"? (And isn't that begging the question?) Or did you mistakenly place your parentheses? Do you mean that because we have to model marginal costs and benefits of searching, dynamic monopsony is the best model? The reason that I do not take this whole "dynamic monopsony" thing seriously is because you are making too much out of market inefficiencies. Just because there is imperfect information, and there is some friction in hiring, does not mean that each company hires its workers in a vacuum. Workers can, and most often do, solicit job offers from multiple firms when making an employment decision. Multiple = more than one = not monopsony. I have no problem with you referencing economic research an economics forum. What I have a problem with is when you find one or two studies you like and start holding them up as gospel when there are much simpler, more intuitive explanations for the effects you are observing. Ok, so Supply and Demand is ludicrous? Which parts specifically? Perhaps this is why you are having a hard time forming cogent sentences. The theory of Supply and Demand is central to economics, and there's a very good reason that it is covered in Econ 101. You've already alluded to the fact that the theory of "dynamic monopsony" is an extension of Supply and Demand, so why repudiate it now? Again, you are making too much out of market inefficiencies. Just because the market does not function perfectly does not mean that it fails. Oh, I understand monopsony. And I believe I can bring up anything I wish to make my point. And the point I was trying to make is that when market power is concentrated, that player has a disproportionate amount of power. Look, I don't really see why we're having a disagreement here. We both agree that concentration of power on the employers' side leads to lower wages, right? Because if so, the converse is also true: that more employers leads to higher wages. The only thing I have a problem with is your ideological opposition to capitalism, which has made you eager to find and label "market failures" which are not really there. This is a flaw that you share with most of academia. You were the one that brought up the positive correlation between wages and firm size. That's my evidence. Look, if I didn't know better (and I don't) I would say that you are being purposely obtuse, to make sure that no one knows what you're saying, and therefore can't have a reasonable debate with you.
Why on earth would we assume such a luxurious basic assurance? It would be more like $12,000/year, or less. Extensive standardization of benefits would allow the price to fall dramatically. $30,000 a year? That's way more generous than I was being. Moreover, that's per household, not per person. There's a lot of cost-sharing that happens with cohabitation, so while couples and children may be afforded somewhat more than the amount granted individuals, it would not be a linear increase. I mean, $30,000 a year (adjusted for inflation) was more than I was making straight out of college. That's way above subsistence level welfare. Your calculations about taxable income are also severely distorted. We have an economy worth $14T right now, despite the inefficiencies of the hierarchical command model. Even with your crazy generous welfare package, that's only a ~50% effective tax rate. The welfare package I was talking about was quite a bit less, on the order of ~$2T a year for the 114 million households in the US. In other words, about what we're taxing right now. But I'm really not surprised; conservatives are usually pretty bad at calculating tax burdens--or even understanding taxation, apparently. That's your bad math at work, it's got nothing to do with my actual proposal. A) There would be no government to do the assignment. B) The benefits wouldn't even be centrally distributed; you're thinking of this from the Soviet-style command economy perspective. Or even how the US manages welfare. It wouldn't even be remotely similar. See; you're assuming that your math is correct. It's not. Your underlying assumptions are wrong. Literally, all of them. Your methodology for calculating tax burdens is entirely wrong. People are being screwed over by business people... and by the government. Hence why I propose that we do away with both, and the notion of hierarchical command structures. Yes they do. Too bad the capitalist system stands in their way, and prevents that from happening. Of course not. You ought to earn the value of your labor, not the value of your labor plus the labor of everyone else involved. That's what capitalists just can't understand--that no one has a right to profit from the labor of another person. Nothing I said disputes that. Fixed capital costs ought to be incorporated into the cost of an item, and the value of the labor that went into producing it, marketing it, retailing it, distributing it, etc. What shouldn't be incorporated into the cost of an item is an additional percentage tacked on to the end; a percentage people call a "profit margin." You shouldn't get more than the value of your labor for involvement in the production of something. That's what capitalists don't understand--that "ownership" shouldn't entitle a person to the right to perpetually steal a profit margin from the employees and customers. Sure I do. I've been an entrepreneur for most of my working life. It's why I've developed such a hatred for the capitalist system. It's not fair, it's not just, and it's not efficient. You didn't even read my post, did you? If so, you would realize that my proposal does away with both governments and investor-owned businesses. Both would disappear.
Profit is a form of usury paid to the owners of capital to convince them to grant the right to perform labor using their property. That's all it is. It is a form of economic rent, as surely as any other.
You sure you know what you're typing? Given you have not read any of the economic analysis into monopsony, you have no means to evaluate its nature. We've seen that by your silly claim that it was 'unrealistic', when its based on understanding empirical phenomena: including the lack of the market wage, the impact of the minimum wage and wages differentials across job search characteristics. A nonsensical reply. I've referred to dynamic monopsony based on asymmetric information. This helps us to understand how wage differentials, independent of human capital and compensating differential criteria, develop. The impact of a monopsony, compared to a result closer to perfect competition, on the wage is not known. We know that as the labour demand curve reflects the marginal revenue productivity of labour. That is calculated by referring to both the marginal physical productivity of labour and marginal revenue. There's no reason to assume that a 'single firm' monopsony would have the same marginal revenue productivity of labour curve as the competitive firm. It wasn't a difficult sentence if you know some basics! Traditional monopsony is understood within a static environment. Time is only understood according to the variability of the factors of production and the ability to invest in human capital. We don't have that with dynamic monopsony (the clue is in the name). Its a more realistic approach as the nature of the labour supply curve reflects the individual attempting to maximise expected income. As the reservation wage is adjusted upwards the expected accepted wage will rise. However, the expected period of unemployment will also rise. You brought up monopsony. I didn't. You just didn't know how its used in labour analysis to understand specific empirical phenomena that is actually independent to my reference to involuntary unemployment. Who said they did? Still struggling aren't you? The firm still faces an upward sloping labour supply curve and therefore has monopsony wage making power (leading to the exact same predictions as in traditional monopsony). Multiple job application is of course assumed (we just need the offer to exceed the reservation wage). Modelling on-the-job search is also standard. Have you provided any economic research? I've only see you try tabloidism Nope. Keep up now! I referred to dropping ludicrous assumptions used in Supply & Demand 101. Typically these assumptions are assumed to be just about model simplification. Dynamic monopsony, however, is an example where that isn't the case: as we drop the assumption of perfect knowledge we necessarily reject the opinion that wages purely reflect productivity I've proved that you do not. Already said. First, you've misunderstood monopsony (bogusly suggesting it necessarily reflects 'one buyer'). Second, you brought it up when it had nothing to do with the discussion (being about the source of involuntary unemployment and therefore a discussion into efficiency wages and internal labour markets) My stance is based on economic theory and empirical evidence. In contrast, you have so far only offered hot air and misrepresentation. Boring anti-intellectualism? Then you don't know what you're talking about. You can't just refer to wage differentials as proof of compensating differentials. Bit bleedin obvious really!
The orthodox view of profit, making economics distinct from grey suited accountancy, is a return that exceeds opportunity costs. Within the context of market socialism we'd continue to expect such profit. We just would eliminate the component characterised by inefficient economic rents.
There are many industries and areas were govnerment control is far more efficient then the private market. These include by don't exclude, insurance, health care, the pharm industry, water/energy/ other utilities, and charity/welfare. Not only that but workplace safety, environmental, food safety and energy efficiency regulations/laws save hundreds of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars
Efficient at accomplishing what? Cost increases in healthcare and education far exceed the rest of the market. Workplace safety was getting better long before OSHA, and the rate of improvement didn't change with OSHA. That is one of many side effects of affluence.
Government managed health care systems are far less expensive then private ones despite government run ones having superior quality. If it were not for OSHA those safety rules would not be followed by all employers and would of been picked up less quickly. OSHA is continuing to make new rules for example recently they made new regulations to reduce repetiative movememnt injuries which is set to save the economy billions and reucce injrkues by hundreds of thousands
Well... Lots of people hate the word Socialism. At least in the US. How efficient can we be operating under a system we hate and do not understand? How can anyone defend inefficiency, monopolies and monopsies? Many of the ills of capitalism are universal, in other words you cannot blame them on one economic system, they will appear in any economic system because of human nature. In defense I will say this---- The need of human beings to excel above others to attain affirmation is instinctive. Ambitious people will use whatever system (economic and otherwise) they are in to pursue their own goals regardless of the welfare of others. Capitalism creates a natural cap to this ambition for all but the most affluent. Socialism creates a natural cap for all but the most corrupt.
There certainly are cases where economic planning out-trumps the invisible hand. It can be particularly successful, for example, in engineering the conditions required for industrialisation. However, as an economy matures, 'government economic planning' will assuredly lead to greater inefficiencies. This reflects the distributed nature of knowledge and the overwhelming importance of the price mechanism as an information surrogate (e.g. we don't need to know that there has been a supply shock created by an explosion of a beetle population, we can just react to the price change). Feasible socialism therefore will, except in the cases where there is substantial differences in private and social returns, avoid economic planning. One should note that we'd perhaps expect more interventionism in capitalism. The nature of firm organisation (and market concentration) leads to instabilities that require government stabilisation policy
Its human nature (from our ability to organise to our innate ability to innovate) that is perhaps behind the efficiency gains available in socialism. Capitalism, in contrast, is motivated by dulling our abilities. See, for example, how division of labour has been used to ensure the worker is more like an ox (providing work without any threat to the status quo) and not as a means to maximise productivity. The lost ability through alienation and hierarchy is quite staggering
I have to disagree completely, not because of some theory, but because of the actual results of its implementation. In capitalism the US grew and prospered while its socialist opponents, such as Romania and the USSR declined. The biggest thing to decline was worth ethic. The labor output by the workers in the socialist nations was far lower than in the US and declined quickly. In capitalism, people are naturally rewarded for innovation and good work. That is why so many innovations come from capitalist nations. In socialism, people are rewarded whether or not they innovate or work hard. This saps motivation and creativity.
Its difficult to find any country that hasn't used interventionism to aid economic development. The free loving Anglo-Saxon countries, for example, have a history of protectionism (which we know can be vital for stabilising the environment and to allow infant industries to grow; i.e. to restrict market forces). We see the same with the tiger economies. The state dictatorships in the East also do have a history of rapid growth (and quite distinct from the African countries where, due to neo-liberalism, free trade has actually increased poverty and ensured too much focus on damaging resource exploitation) Note the difference between those who are self-employment and those who want to be self-employed. Capitalism, leading to class-based limitation, restricts opportunity and therefore assuredly kills tacit knowledge. Often innovations the result of government intervention because of market failure. See, for example, the use of the defence sector to supplement R&D expenditures
Innovations with government support are still faster and stronger in our capitalist competition than in a socialist single-source situation. The USSR was trying to innovate at the same time a the US, but didn't develop nearly as much or a quickly. It was the socialist economy that stifled innovation, not the capitalist one.
In the US, government sets prices for services artificially low. Providers offset that in two ways. With higher costs for private care, and refusing new patients with government care. A better comparison of government operated medicine is the VA hospitals, before they were cleaned up after the media showed the conditions. Government run were less expensive, by being far inferior. The cost of US health care isn't due to private management, Germany is half our cost, with completely private care. It has to do with the near monopoly for insurance that government created through regulation. Please refer to figure 36.1, and show me how OSHA made a difference. http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb105-36.html Job safety concerns grow with affluence, not gooberment regulation. Same applies for pollution, auto safety, etc. The government made regulations for repetitive motion injuries, how many years after the typewriter? The private sector has studied the problem and come up with many solutions, wrist rests, ergonomic keyboards, even effective voice recognition software. What solutions did the regulations create?
Lets be fair, the USSR innovated some really nice weapons and rockets, because that was the governments focus. Even if the government broadens it's focus, it is still very limited. That is the beauty of free market capitalism. Each entrepreneur is allowed to pursue their own focus, resulting in millions of areas of innovation. In addition, governments innovation isn't concerned with market viability.
There's nothing efficient about socialism. History has proven it over and over. Look at Greece....duh.
I'm not asking for economic planning. I question your assumption that employee ownership is superior.
Assumption? I'm merely going by an understanding of firm organisation and the available evidence. You're asking me to tell you what the firms will do. That's not my decision (which is the whole point after all)
Your reply hasn't actually said anything new! I've referred to how economic planning is typically needed to enable economic development (be it the free trade loving Anglo Saxons or the state capitalist Stalin lovers). I've also referred to how, as an economy matures, problems necessarily develop because of the tacit nature of knowledge: thus, the economic planner is not just ignorant about widening economic opportunities, the planner is also ignorant of that ignorance. Here, the market becomes key. The important point, however, is that the market in capitalism is hampered by its tendency towards market concentration and inequalities of opportunity associated with class. Socialism (and we're not talking about Stalin and co here, despite your efforts to misrepresent the socialist message) naturally delivers less inequalities in opportunity and therefore is in the perfect position to ensure greater exploitation of tacit knowledge.
Already done! Also already done, referring to numerous aspects: from the gains associated with democracy within the firm (from eliminating inefficient hierarchy to the deepening collaborative work incentives) to the elimination of macroeconomic problems generated by the intensifying economic rents (which necessarily also includes reference to firm organisation, given we'd see less market concentration as the boundaries of the firm would be restricted according to profit related hurdles)
Incorrect Germany has a largely government controlled health care system. In pretty much every government controlled health care system be it the VA, Medicare, Germany, Canada, UK etc etc health care is less expensive despite providing better quality. Please refer to figure 36.1, and show me how OSHA made a difference. http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb105-36.html Job safety concerns grow with affluence, not gooberment regulation. Same applies for pollution, auto safety, etc. The government made regulations for repetitive motion injuries, how many years after the typewriter? The private sector has studied the problem and come up with many solutions, wrist rests, ergonomic keyboards, even effective voice recognition software. What solutions did the regulations create?[/QUOTE] Lets see the regulations prevented thousands of workplace related deaths millions of workplace injures and saved billions through increased productivity and lower health care costs. http://www.corporatewellness.com/publications-news/view_publications.php?publication_id=15 ^New OSHA regulations/standards designed to protect workers from injuries caused by repetitive motions will help prevent over 400,000 injuries a year; and will result in savings of a net 9 billion annually after the first few years. http://www.diamatrix.com/pdf/sharpsafety.pdf ^OSHA SHARPS standards have helped decrease the number of health care workers infected by blood borne pathogens by 95%. Saving hospitals near a net of 100 million dollars a year (this doesn't include health costs for those infected). http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=TESTIMONIES&p_id=88 ^OSHA cooperative compliance programs are successful. In Wisconsin the CCP resulted in a 29.5% reduction in accidents and in Dakotas they saw a 50% decline. ^OSHA local emphasis programs result in local areas reducing their accidents by 50% http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_id=200&p_table=SPEECHES ^A study shows that after OSHA inspects a work place and imposes economic penalties the three years follow see a 22% reduction i accidents. http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/scaffolding/index.html ^OSHA Scaffolding regulations such as requiring the use of a safety harness save 50 lives and 90 million dollars each year. http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=21751 ^OSHA fall protection safety regulations (provide fall protection to employees) save 22 lives and 200 million dollars a year. http://dailyreporter.com/blog/2010/07/28/osha-raises-new-crane-rules/ --^OSHA crane regulations such as requiring crane operators to have a license and inspecting parts before their use saves 20 lives and 55 million dollars a year. http://www.signindustry.com/management/articles/2000-07-24-readyforosha.php3 ----^OSHA Safety regulations on industrial vehicles such as training workers save 11 lives and 135 million dollars a year. http://www.osha.gov/dea/lookback/cottondust_final2000.pdf http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=SPEECHES&p_id=194 http://www.moneyunder30.com/think-you-dont-need-health-insurance-think-again ^Cotton dust standards regulations reduced "brown lung disease" by 98%. ^Cotton dust standard compliance costs were a total of 250 million in 1982 dollars ^Since the "cotton dust standard" regulations the amount of workers getting respiratory diseases fell by 45,000 yearly (at any one time). ^Cost of lung disease is around 50,000 dollars. ^ (Cost of lung disease) x (number of people who dont have lung disease due to regulation) = (savings from cotton dust standard regulations) 50,000 x 45,000 = 2,250,000,000 ^^^^^^^^^^^^OSHA "cotton dust standards" and regulations (since 1990) save over 2.25 billion dollars every year. http://www.safetymanagementgroup.com/injury-cost-calculator.aspx https://engineering.purdue.edu/CSA/publications/trenching03 http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=SPEECHES&p_id=194 ---^Direct cost of workplace injury at 38,000 dollars. ^There are currently around 8,000 trenching injuries a year. ^OSHA trenching safety regulations reduced trenching injuries by 35% or 3,675. ^OSHA trenching safety regulations such as requiring soil analysis and pillars to prevent collapsing save 140 million dollars a year. http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=FEDERAL_REGISTER&p_id=17759 ^OSHA Grain handling regulations save 7 lives a year, and reduced injuries by 15 a year. 22 x 38,000 = 836,000. Grain handling regulations such as requiring a body harness and prohibiting walking on grain save 7 lives and 1 million dollars a year. http://www.swmosafety.com/upcoming-2010-new-osha-regulations/ ^^New OSHA regulation limiting Crystalline Silica levels in working conditions to help prevent at most 7,000 cases a year, ^New OSHA regulations updating fall and slip safety estimated to save 20 lives each year and prevent 3,500 injuries, saving over 130 million dollars a year. http://www.eesolutions.net/health-and-safety/osha-and-jobs/ http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/1996/11/04/story4.html ^Since the enactment of OSHA the number of work place injuries and illness has declined by 65%. ^The benefit cost ration for OSHA regulations is near 5-1, saving the economy a net of around 200 billion dollars each year. ^OSHA regulations help save 10,000 lives each year, and prevent 910,000 workplace injuries per year.
