On Monday, October 22, 2001, at 10:09 AM, Gabriel Rocha wrote:
On Mon, Oct 22, at 04:58PM, Julian Assange wrote: | This years Nobel for Economics won by George A. Akerlof, A. Michael | Spence and Joseph E. Stiglitz "for their analysis of markets with | assymetric information" is typical.
The Nobel priye was won by people who published ideas that nobel laureate FA Hayek published in the 30's.
This is one of the problems with the whole "Economics" prize. There's not even a prize in _mathematics_, fer chrissake, so why one in _economics_? Alfred Nobel certainly did not endow an economics prize. (The econ prize gets its money from some other source.) The Econ prize was only established in the 70s, and now the prize committee is reaching down deeper into the ranks. Maybe it's time for them to admit that creating the prize was a political move in the first place and it should now be retired, or cut back to a prize only when it is really warranted.
And yet, if in a union, I am posed a similar question as the sweatshop worker. Do I dare go against the union and risk being a pariah, or do i simply follow the herd and fuck over the businessman whose hand feeds me? There is only asymetry if you presume the employee to be ignorant, or uneducated or plain outright stupid. If the exchange is totally voluntary, the owner will present a wage that the employee may or may not accept along with terms and conditions, which the employee is also free to accept or decline.
Most chip and computer engineers are not unionized (the union meaning, not the plasma meaning). This works well. Some engineers have formed professional societies. These are _nominally_ to "ensure professional standards." But critics point to their role as a rate-limiting, rent-seeking group. Doctors and lawyers, most notably, use professional societies as unions.
Granted, in the world of unskilled labor, this doesnt seem as evident, but that goes back around the circle on why the work is unskilled and why the worker is there. Life handed him a shittier set of choices than the guy whose hobby was network security and has more bargaining power at the negotiation table with an employer.
The blue-collar worker also has a fair amount of "bargaining power." He is paid less, usually, but his relative value to the employer is what he is paid. A machine tool worker may not have much power to "demand more money," but neither does an engineer, or even a security expert! The traditional labor union threatens mass action, typically a strike or walkout or slowdown. The usual theory is that this protects them from retaliation because a plant would have to fire _all_ striking workers, with dire consequences for them. This is false, as factories can and do move to other states, other nations. (The U.S. was a low-wage haven compared to England, in textiles. It also "stole" the intellectual property of the mills in England. Ironically, the same southern states (Georgia, South Carolina, etc.) that complain so viciously about the Asian and Mexican factories were _themselves_ beneficiaries of the move of factories from New England mill towns to their states. Largely to escape unions and reduce labor costs. Irony squared and cubed.)
I firmly disagree with the suppression of unions, but by that same token I firmly disagree that an employer should be mandated to keep an employee who is a part of a union. It is the employees choice to unioniye, it should sure as hell be the employers choice to say as Tim so galantly put it "Fuck Off!".
I put it even more strongly, of course.
--Tim May "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant." --John Stuart Mill