Comments on: Division of labor http://pdf23ds.net/2006/04/14/division-of-labor/ I will not be swayed be every small current; nor will the memes faze me or infect me. I am pure. I am intelligent. I am rational. I am at peace. Tue, 06 Jan 2009 13:48:19 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: pdf23ds http://pdf23ds.net/2006/04/14/division-of-labor/#comment-31 pdf23ds Mon, 17 Apr 2006 01:28:01 +0000 http://pdf23ds.net/2006/04/14/division-of-labor/#comment-31 It seems to me that while unions do, as you say, drive up wages and thus give companies more of an incentive to automate jobs, the unions themselves still do have an incentive to work against that. I'm not sure I can accept your example of the UMW president as being typical. Any individual worker is going to be opposed to their own job being automated away. If the worker accepted the job, it's obviously worth the risk to them. That isn't to say we should oppose the conditions that often lead people to be desparate enough to take dangerous jobs, or the conditions that let employers get away with poor working conditions. But any given worker has decided that they're better off mining, and getting paid whatever for it, than they are not mining. And a miner replacement machine is not something they're going to welcome. (A miner-helper machine that eliminates 20% of the jobs and makes the rest of the jobs much safer? Well, the miners that get laid off are going to be opposed, but overall the miners will probably support such a thing.) Insofar as the union represents those miners' interests, the union is going to opposed that automation. Now, perhaps the miners' interests aren't very rational. For instance, 70% could overestimate their own skill and value to the company and believe they're very likely to be one of the 30% kept on after the machines are introduced. But I doubt that's really a factor here. Or perhaps unions consistently misrepresent their members in this fashion. But I don't particularly see that, either. Now, an argument from history, that most unions have not opposed such automation and technical progress, I would accept as invalidating my argument. Since I'm ignorant of this history (big surprise) I can't really say. It seems to me that while unions do, as you say, drive up wages and thus give companies more of an incentive to automate jobs, the unions themselves still do have an incentive to work against that. I’m not sure I can accept your example of the UMW president as being typical.

Any individual worker is going to be opposed to their own job being automated away. If the worker accepted the job, it’s obviously worth the risk to them. That isn’t to say we should oppose the conditions that often lead people to be desparate enough to take dangerous jobs, or the conditions that let employers get away with poor working conditions. But any given worker has decided that they’re better off mining, and getting paid whatever for it, than they are not mining. And a miner replacement machine is not something they’re going to welcome. (A miner-helper machine that eliminates 20% of the jobs and makes the rest of the jobs much safer? Well, the miners that get laid off are going to be opposed, but overall the miners will probably support such a thing.)

Insofar as the union represents those miners’ interests, the union is going to opposed that automation.

Now, perhaps the miners’ interests aren’t very rational. For instance, 70% could overestimate their own skill and value to the company and believe they’re very likely to be one of the 30% kept on after the machines are introduced. But I doubt that’s really a factor here.

Or perhaps unions consistently misrepresent their members in this fashion. But I don’t particularly see that, either.

Now, an argument from history, that most unions have not opposed such automation and technical progress, I would accept as invalidating my argument. Since I’m ignorant of this history (big surprise) I can’t really say.

]]> By: Big Bill http://pdf23ds.net/2006/04/14/division-of-labor/#comment-30 Big Bill Sun, 16 Apr 2006 15:19:41 +0000 http://pdf23ds.net/2006/04/14/division-of-labor/#comment-30 But of course unions do precisely the opposite: they encourge automation. I am reminded of the UMW President who, when challenged that incresing coal miners' wages would cause the companies to replace men with machines, said (in effect) "great! the fewer nasty, dangerous coal mining jobs the better." It is not unions that prevent automation, but scabs like illegal aliens who drive wages down and reduce management's incentive to automate nasty, soul-destroying dangerous tasks. To drive down wages you can fight for scab and wetback labor, or you can automate. Japan has chosen the latter. The Democratic and Republican elite have chosen the former, causing all that resist "isolationists" "nativists" and "racists". But of course the Democrats gave up on the workng man decades ago, choosing to pursue Penis Politics and racial pandering. The Republicans in comparison choose not to alloy their pure greed with the base metal of hypocrisy like the Democrats, so I am marginally (but less and less so over time as they tax us into oblivion) more inclined toward them. But of course unions do precisely the opposite: they encourge automation. I am reminded of the UMW President who, when challenged that incresing coal miners’ wages would cause the companies to replace men with machines, said (in effect) “great! the fewer nasty, dangerous coal mining jobs the better.”

It is not unions that prevent automation, but scabs like illegal aliens who drive wages down and reduce management’s incentive to automate nasty, soul-destroying dangerous tasks.

To drive down wages you can fight for scab and wetback labor, or you can automate. Japan has chosen the latter. The Democratic and Republican elite have chosen the former, causing all that resist “isolationists” “nativists” and “racists”.

But of course the Democrats gave up on the workng man decades ago, choosing to pursue Penis Politics and racial pandering. The Republicans in comparison choose not to alloy their pure greed with the base metal of hypocrisy like the Democrats, so I am marginally (but less and less so over time as they tax us into oblivion) more inclined toward them.

]]>