I am saying that this situation reflects the cost of labour best. Now, of course, we can't go on the other side and completely atomize labour. However, as it stands, labour unions have too much power.
(unfortunately, as you point out below, there's little in-between of atomization and collectivism for labour - a point that I'm not smart enough to assess and address)
How can it "reflect the cost of labour"? The cost of labour is surely whatever labour costs, something is determined by the ability of labour to bargain, individually or collectively. Again, you appear to set out with the assumption that capital, by nature, is in the "best" position to determine the cost of labour. Simply noting that they "bear the burden of risk" doesn't explain it, because that's merely an explanation of self-interest, and this is, fundamentally, a moral point.
I claim my "free" market determines the fair wages for workers, when unhindered by powerful unions
My point was that you claim that the wages determined by the free market reflects the individual contribution of any given worker to the process of production, and I questioned with that is something that can be meaningfully determined, given the necessity of any halfway complex labour as a cooperative process. You are suggesting some sort of Just Price theory, but you do not explain how this would operate.
That's a bit of a childish perception of my viewpoint. The market isn't "wise" and doesn't have the capacity to "make decisions". The market is a tool that works in a certain way.
I surmise that it works best in my stated way.
I don't view it as childish, merely the logical conclusion of this approach. We don't expect everyone in the workplace to be obligated to be perfect by law, do we? It is understood that a certain degree of sexism or racism, while undesirable, is a reality that can only be address on an interpersonal level? So why not let the market decide how much that is? If it becomes truly intolerable, workers can leave, so it would create a natural equilibrium. It may not be an ideal equilibrium for all perspectives, but, hey, neither is your market-based solution to wages; you are, evidently, a pragmatist in these matters.
I get what you're saying, but my issue is that due to the nature of labour and capital being antagonistic, the current situation in some companies is tipped to the labour side.
Stable compromise? I turn to the free market. If we have a healthy market with plenty of competition and no barriers to entry, then a worker should be able to obtain fair wages. If a company is exploitative of the worker and pays too little, then the worker can simply turn to another company that isn't. If every company is exploitative, then a new company could steal away all the labour by not being exploitative and turn a decent profit.
The free market resolves these things. The trick is to maintain and regulate it in order to keep the primary principles the same. (That is, of healthy competition)
In an economy with only frictional unemployment, perhaps, but we do not live in such a world, nor are we likely to in the majority of countries. Outside of periods of exceptional- and unsustainable- economic growth, the supply of labour outweighs the demand for labour in those industries that do not primarily rely on skilled or professional labour (and at times, within them, as both blue and white collar workers in the construction industry at the moment can tell you). This means that capital by definition has an advantage over labour, an advantage that can only be addressed through means which you would consider contrary to the "free market", be they through labour organisation or legislation. To start with the assumption that capital and labour are on an equal footing is to begin with a complete misunderstanding of reality, much as, say, attempting to address race relations in the US with the assumption that whites and blacks were equally advantaged would be completely unrealistic.
(And, of course, there are those of us who would like to see labour so highly advantaged over capital that it was able to do away with the whole ugly business altogether, but let's take things one step at a time, eh?
)
Pretty much, yes. Or, to give myself a bit more credence, my interpretation of it.
...
No, I simply consider your version of a free market not truly "free". The idea of the free market is economic freedom. There is no economic freedom if we have monopolies, oligopolies, and cartels. The word "free" then becomes meaningless.
Similar to the idea that I am not truly "free" if I don't have the right to murder someone. - Yes, I am.
So there isn't really a categorical distinction between "free" and "unfree" markets? There's just markets, operating to varying degrees of effectiveness?
No worries, I'm not that cutthroat. I've only take ECON 101 and 102, though, so my expertise isn't that refined. There are just the basics.
My thanks.
A fair point. But I hypothesize that my version of the market with the proper controls, regulations, and labour laws, would be sufficient to render the atomization of labour a non-issue.
How can the state of labour be a non-issue, from the perspective of the worker as an individual, or the workers as a class? That's something which goes beyond their immediate circumstances, both chronologically and in the workplace, but determines their political and economic power in society as a whole, and over time. Simply relying on the patrician-capitalist to sort things out for you is incredibly disempowering, and, if you're a Bolshy sort like meself, more than a little degrading.
