From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: [Republicans] On Civil Liberties and Drugs
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 13:00:21 EDT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu
Keywords: New-Speak

In article <bw6qkx.cvo@wang.com>, fitz@wang.com (Tom Fitzgerald) writes:
|> > |> Most members of the workforce will work anyplace that offers them a job,
|> > |> will be sitting at their desk/assembly-line at 8:00 AM exactly, wear a tie
|> > |> or uniform and address their superiors as "sir".
|> 
|> jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe) writes:
|> 
|> > Life is consists of a constant stream of trade-offs.  It is up to the
|> > individual to decide if certain sacrifices (wear a tie, address superiors
|> > as sir, etc) are worth it for the benefits gained.
|> 
|> [...]
|>
|> If you're part of the libertarian hardcore that believes that a huge
|> increase in the well-being of one large group still doesn't justify a much
|> smaller decrease in the well-being of another, smaller group, then we can
|> part ways on philosophical grounds.

I guess it all depends on how you evaluate the cost/benefit ratio.  I
happen to believe that there are large costs involved when government
intervenes in personal and business relationships.  There is the cost
of diminished freedom, which is difficult to measure, there is
the economic cost and finally there is the social cost.  A law stating
that a business can't discriminate based on race may seem simple and
cheap.  But if the law is to have any meaning there must be some enforcement
and identification mechanism.  How do you determine whether someone is
'guilty' of discrimination?  The costs add up when you consider the amount
of money spent defending yourself, the lost productivity because you
can't fire bad employees for fear of lawsuit, etc.

|> > It is at this point
|> > that a competing business can step in and offer a job which doesn't
|> > demand the heavy sacrifice required by the other employer.
|> 
|> Why would an employer do this?  The business clearly makes a larger profit
|> by demanding heavier sacrifices from its workers, so it would find itself
|> at a competitive disadvantage by treating them nicer.  It can get all the
|> workers it needs no matter how badly it treats them.

Presumably workers being mistreated would prefer to work for a business
which doesn't mistreat them.  One business could probably offer a lower
salary and/or benefits in exchange for improved treatment.  Businesses
are always looking for ways to get a competitive edge on their opponents.
Stealing employee away by offering a better working environment is 
one way to do this.  It is also not at all clear that a business would
make a larger profit by demanding heavier sacrifices from its workers.
Improving working conditions often improves productivity and lowers
overall costs substantially.  This is why competition is so important.
Without competition, businesses worry less about operating at peak
efficiency and may be more inclined to waste resources such as their
own employees.  Of course, government is one of the best tools many
businesses have in reducing competition.

|>  The only way an
|> employer can treat its workers better, without suffering in the market, is
|> if it knows its competitors are required to treat their workers the same
|> way.  And if all employers are required to treat their employees humanely,
|> then no company suffers by it.
|> 

Of course what really happens is that some businesses use this argument
to impose additional costs on their competitors which drives them out of
business.  Of course, this reduces competition, hurts the economy and
keeps more people unemployed.  Those who are lucky enough to have a job
may benefit, but those who were put out of work because the company
they worked for went out of business aren't so well off.

|> > Many people who work in 'sweatshops'
|> > are foreign workers who have fewer job opportunities because of our
|> > stupid immigration laws.  Even so, they actually are able to live a 
|> > better life than where they came from.
|> 
|> Treating workers like animals isn't justified by the fact that someone else
|> would be willing to treat them worse.
|> 

Wonderful hyperbole but it misses the point.  Who are you to sit and
judge what a person should or shouldn't do to care for themselves and
their family?  It's wonderful to say that someone shouldn't have to
do X in order to care for their family but they must have thought it
was their best option.  It hardly seems humane to remove options that
may be available to them because you think they shouldn't subject 
themselves to the type of work you find objectionable.  If you really
care, you should try to help these people through charity or other
means.  Give them more options from which to choose, but let them
make the choice.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943