I fear this trust that market forces will eventually raise wages will lead to disappointment. Inequality has been increasing for over three decades, and during that time we have been at or near full employment many times. Yet, wages over this time period have been flat. As noted by the Economic Policy Institute, “Since 1979, the vast majority of American workers have seen their hourly wages stagnate or decline—even though decades of consistent gains in economy-wide productivity have provided ample room for wage growth.” The idea that market forces alone will increase wages sufficiently to offset increasing inequality is not supported by the evidence from these years. There’s more to the story than market forces.…
Until workers recover the bargaining power they lost with the decline of unions and the rise of globalization, it’s hard to imagine a reversal of the forces pushing us toward stagnating wages and ever higher inequality. It’s not market forces alone that are determining the split of income between those at the top of the income distribution and those below, it’s also the institutions that determine who holds the cards in negotiations over wages. Presently workers are not faring well.
To me, what we are seeing is reminiscent of the “Just Price Doctrine” popularized by St. Thomas Aquinas in the Middle Ages. According to this view, “The just wage meant that rate of remuneration which was required to enable the worker to live decently in the station of life in which he was placed; and thus, if one may so express it, such a wage, representing reasonable decency, was made a first charge on industry.”…
Solving the problem of lack of bargaining power that puts workers at the mercy of the “decency” of those they negotiate with is not easy. The ability of traditional unions to negotiate over wages has been undercut by globalization, technology, and the threat of offshoring, though unions – to the extent they still exist – do retain some value as a source of political power.Especially when one of the chief "contradiction of capitalism" is asymmetry of capital/profit share and labor/wage share. See Michal Kalecki, "Political Aspects of Full Employment".
But one thing is clear. So long as we continue to believe that market forces and the attainment of full employment will solve the problem of stagnating wages and rising inequality, so long as we fail to recognize that workers need a level playing field when bargaining over wages, inequality will continue to be a problem.
"The rent is too damn high."
Distributional issues will be difficult if not impossible to address effectively without reference to economic rent and rent-seeking, and how the ability to extract rent arises from power and class. This undercuts the mainstream rationale of distribution based on marginal productivity and just deserts, which is why it is marginalized as "Marxist" and off the table for discussion in mainstream economics. So far heterodox economists other than Marxists and Marxians have been reticent to pick it up. However, it is a principle reason behind market "imperfection" being endemic and market failure being recurrent, something that mainstream economists have not be able to address successfully without taking rent into account.
The Fiscal Times
Full Employment Alone Won’t Solve Problem of Stagnating Wages
Mark Thoma | Professor of Economics, University of Oregon
10 comments:
Maybe unions aren't the right institutions to represent workers rights.
A different social institution needs to be devised that represents workers interests and can function without putting individual companies at a disadvantage. They need to organize and represent all workers across an industry and set standards for all participants.
They should probably jump ahead of the multinationals and try to organize as part of trade agreements, across borders to force all trading adversaries to adhere to the same labor standards
We don't need to reinvent the wheel. Workers should represent workers. That means unions--unions wherever people labor. Every man for himself is a massive fail. Globalization and ending neoliberal/neocon immigration policies will be starting points too. Workers of the world need to reunite.
Clarification: globalization needs to be significantly kneecapped.
Globalization is the trend. The issue the form it takes. The Empire is committed to making that neoliberalism and the resultant oligarchic "democracy." The elites of most other countries are on board with that. The only issue now is the degree to which it will be unipolar and Western-centric.
The only force capable of disrupting this trend is workers. My sense is that this trend will likely play itself and out and it will only be challenged successfully after globalization has already been achieved to a great degree. There's a way to go yet, and the workers of the world are going to get ground up by it.
I don't mind a hybrid globalization. I get it that it's a small world now and also going forward. I'm not a one world-er, though. I believe in national sovereignty and individuality (predicated on shared values, whatever they may be). Common culture is axiomatic to functional and just living arrangements. Corporate driven immigration policy is anathema to that end. Don't get me wrong, I embrace diversity, but I embrace it when it comes about organically. Greed driven, faux diversity, plays against the laboring class in the end. Unity and commonality go hand in hand. Stability and justice will follow. Tall fences makes for good neighbors locally and nationally. Anything else is simply leftist or rightist ideological religion.
The only solution for workers to gain the upper hand is to organize at a level larger than the largest firms.
Malmo, my motto is live unity and celebrate diversity.
As humans we are all one and as beings we are alone one, too. Every individual is unique, just like every snowflake. Groups forms for a variety of reason, some involuntary like nation of birth, and some entirely voluntary like groups of friends, and there is a range in between the extremes.
One of the challenges in life is harmonizing the universal and the particular.
Moreover, the process of globalization is in no danger of erring on the side of universality. The bias remains strongly on the side of particularity.
Americans are deluded in thinking that their culture and values are superior because historical circumstance has resulted in US hegemony at present.
Forcing conformity never works. If something really is superior, it will eventually be adopted.
Tom,
Couldn't agree more.
One Big Union or higher energy prices. I think the latter is more likely and potentially more disruptive to globalization.
Post a Comment