Sterling Terrell

smart ideas from books (mostly)

  • Home
  • About
    • My CV
    • Books
    • Series
  • Newsletter
  • Advertising
  • Tools

Myth-Busting the Unions

Myth-Busting the Unions

Esquire magazine recently did a profile on AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka. There are enough half-truths, distortions, and flat-out lies in Trumka’s quotes to fill up an entire book with refutations.

Trumka rattles on with dysphemisms and clichés about the evils of capitalism and economic freedom (not true), flat wages (not true), income inequality (more freedom means more equality), the rich not paying enough taxes (not true), and the need for higher taxes to solve problems (not going to work).

What does a union do, anyway? Dictionary.com says a labor union is:

an organization of wage earners or salaried employees for mutual aid and protection and for dealing collectively with employers; trade union.

That’s fairly simple. But what do unions themselves say? Trumka’s AFL-CIO declares in its mission statement:

The mission of the AFL-CIO is to improve the lives of working families—to bring economic justice to the workplace and social justice to our nation. To accomplish this mission we will build and change the American labor movement.

That begs the question: How do they define economic justice? And they want the American labor movement built and changed into what?

Rhetoric aside, if labor unions are workers banded together for higher wages and better working conditions, this implies a number of things.

First, this premise implies that without unions acting on workers’ behalf, then working conditions and pay would inherently be unfair if the economy and world were allowed to exist in its natural state without intervention. In short, it says that people naturally exploit each other in the marketplace. This notion is an entirely Marxist idea.

In his book Marxism: Philosophy and Economics, economist Thomas Sowell points to a number of examples.

He quotes Friedrich Engels:

The separation of society into an exploiting and an exploited class, a ruling and an oppressed class, was the necessary consequence of the deficient and restricted development of production in former times.

Sowell notes this passage from Marx’s The Poverty of Philosophy:

The natural price of labor is no other than the wage minimum.

Sowell cites The Communist Manifesto:

the modern labourer…instead of rising with the progress of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class.

Trumka echoes all of it.

This last idea—of ever-sinking conditions—is hard to reconcile with the last two hundred years’ massive increases in overall living standards. Marx himself had a hard time fitting this idea into the world in which he lived. He conceded a rise in Britain’s agricultural workers’ pay from 1845-1849 but called it “practically insignificant.” When pressed on the numbers in public, Marx admitted it was “about forty percent.”

In the market economy, there is a natural price for everything. Prices are determined by the supply of, and the demand for, a given good or service. This is also true for labor.

If the natural price for labor is $5 per hour for an unskilled worker, and unions seek to collectively bargain for wages higher than $5 per hour, why would a business ever hire a union worker? Why would a struggling business not fire all of their union workers who demand relatively higher wages and hire non-union workers demanding relatively lower wages?

The answer is simple: The government does not make it that easy.

To understand this fact, one must become familiar with both the Norris-La Guardia Act of 1932 and the Wagner Act of 1935.

The former made condition of employment contracts—not to join unions—non-enforceable in court, it made unions exempt from antitrust laws, and it removed federal courts’ jurisdiction in labor disputes. The latter is credited with forming the National Labor Relations Board which oversees and enforces a number of labor laws. On their website they list examples of illegal employer activities:

Threatening employees with loss of jobs or benefits if they join or vote for a union or engage in protected concerted activity.

Threatening to close the plant if employees select a union to represent them.

Questioning employees about their union sympathies or activities in circumstances that tend to interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights under the Act.

Promising benefits to employees to discourage their union support.

Transferring, laying off, terminating, assigning employees more difficult work tasks, or otherwise punishing employees because they engaged in union or protected concerted activity.

Transferring, laying off, terminating, assigning employees more difficult work tasks, or otherwise punishing employees because they filed unfair labor practice charges or participated in an investigation conducted by NLRB.

Both the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 and the Walsh-Healey Actof 1936 prescribe federal regulation of minimum wages. Davis-Bacon requires “prevailing wages” on all government construction contracts over two thousand dollars. Walsh-Healey extends the requirement of “prevailing wages” to all government contracts over ten thousand dollars. And finally, the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 extended federally mandated minimum wages to the entire country.

Unfortunately, minimum wages have consequences. Any economist will tell you that price ceilings cause shortages and price floors cause surpluses. Since a minimum wage is a price floor (i.e., by law, prices are not allowed to fall below a certain level), the effect is a surplus of labor—also called unemployment. Because of this, minimum-wage laws eliminate competition.

Say the natural price for labor is $5 per hour for an unskilled worker, meaning a sufficient number of workers are more than willing to do the job for $5 per hour. If government fiat imposes a minimum wage of $7 per hour, relatively lower-paid workers are eliminated from freely competing with relatively higher-paid workers. Such artificially imposed higher wage levels protect union jobs from those willing to compete on price.

The strike, or the threat of a strike, is the unions’ main weapon to bend management to their will. But it’s more than a strike, as economist Morgan Reynolds notes in his book Power and Privilege: Labor Unions in America:

A union’s problem is painfully obvious: organized strikers must shut down the enterprise, close the market to everyone else—uncooperative workers, union members, disenchanted former strikers, and employers—in order to force wages and working conditions above free-market rates. If too many individuals defy the strikers…then unionists often resort to force. Unionists ultimately cannot impose noncompetitive wage rates…unless they can prevent employers from hiring consenting adults on terms that are mutually satisfactory. Unions must actively interfere with freedom of trade in labor markets in order to deliver on their promises.

Unions demand higher wages for themselves at the expense of others. And they do so by government coercion.

As economist Robert Barro notes, when employers band together for the highest price possible it is outlawed as a form of reprehensible greed, while when employees band together seeking the highest price possible it is considered heroic and just.

Read all you can about unions. Contradictions abound.

And Trumka is nothing but a political hack.

This post was first published by Taki’s Magazine.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)

Filed Under: PotpourriTagged With: #Economics

Are You Sick of Highly Paid Teachers?

Are You Sick of Highly Paid Teachers?

As I write, there is an email forward and social media post that is floating around by the same title.

It asks, “Are You Sick of Highly Paid Teachers?” and then goes on to show that, actually…teachers are not paid enough.

I say: Teachers are paid plenty.

While that may or may not be true 😉, the economics of the article does deserve a closer look.

In full, the note says:

Teachers’ hefty salaries are driving up taxes, and they only work 9 or 10 months a year! It’s time we put things in perspective and pay them for what they do – babysit!
We can get that for less than minimum wage.

That’s right. Let’s give them $3.00 an hour and only the hours they worked; not any of that silly planning time, or any time they spend before or after school. That would be $19.50 a day (7:45 to 3:00 PM with 45 min. off for lunch and plan– that equals 6 1/2 hours).

Each parent should pay $19.50 a day for these teachers to baby-sit their children. Now how many students do they teach in a day…maybe 30? So that’s $19.50 x 30 = $585.00 a day.
However, remember they only work 180 days a year!!! I am not going to pay them for any vacations.

LET’S SEE….

That’s $585 X 180= $105,300 per year. (Hold on! My calculator needs new batteries).

What about those special education teachers and the ones with Master’s degrees? Well, we could pay them minimum wage ($7.75), and just to be fair, round it off to $8.00 an hour. That would be $8 X 6 1/2 hours X 30 children X 180 days = $280,800 per year.

Wait a minute — there’s something wrong here! There sure is!

The average teacher’s salary (nation wide) is $50,000. $50,000/180 days = $277.77/per day/30 students=$9.25/6.5 hours = $1.42 per hour per student–a very inexpensive baby-sitter and they even EDUCATE your kids!) WHAT A DEAL!!!!

Make a teacher smile; repost this to show appreciation for all educators.

Update: I’m glad that many people have shown their support for teachers by reposting this note, but I am not the original author.  I received this as an anonymous chain letter email, and I wanted to share it to support the public workers of Wisconsin.

While this note is seemingly clever and cute in its own way, it has a problem.  It was written by someone with no grasp of economics.  Not only does the note only discuss salaries, it completely excludes the entire notion of fixed costs.  On this account, the note should not be taken seriously.

Let’s look at it.  And for the sake of confusion, assume that the numbers presented in the note are actually correct.

The note says that in the USA, a teacher’s average salary is $50,000 per year.  But, if teachers were just paid like daycare workers or “inexpensive babysitters,” making between three dollars an hour and minimum wage, they would be making between $105,300 and $280,800 per year.

Well.  This implication begs the question:  Why don’t daycare workers, working for a daycare that charges $64 per day, per student, make $280,800 per year, or more?

The answer is fixed costs:  Quite simply, salary is not the only expense that a school has.

Said differently, schools that take in X dollars in revenue do not pay out X dollars in salary.

If 30 parents pay $8 per hour, or $64 per day (for an 8 hour day), to put their child in daycare, for a total of $1,920 per day — the teacher is not paid $1,920 per day.  There is more to operating a school than that.  First, there is the cost of the building that has to be built and financed.  Utilities must be paid.  Insurance costs have to be taken into account.  A maintenance crew must be retained for building repairs and cleaning.  A bus must be bought if the children ever wish to take a field trip.  An administration staff must be kept.  Computers and software must be purchased.  And most employees will require the cost of health benefits, social security taxes, and retirement.

In contrast, many people would probably consider it a bargain to educate students for $9,360 ($280,800 / 30 students) per year as a good deal.  This is because as late as 2009, Houston school district’s stated per-pupil cost was $8,418.  Los Angeles reported a cost of $10,053 per pupil, Chicago was $11,536, and the District of Columbia $17,542.  But, as the Cato Institute reports, these numbers are actually guilty of the same problem: In many cases, school districts leave out many fixed costs from reported statistics.  When all costs are added to the figures, Houston’s per-pupil cost jumps to $12,534, Los Angeles goes to $25,208, Chicago to $15,875, and the District of Columbia rises to $28,170.

The entire rationale behind this popular note is wrong.  Prices are not determined by false analogy.

Just as easily, one could make a similar mistake in regard to both truck drivers and merchant ship captains.

Tractor-trailer truck drivers are in charge of transporting one tractor-trailer over long distances.  For this, tractor-trailer drivers make, on average, $44,873 per year. Therefore, merchant ship captains, who routinely are in charge of transporting the equivalent of 15,000 tractor-trailers, should be paid approximately $673,095,000 per year ($44,873*15,000).

What misguided reasoning.

As I said, prices are not determined by false analogy.

In the absence of intervention, prices are determined by the supply of, and the demand for, goods and services.

The price of labor is no exception.

Saying, or implying, otherwise is simply false.

This post was first published by LvMI Canada.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)

Filed Under: PotpourriTagged With: #Economics, #Teachers

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 2670
  • 2671
  • 2672
  • 2673
  • 2674
  • …
  • 2679
  • Next Page »

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Notifications of all new posts by email.

Connect

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Pinterest
  • Twitter

Search

Top Posts

  • The Tricky Lily Pad Riddle (You Probably Can't Solve)
    The Tricky Lily Pad Riddle (You Probably Can't Solve)
  • Can You Solve The Bat And Ball Riddle?
    Can You Solve The Bat And Ball Riddle?
  • Another Great Riddle For You To Try
    Another Great Riddle For You To Try
  • Wonder Park Pi Song (Watch It Stick In Your Head)
    Wonder Park Pi Song (Watch It Stick In Your Head)
  • Instabooks 169
    Instabooks 169
  • Statistical Questions: This Is One of My Favorites
    Statistical Questions: This Is One of My Favorites
  • The Desert: 3 Reasons Why I Love It
    The Desert: 3 Reasons Why I Love It
  • 8 Great Passages From: The Hiding Place, By: Corrie Ten Boom
    8 Great Passages From: The Hiding Place, By: Corrie Ten Boom
  • Hyatt Hill Country Sunday House
    Hyatt Hill Country Sunday House
  • The Applause of Heaven, By: Max Lucado
    The Applause of Heaven, By: Max Lucado

Supporting = Loving

Buy Me a Coffee

Recent Posts

  • Shoe Will Be The Next To Drop
  • Random Thoughts – 383
  • Asymmetric Opportunities To Tilt Luck
  • Where I Sit 26
  • X.com

Copyright © 2023 · Generate Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in