4 ms·

The definition already assumes that "market wages" reflect some optimal (for society) balance...Rent seeker is already incorrect as I showed. The definition of

The definition already assumes that "market wages" reflect some optimal (for society) balance...Rent seeker is already incorrect as I showed. The definition of rent seeking has nothing to do with your favorite socially optimal balance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking Unions attempt to obtain a higher income than that which would be necessary to keep a factor of production (in this case labor) employed in it's current use by manipulating the social or political environment without creating new wealth. Thus, they are by definition rent seekers. ...those paying the wages have numerous means to get the upper hand -- from forming cartels and controlling the media, to downright buying politicians and favorable legislation. You seem to be confused - it's unions, not wage payers, who have these powers. Unions buy politicians and get favorable legislation, and a union is by definition a cartel. In contrast, cartels of wage payers are illegal, and the media is rarely favorable to their interests. But in the rare cases when wage payers form a cartel, this too is rent seeking. You know, the people that, unlike Ayn Rand's heroes, actually produce something. I'd suggest once you finish reading the definition of rent seeking, you might also consider reading Ayn Rand. You might be shocked to discover that all of her heroes are productive workers.

coldtea 10y ago
>The definition of rent seeking has nothing to do with your favorite socially optimal balance (...) "Unions attempt to obtain a higher income than that which would be necessary to keep a factor of production (in this case labor) employed in it's current use by manipulating the social or political environment without creating new wealth. Thus, they are by definition rent seekers." Unions represent those that par excellence create new wealth, the workers. It's the managerial class that doesn't create any new wealth -- and it's that class, land owners, industry leaders, etc, that is more prone to rent seeking. Of course a manager getting a $1 million bonus or a CEO ensuring their golden parachute while the company goes down the drain (thus hardly "creating any new wealth") is not called "rent seeking" while a construction worker getting $1 per hour more due to union bargaining is. Note that "a higher income than that which would be necessary" is mumbo jumbo without clear definition, except if we are to accept subsistence pay. >You seem to be confused - it's unions, not wage payers, who have these powers. Unions buy politicians and get favorable legislation, and a union is by definition a cartel. You seem even more confused. First, you say that "it's unions, not wage payers, who have these powers". By this, you already seem to accept the notion that individual workers do not have these powers -- unless they organize in a union. Which was my point precisely. If you read my comment, I didn't say that that the unions don't have power. I only said that wage payers have much power over the workers, and that unions help to alleviate that. Your statement is agreeing with me on this, with the exception that you seem to believe that the union then gets too much power over the wage payers (which I believe is wrong). The second problematic thing is that I enumerate which powers I believe that wage payers have: "from forming cartels and controlling the media, to downright buying politicians and favorable legislation" -- and you say that those are the powers that unions have. Sorry, but those are by no means the powers that unions get. The unions at most offer collective bargaining powers (and usually their leadership tends to be corrupt and in bed with wage payers anyway). The Rockefellers, Hearsts, Trumps, etc of the world are more known to "forming cartels and controlling the media, to downright buying politicians and favorable legislation" than unions are.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  Unions represent those that par excellence create new wealth, the workers. But they create no new wealth themselves while seeking to capture more wealth. Hence, rent seekers. Of course a manager getting a $1 million bonus or a CEO ensuring their golden parachute while the company goes down the drain (thus hardly "creating any new wealth") is not called "rent seeking" while a construction worker getting $1 per hour more due to union bargaining is. Correct, a manager/CEO/construction worker negotiating higher compensation by threatening to leave is not rent seeking. That's because this factor of production would not be employed at a lower wage. Rent seeking is a technical term with a specific definition, not a general term of derision. Unions meet that definition, CEOs (in their role as labor) mostly do not.
hackuser 10y ago
> it's unions, not wage payers, who have these powers Are you serious? Major developers in NYC don't have market-distorting power?

coldtea 10y ago

>The definition of rent seeking has nothing to do with your favorite socially optimal balance (...) "Unions attempt to obtain a higher income than that which would be necessary to keep a factor of production (in this case labor) employed in it's current use by manipulating the social or political environment without creating new wealth. Thus, they are by definition rent seekers." Unions represent those that par excellence create new wealth, the workers. It's the managerial class that doesn't create any new wealth -- and it's that class, land owners, industry leaders, etc, that is more prone to rent seeking. Of course a manager getting a $1 million bonus or a CEO ensuring their golden parachute while the company goes down the drain (thus hardly "creating any new wealth") is not called "rent seeking" while a construction worker getting $1 per hour more due to union bargaining is. Note that "a higher income than that which would be necessary" is mumbo jumbo without clear definition, except if we are to accept subsistence pay. >You seem to be confused - it's unions, not wage payers, who have these powers. Unions buy politicians and get favorable legislation, and a union is by definition a cartel. You seem even more confused. First, you say that "it's unions, not wage payers, who have these powers". By this, you already seem to accept the notion that individual workers do not have these powers -- unless they organize in a union. Which was my point precisely. If you read my comment, I didn't say that that the unions don't have power. I only said that wage payers have much power over the workers, and that unions help to alleviate that. Your statement is agreeing with me on this, with the exception that you seem to believe that the union then gets too much power over the wage payers (which I believe is wrong). The second problematic thing is that I enumerate which powers I believe that wage payers have: "from forming cartels and controlling the media, to downright buying politicians and favorable legislation" -- and you say that those are the powers that unions have. Sorry, but those are by no means the powers that unions get. The unions at most offer collective bargaining powers (and usually their leadership tends to be corrupt and in bed with wage payers anyway). The Rockefellers, Hearsts, Trumps, etc of the world are more known to "forming cartels and controlling the media, to downright buying politicians and favorable legislation" than unions are.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
Unions represent those that par excellence create new wealth, the workers. But they create no new wealth themselves while seeking to capture more wealth. Hence, rent seekers. Of course a manager getting a $1 million bonus or a CEO ensuring their golden parachute while the company goes down the drain (thus hardly "creating any new wealth") is not called "rent seeking" while a construction worker getting $1 per hour more due to union bargaining is. Correct, a manager/CEO/construction worker negotiating higher compensation by threatening to leave is not rent seeking. That's because this factor of production would not be employed at a lower wage. Rent seeking is a technical term with a specific definition, not a general term of derision. Unions meet that definition, CEOs (in their role as labor) mostly do not.

hackuser 10y ago

> it's unions, not wage payers, who have these powers Are you serious? Major developers in NYC don't have market-distorting power?