5 ms·
You aren't addressing the crux of her argument. "Smith underestimated economies of scale. His butcher is now working the night shift on the line in an industri
by lemmsjid 7y ago
You aren't addressing the crux of her argument.
"Smith underestimated economies of scale. His butcher is now working the night shift on the line in an industrial meatpacking plant." The key point being that early theoreticians of the free market were motivated by humanistic impulses, but failed to understand how large and powerful corporations could become, relative to the bargaining power of the individual.
When you talk about the cost of switching jobs, and how you will be actively recruited to your next one, you are talking from the perspective of a minority at the apex of the industrial food chain who has that kind of labor power.
The economies of scale in the global economy are such that an entire industry can and will pull itself out of a large region because the labor is cheaper and the laws are friendlier in another region. The bargaining power of the individual is negligible in such a circumstance, and alternative work is hard to come by, or is impoverishing. While third world countries are in truly terrible plights due to this kind of situation, large portions of the United States are subject to the same forces. While, to your point, the workers in those areas are not subject to actual physical coercion, the effects (drug abuse, suicide) show that the spiritual suffering is quite there and quite effective.
- chroma 7y agoAdam Smith was trying to answer the question, "Why is everyone suddenly becoming richer?" and the result of that was the beginning of the field of economics. He made many observations, models, and predictions, but I don't recall smaller firm sizes being one of them. That prediction would certainly go against the evidence around him at the time. He published The Wealth of Nations when the British East India Company was at its peak and commanded an army of a quarter million people. > The bargaining power of the individual is negligible in such a circumstance, and alternative work is hard to come by, or is impoverishing. While third world countries are in truly terrible plights due to this kind of situation, large portions of the United States are subject to the same forces. Your point about terrible plights simply isn't true. Wages in the developing world have increased greatly. Since I've been born, over a billion people have been lifted out of extreme poverty. Those living on <$1/day are now less than 10% of the world population.[1] And in the US, non-managerial wages have stayed the same or increased since 1960.[2] (These statements are accounting for inflation, of course.) US suicide rates have increased, yes, but they're still lower than they were in the 1950s and they're below countries such as Switzerland. Last I checked, Switzerland wasn't exactly a land of despair. Something is causing more people to commit suicide, but it's probably not the economy. 1. https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-history-methods https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-history-methods 2. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us...
- lemmsjid 7y agoYou’re ignoring an incredible weight of evidence that demonstrates the exploitation of cheap labor through sweatshops, company towns, legislative coercion, and the creation of economic blight. Yes the world economy is growing and lifting people out of poverty, but it is also resulting in atrocities. Neither the author or myself are arguing for wholesale movement away from capitalism, in which case your argument would be compelling, but the understanding that things like laws and labor unions can and should stand for the worker.