Dear Friends,
It seems to me, take the most horrible, filthiest and degrading job that must be done, pay enough and people will climb over each other to do it for you. On the other hand, one could use the power of government to coerce someone to do it, for nothing. Clearly, the one is human hearted the other hard hearted, the first generous the second greedy, and to pay a wage befitting the job shows respect while using violence to coerce shows disrespect. I am amazed then, that those who follow the second philosophy are seen as more compassionate and humane, and those who follow the first are viewed as selfish and oppressive? Perhaps that warping of logic is a means to an end?
Since the first cave man hired another to help clean hides there has been a give and take relationship between employees and employers. Both seeking to get the most for the least. The employee wants the highest wages for the least work she can get and the employer wants the most work for the least pay. At various times both have exploited government power to force the other into a less desirable position. That strategy however depends on the political faction in power. Without government intercession the wage to labor rate would always eventually be fair. Not fair only to workers, or fair only to the bourgeois, but fair to everyone. Government cannot keep out of the relationship between labor and employer however.
Politician’s interests are harmed when there is a level playing field. The people, either as employer or employee, will not have need for the services of government when there is equilibrium, and as everyone who has grown up in a market system knows, where there are no customers there is no business. Fortunately for politicians, their predecessors have put in place a myriad of rules and regulations altering the balance of power. Those past intercessions have so warped the relationship for so long everyone has got used to it. All a politician need do is pander to one of the two factions and a steady flow of campaign revenue and political backing come with that choice. That is why illegal immigration is encouraged, it drives down wages for Americans, while at the same time labor unions get special laws passed to help their cause, to drive up wages. Both policies backed by both factions.
Marx wrote passionately about the alienation of work. That some jobs are terrible and so people shouldn’t be forced to do them by their ever gnawing stomachs. He called it unfair that people had to do work that alienated themselves from themselves or their higher selves. All sounding, of course, humane and compassionate. What Marx didn’t address however was the fact someone has to do those jobs that are alienating. Septic systems have to be maintained, barns need to be cleaned and dishes need to be done, there are far worse jobs that need doing as well, if no one does them they will not get done. The answer from communists is to force those who have no political favor to do those alienating jobs by use of violence. Which makes perfect sense to a sociopath or psychopath who seeks to appear to have empathy.
Were government to stay out of the relationship between labor and employer, the wage rate would settle to a fair rate, and working conditions would steadily improve. Dirty jobs would be paid at a rate sufficient to get people to do them, there would be more jobs due to lessening of the drag effect regulation has on job creation, which would drive up the cost of labor due to the removal of slack from the labor force, the cost of labor would be more in line with the strata of… difficulty, education required and supply/demand for each job. Why should a lawyer make one hundred times more than a sewer repairman? Especially when there is a glut of people wanting, able and educated sufficiently to be a lawyer, and there is a dearth of people sufficiently able, knowledgeable and willing to repair sewers? Government intervention in the employee employer relationship warps the wage rate, otherwise both political faction’s would suffer a loss in power, that’s what drives it. The same faction in control of the media sets the societal norm. They decide what is called tolerance, kind and compassionate and what is called intolerance, hate, bigotry and fascist, regardless of reality. That is why the tolerant are called intolerant, the intolerant called misunderstood, the fair called unfair, the violent called peaceful, victims called occupiers and the kind called haters, it serves the faction in control’s… interests.
Sincerely,
John Pepin
