no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics

All Costs are Opportunity Costs

August 16th, 2010

You don’t pay someone for the job they did; you aren’t paying someone because they did something toilsome. Rather you pay for the job you don’t have to do.

The former justifies all manner of economically backwards, window-breaking make-work schemes; the latter represents the exchange of value for value, of productivity for productivity.

What you are willing to pay is determined your disutility of labor.

A cost is what you give up in order to obtain something else.

A price is the cost of something that you didn’t produce.

All costs are opportunity costs.

That is all.

Wages, Revenue & Labor

August 10th, 2010

Without ‘owners’ the workers collect revenue from sales. What the workers keep we might consider “wages” in an accounting sense, but strictly speaking, there are no “wages”, there is just “revenue”.

We might suppose that, in addition to probably cutting out the ‘middleman’ (the capitalist-entrepreneur), worker-owners would allocate revenues over their costs of production differently than would the capitalist ‘owners’. For starters we expect that they would either have, or aim to have, vastly different cost structures in the first place. But that’s a digression we need not follow.

So for the moment let’s forget about this and imagine that the workers have just wrested control from the hands of the “capitalists”, and that the cost structures (imperfect as they are) remain at least for the short- and probably for the medium-term.

Aside from beginning to pink-slip all the bureaucrats (how you identify and defenestrate the bureaucrats, I don’t really care) and turning those dividend checks (previously distributed to absentee shareholders) in to coin in the workman’s pockets, what else do they do differently?

The entirety of disagreement between cappies/commies, boils down to what is essentially a difference of opinion with regard to how sales revenues should be allocated.  Is it really that simple?

Maybe, but probably not. Stay tuned.

Proof You Are Being Exploited

July 16th, 2010

Ever wonder why we’re still working 40 hours per week? As if that’s some sort of magic equilibrium between labor/leisure that has just organically emerged over the centuries? It’s insanity, really. And evidence that we aren’t free to choose. I touched on this before, commenting that all of our productivity is wasted:

The average worker is several orders of magnitude more productive than he might’ve been a half-century hence… We’ve got more more people doing more jobs, producing more things and still we’re working 40 or 50 or 60 hours a week.

And this doesn’t strike anybody as being just a little bit insane?

In a free market where you aren’t being exploited there is a continuum, a trade-off between labor and remuneration. Let’s say you figure out some way to do your job in a quantifiably better/faster/more efficient manner. Assume for this thought experiment that you are able to double your productivity.

In a free market there is a real tradeoff between labor, leisure, and pay

What would happen in a free market? You could cut your work-week in half and achieve the same output for which you would expect the same remuneration. You could keep your work-week the same, in which case you would expect greater remuneration (perhaps as much as double your current pay). Or any combination along that continuum which would result in some amount of less work, and some amount of relatively (but often absolutely) greater remuneration.

What happens in practice? If you develop some brand new process which, compared to the old process, requires half as much labor, the odds are practically zero that your employer will offer you to begin working a 20-hour work week for the same rate of pay, despite the fact that by working 20 hours you produce the same quality and quantity of output. And it is equally unlikely that they will double your salary, which would justify a 40-hour week because you now produce twice as much and as good of output as before.

Probably what will happen is that some other sap will get canned. You’ll have to absorb at least part of his workload but you will not absorb any of his salary. The corporation will absorb his salary as profit. If you’re fortunate, you’ll get a small raise or spot bonus.

Generally speaking, for a job well-done, under budget, ahead-of-schedule, and to quality, the only reward is more work. We don’t get to enjoy more leisure if we produce more and better and faster, we just have to work even more. For the most part, productivity is severely penalized.

What is the alternative? I do not believe for a second, that given all of the technological advances in the last 200 years, a majority of people in the developed world would continue to work 40 hours a week, if they had any say in the matter whatsoever.  Imagine a 20-hour work week.  Imagine creativity unleashed. Imagine what would happen to progress and productivity, if only people were actually rewarded for the work that they do.

no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics