Implementing Anderson- George

By

 I'll keep this short because it's not strictly related to philosophy but I wanted to share some stuff that you all might be interested to learn about regarding Anderson's proposed solutions. They happen to be policies that I've been interested in for a while, and are starting to get some traction in Democratic policy circles, so if the book spoke to you you might find this interesting

-The Federal Trade Commission is in the process of banning non-compete agreements. This is one of the "contractual barriers to exit" from authoritarian workplaces that workers face (66).     https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/01/ftc-proposes-rule-ban-noncompete-clauses-which-hurt-workers-harm-competition

-California passed a law last year creating a statewide fast food labor council, composed of employers and union representatives, with broad authority over wages and working conditions. This would essentially move organized labor from the "firm-level" to the "industry level" for the entire CA fast food industry. The industry-level model, as Anderson says, makes unions more powerful and less incentivized to monopolize labor supply. Fast food groups are trying to repeal the law through a ballot initiative, so if you're registered to vote in CA you'll be able to vote directly on this soon.     https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/25/business/economy/california-fast-food-workers.html

- The Treasury Department put out a groundbreaking report on employer monopsony power last year, estimating that if workers were fairly competed for, average wages would be about 20% higher than they are now. This connects to Adam Smith's observation that it's easy for employers to collude and lower wages-- except that it turns out they don't even need to collude. Economies of scale allowing for only a few employers in certain industries and information asymmetry in the wage bargain (employers know much more than you about what everyone else in your industry is making) give employers a kind of natural monopsony power. These studies show that perhaps improving "exit" options through greater competition for workers holds more potential than Anderson gives it credit for.                  https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/State-of-Labor-Market-Competition-2022.pdf


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why Cowen and Anderson are both wrong-George

By
In their dialogue, both Cowen and Anderson fail to address important elements of each other's arguments. Cowen's failure is primarily empirical. He dismisses the significance of labor market monopsony out of hand (109). Although economists disagree about the relevance of employer labor market power, Cowen does not sufficiently address the credible evidence of its role in suppressing compensation. This evidence has only grown in the years since Private Government  was published. One consideration as to the relevance of monopsony is the pay-productivity gap. Although libertarian economists chafe immensely at any implication that workers do not benefit from higher productivity, and the popular understanding of the pay-productivity gap is indeed exaggerated, even the most pro-market economists are forced to admit to a degree of "delinkage" between the growth of labor productivity and the compensation of nonsupervisory employees. Interestingly, there is less evidence of de...
Read more

Responding to Jemma and Aara: Another consideration that Rawls does not discuss--- Luis

By
  Hey Jemma and Aara,   Thank you for the thought-provoking blogs! I definitely felt that Okin made her argument less favorable by structuring her last part of Chapter 6 with a sense of constructing a ladder of what social standing has a greater impact on "one's thinking of justice." I agree with you and Aara in that Okin's critique of the unequal gender-based structure is strong and needed to achieve Rawls's basic structure of a well-ordered society. I also believe that stating that gender is the most prevalent identity that will form an individual's concept of "justice" undermines intersectionality. I wanted to add another layer that is not accounted for by Rawls, which Okin hints on.  After reading both blogs, I initially thought about our seminar where Kat and I argued for what Aara was discussing, a knowledge of the global racial empire, or in other terms, the history of racism and colonialism in the original position. I was sold on that argumen...
Read more

Evaluating Harris Whiteness as Property--- Luis Mendoza

By
      In "Whiteness as Property," Cheryl I. Harris builds her work on the image of her grandmother and her ability to use "passing" in her labor and daily life (1710). The main advantage of passing, as stated by Harris, is that it "[increases] the [possibilities] of controlling critical aspects of one's life rather than being the object of other's domination" (1713). At this moment, I want to focus on her functions of whiteness which comes after her discussion that whiteness is property through its theoretical descriptions. More specifically, I will digest one attribute of whiteness as property: "the rights to transfer or alienability" (1731).              One of Harris's points is that because theories surrounding property state that it must have the aspect of alienability, it makes whiteness as property more difficult to process. The issue is that "whiteness," as Harris states, "is incapable of being trans...
Read more