Re: Further Thoughts

By: Justin M. Stoddard

Use of Voice:

There has been a miscommunication during the span of this discussion. I conducted no poll. I took part in a poll several days ago. I don’t know who gave the poll; I don’t remember what web site it was on. I don’t assume to speak for the people who gave the poll, nor do I represent them. Furthermore, I have no idea what the outcome of the poll was. My mentioning of the poll was indeed used as a literary device introducing the reader to the subject matter of the article. I chose A because out of all three answers, it best represented my feelings at the time. Do I really hate those people? No, but I do think that the idea of restrictive trade is a foolish one. Whether that makes them fools or not I cannot say. However, the actions of many of the people there were indeed foolish.

Environmentalists:

I am not an environmentalist. I feel that the environmentalist movement is more akin to religious hysteria than science and fact. The environmentalist movement has two major problems. First, it leaves people with little or no choices. Recycling laws say you must recycle or you will be fined. These laws do not take into effect that you may not believe in recycling, or that you may have something better to do with your time than folding all your cardboard and separating plastics from glass. Secondly, environmentalism is an argument of and from authority. “With privilege comes responsibility” is a common saying of the environmentalist movement. Is living on the planet Earth a privilege? Since a privilege is something that is given to you, it is generally understood that it can easily be taken away. Compare that with rights, which cannot.

Other than the war on drugs, the environmentalist movement has been responsible for more offenses against basic human rights than any other cause. Private land has been confiscated, assets have been forfeited, and choice restricted, mostly without the benefit of trial or arbitration. Government environmental agencies roam around the land like a clumsy dinosaur, always unaware or uncaring about who gets hurt in pursuit of their cause.

Some environmental concerns may be warranted. However, these problems will be best addressed by advancing technology and science, not by gross governmental regulation. When government starts to regulate, people start to loose rights. I am not willing to give up any rights in exchange for something a free economy will fix voluntarily.

You asked “Might it be a good idea to leave some forests and wildlife for future generations?” Let me assure you, you have nothing to worry about. Currently forests cover a little over 1/3 of the United States, approximately the same amount as the 1950’s. There has been no reduction of forests in the past 40-50 years. In this case, it is paper and logging companies that can take most of the credit, not environmentalists. Here’s why:

In a world that consumes so much paper and wood products, it is within the best interests of paper and logging companies to replenish their supply of trees. Currently, more trees are being planted than harvested. The reason for this is simple. Trees are cheap and easy to plant, and planting more trees increased the company’s supply of raw materials. When supply is raised, it costs less money to cut them down. When trees are cheaper to cut down, paper and wood products are cheaper to buy. It is within everyone’s interest for more trees to be planted. Paper and logging companies know best how to use their land. If they were careless or irresponsible, they would go out of business.

It is only when people start buying less paper and wood products that environmentalists should begin to worry. When less demand is made for trees, fewer will be planted. The same goes for recycling. When people recycle more paper goods, there is diminished demand on paper and logging companies to cut down trees. Fewer trees being cut down mean fewer trees being planted.

Some may argue that old growth forests are especially in need of protection. I find this an argument of sentimentalism more than anything else. If people believe that old growth forests should be protected, they should form a group, gather donations, and buy all the old growth forests in the country. They will then be free to use the land in any way they wish.

You also asked me; “Is it wrong to have auto and industry emission standards? Should our water and air be clean?” Yes, it is wrong to have these regulations, and our water and air are clean in spite of, not because of regulations. The quality of air and water has increased dramatically over the past 70 years. It was increasing before anyone knew what an environmentalist was. Advancing technology allows for more efficient means of production. Efficiency generally has the effect of reducing pollution. Again, it is the free market that solves these problems.

The Economist Steven E. Landsburg best sums up my views on environmentalism in the following article: Why I am not an Environmentalist

Buchaninites:

I do not assume to know what Pat Buchanan’s “whole philosophy” is. I simply stated that “his whole philosophy was based on quasi-socialism, isolationism, and dare I say it…totalitarianism.” I may have gone a bit overboard with the word “totalitarianism.” However, I do not need to know his “whole philosophy” to understand what it is based on. It is possible to determine which fundamental principles are at the root of a person’s philosophy even when only some of their views are stated.

Role of Big Labor in Industrialization:

The only way I can fathom that I misquoted you was when I used the word “most” instead of “many”. You said: “Without the gains made by organized labor, many in this country would still be stuck in the poverty and brutality of the early industrial revolution.”

I said: “It was stated that if it had not been for labor unions, most of the workforce in America would still be stuck in the ‘poverty and brutality of the early industrial revolution’”.

Everything that was put inside the quotation marks is an exact quote. Everything preceding the quotation marks is a paraphrase of what was said. I admit that “many” and “most” do not have the exact same meaning, and it was probably a mistake to use the word on my part, but it was hardly a misquote. Furthermore, it does not demonstrate a “poverty of intellect” but rather sloppy editing.

You stated that “the issue is not how many workers currently belong to unions, but rather, the improvements that all of us enjoy and take for granted in their work worlds.”

On the contrary, I think that is exactly the issue. Labor unions do not represent even close to a majority of workers in America. They never have. However, wages continue to rise, working conditions get better, and prosperity grows. While I will not begrudge the role of labor in some breakthroughs in labor-management negotiations, the fact is that these improvements were made mainly in spite of, not because of labor unions. Production is the main factor in producing higher wages and the market drives such things as working conditions (as I pointed out in my previous post).

One more point. You gave a list of conditions that labor unions have corrected over the years, one of them being the restriction of child labor. One of the labor unions biggest complaints against the WTO was that if free trade were implemented, there would be no restriction on the use of child labor. Their opposition all presupposes that there are other things children in some third world countries could be doing rather than working. Some countries have no education system or any other alternatives. For some families, a working child can make all the difference between just getting by and prospering.

Some would say that it places children at undue risk. That assumes that parents of third world countries love their children less than Americans. Somehow, I don’t think this is the case. Child labor is no longer a necessity in the United States. It hasn’t been for over one hundred years. Perhaps we should let families choose for themselves who can and cannot work and at what age.

Another point you brought up was a shorter workweek. People today do a much more efficient job than our grandparents or great grandparents did. We have the benefit of better technology, higher education, and better production techniques. It is no longer necessary or wise for a company to demand a 60-hour week from their workers.

Artificially High Wages:

I do not place responsibility for current problems on the work force. I place responsibility on big labor and government intervention. Here’s why:

Wages are artificially high when they are forced above what the market can bear. Unions have the power of raising wages by restricting the supply of labor. This is done by licensure and the practice of closed or semi-closed shops. Government has the power to raise wages by setting wage ceilings or, more commonly, by intervening in labor disputes on the behest of labor unions.

Unfortunately, when wages are driven up by anything other than production, it is workers and consumers who will ultimately suffer. Workers will suffer from a shortage of employment. Consumers will suffer from higher prices. When the cost of labor goes up, fewer companies are willing to buy it. So, now you may have 100 assembly line workers earning $35 an hour rather than 150 assembly line workers earning $30 an hour. 100 people benefit at the expense of 50.

You use the word obscene to describe the CEO’s salary where no condemnation is warranted. The CEO’s salary, as well as the assembly line workers salary, is a simple matter of economics. There are very few people in the world who are of CEO quality. Because there are not many people who are CEO’s, economics demands that they be paid more. A CEO may get paid 10 million dollars a year, because that is what the market demands. If you pay him 11 million dollars a year, one million over what the market demands, the company’s overall profits will suffer. If you pay 9 million dollars a year, you may not find a CEO to run your company, also resulting in a loss of profits. The same holds true for assembly line workers. Pay them too much; it will be to the detriment of other workers and will lead to a loss of profits. Pay them too little, they will choose to work elsewhere. Besides, the money that is paid to CEOs is not being put beneath their pillows or in a safe at their house. It is being reinvested towards building new capital. New and improved capital means more jobs at higher wages.

Furthermore, I can think of no better way of eradicating unemployment than to abolish the minimum wage laws. When the minimum wage is set at say, 6 dollars an hour, it totally shuts out those who are willing to work for 4 dollars and hour, or those whose labor is only worth 4 dollars an hour. In other words, minimum wage laws do nothing more than benefit some people at the expense of others. We are not helping the poor and unemployed by passing more minimum wage laws; we are only ensuring that unskilled labor will not have the opportunity to raise their skills, relegating them to a life of poverty.

Young lady:

When referring to the young lady I cited in my original post, you asked, “Do you know her name? Where she’s from? Does she have any children?” You then stated “I’ll wager that you don’t know the answers to these questions yet you seem to know her intimately enough to be confident in ascribing both her motivation and misunderstanding of macro-economics.”

Do you know what I had for breakfast this morning? What book I last read? If you think this has nothing to do with anything, you are correct. My understanding of this woman’s intimate details bears absolutely no relevance to the discussion at hand.

This young woman was protesting some aspect of free trade. Restrictive trade is a policy that, at its worst, will lead to more poverty and human suffering. At its best, it will do nothing more than uphold our current state of statism. If you are willing to accept statism, you accept poverty and human suffering as a default.

Not only are these conditions reprehensible, they are completely avoidable. Break down all trade barriers and open up all borders to immigration. I guarantee that poverty will be drastically reduced.

This is why I brought this young woman up. Not only was she used as a literary device; she was used as an example as to how ironic their (the protesters) position is. If it is an end to world poverty, a higher standard of working conditions, and higher living standards they are after, they would be in support of free trade and protesting any attempt to regulate it. The fact that they protest free trade leads me to believe that they are ignorant of economic theory, or they have an entirely different agenda.

Wages and Working Conditions in Third World Countries:

The conditions of the Nike factory you described tell me only one thing. Nike has no competitors in that particular country. If they did have competitors, working conditions and wages would not be as low as they are. Break down all trade barriers, open up borders to immigration and you will see an incline in wages and working conditions in this factory.

I do not buy Air Jordan’s, as they are not running shoes. I have, however, bought the same brand of Nike running shoe for the past eight years. The first pair I bought in 1991 cost me almost $90. I just bought a pair last month for $55. As an added bonus, the quality of the shoes are much better than the ones made 8 years ago.

In a free market society, no one forces anyone to work for them. The fact that people work for $2 an hour to $2 a day tells me that working for that amount is worth more to them than being unemployed. It also demonstrates to me that there is a lack of competition in that area, otherwise wages and working conditions would be better. Furthermore, when wages are paid out above what the market will bear, it will leave some without a job. Nike can pay $4 an hour to 100 workers, or it can pay $3 an hour to 150 people. As these workers gain more experience, as competition begins to open up, their work will be more valuable to their employers. In short order, they may be able to pay $4 and hour to 150 people and hire additional workers at $3 an hour.

Environmental concerns:

I assume that people in third world countries may be willing to put up with some pollution to reach their goals because the benefits may outweigh the costs. (Refer to my original post).

There is no foggy notion of what a free economy promises. In the past 100 years, following the industrial revolution, life expectancy has risen from age 47 to 77. The infant mortality rate has dropped from 100 in every 1,000 to 7 in every 1,000. Home ownership has gone up from 46% to 66%. Deaths from infectious diseases have dropped from 700 in every 1,000 to 50 in every 1,000. The length of the workweek has dropped from 50 hours a week to 35 hours a week. Cancer and heart disease have dropped. Our GNP has risen dramatically. More people are educated, and people are making more money. The United States is a perfect example of what a free market economy can and will offer the rest of the world. However, they are not the only example. Hong Kong and Taiwan have had their own industrial revolution in the past thirty years. Across the board, their lives are better for it.

Furthermore, if the governments of China, Russia, and Poland were focused on production over all other concerns, they would be the richest countries on the face of the earth. These governments have never been interested in production. As history has proven, the only thing these countries have been interested in is enslaving men.