There is as much work to be done as there are unfulfilled desires. Therefore, no matter how much work the rate buster completes, he cannot possibly exhaust or even make an appreciable dent in the amount of work to be done. FULL ARTICLE by Walter Block
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/13059/defending-the-rate-buster/
Defending the Rate Buster
Previous post: Wolfgang Grassl on Role Reversal
Next post: The Distinction between Theory and History
{ 4 comments }
When people contribute to the ‘pie’, each supplies some portion, whether it is by effort, planning or organizing. What is fair (and most effective) is that the contribution is rewarded proportionately, which is precisely what the unimpeded market does. I submit that this holds as well for the contribution of capital and land, where their investment is rewarded in terms of how much they supply.
In principle, anyone who is not aggressing upon other people’s property, should be defended. It is true, however, that some people overexert themselves and, when they realize this, it is too late. I know many immigrants who ruined their health by working too hard (often 16 hours a day 7 days a week). But, it is not the employer’s responsibility to be our parent.
On the other hand, solidarity in slacking only brings equal poverty to everyone. I came from a place where the common slogan was: “better lay down for one dinar than work for two.” It brought us to the point where everyone was looking for someone else to blame for the common misery.
I think the true light bulb moment for the rate-buster comes when they realize that they are not going to be rewarded in proportion to their productivity. They will bust their behinds for only so long. When they see no difference in their pay relative to their less productive peers, (or a paltry 2% more for twice the work) they will either leave or reduce their production rate. Rarely do workers reduce productivity as an act of “solidarity”.
I worked with someone who could type at 120 words per minute. She took a temporary position in data entry where she completed the work in less than half the time her predecessor(s) required. The employer’s response was to pay her the same hourly rate as the predecessor but only for the hours she needed to finish the task (3.5). The result was that her productivity level meant less than half the pay of someone who was far less productive. The employer believed that penalizing her for exceptional productivity was perfectly acceptable. She left after just a few days. She told me if they had been willing to pay her a higher hourly rate for her productivity, say 1.5 times the rate they paid her predecessor, she would have been willing to stay and be paid for only the hours she worked. It would still have been an advantage for the company–a 34% reduction in cost, but they couldn’t see it that way.
There are many companies that discourage productivity by refusing to reward it. In fact, it is often the most productive who are paid the least. It’s very upside down. In a perfect free market world, wages would reflect the value of the worker’s input, but in reality, it is a reflection of their status and connections.
Both the example of “solidarity” leading to productivity declines, and “rewards for greater productivity”, are myths.
Why economists dislike a lump of labor
http://econpapers.repec.org/article/tafrsocec/v_3a65_3ay_3a2007_3ai_3a3_3ap_3a279-291.htm
Tom Walker, Review of Social Economy, 2007, vol. 65, issue 3, pages 279-291
Abstract: The lump-of-labor fallacy has been called one of the “best known fallacies in economics.” It is widely cited in disparagement of policies for reducing the standard hours of work, yet the authenticity of the fallacy claim is questionable, and explanations of it are inconsistent and contradictory. This article discusses recent occurrences of the fallacy claim and investigates anomalies in the claim and its history. S.J. Chapman’s coherent and formerly highly regarded theory of the hours of labor is reviewed, and it is shown how that theory could lend credence to the job-creating potentiality of shorter working time policies. It concludes that substituting a dubious fallacy claim for an authentic economic theory may have obstructed fruitful dialogue about working time and the appropriate policies for regulating it.
Comments on this entry are closed.