According to the Buckeye Institute, the highest paid Ohio Turnpike toll collector received $103,150.00 in gross wages during 2010 (including $24,437.22 in overtime).
I wonder: How is the discounted marginal value product calculated for these toll collectors?
Oh, wait. They serve the state and thus provide an essential public good. So maybe they are being exploited by the state, even at $100K.
But it just seems like the exploited are those who pay the toll. Hmmm.
{ 21 comments }
Why list only the highest paid worker? What was the median wage rate?
Average for toll collector- $53,954.
So the highest paid “produced” twice what the average “produced?” How is that possible given the position of toll collector? Hmmm.
I don’t think productivity comes in to it. We could pay him $400,000 and fly him all over the country to play golf every weekend.
Now libertarians don’t like toll roads? Wonders never cease!
Jeremy H. –
It is not a toll road per se, it is a government owned/run toll road. Big difference.
How are the users of this road exploited? Seems like a voluntary transaction to me.
Hmm, since when did libertarians only care about voluntary at point of sale? The government is still a monopoly.
His claim was that “the exploited are those who pay the toll.” Libertarians may not like the fact that tax dollars were used to construct the road, or to supplement the toll revenue. But how are the *users* exploited?
Jeremy H. –
You are being too literal — it’s rhetorical.
Regardless, the exploitation theory applies to voluntary employment — a voluntary transaction. So “voluntary,” in this instance, is not an issue.
Right, we libertarians shouldn’t be so literal when using terms like “voluntary” and “exploitation.” Let’s just be vague about these terms like those on the left!
Jeremy H. –
It is rhetorical in the sense that I am not using the Websters definition of exploitation. I am, instead, using exploitation as it is used in the Marxian exploitation theory — hence the title of the post.
There is nothing “vague” about that.
Sorry you did not get that.
One of the basic rules of rhetoric that I learned was “if your reader does not understand you, you are not being clear.”
I understand that you are attempting to reverse the Marxian notion of exploitation: instead of workers being exploited by employers, workers are doing the exploiting to consumers. I am merely challenging the notion that drivers who use the Ohio Turnpike are being exploited, since they do so voluntarily.
Your “reversal” fails in the same sense that the original version fails. Perhaps that was your point. But it was unclear to me. See the rhetorical rule above.
Yeah, when I read ‘exploitation theory’, I in no way considered that there might be an actual exploitation theory.
Much like when I read the sentence theory of gravity, I immediately assume that there is no theory of gravity, but rather a theory of seriousness.
Remember, there is nothing more important than a government job.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjFKvgrbYgA
The big point is that the government built those roads with stolen money and sometimes the land itself was stolen through e domain.
Nothing evil about toll roads if they were set up by free enterprise.
In my opinion, this is the greatest moral obstacle to privatizing existing infrastructure. They were built through theft using our tax dollars. Ideally, proceeds from their sale should be distributed according to taxes paid, by person, but that seems impractical.
I suppose, if in a general privatization proceeds from sales are used to reduce future taxes, it would be acceptable, but this point has never been 100% clear to me.
As for the “exloitation,” I just love turning statist arguments on their head. Nice work, Jim.
There’s a simple solution to that problem, C.J. Instead of selling the existing infrastructure, give it away. Take a road, value it at $0, create 300 million shares valued at $0, distribute 1 share per person (IRS and/or Social Security databases might come in handy for this).
Once distributed, shares can be negotiated in the market, instantly determining the market value of said road.
Shareholders may decide to simply abandon the road – and leave it open to all traffic (the road will be destroyed in no time), or they can establish a toll collection system, or whatever.
Much of the opposition about privatization comes from the idea that you have to sell stuff. The problem is that usually only the well-connected have the capital to buy stuff. This generates lots of resentment. People have the feeling that the things that belonged to the government – and by extension, to themselves – are being transfered to the wealthy class. And indeed, this is quite often the case. So I say: give the infrastructure back to the people.
Now, this could generate a problem where the dilution of shares turn the company unmanageable. You could potentially alleviate that problem is instead of giving away 100% of the shares, you sold some blocks of shares in the market, and then distributed the rest. Of course, no one can tell you what percentage of shares should be given away and/or sold. This would be entirely political.
I’m not sure which privatization scheme is right, but there must be justice, not just privatization. That means some compensation to the people taxes and to the people wrongfully imprisoned. And punishment for those most directly involved.
While I desire for something resembling what would be considered “justice”, quotes are not ironic, one must remember that it is a scarce good, and thus there are tradeoffs in relation to other goods and possibilities when pursuing it.
On the other hand, the Ohio Turnpike is one of the nicest freeways on which I have driven and got good value for the money I paid to use it.
Comments on this entry are closed.