My school demands that all college undergrads pass a writing proficiency examination. We are given one of the essays before the test and told to make notes, which we can bring to the examination. The first paper is a short excerpt taken from “The Betrayal of Work” by Beth Shulman. I am sharing my paper with you for one reason: I’m afraid that my political and philosophical views, which are generally unpopular, will lead to my failure. If I fail this test, I cannot graduate. Thus, this is ultimately a hedge against academic bias. I may sound paranoid, but I go to an extremely leftist school. Posted 4:37 am 3/15/10: The Author’s sweeping generalities, appeals to emotion, and irresponsible rhetoric, do not yield convincing or powerful arguments. Instead, she attempts to revive old and already refuted Marxian and collectivist ideologies which have proven themselves defunct. Such proposal’s, whenever they are implemented, have had detrimental ramifications for society and the majority; the very group she wishes to defend. In this essay, I will critique and challenge her underlying assumptions and her fallacious conclusions.The Author immediately mentions the “revealed poverty afflicting those invisible millions living in passed-over regions of the country and economy,” those in “dying towns and industries shunted off the main tracks of the economy,” who “fester in idleness and despair.” But one must first distinguish between relative poverty and absolute poverty. The former is an unavoidable condition of human existence. Men are inherently different; the genes passed onto them from their parents, and the myriad of unique experiences they acquire in society a priori leads to different subjective valuations and motivations. Some try to dominate the business world, others the intellectual world, and others yet try to maintain fruitful interpersonal social relationships. This means that the level of material wealth must differ from one person to the next (some may not even desire material wealth). Absolute poverty, on the other hand, can be conquered, and western society has come a long way in this endeavor. The poorest people today face the “problem” of obesity, a condition deemed undesirable by academics and social engineers. But the vast majority of the world, those areas which have rejected economic liberalism, are plagued by famine, strife and misery. They wake up in the morning and search for drinkable water. She then goes on to mention the “super-exploited” in a society which used to “honor work,” but now “degrades it.” But work is a means to an end, and not an end in itself. The vast majority prefers leisure over labor, and this has historically been the case. Furthermore, the exploitation theory of profit, first put forth by Karl Marx, no longer bears any weight in serious economic circles (labor theory of value has been entirely refuted). Corporations are not “making money off of labor,” but rather making money with labor. Capital is independently barren; it requires labor, and labor requires capital. Capital has to absorb the entire supply of labor in order to engage in production. Thus, as the supply of capital increases, the demand for labor, and therefore real wages, must increase as well. This is why the average American earns a salary substantially higher than that of his Indian counter-part, for example. The latter has a less bountiful and sophisticated capital. I must remind the reader that wealth does not fall from the sky; it is not gratuitous. It must be accumulated, structured, and maintained.The author then reveals that the disenfranchised are often minorities and immigrants. But this is no coincidence. Their productivity does not justify a level of wages which would satisfy the author’s arbitrary notion of justice. In most cases, this is not because of their own defect, but the defect of institutions such as public schools which have entirely failed them. In some areas, the literacy rates are below 60%, and in others, the graduation rates are below 50%. Immigrants, on the other hand, were not fortunate enough to be born in relatively free western societies. They were forced to flee their homes, from communist dictatorships, and came here untrained, and unable to speak the language.Like many who champion the cause of the disenfranchised, she mentions terrible working conditions, plagued with irresponsible managers who don’t let their employees go to the bathroom, or even speak! But the author doesn’t even attempt to substantiate this sweeping generality. Though, it is not my intention to automatically dismiss this claim. No one would seriously doubt the existence of bad managers. Many do in fact fail to provide adequate and optimal incentive structures which would increase the productivity of labor. Society can shun such practices, and economists have spent much time on “principal-agent” relations which could aid managers in this area; which, after all, directly affects their bottom lines. But this relationship, like all relationships, depends on what both parties can bring to the table; they will either succeed or fail together. Furthermore, I must mention that management often willfully pays labor above their productivity levels in order to increase productivity, or what is known as, “efficiency wage theory.”In an attempt to refute the notion of “low-skill jobs” she raises what appears to be some kind of paradox. She says, “stock-brokers who earn $150,000 a year are deemed skilled, whereas child-care workers who earn $15,000 a year are called low skilled, regardless of the difficulty or worth of what they’re doing.” But the wages of stock-brokers and child-care workers are not determined by arbitrary and subjective moral judgments, but rather on the ability to satiate the desire of portions of society. The stock-broker who can make his cliental a fortune will receive a fortune. The professional baseball player, unlike the theoretical astrophysicist, cannot reveal or solve some universal paradox or anomaly. And yet, his salary is much larger. This is because the average American cares little about extremely complicated and nuanced academic ventures, but the ability to “watch the game” with his son is very valuable to him. Dissenters, she proclaims, “rely on stereotypes,” and play the low productivity card as a “distancing device,” which allows them to "dismiss these workers as undeserving, somehow flawed.” Here she attacks the underlying motivations and character of those who would disagree with her. Instead of refuting their logic, she claims that they lack the emotional and penetrating understanding that she possesses. But the most deplorable part of this piece is when she claimed that the “free market” which “opted for the cheapest solution and outsourced the work to private contractors” was to blame for the 9/11 tragedy. And again, she repeats the rather puzzling statement that “we honor work,” and that America has “broken its promise.” The only thing I honor is liberty, the right to life and property. These are the ideals which brought my family to the United States, why the fled communist Yugoslavia.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
I think it's great.
A nitpick or two:
1. " no longer bares any weight in serious economic circles". Should be spelled "bears"
2. "government intervention and new deal policies". Should be "New Deal", in caps.
3. Like many who “champion” the cause of the disenfranchised. Not sure why champion is in quotes.
4. Wouldn't hurt to have footnotes that verify your claims, seeing as they will probably sound outlandish to the readers of your paper.
As to wether they will flunk because it's not PC, dunno.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
Smiling Dave:I think it's great.
Thanks.
Smiling Dave:4. Wouldn't hurt to have footnotes that verify your claims, seeing as they will probably sound outlandish to the readers of your paper.
Well, it has to be hand written, but I guess I could cite Bohm-Bawerk and Rothbard.
A less agressive intro might help I think. People don't like to be told they are wrong even in lesser forms.
She says, “stock-brokers who earn $150,000 a year are deemed skilled, whereas child-care workers who earn $15,000 a year are called low skilled, regardless of the difficulty or worth of what they’re doing.” But the wages of stock-brokers and child-care workers are not determined by arbitrary and subjective moral judgments, but rather on the ability to satiate the desire of portions of society.
Gold.
And my family had the same experience with the Yugo. We had some family here in Canada, so my family moved here. Most "communists" I know have at best, only taken a trip to a resort on Cuba. The rest aren't even related to someone who has lived in a communist country.