agreed

Neither employer nor employee is free. While there is room for debate on which is less the slave, neither can claim any significant measure of freedom. At most, the employer can choose not to go into business, and the employee can choose to seek other employer (subject to State licensing schemes, of course).

Sorry. Historically, all restrictions were on employees (not employers, as I mistakenly wrote).

I won’t respond to your insult but will just let it go.

Society is “the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.” An ordered community on a larger scale is another way to say government.

Nope.

A “society” is a voluntary association. In other words, if you don’t want to live in a community, you don’t have to. If you don’t want to take part in “societal events,” you don’t have to.

That is not the same thing as government.

Companies have policies. Employees have to follow those policies.

They have to? Someone is holding a gun to their head?

You may want to read that whole paragraph again as it really is an argument against what you are saying.

“Society” is not “the government.”

“That’s easy. Let people negotiate for their salaries, benefits and other compensation.”

“In interjecting themselves into that relationship, the government restricts the economic freedom of both parties.”

Sorry I did not respond earlier, I was too busy laughing.

Society is “the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.” An ordered community on a larger scale is another way to say government.

The problem is not that workers do not want to negotiate, the problem is that employers will not let them. Companies have policies. Employees have to follow those policies. Only by taking collective action can employees group together to try to get those policies changed. I am not saying they have to do so by joining unions, but they have to do it somehow.

If you think that government restrictions are bad, fine. I would point out that, until the turn of the 20th century, with NO exception that I can think of, there was never a government restriction on employees. All restrictions were on employers. For example, the feudal system, slavery, serfdom. It seems to me that, at least in the US, all of the laws that were changed were done in order to ameliorate the historical imbalance.

re: power.

If there are more jobs than workers, employers have two choices: offer better incentives for people to work or go out of business. In this case, workers and employers have essentially a level playing field.

If there are more workers than jobs, workers (assuming they do not want to become employers) have two choices: take whatever the employer offers or be unemployed. In this case, employers have an incredible upper hand.

So, worst case for capitalists is that they cannot capitalize their capital because it is not profitable. Worst case for workers is that they cannot support themselves. Hence, an inherent advantage in the system for capitalists.

As for consumers v. sellers, are you really serious? The market does work on the small level. If I want to pay less for milk, I shop around. It does not work well on a larger level, where companies mass produce things. At the risk of dating myself, I would venture that Navin N. Johnson would never have had a problem in your utopia.

“Unions don’t balance the power between capitalists and labor, under current labor law, they largely reverse what imbalance exists.” Ok. How would you structure a system to balance the imbalance?

Sorry, but no. I have seen “worse working conditions” defined as “no free coffee” or “the need to wear a name badge.” If there is, by your own admission no broad agreement on what is “better working conditions,” then the opposite is true as well.

The problem is that “worse” and “better” are terms that compare and not objective standards.

So a company that offered in house child care might be seen as “better” to some, but in that same company the single person who would rather have the dollars in their pocket that go to support that care. They will view the child care as “worse” as it cost them money.

Society (read government) has attempted to tilt the balance.

“Society” is not “the government.”

In fact, it can be argued that as governments are established to protect the rights of individual people, and “society” is a group of people, governments are not “society.”

So, I propose to you this: Come up with a scheme that balances the power between capitalists (who can pool their power into a company) and labor

That’s easy. Let people negotiate for their salaries, benefits and other compensation. The employer needs employees and workers want jobs. If an employer wants to ask an employee to work more than an agreed upon number of hours, that is between the worker and the employee and not a concern of the government. In interjecting themselves into that relationship, the government restricts the economic freedom of both parties.

The problem is that workers feel that the company exists to provide them with a job. It doesn’t.

While you are at it, could you also come up with a way to balance the power between the capitalists (who work with efficiencies of scale) and consumers (who stand alone when purchasing products)?

You mean like banning together with others to boycott or support a product or company?

While you talk about “schemes,” it appears that to implement those “schemes” would reduce the freedoms of people even more.

This is not strictly true. The employer has the power when there are more people seeking work than there are job openings. However, potential employees hold the power (if they have the guts / foresight to use it) when there are more job openings than there are workers looking for jobs.

” Come up with a scheme that balances the power between capitalists (who can pool their power into a company) and labor (other than unions, which you seem to despise).”

Unions don’t balance the power between capitalists and labor, under current labor law, they largely reverse what imbalance exists.

“While you are at it, could you also come up with a way to balance the power between the capitalists (who work with efficiencies of scale) and consumers (who stand alone when purchasing products)?”

No such imbalance exists (nor can it exist). No one is holding a gun to people’s heads forcing them to buy products that cost more then the value they perceive that they get from said products.

This is all too true. I think, however, that many workers can agree on what “worse working conditions” are. If employers would do away with those, then we would not need to worry about defining “better working condition” and letting employers and employees negotiate how they want.

So, in a vacuum, your position has a lot to say for it. We are not, however, in a vacuum. The employer-employee relationship is inherently a power struggle. Historically, in a capitalist society, the employer has the power, especially at the margins. Society (read government) has attempted to tilt the balance. Unfortunately, the only way we have figured out to do so is to use laws as a hammer where every perceived inequity is a nail.

Of course, I know where “indirect compensation” came from. It was a WWII scheme to protect higher earning folks from very high marginal income tax rates.

So, I propose to you this: Come up with a scheme that balances the power between capitalists (who can pool their power into a company) and labor (other than unions, which you seem to despise). While you are at it, could you also come up with a way to balance the power between the capitalists (who work with efficiencies of scale) and consumers (who stand alone when purchasing products)?

If that can be done in a way that satisfies you, I will stand with you.

“laborers want better working conditions (in terms of pay, benefits, and actual workplace conditions). There is always going to be a tension, especially at the margins. ”

You have no idea what laborers that aren’t you and you haven’t even talked to do or do not want.

The big problem is you can’t objectively define “better working conditions” in a way that every worker would agree on.

Any one-size fits all set you pick, a significant percentage of the labor force is gong to think it’s worse, not better.

Some will prefer more direct compensation and less benefits, some will prefer to exchange higher pay for more flexibility in hours.

As to “workplace conditions” beyond actual safety issues, there is absolutely nothing that you can say is objectively better for everyone.

Do you even know where “benefits” (indirect compensation) comes from in the first place? During WWII, the US government enacted wage caps, during the tightest labor market the US has ever seen. To compete for the the very small available pool of labor, companies started offering various forms of indirect compensation.

In my opinion, giving both companies an labor more options on how to define their relationships for themselves is orders of magnitude better than fixing everything to a strictly defined employer/employee relationship.