Humor: P.I.G.S. countries and European Union relationship

Share

Economy Lesson: Do Unions Really Raise Wages? by Henry Hazlitt

The belief that labor unions can substantially raise real wages over the long run and for the whole working population is one of the great delusions of the present age. This delusion is mainly the result of failure to recognize that wages are basically determined by labor productivity. It is for this reason, for example, that wages in the United States were incomparably higher than wages in England and Germany all during the decades when the “labor movement” in the latter two countries was far more advanced.

In spite of the overwhelming evidence that labor productivity is the fundamental determinant of wages, the conclusion is usually forgotten or derided by labor union leaders and by that large group of economic writers who seek a reputation as “liberals” by parroting them. But this conclusion does not rest on the assumption, as they suppose, that employers are uniformly kind and generous men eager to do what is right. It rests on the very different assumption that the individual employer is eager to increase his own profits to the maximum. If people are willing to work for less than they are really worth to him, why should he not take the fullest advantage of this? Why should he not prefer, for example, to make $1 a week out of a workman rather than see some other employer make $2 a week out of him? And as long as this situation exists, there will be a tendency for employers to bid workers up to their full economic worth.

All this does not mean that unions can serve no useful or legitimate function. The central function they can serve is to improve local working conditions and to assure that all of their members get the true market value of their services.

For the competition of workers for jobs, and of employers for workers, does not work perfectly. Neither individual workers nor individual employers are likely to be fully informed concerning the conditions of the labor market. An individual worker may not know the true market value of his services to an employer. And he may be in a weak bargaining position. Mistakes of judgment are far more costly to him than to an employer. If an employer mistakenly refuses to hire a man from whose services he might have profited, he merely loses the net profit he might have made from employing that one man; and he may employ a hundred or a thousand men. But if a worker mistakenly refuses a job in the belief that he can easily get another that will pay him more, the error may cost him dear. His whole means of livelihood is involved. Not only may he fail to find promptly another job offering more; he may fail for a time to find another job offering remotely as much. And time may be the essence of his problem, because he and his family must eat. So he may be tempted to take a wage that he believes to be below his “real worth” rather than face these risks. When an employer’s workers deal with him as a body, however, and set a known “standard wage” for a given class of work, they may help to equalize bargaining power and the risks involved in mistakes.

But it is easy, as experience has proved, for unions, particularly with the help of one-sided labor legislation which puts compulsions solely on employers, to go beyond their legitimate functions, to act irresponsibly, and to embrace short-sighted and antisocial policies. TI do this, for example, whenever they seek to fix the wages of their members above their real market worth. Such an attempt always brings about unemployment. The arrangement can be made to stick, in fact, only by some form of intimidation or coercion.

One device consists in restricting the membership of the union on some other basis than that of proved competence or skill. restriction may take many forms: it may consist in charging new workers excessive initiation fees; in arbitrary membership qualifications; in discrimination, open or concealed, on grounds of religion, race or sex; in some absolute limitation on the number of members, or in exclusion, by force if necessary, not only of the products of nonunion labor, but of the products even of affiliated unions in other states or cities.

The most obvious case in which intimidation and force are used to put or keep the wages of a particular union above the real market worth of its members’ services is that of a strike. A peaceful strike is possible. To the extent that it remains peaceful, it is a legitimate labor weapon, even though it is one that should be used rarely and as a last resort. If his workers as a body withhold their labor, they may bring a stubborn employer, who has been underpaying them, to his senses. He may find that he is unable to replace these workers with workers equally good who are willing to accept the wage that the former have now rejected. But the moment workers have to use intimidation or violence to enforce their demands—the moment they use mass picketing to prevent any of the old workers from continuing at their jobs, or to prevent the employer from hiring new permanent workers to take their places—their case becomes suspect. For the pickets are really being used, not primarily against the employer, but against other workers. These other workers are willing to take the jobs that the old employees have vacated, and at the wages that the old employees now reject. The fact proves that the other alternatives open to the new workers are not as good as those that the old employees have refused. If, therefore, the old employees succeed by force in preventing new workers from taking the place, they prevent these new workers from choosing the best alternative open to them, and force them to take something worse. The strikers are therefore insisting on a position of privilege, and are using force to maintain this privileged position against other workers.

If the foregoing analysis is correct, the indiscriminate hatred of the “strikebreaker” is not justified. If the strikebreakers consist merely of professional thugs who themselves threaten violence, or who cannot in fact do the work, or if they are being paid a temporarily higher rate solely for the purpose of making a pretense of carrying on until the old workers are frightened back to work at the old rates, the hatred may be warranted. But if they are in fact merely men and women who are looking for permanent jobs and willing to accept them at the old rate, then they are workers who would be shoved into worse jobs than these in order to enable the striking workers to enjoy better ones. And this superior position for the old employees could continue to be maintained, in fact, only by the ever-present threat of force.

Share

Spain crisis: How will they solve their problems? They can?

Yesterday, Spain, as Portugal, was downgraded two notches at S&P ratings. Knowing how bad is hurting Greece, I want to explain how and why Spain will enter in a crisis soon (analysts expect a Spanish bankrupt at July)

Spain isn't in a bad situation, if we compare them with Greece, but the weight of Greek economy is 7 times lower than Spanish ( Spain's GDP is $1.6 trillion. Greece's is $357 bn), so a fall of Spain would be harder than the (expected) Greek one

Real estate bubble: Main problem

Housing was (and is) one of the principal income source of Spanish economy. Low interest rates, easy credit environment and a continuous stream of foreign workforce, made possible a big number of new houses (and high skyscrapers) in no time, at Valencian-Catalan coast, mainly used as summer house.

This boom increased real estate price a 80%, from 1990 to 2009, as foreigners used them as summer house, who had a bigger budget than the average Spanish.


Spain's unemployment: An endless nightmare

Foreigners (sometimes, illegal ones) work went to Spain to work at construction, in such numbers that Spanish government was unable to control. In the fourth quarter of 2009, unemployment was 18'8% of total workforce power. Youth unemployment levels are even worse: 43%, being the second worse of Europe and two times the European Union average.

Source: Eurostat

How Spain can deal with labor problems?

Spain can hardly compete with Germany, France, UK, Ireland, and most European countries for the quality of its products and, as long Spain can't devaluate its currency as China with Yuan, can't become more competitive with other countries, offering low-priced products.

Spain, as Italy and other countries, will raise the retirement age from 65 to 67 and cut the government spending (like Greece), as short-term measures to deal with their problems

Future of Spain's economy (if any)

Housing bubble collapse, leaves small room for opportunities to Spanish economy. Spain should work is way to improve his GDP, opening new resources to his income. One may be solar energies, where Spanish government is starting to work it, to replace housing former source.

The big question is: Would Spain solve his GDP problem in time, or would be a second Greece? The European Central Bank can support Spanish debt financing the country? Or will fall?


Related articles:

Greek economy rated junk by S&P Share