Sunday, February 22, 2009

The Truth of the Labor Market

As I mentioned in my previous post, a more thorough explanation of the American Labor market is needed. Well, here you have it:

The labor market is like any other market; prices, in this case wages, are set by the forces of supply and demand. For any particular job function, there are a certain number of people in the world who are qualified to perform it (supply). For most job functions, there are a certain number of businesses/employers in the world who require a person to fill the position (demand).

(Now, I started off by talking about the American labor market, so why now am I talking about the global labor market? Because we live in a globalized economy in which, with exception of those nations that enforce protectionist policy, businesses are free to move across borders in pursuit of the most favorable operating conditions.)

So when ABC Inc. needs a new XYZ7000 machine operator they list the job opening. The XYZ7000 just happens to be the newest most technologically advanced piece of machinery there is so there are only 5 people in the area, seeking employment, that have the training and qualifications to run the XYZ7000. Well, if ABC Inc. is the only company in town, they only have to offer a wage superior to that of 1 of the 5 people's next best offer, in this case let's say manual labor at $7/hour. ABC Inc. offers $10/hour and John, one of the five, is hired. Well, if Bill is willing to take the position for $8/hour, he will get the position instead and the equilibrium wage for an XYZ7000 machine operator is $8/hour; where supply equals demand. Now, if 9 more firms all purchase the XYZ7000 and need operators for it the case is completely different. Now the 10 firms will be willing to pay per hour up to the cost of their best alternative, let's say having 30 workers do what the machine does by hand. We have said, for our example, that manual labor is worth $7/hour; 30 workers = $210/hour. Now John gets a raise to $200/hour just to retain him from getting hired by one of the other firms for that rate. Bill, being the the shrewdest negotiator, gets hired by one of the other five firms for $209/hour. As we see from the above example, supply and demand dictate wages. (I apologize to anyone already well versed in the concept.)

What's my point? The ones complaining not having/getting a job are those who have skill sets for which there is a far greater supply than there is for demand. What's the answer? Guess what, 9 times out of 10, if you don't have/can't get a job then you are not willing to work for the wage you deserve. Don't get outraged, just understand- when supply outnumbers demand, it's the demand that decides what you're worth. That's so unfair! You cold hearted son of a gun! This is the usual response. Unfortunately for everyone with this mindset, this is not a subjective matter. If you demand $34/hour for your manual labor on an assembly line and workers in Mexico can and will perform the same task at the same quality for $5/hour don't be surprised when your employer hops the border for more favorable labor costs.

This is what minimum wages do; make businesses leave in favor of better conditions, or when in response the government implements protectionist policies to try to stop that process the companies just get squeezed to death.

I hope this helps a bit to clarify why people "can't get work"; because they are asking too much for their skills relative to the supply of that particular type of labor. This doesn't even get into tax policies and disincentives to work which will be heavily covered soon. If you would like any points clarified or expounded upon please respond and let me know, I don't want to sound like a textbook, especially for those already familiar with this concept. Also, please feel free to criticize.

Saturday, February 21, 2009

Please, just let markets work!

Forget the intro; I’ll just cut right to the chase. Businesses that cannot survive without government aid should not survive. It’s really that easy. People that cannot afford to live in a house should not live in that house. Again, it’s really that simple. Forget the $800 billion pork-barreled-up-the-whazoo ‘stimulus’ bill. Taking the tax dollars of those businesses that make prudent decisions and operate with sustainability in mind, and using them to give as a hand out to the irresponsible businesses who either knowingly or ignorantly took blatant risks in the name of short term results is the epitome of inequity. Taking the tax dollars of those homeowners who break their backs and sacrifice everything discretionary in order to pay their mortgage on time every month to spend them on keeping the irresponsible people who bought houses they knew they couldn’t afford, or who would rather spend their income on a new BMW lease, in their houses is unfathomably sickening. Businesses: if you take risks, assume the responsibility for the result. American citizens: if you bought more than you can afford; assume the responsibility for your decisions. The government is not some generous bad parent who rewards blatantly irresponsible behavior by eating the loss so you don’t have to. Unfortunately, that’s exactly what this ‘stimulus plan’ garbage is. It’s also what all these ‘our top priority is keeping people in their houses’ programs are. This is atrocious. Seriously, what kind of message does this send to the youth of our nation? “Do whatever the hell you want son, live far above your means, max out your credit, bet on the long shots, because in the end you will reap the rewards and someone else will cover all the losses.”

Before you start posting enraged comments, obviously there are those businesses that made prudent decisions and are still facing bankruptcy. There are obviously homeowners that didn’t buy above their means, but rather lost their jobs or something similar and are now facing foreclosure. Well, unfortunately there will always be these outlier cases, no matter what the economic environment. What about everyone losing their jobs? We are in a contraction period in the business cycle. No one thinks anything out of tune with the labor market when it’s easier to find a job than your car keys. During times of major economic growth when firms all balloon up their employee base getting a job is quite easy; competition for those positions is not too bad. But when growth turns into contraction, and these same firms proportionately reduce their labor costs everyone is so shocked at the heartlessness of ‘Corporate America’. Only the best candidates get the jobs, all those non-top performers who got hired during the growth phase are no longer sustainable. This is what happens in a downturn. It is exactly the opposite of what happens in an upturn; but no one is paying attention when times are good. I’m going to need to supplement this with a subsequent post outlining the serious problems with the American labor market.

So what about those businesses that didn’t take any risks but are still getting beat down and out? When John Doe opened up his (whatever) business, how would he have known that the economy was about to tank and demand for his (whatever) would seriously decrease or disappear? It is this type of mentality that’s the problem. There is risk involved with starting a business. There is risk involved with operating a business. There is a business cycle; it is well documented. Just because someone is ignorant of history and economics does not mean that they should be excused from the consequences of their actions. Telling the judge, “But how was I supposed to know that in China pedestrians always have the right of way?” will not get you out of Chinese prison for vehicular manslaughter. In economics, just the same as in the judicial system, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Opening or running a business does not guarantee success. Seeking or getting a job does not guarantee you indefinite employment. Investing your retirement money in a mutual or index fund does not guarantee you positive returns. This is how the world works. If you do not have the foresight to see the downturn coming, and/or have not adequately prepared for the lean years, your business will and should fail. If you are living near, at, or above your means and have not adequately prepared for the lean years, you will and should lose your house and assets. If you are not the most qualified for your job position, and/or are being paid more than the equilibrium wage for that position, you will and should lose your job. I’m not some heartless bourgeois; this is simply the real world, this is reality.

It is only after this reality is realized and accepted that we will stop trying to ‘fix’ the inevitable, with more misappropriated tax dollars which in turn only delay and exaggerate it, and embrace this correction as a much needed consolidation period from which increased efficiency, growth, and prosperity will emerge.

Sunday, February 15, 2009

Blog Update

Readers,

I extend my sincerest apologies for the lapse in postings since just prior to the election. Much has happened and their is much going on that needs desperately to be understood through the clarifying lenses of logic and economics. Propaganda, misinformation and unfathomable falsities are being ratified by the media as fact and truth. Within the week posts shall resume, and in constant frequency.

I highly encourage checking back regularly and posting questions or comments in response to postings. I have invited a few guest writers to author pieces to augment those which I shall present, and through doing so I hope to stimulate a continual dialogue between authors and readers. Anyone wishing to be a guest author can either respond to a post with their own enlightened insights or, if they so wish, email me a draft of what they would like published.

Also, I have a large backlog of topics I wish to cover; but if anyone has suggestions please do not at all hesitate to email them to me, either abstract of specific all are welcome.

I hope all are off to an industrious new year and I look forward to reestablishing your readership.

Please check back regularly; new posts on the way.

Best regards,

Steven Louis