by publius
This Will Wilkinson post has got to be one of the most callous and condescending posts I’ve ever read. Not only is it obnoxiously indifferent to human suffering (thankfully, DC conservative think tank jobs are free from pesky quality concerns), but it elevates a primitive Econ 101 worldview to the level of religion. Saving 3 million jobs – saving 3 million families from deep suffering – is just, you know, foolishly focusing on the “sparrow.” Or something.
Look, I’m not crazy about a Detroit bailout either. And in a different era, I would probably oppose it. But these are not normal times – now is not the time for another body blow. And besides, it’s not like the bailout is an absurd idea that can only be justified by interest group politics. There are effectively millions of people who could be out of work if Detroit goes down (and bankruptcy doesn’t provide the potential benefits here it normally would). That sort of massive job wipeout would – in addition to literally decimating large regions of our country – trigger massive economic dislocation.
I don’t care how cool the free market seems in the abstract – these are real problems involving real non-sparrow people. And these very real problems would cascade throughout the country. They can’t simply be ignored because the market fairy (“as if guided by an invisible hand” – puke, vomit) will come and fix everything.
And that brings me to Wilkinson. There are several things that irk me about this post, above and beyond the preening tone. First, he minimizes the amount of sheer human suffering involved here. Making people hurt, you see, is simply part of God’s – err, the market’s – grand plan:
Economic growth requires dynamism, requires “creative destruction,” and some people get trapped in the wreckage, become wreckage.
All so poetic and powerful, no? Maybe he could bring his lyricism to Michigan and see how the local crowd reacts to being told they are “wreckage, mere wreckage” in God the Market’s greater plan.
Even worse, he essentially criticizes the people would suffer most by pointing out how they – in their small-minded ignorance of wanting to keep a good job – fail to see the larger picture that only libertarians can see:
Our sympathy, untutored by a grasp of the larger scheme, can perversely make itself ever more necessary. When we feel compelled to act on our uncoached fellow-feeling, next year’s Christmas is likely to turn a bit worse for everybody. And then somebody has to explain to the kids that they can’t find a job at all.
Yes, if only we could get over “fellow-feeling” and see the larger scheme. More substantively, it’s just smug and offensive to portray what these millions of people would go through as “a bad Christmas.” I assume he’s trying to be poetic again, but it reveals an ignorance of the depths of pain and dislocation that a Detroit meltdown would create. His imagery belittles their potential misery.
The best part though is the sparrows:
We can stop the hand from pushing the mountain into the sea, but then we will never enjoy the abundance of the future island we’ve erased. We can put an eye on the sparrow, but more sparrows will fall if we try to save every rotting tree.
Ugh. What’s truly maddening about this part is the sheer arrogance. It displays an extremely high level of confidence that his kindergarten economics is correct. He’s not really making a substantive argument – he’s lamenting the fact (through cheeseball metaphors) that we poor souls who don’t want to sacrifice 3 million people for the sake of an abstract idea are simply too foolish to see the greater truth. Perhaps if we had been tutored by the grasp of the larger scheme…
As for that kindergarten economics:
There is nothing that helps people more than high rates of economic growth, compounding, compounding. . . . Unlike slipping tectonic plates, adjustments in the market, even violent ones, tend to make the human world more hospitable over time. The principles that govern the earth as it works out its tensions are indifferent to our welfare.
It’s as if the last year simply didn’t happen. In any event, this isn’t economics – it’s theology. Even worse, it’s theology with some sort of Hegelian twist by which every historical horror simply becomes the Spirit working itself out through time. We shouldn’t question – we shouldn’t act. We should just accept market “adjustments” – even drastic ones – as simply part of God, err…, the market’s grand plan. Those who have been tutored can see it more clearly.
These forces, however, aren’t willed by God – and neither are they sown into the fabric of the laws of physics. Violent economic interruptions require action. Take the Great Depression (you know, another market “kink” on the way to the promised land). Stimulus and equality-producing policies focused on wages and labor lifted us from the Great Depression – and carried us for decades. Not “the principles that govern the earth,” whatever that means.
Sorry – this post really rubbed me the wrong way. There are of course good arguments for and against the Detroit bailout – ones with more substance and less sparrows. But to treat supporters as misguided ignorant people who fail to see God’s greater plan – and to do so in such a callous condescending way – is just repulsive.
Why do non-union auto workers and auto makers have to be taxed to bail out their unionized counterparts?
Why do I, as a taxpayer, have to step up to bail out the UAW when their leader stated they wouldn't agree to any sort of concessions to avoid the company's going under? Dude, your members are doing UNSKILLED LABOR! You cannot expect to suck up those sorts of wages and benefits to provide unskilled labor to make products that lose money for those who sell them.
This is like Robin Hood in reverse! We will tax Joe Sixpack to bail out corporate America and their expensive union labor.
These companies can be made profitable again. But, it ain't gonna happen if Uncle Sugar stands there with a bucket-o-cash from the taxpayer.
Posted by: James | November 16, 2008 at 01:03 AM
Wilkinson was always a callous idiot.
I find it somewhat disingenious to discover that a libertarian is a "callous idiot". Wotta shock! I never would have known.
Just as Grover Norquist should have been held under the foetid floods of New Orleans until the bubbles stopped ("Is that a big enough bathtub, Grover"), so too Wilkinson should be run over by the electric cars GM made in the 80s that they had rounded up and destroyed.
I think the definition of "libertarian" is "callous idiot".
==============
Turb, how do you square "My wife bought a car a year ago and she ended up upgrading to a bigger less efficient vehicle because when she test drove the super efficient cars she wanted, she didn't feel safe getting on the highway." with "Indeed, our phobia is quite advanced. You can tell because we bought a Honda Civic."
Those two statements don't match for me.
Posted by: Jeff | November 16, 2008 at 01:22 AM
"Dude, your members are doing UNSKILLED LABOR!"
I strongly doubt that. How about you provide a cite?
Also, would you care to give any detail on your knowlege of one of the the auto companies' business plans, structure, and financial arrangements, so we can judge to what degree you know what you're talking about, and to what degree you're just mouthing off with no clue whatsoever?
Thanks!
Posted by: Gary Farber | November 16, 2008 at 01:22 AM
Dude, your members are doing UNSKILLED LABOR! You cannot expect to suck up those sorts of wages and benefits to provide unskilled labor to make products that lose money for those who sell them.
Dude, I'm sure you're very skilled at what you do, and deserve every penny of the wages and benefits you suck up.
But just for curiosity, have you actually seen the inside of an automobile manufacturing plant? How many of the jobs you saw being done were "unskilled"?
--TP
Posted by: Tony P. | November 16, 2008 at 01:30 AM
Is this James:
Dude, your members are doing UNSKILLED LABOR!
the same as this James:
Another analysis of an economic problem that is almost devoid of any financial analysis. It astonishes me that people feel qualified to express opinions without displaying any of the disciplines that would qualify those opinions.
??????
Posted by: Sapient | November 16, 2008 at 09:13 AM
"I think the definition of 'libertarian' is "callous idiot".
And you just called Andy Olmsted a "callous idiot."
And Jim Henley, among many others.
This is as useful as calling a "leftist" a "collectivist moron."
Posted by: Gary Farber | November 16, 2008 at 10:53 AM
"??????"
Who knows, when people post with common, non-unique, handles?
I never get why people do that: do they think they're the only "Jim" or "Frank" or "Judy," or whomever, in the world? Or do they just not care if they're assigned responsibility for the statements of all the others who post with those common names?
Posted by: Gary Farber | November 16, 2008 at 10:55 AM
Its pretty rare that another Frank posts here, and so far no one has copied my URL here though once it happened at Firedoglake.
The writer doesn't assign responsibility, thats the readers job.
People often use their first names in casual informal situations. And often Obsidian Wings seems to be that kind of, casual informal, place.
Posted by: frank | November 16, 2008 at 12:56 PM
""I think the definition of 'libertarian' is "callous idiot".
And you just called Andy Olmsted a "callous idiot."
And Jim Henley, among many others.
This is as useful as calling a "leftist" a "collectivist moron.""
What Gary said.
Posted by: hilzoy | November 16, 2008 at 01:06 PM
"Its pretty rare that another Frank posts here,
If you don't mind people assuming all comments posted by a "Frank" are yours, and vice versa, that's obviously your privilege.
Posted by: Gary Farber | November 16, 2008 at 01:31 PM
Previously you've said that I'm not memorable enough for anyone to remember me at all, or words to that effect. Seems like a contradiction to me. I'm not moved to comment all that often, when I do I don't expect everyone to know who I am.
Posted by: frank | November 16, 2008 at 01:40 PM
"Previously you've said that I'm not memorable enough for anyone to remember me at all, or words to that effect."
I'm afraid I don't remember that.
:-)
Posted by: Gary Farber | November 16, 2008 at 01:54 PM
Gary: Why do you have schadenfraude for them, because of this, and not the management earning far more money, and being actually responsible for running the companies into the ground, rather than protecting the interests of the workers?
Don't people deserve to be paid well for doing their job well? Isn't that a principle you believe in?
Are the interests of mere workers not worth protecting?
What's up with all this?
Probably not real fruitful as we’ll never agree on any of this, but… You don’t think that union leaders have any responsibility for running these companies into the ground? I mean it’s obvious that management is responsible, but how about the unions? What jobs do you believe are actually worth $75/hour? I’d say neurosurgeon, then I run out of ideas… Certainly I believe in people being well paid - but I’m at the top of my profession and I’d be embarrassed to admit to $75/hour for what I do. And I typically work 70+ hours per week. As far as protecting the interests of mere workers – I’m all for it. It’s called “at will employment”.
Barry: But I don't see too many right-wingers demanding clawbacks and removal of Wall St upper management.
I’m fine with that. If you think I have any love for Wall Street you haven’t seen my 401k. And I think that CEO salary and bonuses should not go beyond 6 figures. If we (the taxpayers) bail them out then I certainly hope we get some say in that. I personally think that we can find a decent CEO for somewhere around $250k.
Posted by: OCSteve | November 16, 2008 at 04:31 PM
"You don’t think that union leaders have any responsibility for running these companies into the ground?"
Not absent my being pointed to some specifics. That's why they call management "management."
"I mean it’s obvious that management is responsible, but how about the unions? What jobs do you believe are actually worth $75/hour?"
I dunno: is that what managers and directors should be limited to? No skin off my back, if that's what you're saying. Are you not embarrassed by management, and boards of directors, and vice-presidents, and CEOs, getting paid more than that? If not, why exactly not?
"It’s called 'at will employment'."
This works great if you have skills that are in demand. Are there a lot of auto assembly companies out there? Is being a janitor a position where you have bargaining power? Are service industry jobs jobs that give the worker bargaining power, and options to move to another job if conditions are bad? Does "at-will employment" help the lives of millions of down-market American workers in dismal dead-end jobs? If you go into Circuit City, and ask the folks on the floor who aren't managers if they're thrilled to have no bargaining power with management, is it your understanding that most will answer "yes"?
Posted by: Gary Farber | November 16, 2008 at 05:03 PM
A quick google finds:
So apparently you're putting for an obsolete figure, Steve. I'll gladly welcome more up-to-date cites; I don't pretend to be at all informed about auto company union contracts, or costs, or anything about the finances of auto companies.Oh, here is more up-to-date:
At the article: Meanwhile, I do look forward to your blogs comments on how outrageous it is that Vice-Presidents of companies make more than $75/hour.It says here:
And: If we figure a 40 hour work week, and 50 weeks work a year, we get 2000 hours; that's $117.50 an hour. Are you outraged?Posted by: Gary Farber | November 16, 2008 at 05:17 PM
Gary: Are you not embarrassed by management, and boards of directors, and vice-presidents, and CEOs, getting paid more than that? If not, why exactly not?
I think I said that. I said I’d be embarrassed to make that and that I think a decent CEO is worth $250K. It’s right up there…
This works great if you have skills that are in demand. Are there a lot of auto assembly companies out there? Is being a janitor a position where you have bargaining power? Are service industry jobs jobs that give the worker bargaining power, and options to move to another job if conditions are bad? Does "at-will employment" help the lives of millions of down-market American workers in dismal dead-end jobs? If you go into Circuit City, and ask the folks on the floor who aren't managers if they're thrilled to have no bargaining power with management, is it your understanding that most will answer "yes"?
Well given that CC filed for bankruptcy – ah, no. Should we bail them out? Are they “too big to fail”? If you do not have skills that are in demand then you need to upgrade your skills IMO. Are you going to feel sorry for me when computer skills are no longer in demand? Should I hang on to what I know and refuse to upgrade my skills to meet a changing world? If I fail to do that then I should expect a government handout? I mean that’s cool by me. I can save a lot of money I now spend on continuing education. I can cut back the 10 hours a week I do now on keeping up with current trends in my field. When my skills are no longer relevant I’ll just assume that the government will prop up my industry…
Oh, here is more up-to-date:
Does not include all benefits Gary. A secretary in Flint makes 6 figures.
So apparently you're putting for an obsolete figure, Steve. I'll gladly welcome more up-to-date cites
If you searched on union + automotive + $75 I am sure that you saw many. What would be the point of me linking something you have already dismissed as irrelevant? I don’t agree with you on a lot but I never doubt your google-fu.
Are you outraged?
Sure I am.
Posted by: OCSteve | November 16, 2008 at 06:23 PM
I hope you're not offended if I try again, Steve: Is being a janitor a position where you have bargaining power? Are service industry jobs jobs that give the worker bargaining power, and options to move to another job if conditions are bad? Does "at-will employment" help the lives of millions of down-market American workers in dismal dead-end jobs?
My opinion: "Should we bail them out?"
No.
"Are they 'too big to fail'?"
No.
"If you do not have skills that are in demand then you need to upgrade your skills IMO."
I certainly agree that people who can should. Not everybody can. Not everybody can learn computer skills, or technical skills. Lots of people are semi-literate. Or they're semi-disabled, and without support systems. Or they're mentally limited. Should we just let the less bright and less flexible and less middle-class among us be left to try to get onto the hard-to-get-onto, time-limited, tiny-money, dole, or then just be left to fend for themselves?
In any case, none of this has much, if anything, to do with what I asked.
"Are you going to feel sorry for me when computer skills are no longer in demand?"
Sure. I'm generous that way. :-)
"Should I hang on to what I know and refuse to upgrade my skills to meet a changing world?"
No, but for the zillionth time: not everybody is you. Not everybody is a white male educated middle-class guy, with the general knowledge of how to navigate middle-class society or get to middle-class society. All too many middle and upper class people seem to be blind to the privileges such knowlege and social skills give. These are things that have to be learned, whether as a child, or later in life, but lots of folks don't have lives that let them know about these things.
"If I fail to do that then I should expect a government handout?"
Depends.
"A secretary in Flint makes 6 figures."
A cite would be nice.
"Does not include all benefits Gary."
Do I take it that you didn't bother to read the linked articles? Moreover, why have we switched from talking about autoworkers to secretaries? Does the fact that current hires get "wages of $14 to $16 an hour" have no affect on your argument? Because it would seem to completely undercut your claim about alleged $75/hr wages. Because now you're apparently arguing that evil union bosses, making what other management makes, bear significant responsibility because of their fight to preserve $16/hour for auto workers.
"If you searched on union + automotive + $75 I am sure that you saw many."
I didn't. I haven't found that having an answer in mind, and then googling to find cites to support my answer, is a good method of finding information in an unbiased way. (I understate.)
I googled on "autoworker" and "pay."
I suggest that you call to my attention any cites you'd like to use to support your POV. If there's something that calls into question, or is better info, than what I cited, please let me know. Thanks!
Posted by: Gary Farber | November 16, 2008 at 06:41 PM
It’s called “at will employment”.
I'd love to live in a world where simple at will employment would result in a fair shake for all concerned. That's not a world we live in.
When the folks who work for an enterprise are considered, by law and policy, to be stakeholders whose interests must be considered in management decisions, we won't need unions anymore.
Until then, we will. Not for all industries or skill sets, but certainly for some.
If we don't want an adversarial system, then we need to stop treating people like adversaries.
Thanks -
Posted by: russell | November 16, 2008 at 07:48 PM
Third, where do you draw the line? You're willing to pay billions for a temporary fix for the big three. What other industries are you prepared to "save"?
Publius: I want to know how come you're not in favor of permanently bailing out the blacksmith and buggy whip industries, along with companies that made manual typewriters, 8-track tapes, etc. Every industry that ever existed in America should be maintained in perpetuity, right?
Posted by: Jud Dorvits | November 17, 2008 at 11:09 AM
"Every industry that ever existed in America should be maintained in perpetuity, right?"
I'm not publius, but my guess is that he doesn't like straw as much as you do.
It's more useful to debate things people actually say, rather than what the voices in your head suggest you think they might say, which they don't.
Posted by: Gary Farber | November 17, 2008 at 02:53 PM
Ever heard of a reductio ad absurdum? It's not the same as a strawman, although people sometimes get them confused. My argument is the former, because every reason adduced by Publius (saving "families," and preventing "economic dislocation") would apply to every other industry that has ever declined in American history.
Posted by: Jud Dorvits | November 17, 2008 at 04:31 PM