Originally Posted by macflyer

While I see the argument you are trying to support, I do not think you are thinking about the entire picture. In a healthy capitalist free market system, the driving force, what the smithians know as the “invisible hand”, is driven by greed and the natural incentive to want more and not less. This can “greed” can be satisfied in many different form and not just limited to monetary terms, such as a sense of fulfillment, happiness, desire to succeed, or simply not having to feel the pain of poverty.

As to your example of the farmer, though a good example, it fails to ignore the “greed” factor. It ignores the fact that the farmer is energized by the incentive to be better or earn more if he possibly can. If the farmer, in a free market, decides to take a job which feeds his family on rare occasions, the farmer has done so willingly and knowingly. In the absence of the unlikely even that the farmer is masochist or a sadist to his family, this represents the fact that the current choice of opportunity is the best for the farmer at the given time. He simply has no better offer then the 5% the land owner is willing to throw at him. If he did have a better opportunity he would most certainly take advantage.

The farmer has exercised his choice and the land owner is under no obligation to pay him any amount more then the farmer is willing to work for. Its not charity, its business.

The farmer has the option to make due with the current situation in blind hope of a brighter one in the future or make himself more marketable either by education or learning future trade or skills in areas that are in demand and will be in the future.

The problem with a union setting is that the incentive for bettering yourself is completely eliminated. This incentive is replaced by an arbitrary rules of compensation not associated with actual merit or production value. Further more, as we all know, no one person can force anyone to hire them as an employee, yet, what the unions do is force an employer to enter into CBAs that are not forcable and are considered inapporpriate under individual circumstances.

This totalitarian approach along with lack of incentive for competing on a open forum drives down production, raises costs, and shrinks industry.

In short, your wife is right.

As to wether this is politics, facts, or opinions....

This is not politics. Politics has no place is economics or business but unfortunately our government is very blind to that fact, more so today then ever.

I have read many books, college text or otherwise, which on bases of business and sound economic theory advise against unionization and promote free market. They do this with long and solid theories backed by simple mathematics, but as you said they are in the end “theories”.

Unfortunately for you or anyone who is in chase of “facts”, they do not exists. After many years of studies in physical sciences and economics, I myself cannot think how to distinguish a “fact” from a theory. Its a very thin grey line.

Also, once again you are correct in saying that unless something is a “fact” its an opinion. Theories are opinions, but they are opinions of the educated type vs. less educated or very commonly, none educated.

Your wife has a great opinion, Im not sure if it is of the educated relam or not. I would assume it is of the kind. Nevertheless, she is correct in her humble opinion.