Thing is, measures this writer envisions to increase worker power would benefit just the workers at the very top of the hourly labor force. They have the most visibility on Capitol Hill, are more likely to be enrolled in a declining number of labor unions, and are well enough organized to take advantage of these opportunities.
Meanwhile the face of American labor looks less and less like anything in the Saul Alinsky playbook. It's freelance, temporary, as-needed, and most of all has none of the social and political institutions workers used to rely on -- not just for help, but for identity, and connection with other workers. The checker at the all-night minimart doesn't even think of herself as a 'worker' -- she's simply a mom trying to get by.
Tim, the classic Marxian knock on "bourgeois economics" has been that doesn't comprehend the class relations underpinning capitalism, but it seems like now they are just openly being like "Yeah, capitalists just need to beat the hell out of workers." Do you think this is a new development?
Good question - more generally you could even say, beyond Marxism, that the standard heterodox criticism of mainstream econ is that it doesn't address "power." I'm tempted to say that central bankers are often less deluded about the world than academic economists (an overlapping group) - compare the recent "Nobel" Prize-winning work on money and the far superior understandings of any Fed staffer. But on the other hand, Yellen is citing a famous econ paper (Stiglitz/Shapiro 1984) here, so I'm not sure my answer works. Will think about it some more.
Bargaining power is all over the place in neoclassical labor models going back at least to the 80s, though the framing is often contrary to what a Marxist would like. The Stiglitz-Shapiro no-shirking model is an interesting case, because it predicts that firms actually pay *above* the competitive wage as an enticement for workers not to slack off. There are other sorts of models that predict below-competitive wages as a result of monopsony power (which is usually euphemized as "search frictions").
There's also this line in here that is straight Kalecki -- "unemployment serves as a worker discipline device."
Tim, I found your discussion of "conflict models of inflation" to be quite interesting. I believe this approach is most appropriate for understanding inflation. You might be interested in a paper I co-wrote (with Thomas Weisskopf) in 1981 on a conflict theory approach to inflation. It is Sam Rosenberg and Thomas E. Weisskopf, "A Conflict Theory Approach to Inflation in the Postwar U.S. Economy", American Economic Review, Vol. 71, No. 2, May 1981, pp. 42-47. Also, in a book I wrote, American Economic Development Since 1945, Palgrave Macmillan, 2003, I utilize the conflict theory approach to inflation to analyze the inflation of the 1970s and early 1980s. As Jamie Galbraith wrote, Olivier Blanchard has not advanced but has just resurrected the idea that inflation is a matter of social conflict. Sam Rosenberg
Also note Marxian Samuel Bowles is cited three times in the 1984 paper: "Competitive Wage Determination and Involuntary Unemployment: A Conflict Model," and "The Production Process in a Competitive Economy: Walrasian, Neo-Hobbesian and Marxian Models." Plus a paper with Weisskopf and David Gordon, another URPE Marxist.
"However moderate its leaders may be at heart, the Labour Party will always depend for electoral success on making some slight appeal to the widespread passions and jealousies which find their full development in the Party of Catastrophe. I believe that this secret sympathy with the Policy of Catastrophe is the worm which gnaws at the seaworthiness of any constructive vessel which the Labour Party may launch. The passions of malignity, jealousy, hatred of those who have wealth and power (even in their own body), ill consort with ideals to build up a true Social Republic."
Thing is, measures this writer envisions to increase worker power would benefit just the workers at the very top of the hourly labor force. They have the most visibility on Capitol Hill, are more likely to be enrolled in a declining number of labor unions, and are well enough organized to take advantage of these opportunities.
Meanwhile the face of American labor looks less and less like anything in the Saul Alinsky playbook. It's freelance, temporary, as-needed, and most of all has none of the social and political institutions workers used to rely on -- not just for help, but for identity, and connection with other workers. The checker at the all-night minimart doesn't even think of herself as a 'worker' -- she's simply a mom trying to get by.
Tim, the classic Marxian knock on "bourgeois economics" has been that doesn't comprehend the class relations underpinning capitalism, but it seems like now they are just openly being like "Yeah, capitalists just need to beat the hell out of workers." Do you think this is a new development?
Good question - more generally you could even say, beyond Marxism, that the standard heterodox criticism of mainstream econ is that it doesn't address "power." I'm tempted to say that central bankers are often less deluded about the world than academic economists (an overlapping group) - compare the recent "Nobel" Prize-winning work on money and the far superior understandings of any Fed staffer. But on the other hand, Yellen is citing a famous econ paper (Stiglitz/Shapiro 1984) here, so I'm not sure my answer works. Will think about it some more.
Bargaining power is all over the place in neoclassical labor models going back at least to the 80s, though the framing is often contrary to what a Marxist would like. The Stiglitz-Shapiro no-shirking model is an interesting case, because it predicts that firms actually pay *above* the competitive wage as an enticement for workers not to slack off. There are other sorts of models that predict below-competitive wages as a result of monopsony power (which is usually euphemized as "search frictions").
There's also this line in here that is straight Kalecki -- "unemployment serves as a worker discipline device."
Tim, I found your discussion of "conflict models of inflation" to be quite interesting. I believe this approach is most appropriate for understanding inflation. You might be interested in a paper I co-wrote (with Thomas Weisskopf) in 1981 on a conflict theory approach to inflation. It is Sam Rosenberg and Thomas E. Weisskopf, "A Conflict Theory Approach to Inflation in the Postwar U.S. Economy", American Economic Review, Vol. 71, No. 2, May 1981, pp. 42-47. Also, in a book I wrote, American Economic Development Since 1945, Palgrave Macmillan, 2003, I utilize the conflict theory approach to inflation to analyze the inflation of the 1970s and early 1980s. As Jamie Galbraith wrote, Olivier Blanchard has not advanced but has just resurrected the idea that inflation is a matter of social conflict. Sam Rosenberg
This inflation is by Yellen's " **design** ".
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fed-yellen-idINKBN12E22M
It figures it's the one Fed official that took over 7million from hedge funds to do a "revolving door" into the DNC "treasury Department"....https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/janet-yellen-treasury-secretary-joe-biden-speaking-fee
Also note Marxian Samuel Bowles is cited three times in the 1984 paper: "Competitive Wage Determination and Involuntary Unemployment: A Conflict Model," and "The Production Process in a Competitive Economy: Walrasian, Neo-Hobbesian and Marxian Models." Plus a paper with Weisskopf and David Gordon, another URPE Marxist.
J.M. Keynes on "worker power".
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-349-59072-8_22
"However moderate its leaders may be at heart, the Labour Party will always depend for electoral success on making some slight appeal to the widespread passions and jealousies which find their full development in the Party of Catastrophe. I believe that this secret sympathy with the Policy of Catastrophe is the worm which gnaws at the seaworthiness of any constructive vessel which the Labour Party may launch. The passions of malignity, jealousy, hatred of those who have wealth and power (even in their own body), ill consort with ideals to build up a true Social Republic."