Originally posted by normbenigngovernment worker, now there is an oxymoron if there ever was one.
So long as public sector workers don't receive favorable treatment from those of us who bargain in the market they are not takers. When they are paid above market level, out of tax payer funds, they are takers.
Originally posted by normbenignI'm not sure I get what you mean. Aren't private school teachers, for instance, generally paid more than public sector teachers? In any case, often such a comparison can't even be made - why compare a US private's salary with that of a mercenary?
So long as public sector workers don't receive favorable treatment from those of us who bargain in the market they are not takers. When they are paid above market level, out of tax payer funds, they are takers.
I know it can be appealing to some to simplify complex issues to the point where you can understand the simplified problem. But if the simplified problem no longer has any bearing on reality, there is no point. In a modern mixed economy, government services and the private sector are intertwined in nontrivial ways, and any attempt to "separate" both sectors as if they were independent is useless.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraNot quite. It is really pretty easy to look at people doing similar or the very same work in public and private sector jobs, or especially in union public sector jobs.
I'm not sure I get what you mean. Aren't private school teachers, for instance, generally paid more than public sector teachers? In any case, often such a comparison can't even be made - why compare a US private's salary with that of a mercenary?
I know it can be appealing to some to simplify complex issues to the point where you can understand the s ...[text shortened]... l ways, and any attempt to "separate" both sectors as if they were independent is useless.
Non union private school teachers in general are lower paid than public school teachers. That would change if free competition between private and public existed, no compulsion to attend school whatsoever.
The intertwining of private and public sector services if there were no special privilege imparted to those in the public sector would tend toward economic equilibrium. However, when the majority of public employees are unionized, and the unions are married to a political party, that party then tends to grant favoritism to those unionized public employees, which shows up in better pay, more fringe benefits, better retirements, in short more than their work justifies in fair competition.
Going back to the schools, public schools are virtually immune to losing customers due to lack of performance. Kids are required to go, and parents who decide to pull kids out aren't reimbursed for saving the system money.
Originally posted by normbenignThere is no such thing as "economic equilibrium" in reality, but apart from that, I don't think you are getting the point. There is not always a clear private sector alternative for public sector jobs (e.g. a soldier) and vice versa. People working in the private sector depend on others working in the public sector, and vice versa. In many cases it's simply a bookkeeping matter; the university I work for used to be public but now is a private institution partially funded by government subsidies. The work I do is not affected, whether I'm a "giver" or "taker" is - yet clearly the impact on the economy is derived solely from the resources I am using and whatever useful research I might be generating, not what kind of name tag my job has. You cannot separate the private and public sector in any meaningful manner and draw conclusions about the health of an economy from it.
Not quite. It is really pretty easy to look at people doing similar or the very same work in public and private sector jobs, or especially in union public sector jobs.
Non union private school teachers in general are lower paid than public school teachers. That would change if free competition between private and public existed, no compulsion to attend ...[text shortened]... d to go, and parents who decide to pull kids out aren't reimbursed for saving the system money.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraAdmittedly equilibrium is a tool of economists, a condition never reached.
There is no such thing as "economic equilibrium" in reality, but apart from that, I don't think you are getting the point. There is not always a clear private sector alternative for public sector jobs (e.g. a soldier) and vice versa. People working in the private sector depend on others working in the public sector, and vice versa. In many cases it's si ...[text shortened]... r in any meaningful manner and draw conclusions about the health of an economy from it.
I understand that there are jobs with are totally out of the public sector. Although an interesting read is A Libertarian Manifesto, by Murray Rothbard, in which he shows ways that virtually everything now considered sacred province of government could be handled by private means.
I am not promoting this as absolute truth, and even if it were it would be a long road to get there, so for the moment there is necessary work performed by people who have no equivalent in the private sector.
That aside, there are plenty of people doing very similar work to that performed by private sector employees. Your particular situation seems to be public, even though the status nominally has changed to private. Part of my objection, is the marriage of government and business in a bit of an incestuous manner.
Originally posted by normbenignEverything can be done in the private sector, but it's not always the most efficient way of doing it. What is the most efficient way depends on many factors. As a rule of thumb private production is more efficient if there are few externalities (the latter situation can often be obtained through efficient regulation e.g. having some private factory produce consumer goods with regulations to stop it from dumping toxic waste in the nearby river).
Admittedly equilibrium is a tool of economists, a condition never reached.
I understand that there are jobs with are totally out of the public sector. Although an interesting read is A Libertarian Manifesto, by Murray Rothbard, in which he shows ways that virtually everything now considered sacred province of government could be handled by private mea ...[text shortened]... rt of my objection, is the marriage of government and business in a bit of an incestuous manner.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraExternalities are the dearth of public sector interventions. The private sector almost always calculates at least some of the unforseen consequences of doing business. The public almost always ignores everything but what they see as direct results of their intended purpose.
Everything can be done in the private sector, but it's not always the most efficient way of doing it. What is the most efficient way depends on many factors. As a rule of thumb private production is more efficient if there are few externalities (the latter situation can often be obtained through efficient regulation e.g. having some private factory produce consumer goods with regulations to stop it from dumping toxic waste in the nearby river).
Competition in the private sector is even more effective than regulations. Consumers generally spurn goods produced by known polluters. With public sector, government entities, the only thing that seems to count is their intentions. Billions of dollars are spent, often wastefully, with no accountability, and disregard to the lack of accomplishment, not even to mention externalities. Some examples are well intentioned public/private enterprises like Solyndra, A123, and others.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34227_162-57533597/electric-battery-maker-a123-systems-goes-bankrupt/
Much of the welfare state, such as LBJs Great Society produced huge unanticipated externalities, which are never accounted for.
Originally posted by normbenignClearly no government programme is ever perfect, nor any private enterprise. But I don't think you quite get what externality means, perhaps you should read the Wikipedia article.
Externalities are the dearth of public sector interventions. The private sector almost always calculates at least some of the unforseen consequences of doing business. The public almost always ignores everything but what they see as direct results of their intended purpose.
Competition in the private sector is even more effective than regulations. Cons ...[text shortened]... as LBJs Great Society produced huge unanticipated externalities, which are never accounted for.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI was just reading Human Action by Ludwig Von Mises this morning, chapter XV Characteristics of a Market Economy. Its beauty and efficiency is that everyone in it is effected by the market. There are obviously some in any market that are most effected by externalities. In every transaction there are buyers and sellers, and those on the sidelines. But those not in direct transactions in one part of the market join in others. There is no such thing as a total externality. Somebody care, somebody is aided or violated by every human action. The question is whether we are better served by actions being decided without coercion or with it.
Clearly no government programme is ever perfect, nor any private enterprise. But I don't think you quite get what externality means, perhaps you should read the Wikipedia article.
Originally posted by normbenignHow do you define externality ?
I was just reading Human Action by Ludwig Von Mises this morning, chapter XV Characteristics of a Market Economy. Its beauty and efficiency is that everyone in it is effected by the market. There are obviously some in any market that are most effected by externalities. In every transaction there are buyers and sellers, and those on the sidelines. But thos ...[text shortened]... e question is whether we are better served by actions being decided without coercion or with it.
Originally posted by BartsEffects to others not involved directly in a bargain.
How do you define externality ?
Union and company agree to a wage package. Price of widgets increases to consumers, or inferior materials are used to make up the cost. The unsafe product harms people "external" to the deal.
Nearly every contracting act involves a bargain accepted by buyer and seller, but consequences mostly unforeseen to others "external" to the deal.
What are externalities for some, are the raw basics of others.
Your turn.
Originally posted by normbenignNo no no. Government is the source of all Good. People who work for the government are smarter and more noble than people who do not. Profit-making is a mean and vile enterprise whose only good is to provide money for the government, who uses that money to create utopia.
Externalities are the dearth of public sector interventions. The private sector almost always calculates at least some of the unforseen consequences of doing business. The public almost always ignores everything but what they see as direct results of their intended purpose.
Competition in the private sector is even more effective than regulations. Cons ...[text shortened]... as LBJs Great Society produced huge unanticipated externalities, which are never accounted for.
Originally posted by normbenignYeah, that's why I said an effective democracy does not need unions. It's unfortunate that you can only see externalities when they involve unions. You asked:
Effects to others not involved directly in a bargain.
Union and company agree to a wage package. Price of widgets increases to consumers, or inferior materials are used to make up the cost. The unsafe product harms people "external" to the deal.
Nearly every contracting act involves a bargain accepted by buyer and seller, but consequences mostly unf ...[text shortened]... o the deal.
What are externalities for some, are the raw basics of others.
Your turn.
The question is whether we are better served by actions being decided without coercion or with it.
The answer is that sometimes coercion is better and sometimes no coercion is better. Saying that no coercion is always better amounts to proposing anarchy, since any kind of government intervention whatsoever always involves coercion.
Originally posted by normbenign"Externality", as defined and used in economic literature seems to be a different concept from your "externality". It does not mean, "anything with effects on other people". Please try to get your terms correct.
Effects to others not involved directly in a bargain.
Union and company agree to a wage package. Price of widgets increases to consumers, or inferior materials are used to make up the cost. The unsafe product harms people "external" to the deal.
Nearly every contracting act involves a bargain accepted by buyer and seller, but consequences mostly unf ...[text shortened]... o the deal.
What are externalities for some, are the raw basics of others.
Your turn.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI don't see externalities only in the case of unions, although they do exist there. They also exist when government rules on matters that the market could decide. For example, GM is prodded by government to prematurely sell the Volt, It does so with a $7K subsidy and still the car doesn't move, and is made at a considerable cost to taxpayers who are "external to the deal".
Yeah, that's why I said an effective democracy does not need unions. It's unfortunate that you can only see externalities when they involve unions. You asked:The question is whether we are better served by actions being decided without coercion or with it.
The answer is that sometimes coercion is better and sometimes no coercion is ...[text shortened]... posing anarchy, since any kind of government intervention whatsoever always involves coercion.
"The question is whether we are better served by actions being decided without coercion or with it."
The market effects all participants, without coercion. It handles "externalities" because nothing is external to everyone.