Elizabeth Gurley Flynn belongs in the Pantheon of inspiring and effective women 
in the 20th century.  


On May 11, 2014, at 9:52 PM, Tom Walker <[email protected]> wrote:

> http://ecologicalheadstand.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-sticky-wages-of-sin.html
> 
> Sunday, May 11, 2014
> 
> The Sticky Wages of Sin
> "Only now can one fully understand the effrontery of these apologists." -- 
> Karl Marx, Capital. 
> "Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it is just the 
> reverse." -- Polish joke (cited by J. K. Galbraith in Journey to Poland and 
> Yugoslavia, 1958).
> David Spencer (2002) and Aaron Pacitti (2011) have each observed similarities 
> between the efficiency wage explanation for equilibrium unemployment (Shapiro 
> and Stiglitz, 1984) and Marx's theory of the reserve industrial army. "In a 
> sense," writes Spencer, "the debate has come full circle. Marx’s reserve army 
> of labour, it seems, is alive and well and still operates to discipline 
> resistant workers."
> 
> "Efficiency wage models arrive at the same conclusion," Pacitti argues, "but 
> for reasons altogether different than those suggested by Marx." Because the 
> efficiency wage model indicates an inverse relationship between the 
> unemployment rate and the wage premium needed to discourage shirking, the 
> hypothesis, "strengthens Marx's conclusion that unemployment will lead to 
> lower wages, albeit through a different channel."
> 
> Both Spencer and Pacitti are critical of the efficiency wage hypothesis, as 
> are Dean Baker and Mark Weisbrot (1994) and Warren Samuels (1994). Robert 
> LaJeunesse (2004) cites Samuels's criticism of the asymmetrical treatment of 
> shirking by the neoclassical mainstream and elaborates on Veblen's more 
> balanced analysis of sabotage by both management and labor.
> 
> Spencer mentions in a footnote the incongruity of earlier economists viewing 
> lowwages as a necessary spur to work effort "to combat the labourer’s high 
> demand for leisure and to maintain labour discipline." He also mentions in 
> passing that "workers may deliberately slow down the pace of their work as a 
> defensive
> reaction against the threat of unemployment."
> 
> 
> 
> Spencer neglected to mention, however, that indignation at such "restriction 
> of output" by workers was a perennial motif of businessmen, economists and 
> editorialists in their exasperated denunciations of a supposed lump-of-labor 
> fallacy.
> 
> These accusations were the context for Elizabeth Gurley Flynn's I. W. W. 
> pamphlet, Sabotage, that served as an inspiration for Veblen's (1921) 
> discussion of the "conscientious withdrawal of efficiency" by business. 
> "Sabotage..." wrote Flynn, "is a very old thing, called by the Scotch 'ca 
> canny.' All intelligent workers have tried it at some time or other when they 
> have been compelled to work too hard and too long." 
> 
> In The Economics of Unemployment, John Hobson (1922) gave an unorthodox, 
> even-handed account of the symmetry of workers' and the employers' versions 
> of ca'canny: 
> Behind all these changes and chances of industrial life there lurks the 
> abiding shadow of an unemployment due to the normal over-supply of 
> labour-power beyond the current requirements of the market. Workers observe 
> that, if this full supply is brought into effective use, it leads in a short 
> time to a congestion of the markets, a fall of prices, a stoppage and a long 
> period of under-employment. If, therefore, at any ordinary time the workers 
> in employment were to give out their full productive energy, they would only 
> expedite this process of congestion and depression. This, I think, is the 
> underlying economics of 'ca' canny.'
> If this labour-economics stood alone, it might be dismissed as shortsighted 
> partisanship. But put by its side the corresponding doctrine and practice of 
> employers, embodied in the economics of trusts and combinations. What is the 
> directly impelling motive for the formation of most of these capitalist 
> combines? The avoidance of 'cut-throat competition.' And what else is this 
> than a recognition of a tendency of unregulated capitalism in an industry to 
> produce goods faster than the market can and does expand to receive them, at 
> a price adequate to cover costs of production? In other words, combination 
> for restriction of output is the capitalist alternative to over-production, 
> congestion and stoppage.
> Orthodox economic theory has thus come full circle, from viewing low wages as 
> a prod to work effort and shirking as a misguided response by workers to the 
> threat of unemployment to theorizing high wages as an incentive for work 
> effort and unemployment as an employers' disciplinary device to discourage 
> shirking. One element has remained constant, though: it is the workers who 
> are presumed to sin against productivity.
> 
> 
> 
> Dean Baker and Mark Weisbrot (1994) "The Logic of Contested Exchange."Journal 
> of Economic Issues, 28, pp. 1091–1114.
> 
> Elizabeth Gurley Flynn (1916) Sabotage. I. W. W.
> 
> John A. Hobson (1922) The Economics of Unemployment.
> 
> Robert M. Lajeunesse (2004)"Keeping Labor Productive: Veblen's notion of 
> reserve capacity and procyclical productivity analysis." Journal of Economic 
> Issues, 38:3, pp. 611-627.
> 
> Aaron Pacitti (2011) "Efficiency Wages, Unemployment, and Labor 
> Discipline."Journal of Business & Economics Research, 9:3, pp. 1-10.
> 
> Warren J. Samuels (1994) "On 'Shirking' and 'Business Sabotage': A Note." 
> Journal of Economic Issues, 28:4, pp. 1249-1255.
> 
> Carl Shapiro and Joseph E. Stiglitz (1984) "Equilibrium Unemployment as a 
> Worker Discipline Device." The American Economic Review, 74:3, pp. 433-444.
> 
> David A. Spencer (2002) "Shirking the Issue? Efficiency wages, work 
> discipline and full employment." Review of Political Economy, 14:3, 313-327.
> 
> Thorsten Veblen (1921) The Engineers and the Price System.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pen-l mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l

_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l

Reply via email to