I haven’t been active in the debate between Crooked Timber members and various others (Bleeding Heart Libertarians, Matt Yglesias, Tyler Cowen) so far. Broadly speaking the claim on the BHL side has been that if only some minimal conditions (existence of a universal basic income, for example) were met, all employment contracts could be assumed mutually beneficial and there would be no need for governments to regulate their terms, for example to prevent sexual exploitation.
Most at CT have been dismissive of these claims, but I’d like to explore the question a bit further. Is the objection that the necessary conditions aren’t likely to be met in practice, or that the employment relationship is inherently unbalanced, simply by virtue of the fact that one party gets to boss the other around.
Suppose that the following conditions were met
* Full employment, so that the cost to a worker of finding a new job is no greater than the cost to an employer of hiring a replacement
* A minimum wage adequate to allow a decent living standard without requiring acceptance of degrading working conditions
* A universal basic income sufficient to ensure that, even without working no-one need be poor
* A default employment contract, incorporating prohibitions on sexual harassment, rights to regular breaks and so on, unless these are explicitly contracted out
Would we then feel that legislative restrictions on employment contracts were needed, and, if so, which and why? Or, is the question badly posed in some way
I can think of two ways to argue that the question might be badly posed.
The first is that capitalism could not sustain such conditions, and so the question could never arise in practice. For example, it might be argued that the tax rates required to finance a UBI would not be consistent with a high (post-tax) minimum wage, assuming that capitalists still had to earn a positive rate of return. I’m not convinced of this, especially since developed countries seemed fairly close to meeting these conditions towards the end of the postwar boom. But, arguably, that’s why the boom ended.
A second response, which I find more appealing, is that such conditions would give workers sufficient bargaining power to demand union representation, and that union contracts would embody the standard protections.
But I’m also attracted to a third view, one which would give a little more ground to the BHL position, though at quite a high price. That is the view that, if only we had the substantial measure of economic equality described in the conditions above, we could indeed dispense with a lot of government intervention, and thereby enjoy more freedom in matters such as contracting over working conditions (or, as discussed in another thread, selling kidneys).
I’m not convinced that this is right, but I think a lot of the heat in the debate reflects the extreme inequality of current conditions, particularly in the US. The BHL side of the debate wants to believe that a modest tweak to current conditions would provide sufficient independence to make free contracting on equal terms a meaningful concept. The CT side mostly takes it for granted that the required degree of equality can’t be achieved in practice, and that it’s therefore silly to concede anything to demands for freedom of contract.
Obviously, I think CT has had the better of the debate. Still I’m attracted to the idea that a more equal society would also be one in which there was less need for detailed and prescriptive government interventions. Against this, I share the intuition that bosses will always be bossy and (at least some) will always try to abuse their position.
So, I’ll leave it there, and request civil discussion,