Ella: A Deeper Look at Self-Employment + An Alternative Profit-Based Solution

By

In Private Government, Elizabeth Anderson demonstrates a deep understanding of how post-industrial market conditions have contributed to the degradation of workers' rights and how the original free market ideologies represent an ideal of freedom we should strive for. Despite this, Anderson does not offer any alternative to the current market conditions that have squashed the ideals of a free market society. Yes, she offers an alternative to the current workplace conditions that market conditions (along with neglect from the state) have created. But that is a mere band-aid fix to the deeper issue of the dysfunction of modern capitalist economies. In this post, I will demonstrate how the systems created by post-industrial market society (namely the division of labor and profit as the primary metric of success) are what perpetuate worker abuses and urge Anderson to consider that they may need to be dismantled to ensure individual rights fully. I then expand my argument to offer an alternative, profit-based approach to enforcing worker's rights, conceding that we must still find realistic solutions to operate within preexisting market conditions.


Throughout her historical account, Anderson continuously emphasizes that "The ultimate ideal of this early market-friendly ideology was not wage labor, but self-employment" (122). Early thinkers saw "wage labor as a minor and temporary resort for workers, rather than the central institution it is for the vast majority of workers in today's market societies" (126). As a response, Anderson offers ways to make wage labor less demeaning. However, as early thinkers have shown, wage labor is inherently demeaning despite protections, and self-employment is the only insurance against loss of dignity to authority. Anderson is inching towards this ideal of self-employment when she talks about voice, the rule of law, and constitutions being implemented for public governance of the workplace. However, she is seeking self-governed employment rather than self-employment, missing the mark of the true ideal of egalitarianism. 


I also argue that self-governed employment is barely possible regarding wage labor, taking a more radical anti-wage-labor Marxist perspective. Most jobs where abuses are suffered are unskilled, which Anderson emphasizes when she says, "Employers use their power to design workplaces to create a fine-grained division of labor in which workers are deskilled and thus easily replaceable" (139). If one starts a job knowing that they may not work there for a long time, would they put in the effort to create a system of self-governance that would be sustainable in the long term? Furthermore, because employers know that their employees are highly replaceable, they do not put in the effort to meet the concerns of their employees. Employers do not see their wage employees as persons of value, only as disposable assets. This psychology largely contributes to employers mistreating employees. Anderson understands this, but still says that she embraces "the prosperity that can only be achieved through large-scale workplaces, and accept[s] that the only feasible way to govern such complex workplaces involves a hierarchy of offices, and hence of authority" (133). She believes in the importance of workplace hierarchies, implying that she is not opposed to unskilled wage labor, given that rights are ensured, and voices are heard through public governance. But I urge Anderson to consider that the existence of unskilled wage labor in and of itself sustains power abuses and infringement of individual rights and dignity. 


To expand the notion that the basis of post-Industrial society must be dismantled for individual rights to be realized, I now turn to measures of success in market economies. Throughout Cowen's critique, he speaks of the monetary trade-offs involved with worker's rights. He explains that "An employer can pay workers more either with money or with freedom and tolerance" (Cowen, 111). Furthermore, because we live in a Capitalist society, "When workers can get a better deal, they often prefer to take cash rather than extra freedoms or perks" (Cowen, 115). He also brings up the low productivity of codetermination models to show how self-governed employment is inefficient in a market economy. These aspects of Cowen's argument highlight that we live in a society where profit is king and the driver of many decisions. Cowen contends that high enforcement of workers' freedoms is unrealistic because it is not profitable. So this begs the question—does this debate that Anderson and Cowen are having really matter if profit is still the measure of success? There is really no clarification on what Anderson sees the firm's ultimate goal as, but it is clear that our market society sees the ultimate goal as profit. Maybe we should take a Sen-ian perspective and consider other measures, such as markers of freedom, to quantify success. 


That being said, maybe we should consider that, to realistically incentivize enforcing worker's rights, we should not fight for employee freedoms due to their intrinsic value alone. To cater to our audience, we need to take a profit-based approach and show how enforcing workers' rights and dignity may be a more profitable model than many (such as Cowen) believe. This would not do anything to dismantle the fact that society is too narrowly focused on profit, but despite how illuminating an anti-wage-labor Marxist perspective may be, I do concede that we must operate within the reality of our profit-driven society. 


An example can be found in In-N-Out, where workers are paid $2 above minimum wage, and managers make well over six figures. Furthermore, workers claim they feel respected, with regular awards and culture events with their coworkers. In-N-Out's profit margin is about 20%, whereas Amazon's is at 10.5%. There are many differences between Amazon and In-N-Out, beyond their respect for workers, that could account for their profit differences. Nevertheless, these stats will still show that paying workers well and respecting their dignity does not always decrease profit and may even increase profit. Anderson says that "the amount of respect, standing, and autonomy [workers] get is roughly proportional to their market value" (138), meaning that workers' freedoms are only promoted insofar as they contribute to profits, other than when the government enforces it. This insinuates that the answer could lie in the state enforcing the workers' freedoms more than anything. Living in a democratic, free-market society, the voices of employers and CEOs often hold more political weight. Due to such, the law usually follows the market—the U.S. is keen to measure its success through GDP, after all. Therefore, the answer should lie in an economic model of enforcing rights, ensuring that profits are maintained so that the state will enforce dignified places of work.

Comments

  1. Henry LongApril 19, 2023 at 9:11 PM

    Very thoughtful and insightful post, Ella. I think that it is worth considering how invocations of firm profit and productivity can be related to the positive freedoms of people in the market. When firms are more productive and markets are more efficient, it enriches the menu of options for consumers (who are also workers). Thus, there is not a diametric tension between profit and positive freedom, even though the two are certainly not interchangeable.

    You also say that "Cowen contends that high enforcement of workers' freedoms is unrealistic because it is not profitable," when in fact, he says the opposite. He writes, "the desire to attract and keep talent is the single biggest reason why companies try to create pleasant and tolerant atmospheres for their workers" (Cowen 114). You yourself support this position with your In-N-Out example.

    Thus, I am not sure that the profit motive is always or entirely in tension with the negative, positive, and republican freedoms of workers. While the profit motive often requires regulation to ensure that it aligns with these freedoms, it is not diametrically opposed.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Livia: Táíwò and Economic Success in the Global South

By
  Reconsidering Reparations by Professor Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò illuminates the large extent to which racism and colonialism played in creating the current global economic structure, in which the global north dominates the global south. Additionally, this book highlights how current policies implemented by global institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank have further strengthened and reaffirmed this positioning. Taking into account this global historical perspective, we can better understand how “consequences flow from some other parts of the world to other parts, often across national borders, and in ways that complicate geographically and politically narrow ways of thinking about reparations” (24). Thus, some sort of international obligation of social justice must be exist. Táíwò’s emphasis on the role that slavery and colonialism played in establishing the current economic order makes me think about the signal which this sends to the Global South in the development of their p...
Read more

Carlos: Response to Henry's Conclusion

By
I've spent way too long trying to argue against Henry's point because it just seems wrong to conclude with "there is no current social framework by which we might call their lasting effects socially unjust–at least under the political conception of justice". Yet, the more I thought about it, the more I felt I had to agree with Henry's argument regardless of how strange it felt to do so. Still, I did have a few ideas as I was thinking of how to refute Henry's conclusion: -------------------------------------------- 1) With the hypothetical situation Henry provides, if we were to fully extend its logic to our current world, I think Prof. Hurley would have also created a division between the A and B group that would have maintained even into Tuesday. I think were that division were to have taken place, even after Prof. Hurley disbanded the government, the division would have remained and the hierarchy of power would continue into the rest of the week. It seems fa...
Read more

Smith, Locke, Harris, and Justice

By
 On page 79, Smith writes, "the violation of justice is injury: it does real and positive hurt to some particular persons," and thus it is a virtue that, unlike beneficence, warrants resentment if we fail to fulfill it. Upon reading this, I immediately thought, well how are you defining justice?  It became very clear in the following pages that Smith's conception of justice is nearly identical to Locke's Law of Nature. On page 80, he writes, "Among equals each individual is naturally, and antecedent to the institution of civil government , regarded as having a right both to defend himself from injuries, and to exact a certain degree of punishment for those which have been done to them." He continues to say that justice is only those transgressions which spectators would have the right to, and would be compelled to, punish whoever commits them. After this, he explains that no one has a right to advance their own happiness at the expense of someone else's...
Read more