Showing posts with label self-employment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label self-employment. Show all posts
Friday, August 15, 2014
Can Exchange with a Robot Be Euvoluntary?
Can it?
Work is the price we pay to get the things we want. If that price drops to near zero, isn't that cause for celebration? Or is dignity irreversibly tied to labor? So much of human history (especially the written parts) are bound up in the things people do to produce goods and services, it strains the imagination to picture the alternatives.
Even if we could more accurately imagine what a post-labor world would resemble, what influence do we have here and now in shaping its institutions? Is it even our duty to do so? Does the knowledge problem vanish when contemplating future events?
From the point of view of the post-robot revolution, we're behind a Rawlsian veil. Be a help and not a burden.
h/t Other Sam
Thursday, March 20, 2014
MIE: Fakebook Girlfriend Edition
via Vipul Naik, the headline says it all: "I will be your New Facebook Girlfriend for 2 days and will leave Sweet Notes for $5"
link
Euvoluntary? If not, who is exploiting whom?
Also, for half the price, I'll be your facebook boyfriend for 4 days and will leave Sarcastic Notes for $2.50.
FEEL THE STING OF MY MIGHTY COMPETITION
link
Euvoluntary? If not, who is exploiting whom?
Also, for half the price, I'll be your facebook boyfriend for 4 days and will leave Sarcastic Notes for $2.50.
FEEL THE STING OF MY MIGHTY COMPETITION
Friday, March 23, 2012
Body Image and the Labor Market
Israel is moving forward with plans to regulate the fashion industry, specifically, setting minimum weight restrictions on models. Instead of the typical hand-wringing over fashion models being role models for young girls, this intervention seems predicated on the health of the models themselves.
Those of you who know me in person know that one of my chief complaints about bad reasoning lies in the improper invocation of selection effects. If I've learned anything by studying economics it's that people have choices and they act to, well, to get the most out of life, I suppose. Interventions by third parties can be justifiable under conditions of coercion, but not when exchange is euvoluntary. This story begs the question: is there something about being a runway model that makes your labor contribution non-euvoluntary? Will a ban on skinny models improve the health of these women?
I propose to you that if these women self-select into an industry famous for hiring waifs, then they do so knowingly and because their private benefit to doing so outweigh the costs. Furthermore, the authors of this intervention cannot simply wish a BATNA into existence with the stroke of a pen. I think the assumption is that these young ladies will sit down for a nice nosh, maybe have some kugel or some latkes and all will be well with the world. I don't know for sure, but I reckon this to be a common pattern for all the white knights out there: if I ban transactions X and Y, then all those poor oppressed people will straighten out, fly right and just stop being poor (or uneducated on on drugs or whatever the case may be). This is the triumph of hope over reason, people.
Those of you who know me in person know that one of my chief complaints about bad reasoning lies in the improper invocation of selection effects. If I've learned anything by studying economics it's that people have choices and they act to, well, to get the most out of life, I suppose. Interventions by third parties can be justifiable under conditions of coercion, but not when exchange is euvoluntary. This story begs the question: is there something about being a runway model that makes your labor contribution non-euvoluntary? Will a ban on skinny models improve the health of these women?
I propose to you that if these women self-select into an industry famous for hiring waifs, then they do so knowingly and because their private benefit to doing so outweigh the costs. Furthermore, the authors of this intervention cannot simply wish a BATNA into existence with the stroke of a pen. I think the assumption is that these young ladies will sit down for a nice nosh, maybe have some kugel or some latkes and all will be well with the world. I don't know for sure, but I reckon this to be a common pattern for all the white knights out there: if I ban transactions X and Y, then all those poor oppressed people will straighten out, fly right and just stop being poor (or uneducated on on drugs or whatever the case may be). This is the triumph of hope over reason, people.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Just a Bunch of Cool as Hell Questions
Wow, I can't even excerpt this. Every part is worth reading.
Some questions, though:
1. Is self-employment euvoluntary? Always, by definition? Or does it face exactly the same problems as a work contract where labor is alienated? This is a fascinating question, almost turning Marx on his head. Marx thought the problem was profit; in a world where everyone was self-employed, there would be zero exploitation. However, my man Reihan points out here that it may be more complicated than that. Even if someone is self-employed, the "employment" may NOT be euvoluntary, and therefore by some conceptions it may exploitative, if the BATNA for the self-employed person NOT to work is too bad. I have never thought of this before. It raises questions about the very nature of the objection to market transactions: is it because the exchanges are exploitative, in Marx's sense, or because the exchange is not "truly" voluntary?
2. Along these lines, very cool paper at Public Choice this past weekend, in Miami. Presented by Clarke and Kim. Here it is. The question is, when do "self-employed" people in Zambia register with the government. Their data set is a survey, and raises all sorts of questions about whether running a business is really voluntary. Many people choose NOT to register with the government, but to remain self-employed in the shadow economy.
Some questions, though:
1. Is self-employment euvoluntary? Always, by definition? Or does it face exactly the same problems as a work contract where labor is alienated? This is a fascinating question, almost turning Marx on his head. Marx thought the problem was profit; in a world where everyone was self-employed, there would be zero exploitation. However, my man Reihan points out here that it may be more complicated than that. Even if someone is self-employed, the "employment" may NOT be euvoluntary, and therefore by some conceptions it may exploitative, if the BATNA for the self-employed person NOT to work is too bad. I have never thought of this before. It raises questions about the very nature of the objection to market transactions: is it because the exchanges are exploitative, in Marx's sense, or because the exchange is not "truly" voluntary?
2. Along these lines, very cool paper at Public Choice this past weekend, in Miami. Presented by Clarke and Kim. Here it is. The question is, when do "self-employed" people in Zambia register with the government. Their data set is a survey, and raises all sorts of questions about whether running a business is really voluntary. Many people choose NOT to register with the government, but to remain self-employed in the shadow economy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)