Well-Off

Many economists build a case against policies that are aimed at reducing inequality in income and wealth. Their argument rests on two premises:

1. Societies should seek to be maximally productive, because this is the best way to provide for the needs of the members of the society, and
2. There is a trade-off between equality and efficiency - policies that promote equality tend to reduce productivity.

I'm not convinced. 

The first premise invokes Coase: well-defined property rights ensure that any redistribution (of wealth, property, or rights) that will increase societal welfare will happen through the mechanism of the market without the need for the intervention of the government - provided that transaction costs are negligible. 

Transaction costs are rarely negligible, but even if we set that aside there is still a problem. Arnold Kling gives an example that illustrates the problem with Coase. Prof. Kling considers the case of a biker who needs to use a bike path that crosses private land. Here's my retelling: The biker is willing to pay a heavy toll (a large percentage of his total wealth) in order to be allowed to use the path, because he wants to reach the hospital where his father is dying to see his father one last time. If he doesn't use the path then he has to take a much longer route and will not reach the hospital in time. The landowner wants to exclude the biker from using the path because the landowner doesn't like to have strangers on his land. Let's assume essentially zero transaction costs - the biker carries a transponder that automatically computes and pays his toll (with his agreement), according to the rate the landowner has set. The landowner sets the toll at a level that compensates him for the unpleasantness he experiences at having strangers cross his land. 

The problem is that the biker is very poor, and the landowner is very wealthy, and as a result, the price the landowner sets is much higher than what the biker can pay, even though the biker places a very high value on using the path. Under Coase, as long as the biker gets more value out of using the path than the landowner loses when the biker uses the path, then they should be able to agree on a price that compensates the landowner. Why doesn't that work in this case? Clearly, the biker places a very high intrinsic value on using the path - equal to a large percentage of his total wealth!

It doesn't work because the landowner and the biker value money, dollars, differently. Essentially the biker and the landowner are not using a common unit of exchange. You could say that the landowner sets the price in apples, but that the biker is paying in oranges. Or to highlight the difference in value, the landowner is setting the price in coal, but the biker must in diamonds. 

There is a further, even more radical implication to all of this, and that is that when there are differences in wealth among the members of a society, transfers from the wealthy to the poor INCREASE net societal welfare. This is because when a dollar is taken from a wealthy man and given to a poor man, the loss of intrinsic value experienced by the rich man is less than the gain in intrinsic value experienced by the poor man. Prices don't clear the market because prices are not established in units of intrinsic value.

As far as premise number two, I haven't seen any good measures of the magnitude of that trade-off. Is it significant? Is it significant at some degrees of intervention, but not significant at others? If you know where i can see data that describe this relationship I would be very interested.

PostScript: None of this addresses the libertarian arguments against policies that are aimed at reducing inequality. Nor does it address the question of whether governments are needed to effect redistribution (when it is desirable), or whether non-coercive institutions and norms could be a more optimal solution than government.

Productivity and Effects on Labor

If productivity increases because of new technology, will demand for labor fall?

I think it's complicated. If the market for a particular product is saturated, (e.g. there is plenty of supply of toasters to meet demand) then an increase in productivity will mean that fewer people will be necessary to maintain the current level of production. Demand for labor to produce that product will fall if productivity increases.

But consider a product that is useful and valuable, but that is too expensive to produce. Because of the high price most people use some substitute product that is cheaper. E.g. mobile phones during the 1980s. New technology that increases productivity for this kind of product will drive an increase in demand for labor to produce the product, as the market for the product grows.

Paul Rako discusses how increases in productivity cause the value of the output of each worker to increase, thereby supporting higher wages. I think he's kind of right, but that the mechanism isn't direct. The price of labor depends less on the value of the output of a particular job title at a particular business, and more on the value of output of labor altogether for the entire economy. To look at it another way ask your self the question: What is the difference between high wages and a low cost of living? If I work in a factory making widgets, and management brings in new machinery that enables me to make more widgets every hour, do I get a raise? Probably not, especially if the new equipment is just as easy to operate as was the old equipment. On the other hand, if my favorite auto manufacturer is making nicer cars for less money today than it was five years ago, that's value that has raised my standard of living even though my productivity may not have changed in five years.

The Future of Labor

In 1850 about 50% of Americans made their living as farmers or farm laborers. In 2000 it was about 1%. Increases in productivity can dramatically decrease the demand for labor in a particular part of the economy. This is all for the best, but it is difficult for the displaced laborers.

I haven't seen data to support it, but the conventional wisdom is that demand for unskilled labor is in steady decline. One story to illustrate this idea is that increased automation in factories eliminates unskilled positions, but may increase the number of skilled positions in the form of an expanded technical staff who develops and maintains the automation equipment. I think that story is at best an oversimplification of reality (e.g. increasing automation may mean that a factory doesn't eliminate jobs but trades skilled labor, like machinists, for unskilled labor in the form of machine operators who only need to push some buttons and measure parts), but even if it's accurate it doesn't tell us what's happening to the number of unskilled labor positions in the overall economy.

Productivity increases in an industry lower the cost of production for that industry, meaning that society can spend less on that industry's products. That's why I spend a smaller percentage of my income on food than did my grandfather, and why fewer people are working on farms today than were in 1850. As we've gotten to be better at producing food we have saturated demand. The US produces more food than it knows how to consume. You can just as easily blame farm worker displacement on the 'low' demand for food as on high farm worker productivity.

Interestingly, increases in farm worker productivity have lowered the costs of non-farm products as well, because all that displaced farm labor was freed up to be used to produce more valuable items like cars and houses. And now we're choking on too much supply of those items as well (due to increasing productivity), and workers are again being displaced.

As Arnold Kling puts it:

"...before you tell me that we are outsourcing to China, you should remember that (a) our manufacturing output has been increasing, even though the number of people working in that sector is declining; and (b) employment in China's manufacturing sector has been shrinking, also."

So what is the future of labor, skilled and unskilled? Continual displacement from one industry to another, and a falling cost of necessities and luxuries. These are near certainties. But what else? Will the unskilled be left behind? The unskilled will always earn less and be less productive than the skilled, but I don't see any evidence that they are simply being left without work. I do see that average, middle class people are spending more of their income on paying someone else to care for their lawns, to service their cars, and to clean and repair their homes.

One day cars will be rolling off of 'lights off' manufacturing lines, with only a handful of humans monitoring entire factories. I don't believe that we'll have high unemployment, or (more to the point) a human welfare crisis when that day arrives.