Contra Ricardo: An Essay Page 2

Chapter 2: Parable of the Work Crews

  The dark satanic mills of fin du siècle whirl away producing the wonder machines of the industrial revolution. Competition is fierce. Production costs must be kept down. The major component is generally organization, but that entails dealing with the writhing breath stealing snake of management. The industrial magnate is familiar with management. They play together, socialize together, work together closely, in contradistinction with his laborers. By the way, the rat race is a dirty rat race, and these managers are precisely the ones who have the dirt on the great tycoon. Blackmail is not out of the question, or stealing trade secrets for the benefit of the opposition, etc. (Some of the engineers might do this too, and a few of the highly skilled laborers. But division of labor mitigates this for the laborers.)

  You can see that it is much safer to put the squeeze on the workers to cut costs. Besides, they are not fit to live in the war of darwinist struggle. How do you do that? You make them work long hours, fewer hours of their life proportionately tied up in transit to work, fewer proportionate hours in set up and break down of work chores, etc. You just pay them less for more work. You push them beyond the breaking point. If they die or are maimed at work, you let them go. By having surplus labor, you can replace them cheaply to your microeconomic advantage, but not to the advantage of the commonwealth. You try to rush them, less time spent for safety precautions, cut on safety equipment and infrastructure. Let society pay the cost for their broken bodies. You plot to keep them disorganized in any fashion available to you, infiltrate spies in to the labor pool to do so. If they organize, you set up or infiltrate the unions. This does not make for happy campers. Let me tell you how the workers feel about this.

  They hate their employers, have no loyalty to them. When the assembly process breaks down, they are glad. They see it as a reprieve from their burden and a way of avoiding injury, providing the breakdown is not life threatening. If they can sabotage the factory to slow down the work without risking getting caught, they will do so. Their brain and body do not work at optimal level. They are less efficient laborers. In Carnegie's steel mills, we hear one in eleven workers died on the job each year. We hear half the linemen died on the job when Westinghouse built his A/C power grid from Niagara Falls.

  Let us look at some good things. If you have a team effort building a car, let us say, you have the option of substitution of work details. Eight workers need not do the same backbreaking assignment for 11 to 12 hours a day. They switch jobs. If an employee has a sore back, with some friendliness, his coworkers may let him off that job for a while to recover. The employees know more about the car as a whole, since they work on all parts of the car in cycles. Though they do not like the company, they are likely to spot quality problems. They are better joiners, mechanics, though tired and unhappy.

  We jump over to a mass production line. The workers need less training. The line works faster by comparison (to the miserable workers.) The employers demand less hours and pay higher wages per hour, because of these efficiencies. This looks good but at a price, and the price is deceptive as well.

  We see the Henry Ford story above. We note that less tired workers are prone to make less mistakes. We know that higher wages increase morale and company loyalty to a point. They do not want to work building cars for longer hours and less pay. However, we note that group assembly morale and loyalty would increase proportionately if such were forthcoming. We note that they would not be as motivated to see the work routine of assembly breakdown due to problems. We also note that group work requires more managerial skill in keeping material flow to each unit. You need better management and supply logistical skills. (The fat cats traditionally prefer to harass workers over management.) In return for improving work conditions, you get a healthier work environment, more highly skilled workers. All of this is blunted by long work hours and low morale coupled with skimping on safety. And to press the point on management. How much comparative advantage did Henry Ford obtain due to better logistical support to the assembly line? Perhaps more efficient shipping/receiving, purchasing, finance, warehousing, and so on? I suspect that Ford's hardscrabble start up company was better run than his opposition. And his staff had less blackmail options against Ford due to the newness of the plant. And perhaps Ford was a bit more honest, having less torts on his slate to be blackmailed with? Do not place all savings on the bug colony assembly line.

  What am I getting at? As a man who has done labor, I would much prefer the group work team over an assembly line. You use the same muscles over and over again in piece work, creating more likelihood of injury. It is mind numbing and dumbs down the man. When group work is done properly, empirical evidence supports that the workers produce better cars, saving on warranty costs, post warranty costs to the consumer. Henry Ford is to the American spirit of rugged individualism what monkey brain in the skull served as the main dish at Thanksgiving is to that American holiday. It is not American. It is not good for human beings, and I am not talking about the nutritional value of monkey brain.

  Basically, the division of labor stinks. Every effort should be made to build well rounded citizens. We must admit that one man would not be able to make the modern complement of household goods. This is less true for a community, much less true for a province, even more untrue for a nation. Once economies of scale reach a certain point, counterproductive effects occur in overhead costs and flexibility. These add to expense. You may still see a minor advantage in direct savings on variable costs but it is misleading. Throughout history, smaller armies have defeated larger armies due to the unwieldiness of the larger armies. Yes, numbers count in battle, but smaller armies have advantages in efficiencies of movement, quickness in changing tactics and strategy as the battle develops. Besides, the virtuous man is not the cog in the wheel of the mass production line. Ignorance and incapacity are not desirable. We as individuals and citizens of a city, state, nation should strive to get as much of our needs within our own borders consistent with reasonable economic necessities. It makes for more efficient government, more honest government, more respect for labor, less class warfare. All of these add up to more prosperity. David Ricardo was a greedy spinner of deceptive doctrines. He pointed to the corrupt so called nobility of blood to justify his division of labor scam and free trade, viewing the nobility as wasteful, sybaritic etc. (Unlike himself?) These were the great supporters of tariffs in Britain. There is no nobility of blood and the notion vile in its own rationale. Intelligence, integrity, moral virtue cannot be inherited by blood. These are spiritual, immaterial values. A virtuous man might raise a virtuous son, but only by setting an example that is immaterial in essence, not by genetic inheritance. We got rid of this nonsense to some extent in America, though Charles Darwin and others are always trying to make it reemerge. Back to Table of Content