John: If my main argument is demonstrably false, as you say, please show me how. That is why I posted in the first place. I’d like to hear legitimate cirtiques of my argument. Unfortunately, I have not heard one yet. I undertsand your hosility and curtness, but I would appreciate a real answer.
All I see is your question about my statement of all wages being inflated, which I have already qualified. Quite frankly, I don’t see how you can deny that the most if not all of the professions have inflated wages for the same reason teachers do. And by profession, I mean what might be called the “learned professions”: doctors, lawers, engineers, scientists, etc.
The union issue is equally forceful in my argument. teachers are unionized, and this likely results in a large portion of the wage inflation, but this is also true of any other unionized vocation: electricians, carpenters, masons, health care workers, auto workers, pipe fitters…
I would appreciate hearing your argument against this.
It is the wages of these fields which are inflated. If licensure and unionization were abolished, it seems to me wages in all of these fields would decrease.
Whether it is possible that all wages could ever decrease, I don’t know. I am not sure they could not. In fact, I think it is reasonable to expect the general price level to decrease in a pure free market, and this would include wages.
It also seems the average wage could decrease if the standard of living decreased over time, as might happen after some major economic or natural calamity, but of course that is irrelevant here. I would appreciate hearing your argument against this as well, though I’m not sure it’s essential to my argument.
As far as Rothbards argument, I reproduce it here:
What about working as a government employee? It is true that, other things being equal, it is far better, on libertarian as well as pragmatic grounds, to work for a private employer rather than government. But suppose that the government has monopolized, or virtually monopolized, your occupation, so that there is no practical alternative to working for the government?
Take, for example, the Soviet Union, where the government has, in effect, nationalized all occupations, and where there are no, or virtually no, private employers. Are we to condemn all Russians whatsoever as “criminals” because they are government employees? Is it the only moral act of every Russian to commit suicide? But that would be idiotic. Surely there are no moral systems that require people to be martyrs.
But the United States, while scarcely as far gone as Russia, has had many occupations virtually monopolized by the government. It is impossible to practice medicine without becoming part of a highly regulated and cartelized profession. If one’s vocation is university teaching, it is almost impossible to find a university that is not owned, economically if not legally, by the government. If one’s criterion of government ownership is the receipt of over 50% of one’s income from the government, then there are virtually no universities, and only one or two small colleges, that can be called “private.” During the riots of the late 1960’s, students at Columbia discovered that far more than 50% of the income of that allegedly “private” university came from the government. In such a situation, it is foolish and sectarian to condemn teachers for being located in a government university.
There is nothing wrong, and everything rational, then, about accepting the matrix in one’s daily life. What’s wrong is working to aggravate, to add to, the statist matrix. To give an example from my own career. For many years I taught at a “private” university (although I would not be surprised to find that more than half its income came from the government). The university has long teetered on the edge of bankruptcy, and years ago it tried to correct that condition by getting itself “statized” through merging with the State University of New York system, in those halcyon days rolling in dough. For a while, it looked as if this merger would occur, and there was a great deal of pressure on every member of the faculty to show up in Albany and lobby for merger into the State system. This I refused to do, since I believed it to be immoral to agitate to add to the statism around me.
Does that mean that all libertarians can cheerfully work for the government, apart from not lobbying for statism, and forget about conscience in this area? Certainly not. For here it is vital to distinguish between two kinds of State activities: (a) those actions that would be perfectly legitimate if performed by private firms on the market; and (b) those actions that are per se immoral and criminal, and that would be illicit in a libertarian society. The latter must not be performed by libertarians in any circumstances. Thus, a libertarian must not be: a concentration camp director or guard; an official of the IRS; an official of the Selective Service System; or a controller or regulator of society or the economy.
My argument is teaching fits in the acceptable category outlined by Rothbard. The “professional” world of this country has effectively been monopolized by the State and/or distorted by regulations, licensure, and unionization.
Again, I understand that public school teachers are public employees, and clearly outside the private sector, while other professionals may be (nominally?) within the private sector. However, in light of Rothbard’s argument above, and in light of the consideration that the wage inflation issue is no different for teachers tahn any of these (quasi-)private professional positions, It seems to me my position may be no worse.
And again, I am open to alternative views. In fact, as I have already stated, my historical view has been that my position IS worse. It is only very recently that I have begun to explore this new idea.
I am not afraid of admitting my position is worse. I have lived with the thougt for many years already (as I look for a way out of public teaching). I come to these forums for genuine input. I’ve no interest in making excuses. Nor have I interest in argument for arguments sake or rhetorical battles.