Labor? I hardly know ‘er.
1.6
Some thoughts on the rights of consumers and of workers.
🌟 Feature
For several months, I’ve been inching my way through Cory Doctorow and Rebecca Giblin’s book Chokepoint Capitalism. I’m a slow reader. Sue me. The book is split into two parts. First, they diagnose all of the problems with existing structures in the creative and culture industries. As the title references, they describe the extraordinary ways that different companies have monopolized the point of purchase for content and media. For example, Amazon has basically made it impossible for any other player to get into the audiobook space. If you want to publish an audiobook and make any money at all, you have to do it on Amazon’s terms. Second, they detail different ways that citizens and lawmakers can meaningfully shift the tide in these industries in favor of the proverbial “little guy.” Of course they talk about antitrust law and consumer protections, but their suggestions go beyond the realm of lumbering, disinterested representative democracy.
One theme of their arguments considers the relative power that consumers and workers have. Much of our existing antitrust and competition law revolves around protecting consumers from price gouging, price fixing, self preference, and consumer choice. We have entire government agencies for the protection of consumers, like the FDA. What these antitrust laws don’t always do is protect labor from the negative effects of anticompetitive monopoly: wage theft, political lobbying, rights to collective bargaining, and job choice.
In digesting this misappropriation of priorities in our country, I couldn’t help but wonder wait…aren’t all consumers only consumers because they earn money in the economy…by…uh…being workers?
I felt so silly arriving at this. It is such a breathtakingly obvious order of operations. But you can imagine possible reasons why labor rights get lower priority than consumer rights. Here’s one imagined one: The bulk of the American money spent and transferred in the economy happens at a tax bracket where people probably don’t refer to themselves as “labor.” For certain laborers, and thus certain voters, their basic needs and financial security are being met by their employer. They might worry more about their local gas station gouging prices or product recalls on their favorite mac and cheese than how easily they could leave their job for another one, for example.
But we arrive at the heart of the issue. Corporate consolidation in the entertainment field has allowed for things like ESPN, HULU, AND DISNEY+ ALL FOR ONE LOW PRICE. There’s an obvious argument for why this is “better for consumers.” But what about the workers? The consolidation and pivot to streaming in the TV/film industry has meant reduced job security, limited career growth, and far less individual ownership over the final product than previous generations have enjoyed (they didn’t enjoy very much themselves, but that’s a story for a different Feature). This, evidently, has led to our ongoing strikes in the entertainment field. As the corporations have consolidated and our federal antitrust watch dogs have focused more on the effects anti-competition can have on consumers, the people who actually make the beloved films and TV shows that hold up those companies are getting shafted.
So all of this is to say that I encourage you to look for ways to support labor over the long-catered-to needs of consumers. Any gain in the rights of labor is by no means a loss in the rights of consumers. After all, these people are one and the same.
📚 Reading list
Obviously this week I am recommending Chokepoint Capitalism by Cory Doctorow and Rebecca Giblin.
⚡️ Lightning
What’s the point of technology if it isn’t gunna make our lives easier?
What’s the point of technology if any advantages we get from its productivity only go to certain people?
What’s the point of technology if we don’t get paid more for the increases in productivity it allows us?
What’s the point of technology if it can only be accessed after an incredibly high economic barrier?
“Among exclusionary abuses of dominant position, self-preferencing is a conduct that falls under the more general category of abusive leverage, as it assumes an undertaking abusing its dominant position in a given market to extend that position in a closely related market (upstream, downstream or adjacent), to the detriment of competitor on the latter market. In particular, by using its market power on the dominated market the dominant undertaking gives a preferential treatment to its own product on the non-dominated market and this might be capable of having exclusionary effect, absent any objective justification or proof of efficiencies.”
Consumer choice
The ability of a consumer to choose between different companies’ goods or services in alignment with their preferences, financial needs, or values. An entire Target aisle of Proctor and Gamble goods, even “competing” brands does not consumer choice make.
Wage theft
In the legal sense, it’s not paying or providing benefits to your employees in defiance of employment contracts or law. But this term often gets used, I think appropriately, in reference to the displacement of profits earned by the productivity of labor to ownership/shareholders.
Job choice
The ability to take your talents elsewhere. Certain aspects of our current system make the switching cost of finding a new job inordinately high, like the fact that you stand to lose your health insurance if it’s provided by your employer. Plus, as corporate consolidation continues, there are literally fewer companies in a given industry to take your talents.
☎️ Answers
Why did he change Twitter’s name to X?
Because he is an oafish self interested boar with the business acumen of a broken pencil and the financial flippancy of a child with Robux.
That’s all for this week. Thanks for reading.