Young McCardle had a dumb
Megan McCardle tried to use her brain for something other than a way to keep her ears from touching. The results were predictable.
We’ve had a long run on the current economic expansion, but eventually, another recession will come. A lot of people will lose their jobs, maybe including you. So ask yourself a question: When the time comes, would you rather take a guaranteed 10 percent wage cut, or have a 10 percent chance of becoming unemployed?
Neither. I’d like every sado-libertarian to have a 100% chance of fighting for the best spots under the overpass.
But of course her choices involve the employees taking it in the shorts, somehow. Trim the quarterly earning projections? Don’t be silly. Slash C-Suite salaries? Jamais de la vie! Dig into the businesses savings to muddle through? Oops.
Anyway, if people don’t want to be exploited by their employers, they should just fail their way into the carefree world of libertarian punditry.
While they are both just theoretical possibilities, the risks may seem similar. But in practice, a 10 percent income reduction would be merely miserable, while a 100 percent income reduction would be catastrophic.
A 10% pay cut would be catastrophic for many Americans. Thanks to the efforts of depraved capitalists like McGurgles. But it doesn’t matter because she’s not talking to them, or – despite the lede – any employee. She’s talking to the bosses. I think.
So it might seem as if the decision should be easy: accept the small, sure reduction, instead of the enormous loss. And yet, this is the opposite of what we see. Employers are the ones making decisions, not workers — and they seem remarkably unwilling to reduce wages during a downturn. Instead they are apt to use layoffs to control their labor costs.
Maybe she’s flirting with the idea of collective bargaining powers for employees. But only if they use their power to screw themselves.
Ee-i-ee-i-duh.