Jon Kvanvig (Philosophy, Missouri) writes: "Below is something philosophers don’t seem to have thought about very much, especially those who get offers to move from one institution to another. The Pacific debacle made me think more about the conditions of those not as lucky as those who actually get offers from other institutions (though they are clearly not in as dire circumstances as the hotel workers, who’s situation prompted my recent thinking about this), and that is what the following is about." Here is Professor Kvanvig’s parable:
There was once a lush tropical island whose economy was tourism-based. The natives worked in fancy resorts at different jobs: some busboys, some cooks, some waiters, some low-level managers. All made at least a living wage, so discontent was muted.Competition between resorts grew. Since the pool of qualified workers was limited by the island population, workers would sometimes move their employment from one resort to another. Management began to look for workers who would give a competitive advantage. So some privileged workers were constantly receiving offers that would raise their salaries.
This practice left each resort with a management decision, whether to raise the salaries of valued employees preemptively, or whether to wait and counter offers when they arose. Since the top managers went to prestigious MBA programs, they universally favored the latter. The workers never objected to the practice, and those receiving offers would simply decide between staying and going based on what seemed to them the best given their overall situation.
Then one day, the workers received two books each from a wealthy philanthropist interested in political theory. One was John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice and the other was Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia. They organized study groups, and though there was some dissent, the majority seemed to favor something along the lines of Rawls’ theory.
As discussions progressed, the principles of the books came to be applied to specific institutional structures on the island. The workers considered the political system in place, the unemployment safety net, the old age benefits package, and many other institutions as well. Running out of applications, one of them suggested thinking about the institutional practice governing competition between resorts for employees. When they started thinking about freedom and uncoerced contractual arrangements as opposed to practices arranged to the benefit of the least advantaged, they came to the conclusion that their practice fit a Nozickian model much better than a Rawlsian model. For, they reasoned, if workers who received better offers from other resorts never allowed their present employer to raise their wages in response to a new offer, choosing only between their present conditions and the new offer, employers would have to raise salaries of any good employee in order to make it too costly for competitor resorts to offer them a higher salary. Moreover, it was obvious to the workers that the practice of never considering a counteroffer would be likely to produce higher salaries for all workers. They reasoned that management wouldn’t be able to wait to raise the salaries of only those who actually received offers, but would have to intervene preemptively on behalf of any employee they wished to retain, thereby benefitting even the least advantaged workers.
Several reactions ensued. Some felt duped and silly, for they had never considered the idea that management practices had the effect of keeping wages lower. Others felt ashamed, for the point was so obvious that they knew in their hearts that they had been deceiving themselves so as to benefit from the existing system. And some were proud, immensely pleased with the fit between their Nozickian leanings and the practices of the institution in which they spent their lives.
Then the realists spoke. "Yes, the system works to the disadvantage of the least advantaged, and the answer is collective action on our part. But short of true collective action, we have no alternative but to do the best we can for ourselves."
The prophet rose. "You can do something. You can tell your home resort that you’ll only take their counteroffer if they also help other workers at the resort. You can act symbolically by refusing to accept a counteroffer, even though it doesn’t maximize your own self-interest. You can do something." To which the jaded replied, "It won’t help. It won’t make the island a better place. The disadvantaged won’t be helped. Management will just call our bluff, and then where will we be? Short of true collective action, there is no stopgap measure." Saddened, the prophet quietly replied, "This is the inertial principle for injustice. It is how injustice is propagated from one moment of time to another. You can’t show a proper concern for justice if you will do nothing that costs you anything."
The Nozickians howled.
Comments are open; no anonymous postings.
Leave a Reply to Stephen R. Marsh Cancel reply