New Yorkers Learn a Lesson About Supply & Demand

I've had some interesting discussions with folks who live in New York City about the strike. Their basic arguments go something like this: they pay oh-so-nice lip service to theyr concern for workers - almost in that defensive, "I'm not a racist, my best friend is black" way. And then immediately, it is into a screed about how dare workers inconvenience them with a strike, with a little supposed concern for other workers who are getting screwed because the public transit system is not running. Then there are vigorous claims that transit workers should not have the right to strike because they are "essential" to the city running.

And there, really, is the ultimate contradiction of the argument against the transit workers. You can't simultaneously argue that the workers are absolutely essential to the city's way of life, while also arguing that they should accept pension/benefit cuts. Because if something is that valuable to you, then you need to actually pay a premium for it.

Let's put it all in basic supply and demand economics - because that's what it really is. When a commodity is at a premium or "essential" to the market, the market pays a premium for it. That's what we always hear venerated from almost every pundit and mainstream media operation in America - call it free market fundamentalism. It's why oil companies make record profits when oil supplies dwindle, or Apple can charge more for Ipods when there is huge demand for them. When that happens, everyone says hey, that's just the "invisible hand" of the market. That's good old American capitalism at work!

But when that "invisible hand" suddenly starts working for workers, well, that's portrayed as treasonous.

New Yorkers are very suddenly realizing they really do value transit workers, and that their "demand" for the commodity in question - that is, transit workers' labor - is very high. The problem is, many - including New York's billionaire mayor and bought-off governor - want to not have to pay a fair price for the commodity in demand. And they don't want the sellers of the supply (ie. the workers) to even be able to use their economic tools to get the higher price they deserve. Worst of all, they want to use strikebreaking laws to rig the system, so that the "essential" commodity they want - the transit workers labor - can be gotten at an artifically deflated price. Put another way, they want to be beggars AND choosers at the same time.

The lesson for New Yorkers in all of this should be very simple: you really value transit workers, way more than you ever thought. They ARE "essential" as you say - and maybe instead of applauding your politicians when they give away billions to swimming-in-cash companies like Goldman Sachs, you should be angry that they aren't focused on what you now realize is the most "essential" thing that your taxpayer money needs to be going to: keeping your city's basic services running, and responding to the modest demands of workers who do that.

Luckily, polls say most New Yorkers innately understand this and side with workers. But as the strike ends, those who don't understand this basic reality and who still blame workers for having the nerve to fight for their rights need to take a real hard look at themselves in the mirror and ask whether deep down in that place they don't talk about at parites, they really hold a deep hatred for working class people in general.

COMMENTS: Go to Sirota's Working Assets site to comment on this entry