Monday, December 7, 1998
‘Invisible Hand’ determines value of TA labor
WAGES: Strong capitalist society, surplus of graduate workers
obstruct effectiveness of strike
By David Miller
The harebrained schemes of today’s educational elite never cease
to amaze me. Today I am shocked to find that our beloved teaching
assistant have yet to learn the greatest principle that America is
founded upon: capitalism.
Dating back to the earliest economists, the "Invisible Hand"
that guides our economy has been lauded as the single most
contributing factor to the economic prosperity of our nation.
Differing individuals acting in their own self-interest, and
consequently (and quite unintentionally) helping their brethren,
has guided this nation to the height of consumerism and materialism
that it enjoys today.
Though I personally feel that this resultant materialism is a
negative backfire of economic prosperity, the problem lies more
within how the prosperity is used; no one can argue that prosperity
in itself is a bad thing.
Well, this principle of capitalism still exists today, and
though the government has somewhat felt the need to tie extraneous
weights to the "Invisible Hand," it still works for the most part.
With that in mind, I don’t understand what our teaching assistants
(TAs) are doing.
As I have been led to believe, the TAs are striking because they
are not given collective bargaining rights (I think that maybe the
TAs are striking because they want collective bargaining rights).
That is all well and good, and whether the TAs are responsible for
the strike because they want rights, or the administration is at
fault because they are not giving rights, I don’t really care. I
just care about the economic principles being neglected in this
strike.
I am not an economics student, but I know this: TAs are selling
a good, and the university is buying that good. TAs are selling
their labor, and the university is buying it. The real problem the
TAs should look at is that there is an oversupply – without much
demand.
Currently, the TAs are offering about 20 hours of work a week in
exchange for whatever their monetary salary is. The university has
set a price it is willing to pay for the labor, and for the most
part, there has been an excess of supply by the TAs at the
university’s buying price. In sum, the university says, "We will
pay you X dollars for Y work" and the TAs say, "X dollars are worth
more to me than the benefits I would have from not doing Y work."
So in the end, everyone is happy because the university is buying
what they want at a price they want to pay, and the TAs are happy
because what they are paid is worth more to them than the time and
effort they put in. And in fact, the university must be offering
some very competitive wages because there is a huge demand for TA
positions.
We have to remember that the salary of the TAs is not just
monetary. There are many other benefits that come with the job. Not
only do TAs get a salary, but they also enjoy the convenience of
working on campus; they get to teach their field of study, thus
increasing their understanding of the subject; and teaching offers
such intrinsic benefits (pride in helping others) that it has
always been a low-paying career.
So in the end, every TA who accepted the job at the beginning of
the school year said, "This is the best thing I can do with my
time. I may be able to get health benefits and better pay by
working part time at that new Starbucks, but then I wouldn’t be
able to …"
No one in the university ever said that this job is required of
graduate students; they took it out of choice, so the benefits that
the university offers must be better than what these individuals
can attain in the private sector. And furthermore, there is an
abundance of supply in the TA labor department.
TA positions are coveted, that’s why a strike will never work
because for every TA on strike, there are five graduate students
who are willing to take their job.
The simple lesson to be learned from this is that the "Invisible
Hand" has won again, and it always will. Here’s how it works: The
University says it will pay people X dollars to do Y work. If
people think Y work is worth X dollars, then they accept the job.
But if no one thinks that Y work is worth X dollars, then the
university will have to offer X+1 dollars or X+2 dollars, until
there are TAs willing to work at that wage. And if the university
can’t afford to pay what the TAs are looking for, then the
university will find new creative ways to offer its good; or it
will dismantle it, and a venture that was doomed to fail from the
beginning will meet its prescribed fate.
Let me give an example to illustrate my point. Let’s say,
hypothetically, that I love to snowboard. I am one cheap bastard,
but I love snowboarding so much that I think a lift ticket at my
local resort is worth $25, but not a dollar more. The problem is
that no resorts sell lift tickets for $25. But there are hundreds
of people who will pay $40 for a lift ticket, so the resort is in
no trouble, it will still flourish. But if everyone is like me, and
they will only pay $25 for a lift ticket, then either the resort
must find a way to sell its good for less; if it can’t sell tickets
that cheap and cover costs, then their resort was destined to be an
economic failure.
In this case, the university is the resort, and it knows that
for ever 30 striking TAs (and for every guy like me who hates
paying $50 for a lift ticket), there are five graduate students
willing to work as TAs under the university’s current compensation
plan (and there are also 50 plump executives willing to pay $60 to
ski on the bunny slopes).
Let’s say I work at a law firm as a clerk (or coffee boy,
whichever you prefer). The firm offers me $8 an hour. Along with
that $8 an hour, I also gain experience from my work, the intrinsic
joy of a job well done, and if I’m suited to the labor, I should
get joy out of practicing the law. But if I think that I would have
a greater benefit from working at a snow resort for no pay, just
the joy of being near the mountains, then I would quit the job at
the law office. I would act in my best interest, just as every TA
did when one accepted (and applied for) the job.
TAs should realize that they will not get anything done by
striking. Yes, it is a major inconvenience for the school right
now, but have no fear, the university will have no problem finding
plenty of cheap graduate student labor for winter quarter. And if
this strike proves to be a big enough problem, I would not be
surprised to see the university provide a no-strike clause in its
TA contracts or in its application to be a graduate student.
The only offspring of labor strikes or government subsidies are
the millions of tons of grain currently rotting in the Midwest. The
Student Association of Graduate Employees (SAGE) is wasting its
time. If graduate students want these benefits more than the joy of
teaching their field of study, they should work at Ben and
Jerry’s.
Comments, feedback, problems?
© 1998 ASUCLA Communications Board[Home]