A necessary reminder

The Third Industrial Revolution is a nice little article about the changes that will increasingly come about with the (ever-going) globalization-process. Things are put into perspective in language that could even be fit for the average newspaper-reader (who seldom wants to see the big picture and is more obsessed with who writes, rather than what is written). Two quotes about the same phenomena - wages versus productivity, or, job-creation versus job-protection:

Moreover, the New Deal and Fair Deal introduced labor legislation that hastened the expansion of the service industry. It enabled and encouraged industrial labor unions to raise the cost of labor above its productivity, which has given rise to an unnatural economic phenomenon: mass unemployment. Unemployed factory labor has been seeking productive employment in the service industry ever since; it functions like a large net, legal and illegal, that can put all willing labor to productive use.

The forces of political intervention, in order to shield and benefit labor, are likely to increase labor costs, which invariably causes unemployment. After all, every penny of labor cost that exceeds labor productivity is bound to create unemployment.

This is saying it in human language that even the Left can understand (or can it ever?).

The French protests clarify the picture. Last fall, thousands of desperate immigrant-descendant young people filled the streets of France, protesting an impossible unemployment-rate that hits those the hardest who have the least skills, training and experience (in short, young immigrants). This spring, thousands of well-educated native-French people are protesting a decreased law-enforced job-protection. Two sides of the same coin. Both sides are unhappy. The rulers loose votes on both events. Artificial job-security, and its partner in crime - huge unemployment, fight with car-torching and violence. Who's the villain? Hardly Villepin.

A friendly reminder to the Left:

If A thinks that the "impersonal market" is not paying him enough, he is really saying that individuals B, C, and D are not willing to pay him as much as he would like to receive. The "market" is individuals acting. Similarly, if B thinks that the "market" is not paying A enough, B is perfectly free to step in and supply the difference. (#)

And wouldn't that be a peaceful solution to the "injustice" of free trade and capitalism?