|
May 23, 2008
On white overalls c. 1908
Regulation often takes bizarre forms. The May 23, 1908 NYT has an example: The orders issued by the Board of Health of New York City, requiring that all persons who milk cows must wear white duck overalls and jackets, otherwise the milk will not be allowed to enter New York, has placed the majority of the milk producers in a predicament.We'll get to the predicament in a second, but why white overalls? Was white considered more hygienic or was the thinking that white overalls would make it easier for an inspector to determine if a worker was despoiled by cow poop? Interest group theory would predict that a lobbyist who made white overalls manipulated the regulation at the expense of her competitors who made yellow overalls or blue overalls. But what is the predicament in which the dairy farmers find themselves? Pesky humans who don't necessarily want to do what the Board of Health says: Much of the milking has heretofore been done by the wives and daughters of farmers all of whom declare they will never don the overalls. The farmers think they cannot afford to dispense with their female help, and they are at a loss to know what to do.In the short run, the farmers are in a pickle if their help won't work because of exogenously mandated regulations. In the medium run, the dairy farmers could hire replacement workers - the wages paid might be higher than a farmer might have paid his wife or daughter, but the hired help might be more productive (as pointed out this little-cited article). In the long run, if mom and daughter refuse to wear white overalls, and the hired help is proving too expensive, then technology would (and did) advance to provide a reasonable substitute for labor. I don't pretend that white overalls led to the technological change that would eventually displace mom and daughter from their milking pails (which in itself was probably not a bad thing, not withstanding the protestations of some). However, blind bureaucracy passing mandates from above might well have such perverse effects: witness the outcomes of No Child Left Behind, Americans with Disabilities Act, our current ethanol mandate, and watch out for the "2008 farm bill" which is without-any-concept-of-irony formally called "The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008." Posted by Craig Depken at 12:30 PM in Economics
|
The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it. -Adam Smith
Our Bloggers
Joshua HallRobert Lawson E. Frank Stephenson Michael C. Munger Lawrence H. White Craig Depken Tim Shaughnessy Edward J. Lopez Brad Smith Mike DeBow Wilson Mixon Art Carden
Blogroll
Search
Archives
By Author:
Joshua HallRobert Lawson E. Frank Stephenson Michael C. Munger Lawrence H. White Edward Bierhanzl Craig Depken Ralph R. Frasca Tim Shaughnessy Edward J. Lopez Brad Smith Mike DeBow Wilson Mixon Art Carden
By Month:
November 2008October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004
Powered by
Site design by |