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 Hall
Robert 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 Hall
Robert 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 2008
October 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
Movable Type 2.661

Site design by
Sekimori

XML