Libertarians, I need your help!

[yesthattom]

In the last year or two we’ve seen so many miners trapped and killed in mines owned by companies that flaunt safety regulations. Now it’s been revealed that Mine Safety and Health Administration director Richard Stickler was a recess appointment because Bush knew that he wouldn’t be approved by Congress because he believed in the libertarian ideal that government shouldn’t regulate industries: So-called “market forces” would do a better job. He believes that the best way to do this is to ignore the law and let companies “slide” for as long as possible and hope nobody notices.

I remember all the debates I used to have on various mailing lists about this issue. Finally I realized that I was wrong and Libertarians are right: Government regulation ain’t shit compared to market forces. I know that the Libertarians are right because they USED MORE UPPERCASE LETTERS and have AMAZING CAPSLOCK SKILLZ that are so powerful that they enable Libertarians to out-shout everyone else even when they use lowercase letters. Finally I left all such mailing lists, thus proving that I, a believer in government safety regulations, was the loser of the debates.

But alas! I have reformed. I’m now a big believer in the power of market forces and feel that anyone that doesn’t believe that they are better than everything else is a stupid fucking fool that deserves to die (not be murdered... just die in some kind of Darwinian way).

So help me, oh great Libertarians brains of the Internets. Please explain why market forces aren’t helping me in this situation:

Having read all about the mining disasters of the last week, I decided to make sure that I was part of the solution, not the problem. I was going to make sure that market forces were doing their job. As explained to me time and time again in painstaking detail by supersmart Libertarians... market forces replace the need for Government regulations because customers move away from bad companies.

So I moved away from bad companies.

Then I realized, I don’t directly purchase from mining companies. I HAD TO MOVE AWAY FROM COMPANIES THAT PURCHASE FROM BAD COMPANIES. (See the caplock is effective, eh? Tre sexy, no?)

So I walked into Dunkin Donuts and placed my order. “One egg-and-ham on toasted onion bagel... no cheese”. Then I paused and added, “but first, can you tell me if any of these products come from companies that utilize mining companies that don’t embark upon high safety standards?”

The person gave me a blank look.

“Excuse me, Mr. Donut man! Can you tell me if any of these products come from companies that utilize mining companies that don’t embark upon high safety standards?”

Again, a blank look.

So I left without my belly filled with egg-and-ham-and-bagel goodness.

I walked up the hill to the train-station that would take me to work. When it arrived the conductor came out and loudly announced, “Hoboken Train!”

I approached him and said, “Excuse me, Mr. Train Conductor Man. Can you tell me if this train was built with or is fueled by products that come from companies that utilize mining companies that don’t embark upon high safety standards?”

Mr. Train Conductor Man gave me a blank look.

So I asked again.

“Excuse me, Mr. Train Conductor Man. Can you tell me if this train was built with or is fueled by products that come from companies that utilize mining companies that don’t embark upon high safety standards?”

Again, no answer.

It occurred to me that not only was my belly not going to be filled with egg-and-ham-and-bagel goodness, but I wasn’t getting to work either.

But then I realized that I was going about this all wrong. I’ve already admitted that I’m not as smart as the brilliant Libertarian minds that I found on mailing lists and county fairs (Oh, did I mention the debate that I lost at the county fair’s Libertarian Booth? It was sponsored by a group that wanted the Bible inserted in the Constitution. A story for another time, I’m sure.)

So I ended up getting on the train, worried that the very act may kill miners, but I had no other way to get to work.

So, my question for the Libertarians of the world is simple:

FIRST QUESTION: How can I avoid companies that utilize companies that utilize mining companies that don’t embark upon high safety standards?

FOLLOWUP-QUESTIONS: Since I don’t believe in government regulations, who should set the high safety standard that I judge everyone against? The companies themselves? An industry consortium that they control? Should I go get a degree in mining, write my own list, and pay people to audit companies around the world? Where will I get the money? Alternatively, I could form a collective of other people that are similarly concerned, and we could pool our money to set the standards and do the audits. We’d call the payments “taxes” and the organization “government”.

No, really. Answer my first question. I dare you.

Comments

[la-directora.livejournal.com]

I have noticed an interesting trend in all of the people who tell me they want the government to "get out of their lives" - they all use public roads, they all expect their garbage to get picked up, they all use the postal service, if they live in big cities, they use public transportation...

And whenever I try to explain to these people that "the government" provides for these services, they get red-faced and splutter and tell me to stop being such a fascist.

Great post, man.

[n5red.livejournal.com]

Umm, there are a lot of areas around here that the "government" doesn't pick up trash, it is handled by multiple private companies.

As far as public roads, the government is turning more and more of them into toll roads.

The postal service is kind of handy, but I use UPS and DHL quite a bit more.

[la-directora.livejournal.com]

I may have used bad examples, but my point is that I have met a lot of people who call themselves Liberatarian, but still rely on public services and would be horrified if they no longer could. My biggest frustration has been with those who say they shouldn't have to pay any taxes, but still want the roads to be good and their 911 call to be answered promptly and the police to protect them and the public schools to be good...etc...

[n5red.livejournal.com]

Well, my calls to 911 have been less than successful, particularly when the cops told me it was my fault for getting robbed.

I think public schools are a joke and would never send any of my hypothetical children to them.

As far as roads, the Interstate system is in terrible shape, whenever practical I stay on state funded roads.

The level of taxation has skyrocketed of the last 100 years and I don't see where I'm getting the services that such a large amount of money should provide. It's quite a problem.

I'm completely against the Personal Income Tax, I think the government should be funded through other methods that hopefully have much less overhead. The original intent was that only the top 2% of wage earners would have to pay tax, now the IRS is going after 12 year old babysitters.

It's not that I am against public services or paying taxes, I'm just against the terrible vlue I receive for such a high cost.

[yesthattom.livejournal.com]

Toll roads just shifts the source of $. The government still runs them. (except in places where the service is still outsourced, but the government still holds the contract and owns the roads).

[yesthattom.livejournal.com]

THIS ISN'T HELPING ME FIND WHICH COMPANIES NOT TO USE BECAUSE THEY USE COMPANIES THAT DON'T HAVE HIGH STANDARDS FOR MINE SAFETY.

[mrfantasy.livejournal.com]

Personally, I only buy coal that I mine myself, using whatever techniques I desire, on my own property.

I then take this coal with me wherever I go and insist they use it to provide me services.

Problem solved.

[yesthattom.livejournal.com]

The train I take isn't coal powered.

Busted!

[mrfantasy.livejournal.com]

Don't you have a home coal-to-diesel converter? What kind of libertarian are you?

[rmd.livejournal.com]

DON'T WORRY! when bush becomes president for life, all these problems will be solved.
(link via this post in solarbird's lj

[barking-iguana.livejournal.com]

Brilliant. Thank you.

[fengshui.livejournal.com]

Both of your questions are spurious, as they're applied the the wrong market. Now, I'm not a libertarian, but here's how one would look at it from the libertarian viewpoint.

The market that will ensure high safety standards in mines is the labor market. If a particular mining company is not sticking to high labor standards, they will find it harder to attract employees to work there. They will need to pay more to compensate workers for the additional risk of injury or death. In such a situation, a rational mine owner will pay for safety improvements that are cheaper than the additional wages their workers demand to bear the safety risks.

[whc.livejournal.com]

Or, hire workers who are so desperate that they will work for low wages on a dangerous job.

[fengshui.livejournal.com]

Of course.

<libertarian>Recently, this country has been having a debate about immigration, where many employers in the agricultural sector complaining that that Americans are unwilling to do that work. If these workers are that desperate, why don't they move to where the work is, like the migrant workers do now? Alternately, why don't they work at Wal-Mart?</libertarian>

Where are mining wages low? I was under the impression that miners make good money. The average mining wage in Texas in 2002 was $60,392, compared to an average wage in Texas of $36,248. That's solidly middle-class. See this Bureau of Labor Statistics page for more data: http://www.bls.gov/ro6/ro6pay.htm. Most miners are unionized, which probably explains why they've been able to obtain such a good wage. Do you have evidence of miners working for "low wages on a dangerous job"?

[yesthattom.livejournal.com]

That's crazy talk. I doubt there is more than one mine in that town.

[fengshui.livejournal.com]

<libertarian-hat>So? How does that refute the argument? You're saying people have a right to a job in the town in which they live? What about the millions of Americans who have to move for a job every year?</libertarian-hat>

[awfief.livejournal.com]

Actually, market forces are working.

See, the number of miners who are trapped and/or killed is pretty punily insignificant. Sure, not insignificant if it's a friend or family member of yours, but statistically so, completely insignificant.

There are so many more bigger issues. The problem is the media -- coal miners trapped in a cave are almost as good as babies trapped down wells.

Note how we never hear about miners in countries other than the US? For instance, those who mine for diamonds in Africa, which is WAY more dangerous than mining for coal in the US.

[mhalligan.livejournal.com]

Speaking of babies in wells.. Whatever happened to Baby Jessica?

[lilbjorn.livejournal.com]

Interesting. There was a coal mining disaster trifecta in China this week. Each of which would make the Utah tragedy seem insignificant if our corporate media bothered to report them.

[sfo2lhr.livejournal.com]

I was not gonna rise to the bait here, but here goes.

1. Workplace safety issues are, in fact, reasonably well controlled by labor economics. Mining is a somewhat dangerous job, and there's a wage premium paid for that. And if a place becomes unreasonably dangerous to work at, it will have trouble attracting any workers at all.

2. Consumer and public safety issues are reasonably well controlled by tort law (which libertarians are not opposed to, enforced by public or private adjudication). If you distribute unsafe products, you get sued. If you have unsafe business premises, you get sued. If you screw up really badly, you might get sued out of business, and your shareholders lose all their value. That is a powerful incentive to observe good safety practices. (This would be true of worker safety as well, until the pre-emption of tort law by the workers' compensation system.)

3. Deregulation has not led to statistically bad safety outcomes. Fatal mine accidents used to occur with depressing regularity; now they're novel enough to be the lead story on the news for several days running. Mines are safer than they've ever been, as are workplaces of all kinds. And transportation. And consumer products. And so on... Just look at the data. Surely you're smarter than the people who see the lead story on the news and demand that "something be done!" even though it's an extremely rare occurence?

[gulfie.livejournal.com]

I too forswore the insanity... once more into the breach. Wish I knew how to add cuts in comments.




1. wage premium vs risk, attracting workers:
It is only well controlled in a tight labor market with minimal job transition cost. Which we do not have.


2. Damage lawsuits / insurance costs :
Only works in cases were people can effectively bring suit. With the court systems often taking on the order of decades to sort these things out, only the most egregious violations and tenacious victims ever see a penny.

As to the motivation argument, the same high costs of litigation can lead to lots of behavior meant to decrease cost that does not increase safety. Be they propaganda campaigns, destruction of evidence, or will full negligence.


If you need proof just look to any number of businesses/business groups that have, for monetary reasons publicly claimed X was 'safe' when they knew they were not. Tobacco, many drugs, dioxin, ddt, agent orange, GMO foods, the list goes on and on and on.


The fundamental issue, is that this sort of behavioral modification technique has very poor performance at correcting faults.



3. 'Deregulation...':
Uhmmm. Who said anything about Deregulation?



So here I am... looking at the data (like you said to do).





Coal mining deaths 1900 - 2006:
http://www.msha.gov/stats/centurystats/coalstats.asp

Rip out the data, and graph 100,000 * (deaths / miners), and you'll get the yearly death rate per 100k.

you get...



Man do I love gnuplot.


I love it and data so much I went and got something to compare it too, total industry wide death rates only started getting tabulated in 1992, and the format changed in 2003, and the labor force statistics/estimates were linear, so I had to do some stitching.





Now put them together.






Yes Per miner deaths seem to have bottomed out somewhere around 30 deaths / 100k / year. Which is about 5-10 times more deadly than everyone as a whole. [ a small aside, Do miners get paid 5-10 X ? ]


Yes miners are safer than they have ever been (within some margin of error from rare occurrences).
But are they safe enough? And is it getting better? Well was getting better before the 1980s. Now it's kinda petered out. Are we at some sort of economical limit on how much we should be spending to save minors lives? Maybe. I'm guessing no.

After reading a few years worth of fatalgrams, I'd say the answer is short cuts are why many of these people died. Short cuts like cleaning around a moving conveyor, or jumping into a live machine to to just do X, or oh the power is out, now is the time to spice that line. Catch phrases like 'falling protection', 'SLAM' or 'tag & lockout' start jumping out as systematicly fixable reasons people keep dieing. Another question is how many people are now living due to prompt and good medical care? Maybe that is what's making the last 20 years of mining get less deadly. What a frightening thought.



For individual reports:
http://www.msha.gov/fatals/fabc.htm
http://www.msha.gov/fatals/fab.htm

http://www.msha.gov/stats/charts/chartshome.htm


The fatalgrams and all fatality reports : http://www.msha.gov/fatals/fabc.htm


I came out with a few results.

a) roof bolting machines are the devil... but only recently.
b) cutting corners saves money for someone and might kill a miner.
c) we really need to get this solar power thing working.





Yes apparently I'm that looser that stays awake until 6 am, trying to bring sanity to the internet... poorly.

[etler.livejournal.com]

Lack of regulation:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/8/18/5944/08337

[docstrange.livejournal.com]

Interesting. That puts miners behind farmers, airline pilots, and fishermen in terms of risk to life on the job. I suspect these numbers don't take into account reduced life expectancy from slower diseases after retirement, but it's interesting that mining is now regulated enough to get it LOWER than farming in terms of risk to life on the job.

And professional pilots are 3X as likely to die on the job (!) but they have been highly compensated - about 3X the miners' levels of income. But let's not even talk about lumberjacks - they don't get 4X the money but do have 4X the risk.

http://home.austin.rr.com/apdhallofshame/occupations.htm

Anyhow, my point is much like other posters: Do not rely on the news to form your ideas of risk levels. Otherwise, you'd think GB was 100% right . . . right, Tom? OMG Ter'rists! ;)

[yesthattom.livejournal.com]

1. WHAAAAA? Shirley, you can't be sirus! So you are saying that the people that died were paid sufficiently, because whatever they were paid was the market's best price. If that's true, then why is the company paying any money to rescue them at all? Sounds to me like sending their last paycheck to the next of kin is sufficient.

2. WHAAAA?? Libertarian justifications are used for the current round of so-called "tort reform" which isn't really reform, it is simply making it more difficult to file or win a suit that you say would solve the problem. Libertarians are the ones that always tell me that America is becoming too licentious. So you are saying that the problem is that there are too many regulations and not ENOUGH law suits? Oh wait... those law suits would be suing someone for not abiding by regulations, which you feel should be done away with. I get it! That solves both problems! The problem that it doesn't solve is the fact that after the family wins the law suit, can the judge declare that the dead guy has to come back to life? Isn't prevention better than zombies roaming the earth? (Though I guess with a large enough settlement, they'd have enough to buy brains, not kill for them. ... if they could win a law suit when there are no standards to sue against). And how does this help individuals that have been wronged? One person can't make a big change. Sure, there are class-action suits, but that kind of banding together for a common good smacks of communism. YOU AREN'T A COMMUNIST, ARE YOU?

3. WHAAA??? (yes, THREE question marks!!!11!!) First of all, there is no such thing as deregulation. Deregulation is a code word for re-regulating something in a way that is more appealing to the people in power. Things still stay regulated. There have been zero actual DE-regulation situations you can measure against. Do you want to compare current level of accidents to when there was ZERO regulation? The 1800s? If you want to make that kind of comparison, sure, go ahead. I'll win because there were a LOT more deaths back then.

That brings me back to my perpetual rant about Libertarians. If Republicans want to bring America back to the 1950s (blacks were second class citizens and commies were our only enemy), then Libertarians want to bring us back to the 1800s: no regulations, companies abusing labor, and the vigilante wild, wild west let us be free.

Tom