Krasemann - Blog Post "Fickle" 14
In the first two chapters of a Private Government, Elizabeth Anderson lays out the current structure of the private government in society. She admits that “the notion of a private government may seem a contradiction in terms” but that considering the example of a firm or company, it makes sense that the structure follows that of a government but the proceedings are nonetheless private to those within the firm or company (Anderson 41). Anderson’s explanation and critique of private governments made me consider the case study surrounding Goldman Sachs and its analyst program.
Several weeks ago, a report was released that contained the writings and opinions of analysts at the notorious investment bank, Goldman Sachs. The analysts more or less tore into the company, with several going so far as to say that they would rather be homeless than work another day at Goldman Sachs. Another analyst said working at the company has been the most stressful time of his life, and he went through the foster care system. Despite these extreme words from its analysts, Goldman is expected to experience little to no repercussions. In fact, there has been content created on social media of the CEO laughing off the analysts’ words.
It is interesting to apply Anderson’s theory to the case of the Goldman analysts. When referring to Armen Alchian and Harold Demsetz, Anderson says that they “appear to be claiming that wherever individuals are free to exit a relationship, authority cannot exist within it” (Anderson 55). While she proceeds to refute this claim, it is interesting to apply the concept to the above example. The CEO and senior officials at Goldman Sachs are well aware of the work they put their analysts through. They also know that if their analysts decide to quit, they can fill the analyst position the very next day. The demand for positions such as a Goldman Sachs analyst is so incredibly high that the senior officials know that there will always be individual who are willing to put in extreme hours for the logo of Goldman Sachs on their resume. Goldman Sachs hires some of the brightest students out of college, puts them through the ringer for two years, then recycles them out for the newest talent out of college. Goldman Sachs knows that they will also have recent graduates eager to work for them regardless of the reviews. This desire to be a part of the private government of Goldman Sachs seems to undermine Anderson’s argument somewhat, for regardless of how brutal the conditions are, people will continue to want to work there. This is a very modern example, but it could be interesting to understand Anderson’s position on it.
Comments
Before Covid happened I remember my dad and his friends at a gathering talking about the good old days when companies were paying 300 dollars just to have students come and interview because the labor market was so tight. (what a utopia right? I mean one of them said how they barely passed with Ds throughout their freshman and sophomore years and never went to class). Interviewers were literally begging students to come and work for them. I want to refer to professor Hurley's post: "part of the point of entering into political society, and establishing a government, is precisely to mitigate the unjust inequalities that will result from the invention of money in the state of nature." Yet when the economy is in a boom, then it seems that the sufficiency proviso is not only violated but going the other way around. And the economy seems to go through cycles. In a state of nature and modern macroeconomic theory(albeitthis class has noted the shortcomings of pure economics), it seems that the sufficiency proviso is constantly violated and not violated with the cyclical nature of the economy. Would the point of entering into a political society no longer be relevant when the economy is doing well; when the sufficiency proviso is not violated? Is it necessarily the case that in a state of nature there will be violation of the sufficiency proviso?