Are we misreading what going on in the Mideast? Or, to put it another way, are we missing its broader implications? Is what we're seeing there a precursor of what we're likely to see here and in other countries in the future? Are the spread of Wisconsin-inspired demonstrations related to the unrest we’re seeing elsewhere? Are these revolutions the natural consequence of the mal-distribution of wealth?
We're a country caught between two virtues, the virtue of Personal Responsibility –the idea that each person should make his own way in the world and control his own fortunes – and the virtue of Social Responsibility – the notion that we are all in this together and the wealth of the nation should devolve to the benefit of all, that we'd all be better off (even the wealthiest among us) if the wealth were distributed more equitably.
The challenge is to reconcile these two seemingly opposing virtues.
I believe that the fundamental problem is that there just isn't enough work and that this will only get worse. As the use of technology expands, jobs slowly disappear; work gradually becomes obsolete.[1] Today, most workers are At-Will employees, with the employer holding all the cards. Purchase new technology to displace personnel? Great—Fewer people to feed and the government will pick up the tab. Contrast this with the 1950s, when 28% of our workforce belonged to unions,[2] virtually all employed in the private sector. But, such is the wealth of the nation that even the poorest will survive, somehow. Look at Egypt where the majority live on two dollars a day. Even they get by.
As the divide between the rich and the poor grows, and it becomes harder for the rich to hide their fortunes, the unemployed and poor get angry. They feel cheated. Sometimes, as in Saudi Arabia, the government tries to buy off its people, but usually, by the time anger has boiled over, it’s too late. You can put a lid on it, but it only boils all the harder. As long as there have been revolutions, it has ever been so.[3]
Our system requires that we work or accept being poor. But in the USA, there are five applicants for every job opening, and this is not likely to improve soon, if at all. A college education is no longer a guarantee of employment.[4] Time will tell whether today’s high unemployment is cyclical. Evidence suggests it’s not.
The prevailing fiction is that the wealthy earn their money by the sweat of their brow and deserve to keep every penny. However they gained their advantage, they're now in a position to leverage their power and resources to acquire even more of both without much personal effort, at a cost to our nation’s well-being. The trend of the past ten years is indisputable; the rich have become much richer – 50% richer – while the rest of the population has lost ground; many, are far worse off. Most would agree that, whatever the cause, for the good of the nation, this trend must be reversed. But how?
The challenge is to get our leaders, most of whom are part of the privileged classes, to talk honestly about our problems without being drowned out by the chattering classes and a well-financed opposition. Corporate influence in Washington and its ownership of the media ensures that the ideology that favors wealth is in ascendance. This must change. We need to achieve a balance.
Our political leaders hide behind the popular illusion of American Exceptionalism, a fiction they contradict at their peril. But what if it turns out that we’re not exceptional; that we’re just the same as everyone else, and what we're witnessing is a worldwide phenomenon, a quake with its epicenter at a fruit-stand in a small village in northern Tunisia that set off a tsunami that just hasn't reached our shores yet? What then?
The only thing that prevents us from talking about these things is ideological stasis, and the fear of being wrong. Stipulated: Democrats are wrong 80% of the time … and so are Republicans. Now, let’s talk.
Print or Download --> Print version
[1] See my previous blog post: In the Shrinking of a Pie Further evidence: Census figures show that from April 1, 2000 to April 1, 2010 US population grew from 281,422,000 to 308,745,000, an increase of 27,323,000. In contrast, Bureau of Labor Statistics figures show that from April, 2000 to April, 2010 non-farm payrolls decreased from 131,660,000 to 130,162,000. (No, everyone didn't suddenly decide to go into farming...)
[2] In 2003, 11.5% of workers are union members, three-fourths working in the public sector. In 1954, virtually no public workers were union members.
No comments:
Post a Comment