Its been said by at least one economist/sociologist that if Americans ever grow tired of the myth of the American Dream -- the idea that everyman has a shot at overcoming the obstacles to class mobility and making it big time -- we would demand more equitable wages.
I'm not John Edward's #1 promoter, but I do think he's right to say America has a poverty crisis on its hands. It might not be as noticeable in the city, where one can easily surround himself with people of similar backgrounds and interests. But my experience even in Eau Claire has shown just how much people struggle to make a living . And I'm not talking about buying a fancy car or expensive home and struggling to make the payments.
Something like 13% (more than 1 in 10, notably) of the residents of Eau Claire live below the poverty line. Thats earnings of less than $14, 00 a year for a 2-person household.
I'm not a self-defined socialist. Generally speaking i think markets do a good job of creating efficiency. But as I see it there are two real problems with the Capitalist system that are going to need to be fixed if it is to remain a viable option. Firstly, as the world becomes smaller and smaller through globalization, workers are going to need the ability to follow jobs for which they are trained. Second, capitalists need to develop a correction for the problematic undervaluation market forces seem to consistently place on human life.
1) Allowing for the free movement of labor would restrict the income disparity in developing countries, as at least some workers from more developed parts of the world would no doubt follow jobs for which they are skilled. These workers would still be working at a bargain price relative to their jobs in a developed nation (their imported money buys a higher quality of life), but they would demand higher wages than the underdeveloped workforce -- driving up wages in developing countries. The incentive to move jobs into developing countries still exists (the labor cost is still cheaper), its just not as grossly unjust as today's model. To be sure, not all people will move to follow jobs. But some will, and I'm banking that enough would follow jobs they know in lieu of facing uncertainty in their home nation to make a significant impact on the cost model. Of course, there are tremendous political and social obstacles to allowing for a global free labor market. But we're globalizing other parts of the marketplace despite these challenges, so there's no reason that it couldn't be accomplished.
2) In nearly every case i can think of (ex. wages, health care, food supply, housing) the free market substantially undervalues the importance of human life. That is to say, the traditionally efficient market in these commodities exists in such a way that the well beings of the people the market was designed to serve are not the primary interest. And the problem here is that even the best intentioned programs (like minimum wage laws, or rent controls) tend to have the opposite effect on the situation. I don't have a magic answer here, but i believe its a fundamental question that will need to be answered in our lifetimes if capitalism is to become a completely global institution.
These are somewhat incomplete thoughts, and I'm not an economist. But I am a humanist, and these things sometimes keep me up at night.
*I'll post my usual disclaimer about not enjoying arguing on principle -- only on semantics. So if you basically agree with me but want to nitpick then comment away. If you think I'm an idiot you can go fuck yourself :)*
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I totally agree with everything you have said here... nicely put. What are your thoughts on Hillary and the her shift in healthcare? I don't have all of my facts, but she initially supported universal government sponsored healthcare back in the early 90's, but has shifted towards mutual parternships with the HMOS to create affordable healthcare for all. At this point, I would support either, as both capitalism and what I consider to be a basic human right are taken under consideration in either cases. Any perspectives on this?
As my friend Ben often says, nationalized health care would be like having one giant HMO. We can't escape managed care because like it or not there's only so much money to be spent even in a giant taxpayer-funded pot.
The question is whether for-profit enterprise can sufficiently balance the needs of the public while still trying to earn money for stakeholders. With corporations becoming more and more focused on the bottom line, i don't think there is any way to avoid serious government regulation of the industry and still achieve the kind of system I'm talking about.
If she can find a way to satisfactorily modify the current system I'm all for it. From the few details on her web site, I'm not sure she's proposing any real change at all - which might be why health care companies are so keen to support her...
Hey Dave, I agree with you; you struck the nail right on the head. The whole situation is stuck between rock and a hard spot. I have not yet seen Michael Moore's "Sicko" but I am sensing he is glorifying a system that each country's respective residents often complain about as deficient. Yet, on the flip side the whole problem of the rising cost of healthcare and the profits are is alarming. Let's hope that whomever takes the presidency can come up with an amicable situation.
Post a Comment