Hell Freezing Over
The above title comes from Char’s explanation of why the weather is so cold, following a discussion on this subject this morning while driving her to work.
Basically, having just finished a book called Idiot Proof, I’ve been obliged to start looking at the underpinnings of my solid belief in laissez-faire capitalism, in all its warts and wonders. It’s becoming clearer to me that there are sufficient aspects of the system that don’t work to spur a re-examination of the central assumptions that underly it.
Essentially, much of the modern economic system in the Americas is predicated on what is colloquially known as Trickle-down Economics. Basically, the idea is that by making the rich richer, it drives the economy and provides more employment for the lower ends of the spectrum. In and of itself, there’s nothing wrong with the theory — in an ideal world. However, we do not live in a world populated by ideal people, and the people that tend to get rich in this culture are not the kind who drive economies, they’re the kind that seem to collect wealth as if it’s points in some game. Obviously, this does not contribute back to the economy, all it does is aggregate increasing amounts of wealth in the pockets of a select few.
I can’t say that I have a lot in the way of ideas on how to approach this problem for a solution. For one, regardless of my growing issues with the capitalist model, I am even less comfortable with stripping people of their personal wealth under any pretense, even one so apparently altruistic as this one. Whether they have need of their wealth or not fails to justify taking it from them. Thus the easy solution is out. But I think that I am going to have to examine closely whether I think that generators of wealth are by definition worthy of it.
Something that also served to spur this idea: Recently, as in today, new laws regarding the paying of overtime came into effect in the US. USAToday magazine has a summary of them (with correction of some egregious misinterpretations here) and these changes (although more minor than I thought on first glance) are really bad for the slightly above-average worker. I didn’t realize how bad the overtime situation was in the US. Mainly because (shudder) the Canadian government protects my own interests better than the employers in the US protect the interests of their employees.
Due to the specificity of the new law’s impact on IT workers, slashdot had a story on this back in April, and I’m sure that they’ll have one up later today (to which I’ll link here when it appears). Discussion also ensued on Metafilter, which reminded me of the issue. Also see the US Federal Department of Labour’s site on the subject for info from the horse’s mouth, so to speak.
What this leaves me thinking is that, more and more, I’m forced to conclude that the system doesn’t work. There just isn’t enough motivation for corporations to protect their workers in an employer-friendly economic climate, where jobs are hard to come by, outsourcing to other countries is easy, and the government seems to be in the pockets of big businesses rather than serving their constituents.
Maybe it’s time for a change.
Too bad I don’t have good connections or I would go through your links, I’m particularily interested in the overtime changes that you refer to. Char’s title is quite appropro though. I hope you’ve stirred some conversation, I’ll check back.
Well, even the US doesn’t really have laissez-faire capitalism, or it wouldn’t have anti-monopoly laws or labour laws, or anything else like that. Even Adam Smith, in “The Wealth of Nations”, admits there are problems with capitalism, and that his ideas would cause problems. There are problems with every kind of economic system, and the more extreme you become, such as laissez-faire or communism, the more pronounced the problems become. We can’t just take away people’s money (other than through taxation, but then, that’s not really their money in that case). But perhaps we could have upper end salary caps. It might not work. It’s just a suggestion. Yes, the rich keep their money and get richer and nothing happens with that money instead of going to workers or back into the economy. Perhaps the government (oh yes, the government, no shuddering) could have incentives for companies that make slightly lower returns but pay their workers slightly more. I’m not an economist, but I do understand that money doing nothing is contributing nothing and the more people want to aquire more money, the less money becomes available. Also, I question the productivity of some of these really rich people compared to the productivity of people who work for them but make substantially less. A middle of the road system, as we’ve seen in Canada, runs a lot more smoothly and with far less problems than a more extreme economy.
And you shouldn’t shudder that your government protects your rights as a worker. That’s something that is absolutely fantastic, which makes us very lucky to be Canadian. Very few other countries have this, or have governments that care so much about the health and welfare of their people. If we have a government that says “workers must be treated according to these strict guidelines” and those guidelines benefit you, as an employee, you are really, really blessed. A government’s job is to look out for people, and if that’s what ours is doing in the employment sector, then good on it.
I’ll take issue with you on taxation — It is their money, in that case, that is being taken (or paid, depending on your perspective) for services rendered by the government.
With respect to the issues of incentives for higher-paying companies, well, that’s one possibility, and one that I hadn’t thought of. Although the cost of administering a program like that, much less the difficulty of judging it, may put paid to the idea.
I was wrong, Chris, I think you should read Anna Karenina. It’s not very “chicky” either.
I think in order for any economical system to be ideal, it must suit the needs of the public and be small scale. In my ever so humble opinion, that is our problem. We try to institute politics globally, or internationally, and I think it dilutes society by making it too impersonal. We require positive reinforcement, and that is something personal. (i’m having a hard time conveying my feelings on this, so I”ll quit now before I erase it all)