Thirteenth of a series
Essay #1 Essay #2 Essay #3 Essay #4 Essay #5
Essay #6 Essay #7 Essay #8 Essay #9 Essay #10
I arrive at this point in this series probably asking more questions than I can answer. If you find yourself at that point, then maybe I am doing something right. However, in a quest for those answers, I continue.
What responsibility should we, as individuals and as members of our society (in this case the American one), have to lift up others in our society, whether they are less fortunate than ourselves or not?
That is a tough question and one that currently drives a deep wedge in the American culture today. We are torn by the rationalizations of our liberal and progressive brethren who feel we are obligated (and should be forced by government) to lift up those who do not have access to the benefits enjoyed by others and the arguments that government has no right to be able to take from those who are able and give to those in need.
To the left it is a matter of morality and equality. To them, it is an argument that we are wealthy enough to provide for the needs of everyone, regardless of their ability or efforts.
To the right, it is a case of both we are not that wealthy and what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is yours and deal with it.
Or at least that is way the debate is framed in our media. I suspect that both sides’ positions, hopefully, are more nuanced than that, but it is the stereotype that people on both sides of the dichotomy seem to cling to with passion and vehemence. It is such divisions that wars are fought over.
The biggest tragedy is that those who are the most poor in the US probably have better living conditions than 90 percent of the people in the world. I am not saying there aren’t a few here and there, but by and large, Americans live in the lap of luxury compared to other people.
Unfortunately for the left in my nation, at least in my mind, the “from each according to their ability and to each according to their need” paradigm has been pretty much discredited by history and so no matter what moral argument you make for its validity, since it fails to account for the baseness of human nature, it is doomed for failure.
On the other hand, it seems rather myopic for those of the stereotypical right to ignore the plight of others, for as the old saying goes: There but for the grace of God go I.
In my humble view, the choice is to opt (note bene my selection of words here) to embrace the synergy that voluntary associations give us and make our choices such that they encourage others to join in that direction. It is not society’s – nor its agent, the government’s – role to force us to comply.
I understand those whose world view sees it differently, but I disagree. Based on the basic contract of the United States, its Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I don’t see it as a role for the federal government. A stronger case conceivably can be made under the various state constitutions for their intervention, and an even stronger case can be made for county and municipal government interventions, but in all of them that impulse must be restrained by the natural rights as outlined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
This is not to say that government at any level cannot offer assistance to citizens, because it can, but it is to say that any such assistance must adhere to the concept of equality before the law, for the law is all that government can enforce.
If the government is to grant privileges, then the standards to qualify for those privileges must be such that any citizen can qualify for them if they meet the standards. But, again, in any case – especially for the federal government, the role in granting such privileges should be restricted and limited to minimal levels.
Unfortunately, I am a realist enough to know that is not the case in 21st Century America and is not likely to happen. I realize that I am being outvoted by others who don’t agree, and I accept that. I just don’t think they are following the right path and we will be the worse for it.
An example of this, to me, is the current effort to raise the minimum wage in the U.S. to more than $10 per hour (from its current $7.25). To me it is one of the cruelest hoaxes perpetrated by the “progressives” against those who have less than they do.
First, if we are to have a “minimum” wage, it has to be understood that it is the starting wage for someone totally unskilled and inexperienced. As such, it is not supposed to be a “livable” wage for anyone other than one person, young and healthy. If you don’t meet those parameters, then society should have other choices for you, but the minimum wage is not one of them.
It is a starting point, then as you add experience and gain skills your wage level increases because your value to the economy grows. That is basic Econ 101. Unfortunately, there are a host of people who don’t get that or maybe they were never taught that. In either case, from my point of view, they are in for some rude shocks in the days ahead.
Back to the minimum wage concept: Well, I have problems with the federal government, and even the state or local government, setting prices in the market place, whether it is for labor, goods, services or anything else. I mean, I am sorry, but why have we given government/unelected bureaucrats the right to determine the value of anything? What makes them the better arbiter than others who have skin in the game? I understand the principle of delegating authority and responsibility, but usually that is done with people who are stakeholders and not with people who have no interest at risk.
Ostensibly, we live in a free market (although that is getting more and more questionable as the years pass), where the consumer and the producer negotiate what they think the value of whatever passes between them should be. That may seem simplistic, but that doesn’t negate its validity.
In the case of the minimum wage, we – through our agent, the government – impose what our representatives see as the economic value of a given product – in this case, labor. This has been proven by history to be an unworkable concept in the long run, but we keep forgetting that.
And yet, I learned as a manager for a corporate entity, how cruel such dictates can be. Back in the day, I was working as a mid-level manager at a newspaper and I was responsible for developing my department’s budget. Among the various variables I had to arbitrarily set was how much each worker was going to get over the next year. I was given a certain percentage of their salary to work with, which I could not exceed.
On the other hand, I also had to factor in what I was going to offer new hires in a period when inflation was running about 10 percent per year (and my cost of living adjustment was nowhere near that much for existing employees). My supervisor set the value for new hires and I was struck by the fact that often times we would be offering new hires more than we would be paying existing workers who had been with us for short, but significant, periods of time (employee turnover at this time was rather high because the stress of the work was significant and we also were getting raided by larger organizations because we trained our people so well).
Now, if you don’t see an intrinsic unfairness to this proposition, then I am afraid I can’t help you.
It is, however, the same unfairness I see with the minimum wage plan. You see, if you raise the minimum wage arbitrarily, then those already in the system are going to be penalized through no fault of their own. Sorry, but not everybody is going to get that raise; just the new hires and the people who are working under the mandated new wage floor. Those who make more will see the wage differential both as a percentage and in real terms shrink drastically, making their knowledge and experience appear to be of less value to their employer … which, in reality, is what the government is saying it is.
To me this violates not only the rules of economics and destroys the incentive system while inflating prices for everything and contributing to damaging the economy. In other words: It ain’t fair.
But, the liberals and progressives don’t see it that way, and currently, theirs is the voice and opinion that is carrying the day. I may not like it. I may think it is philosophically wrong (in fact disastrous) but I have had my say … and not enough people are on my side.
I hope you will think about the implications of this.
Nuff said for this go-round.
No comments:
Post a Comment