|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
Announcement :: Elections & Legislation |
|
Sustainable Solutions to Social Challenges |
Current rating: 0 |
by The Social Pacifists
(No verified email address) |
23 Feb 2006
|
|
A ready-to-print version of "Sustainable Solutions to Social Challenges". Please print & distribute freely |
 #Sustainable.pdf (206 k) |
|
A ready-to-print version of "Sustainable Solutions to Social Challenges", by the SocialPacifists. Please print and distribute freely. The booklet is intended to be printed & folded. There are marks in the crease of the pages to guide you. This does make for some confusing reading before they're all folded up, though: If you want to read this online, follow the page numbers at the bottom of each page to guide you. |
This work licensed under a
Creative Commons license |
Comments
|
Social Pacifists Offer Alternative to Whitney's "Living Wage" : Full Employment! |
by The Social Pacifists
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
23 Feb 2006
|
 |
Full Employment: A Better Alternative
A reply to the Green Party's
"Living Wage" proposal
The Problem: Worker Exploitation:
The exploitation of the modern worker comes in as many forms as there are products produced by the companies that do the exploiting. Despite the long history of recognition that these problems have had, little has been accomplished in the way of solving many of the most distressing of these issues.
As an illustration of this fact, consider the issue of the growing number of working adults who earn less than an acceptable living wage, as they struggle to make ends meet working multiple jobs for a total of 60 or 80 hours per week. Consider the issue of dwindling labor rights, as more and more companies take a hard-line stance against benefits such as health insurance in this uncertain time of economic down-turn. Consider the glaring, ever growing issue of corporate power, which continues to prove a danger as more and more jobs are cut without regard to what comes next for the victims of downsizing.
Attempts at Progress:
There have been several attempts over the years to change the course of this economic nightmare into something more favorable for the workers who depend upon the mercy of their employers for their daily bread. Perhaps the most notable has been the push for a legislated living wage. Fortunately, these attempts have been well received and have found some success, but they only go so far. Legislated living wage laws have only been able to improve the short-term living conditions in the communities that have enacted them. Without accompanying laws that regulate the price of goods and services provided by the employees earning these legislated wages, as well as laws intended to help smaller businesses that cannot compete with larger competitors in such a market, living wage laws can only improve the incomes of the poorest workers for a short time.
Unfortunately, this short-term improvement is the perfect ticket for politicians (themselves constantly struggling to stay employed) to ride into higher office. Many of them don't care, or don't care to realize that the improvements in income levels in their constituent communities are being matched by increases in the cost of goods and services, and trumped by a loss of the competition that small businesses driven from these communities provide. Larger businesses and corporations don't oppose living wage legislation because of the advantage it gives them over smaller, locally-owned businesses. They are able to absorb the added expense that paying a living wage entails, until such time as their less-secure competition falls by the way side, and the cycle of inflation (i.e. more money chasing the same number of goods and services) kicks in. Given this more complete picture of what higher wage laws really mean to big businesses, is it any wonder that this latest effort on behalf of labor to improve itself has found such popular success in political circles?
Full Employment & the 'A Job is A Right' campaign:
Similar to the living wage campaign, though not nearly as well received, is the campaign taken up in 1996, by the Labor Party USA. Unlike the living wage campaign, the "a Job is a Right" campaign takes into consideration the effects of simply mandating a higher wage for working people. The Labor Party's plan is one step better than the 'living wage' campaign in that it doesn't overlook the fact that it's not the amount of the wage being paid, but the effect of unemployment that enables employers to exploit the workforce. The party's attempt to solve this problem has come in the form of an effort to circulate petitions in an attempt to collect enough signatures to enact "the 28th constitutional amendment," guaranteeing every eligible, working-aged man and woman a job. Not surprisingly, the Labor Party has found little success in the six years since the plan's inception.
The Social Pacifists understand that the only way to bring about a truly sustainable solution to the problems of worker exploitation is to work towards a goal of full employment. However, the method adopted by the Labor Party has been met with dissension at every step of the way. Resistance to the plan has even been found among the very labor unions the party was created to represent - remember that, in a situation of full employment, there is no need for unionized labor. Full employment means that no one could be required to pay union dues in order to go to work. On the contrary, each employee is in a situation to demand specialized benefits that best meet his or her needs.
The Issue of Expendability:
The benefits to labor in a condition of full employment come from the fact that, at the root of all worker exploitation, lies the issue of worker expendability. The very fact that in a world of unemployment, there is almost always another worker waiting in line, ready to be hired into and take the place of any other worker; when viewed broadly, this makes all but the most specially-skilled employees expendable in the end. If there weren't a pool of eligible laborers waiting to step in and fill the shoes of any employee who dared to ask for too much, or dared to do too little in the eyes of management, workers wouldn't be so expendable. Keep in mind that employers need employees to do the labor, just as much as employees need employers to pay the bills. So long as this shortage runs in business' favor, the common laborer will continue to be the victim of exploitation.
To realize the advantage that full employment would bring to employees, consider the conditions faced by workers in the internet web design field, just before its virtual demise in late 2000. While workers were in short supply, and businesses were not in the position of enjoying the advantage of a sustained level of unemployment, employees were lavished with benefits ranging from in-office massages to expensive automobiles, on top of their exuberant salaries. Clearly this situation illustrates the inverse relation that exists between scarcity of labor, and worker exploitation.
'Unemployment' v. 'Unemployee':
Full employment of the labor force would mean that, when a company wanted to expand, it would have to do so by offering more attractive wages and benefits than other companies who employ similarly-skilled employees, in order to attract those employees away from their current jobs. This would result in a system of employer "wage wars," with companies fighting to make themselves more attractive to employees, in order to prevent laborers from looking for better incentives elsewhere.
The tables of unemployment would be turned on business, thus resulting just in the opposite problem - instead of "unemployment," the economy would suffer from "unemployee". Just imagine politicians trying to solve the problems of an economy suffering from high levels of "unemployee": Try and picture suit-and-tie-clad businessmen waiting in line at the unemployee office, waiting to receive their token labor; just barely enough to maintain a minimum level of production - small, poorly-printed signs along roadways, ignored by passing motorists, reading "will food for work." It could never happen - the problem could never be solved so simply. This is precisely why politicians insist upon maintaining "some level of unemployment" (roughly 4%) in order to "maintain a 'healthy' economy."
A 'Healthy' Economy???:
Unfortunately, the "healthy" economy that the politicians speak of does nothing to take into consideration the health of the workers it exploits in order to stay itself "healthy." The first step towards achieving a state in which labor is on equal-footing with the interests of business, is to achieve a state of full employment. However, the first step down the road to this condition may at first seem counterintuitive. In order to turn the tables on business, labor must empower itself by making itself scarce. All forces that exist to maintain unemployment must be opposed and defeated. This includes wage regulations, as well as any collaboration between the Federal Reserve and congress to use interest rates to maintain what is referred to as a "healthy" level of unemployment. If full employment can be achieved, any single laborer will be on equal footing with any businesses of any size to negotiate the benefits she or he desires.
Though it's true that at any given point in time, some minute level of unemployment would still exist (for a number of reasons), the goal of achieving full employment must at least be approximated if the problems we've cited are ever to find a sustainable end. The closer we come to full-employment, the better off the common laborer will be in the long run. As long as we allow political decisions to "maintain the health of the economy," the health of the entire labor force can never be guaranteed. |
|
Social Pacifists Consider Running Candidate, vs Supporting the Greens' Rich Whitney |
by The Social Pacifists
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
23 Feb 2006
|
The Use of Force in the Progressive Revolution
Greens:
I must first say something about your use of the word "force," which sounds like you question almost any use of governmental authority to compel citizens to obey laws. Perhaps this is related to what I think is the increasingly hostile view of government that I believe is derived from its current corruption by the influence of concentrated wealth and power upon it, and by the actual efforts of some to discredit the public sector, i.e., if everything is privatized, then it is almost completely under the control of those with the purse strings.
Social Pacifists:
That's not exactly what I was referring to, although I do see where you're coming from. I was using the word "force" more in reference to the laws themselves, rather than the enforcement of such laws.
Legislation is something that I think we need to be very careful with. I believe it should be used sparingly, if at all. When we pass a law, we create a situation in which people are forced to behave in a given manner. For instance, if we pass legislation to make recycling mandatory, then we are forcing people to recycle. If we pass legislation requiring all citizens to attend church on Sunday, then we are forcing people to go to church.
I have several problems with this course of action. First (and to me most importantly) is the fact I believe forcing people to act as I see fit is immoral. No matter how "good" or "just" I perceive my beliefs to be, I can't justify using force to make others conform to those beliefs. Diversity is far too important a value to only be appreciated in ethnicity. Tolerance for ideological diversity is just as important.
Secondly, this use of threats to persuade people to act as we see fit is not an effective solution. It sounds a lot like the method that western religion uses to bring about "good" behavior, doesn't it? Act as I say, or you'll go to hell" sounds disturbingly similar to "Act as we say, or you'll go to jail".
I wonder how many kids experiment with drugs for the first time simply because of the allure of trying something forbidden? It seems like it's human nature to be tempted by the taboo.
Third, using legislative threats is by no means a sustainable solution to any of societies problems. Forcing people to act in a given way requires energy and financial resources. The more behaviors we mandate, the more energy and money it costs us to keep up the necessary force to sustain such behaviors. As disdain for such force grows, so too will the costs of keeping that force in place.
Fortunately, there is another solution. For instance, rather than expend the time to pass a law, and then expend the recourses to enforce a law, that forces people to recycle, wouldn't it be a lot more effective (as well as efficient) to make people understand why they need to recycle? It seems to me that, if you can make a person realize the importance of recycling, you won't need to waste the recourses necessary to force that person to do so. She'll want to do it on her own! Now, obviously, this is just one simple example, but I'd be willing to argue that this type of solution could be more effective than legislation in many different scenarios.
Environmental Protection:
Greens:
Our government needs to levy an environmental tax on all major industries making products that are seriously damaging our environment and/or result in wastes that require substantial expense by our society to safely dispose of. For those who are generally opposed to taxation, I say that it is better to impose taxes on products by the time they get to the marketplace so that customers can see the true cost of the products and determine then whether they want to buy them, instead of all of us, including those who do not use the products, later having our taxes raised to pay for the hidden costs of products that have destructive effects upon the environment. Also, those industries which do try to provide products having less negative impact on the environment would then have a better chance to compete in the marketplace since there is virtually no incentive now to avoid environmental damage, and those companies which are most irresponsible often gain a competitive advantage by cutting costs at the expense of the environment to offer the cheapest product. In other words, an environmental tax might help to "level the playing field" by putting competitors on a more equal footing.
Social Pacifists:
I completely agree with your intentions, but again, you're suggesting using force, where education would be more effective. The Social Pacifists believe that force is not a sustainable solution to such a problem, whereas education is. Again, education is self-perpetuating. Force is not.
I would argue that it would be easier, less costly, and more effective to engage in an effort to make consumers aware of the environmental damage caused by certain industries, and which companies within those industries are or are not working to have a more positive impact. In this way, consumers can put pressure on the industries directly, without the need to leave such responsibilities in the hands of a "middle-man" government system that the industry itself has a hand in (through the democratic process). If we do our part to make people understand why environmental protection is important, then they will be more inclined to buy from the more environmentally friendly company. Cost is not the only factor in the decision making process of the consumer. Demand takes into account all forms of desire. Cost is just one such factor. Consider the effects of advertising if you doubt this.
Politicians answer to conflicting influences. There will always be loopholes in any law intended to affect industry, until such time as the vast majority of the population is convinced, and elects environmentally-sympathetic politicians, or puts enough pressure on current politicians to act out effectively against such industry. The same process of education necessary to persuade consumers to buy more environmentally conscious goods, is necessary on a much greater level to persuade the majority of the population to elect environmentally-sympathetic politicians. If the vast majority of the population wants pressure put on industry to produce more environmentally conscious goods, then the vast majority of the population will be inclined to buy more environmentally conscious goods. If the market is there for such goods, and not there for non-environmentally conscious goods, then which do you think will be produced in greater quantity? Isn't this more effective than "persuasive taxation"?
The non-government solution has a greater impact with a smaller number of supporters.
The non-government solution is more effective.
The non-government solution is incorruptible.
And the non-government solution allows those who simply can't afford to buy the more environmentally conscious goods to have an affordable option. In other words, it doesn't help the environment at the expense of the poor.
People tend to forget that, as a group, our economic vote can go a whole lot further than our political vote, especially for those of us who vote in the minority.
The International Economy:
Greens:
I believe we need more international laws & governance to protect the environment that sustains us and the many workers who are being exploited at starvation/slavery level wages while a few make huge profits.
Social Pacifists:
I believe that more education is necessary to solve these problems. Imagine the energy and expense required to sustain an international set of threat-motivated behaviors (aka: laws). And people say educating the world would be tough!
Both of these solutions (education and force) require a daunting amount of organization and effort. However, education requires much less effort in the long-term. It's self-perpetuating. Force is not.
I realize that it would require one hell of an effort to educate enough consumers to affect the behavior of a multi-national corporation, but we have a new tool that makes it much more realistic - namely the Internet. Publicity for the people par excellence! If you are unfamiliar with the rTMark vs. eToys success story, I'd suggest you take a look when you have the time. www.rTMark.com
These types of solutions are possible, and they are effective.
I also realize that keeping track of what companies to boycott due to the this-owns-that nature of the modern economy, would require quite a bit of work, but it's in no way beyond us. Again, the Internet, teamed with a handful of corporate watchdog volunteers would be able to effectively take on this task, whereas ten years ago, before the popular use of the Internet, this type of solution would likely not have been possible.
There were only a handful of people in charge of the eToys boycott, and they seriously screwed that corporate tyrant up! eToys stock lost 66% of it's pre-boycott value...and eToys is [was- it went out of business not long after this was written] no small company! Again, this process may not always provide solutions as quickly as legislative force does, but it's a hell of a lot more sustainable, and isn't that the goal?
Furthermore, when working from outside the government, there's no way that the corporate opposition can out-vote us.
It could also be argued that using education (rather than force) to promote our ideals isn't wholly effective. It's true, we won't be able to convince everybody - but if we can't persuade certain people to see things our way, then what gives us the right to force them? One hundred percent compliance is not necessary to solve most social problems. Force is not a necessary or acceptable way to solve any of them.
Taxation & Social Problems:
Greens:
Perhaps, if we were able to develop a sophisticated workable system of product assessment, we could also assess some of the social costs of certain items. For instance, being the son of an alcoholic parent and having worked as a nurse on an alcoholic detoxification unit, the example of alcoholic products comes to my mind. Alcohol is a drug that has enormous social costs, e.g., highway accidents, physical assaults and family abuse, industrial accidents and lost hours of work, and many various health costs involved, which we all have to pay for. Would it not be better to try to assess the amount of such costs and impose an appropriate tax on such products so that those who want and use them would have to pay the true costs up front, instead of the rest of us having to pay for them afterwards?
Social Pacifists:
First of all, I'm sorry that you were raised in such a situation. I know someone, who was raised in a similar situation. I've spent many a night with her crying on my shoulder telling me all about the scaring memories of her childhood.
In response, I would argue that alcohol is not inherently evil. The proof of this is the fact that not everyone who drinks commits assault, or abuses her family, or causes automotive or industrial accidents. Why shouldn't the people who do commit such crimes be held accountable for the expenses involved? Why should people who CAN drink responsibly have to pay for being responsible? I would argue that responsible behavior should be encouraged.
Greens:
Although I agree with you about the offensiveness of a tax to build [a] new stadium [here in Milwaukee] (particularly since I think we have a quite acceptable one now, which we will soon blow up), you seem to object to taxation in general. If not taxation, how would you propose that we raise funds to pay for public needs--schools, libraries, roads, water & sewer systems, etc.?
Social Pacifists:
I do think that much taxation is unjust. The poor and the uninterested should not be forced to pay for the new baseball stadium. Why should a person struggling in poverty to make ends meet, be forced to pay for a stadium that she may likely never be able to afford to enter? I can't stand baseball. Why should I have to help pay for a stadium? If baseball fans want a stadium, let them pay for it!
You've hit on an important point by referring to things such as roads, water, sewer, etc, as "public needs". That's an accurate description. The public does need these things. Furthermore, the public wants these things. And since the public wants these things, why is it necessary to FORCE the public to pay for them? That doesn't make any sense. It's like passing a law in order to force me to breathe. I want to breathe anyway, so I will, regardless (and usually in spite) of what the law says! The fact that I NEED to breathe, in the absence of a law mandating that I breathe, does not make me stop breathing. I don't understand the argument that force is necessary to secure the existence of things that the public needs.
Education v Legislation:
Greens:
You also questioned our majority rules democratic system, and I would agree that there is some justification for that. Perhaps you are aware that many other governments have what is known as a proportional representation system so that if a minority party wins 7% of the vote they also get 7% of the legislative representatives. In such governments there are generally multiple parties, and consequently the leadership party may not have a majority so it has to form a coalition government which provides more diversity of voice in their governing bodies. This form of government might also be preferable for the U.S. due to the diversity of our population.
Social Pacifists:
I absolutely agree with this thought. However, I think we can take it one step further, and do so without nearly as much effort as your suggestion would require. In using methods for solving problems that don't involve legislative force, we can quickly and effectively have an impact on such problems, without having to persuade a majority to see things our way (as in our current system) and without having to go through the red tape and bureaucratic channels. Even in a proportional representation system, a given effort would need to find a great deal of support before it could even gain 1% representation in the legislative system. The solutions I propose for solving most social problems could be effective if only a small group of activists took up their fight.
Instead of trying to persuade a legislator to act on our behalf, and use force to implement the solution to a given cause, we can much more easily act outside the government, and educate people as to why our cause is just. This sort of solution could be especially effective against the anti-social behaviors of big business. Our power as consumers will always be greater than our power as a voting minority. Imagine the power of a well-informed college-age consumer group. Where we spend our money means more to the survival of a given corporation than does any law we might somehow manage to pass. Whereas the possibility of passing a legislative regulation might be quite small for a minority group like college-age consumers, the possibility of influencing corporate behavior via educated consumerism is quite large.
Businesses are made or broken by where we spend our money. Imagine the power of including in that group of educated consumers, all the people who are consumers, but who are not old enough to vote! Nader talks about the possibilities that exist if we could only gain the support of the non-voter. He says we could tame the corporate beast, and restore our democracy. Imagine how much greater the influence we'd have if we could, instead, gain the support of the socially conscious consumer. I have no idea how many people there are in the US under the age of 18, but I do know how many of them are hopelessly idealistic (like me), and I'd imagine they would have a heck of an impact on business if we work through non-legislative means of persuasion. |
|
