This is based on a comment I made in a Facebook thread on the upcoming tax proposal. There was a discussion about whether taxes are too high and whether we spend too much or too little public money on social services. Nothing here is particularly new, but it seemed worth including on my blog.
I think our economy is changing in ways that aren’t sustainable. The traditional model where you are reasonably intelligent and willing to work reasonably hard and, as a result of your efforts are able to make enough money to sustain a middle class lifestyle seems not to be working for a lot of people.
I know there is disagreement about whether people are lazy or dumb or have unrealistic expectations about what constitutes “middle class.” But I don’t think the explanation for why so many people are struggling is simply that they are lazier, stupider, or greedier than they were 50 – 60 years ago.
So, with that as my premise, I don’t know that social spending is the best answer to helping people reach and remain in the middle class, but it seems to be a possible answer. If the middle class continues to erode, wealth disparity continues to grow, and a sense of hopelessness spreads further in the population, I think we’re in for some ugly social upheaval.
I feel like a primary goal of our economic, social, and legal systems should be focused on helping people reach and remain in the middle class. To me, this means a good education, a good work-life balance, good access to healthy food, safe communities, clean air, fresh water, and affordable healthcare. I’m probably missing some critical elements, but these don’t seem unreasonable or too pie-in-the-sky. The best way to get people to a place where they are law-abiding, educated, and productive and the economy to a place where work is adequately rewarded is apparently hellishly difficult, otherwise we would have made it there. But, we get distracted by all manner of things and so it’s easy to lose sight of our larger goals. To me, this is a big one.
Also, a Monty Python quote posted by a friend recently seems appropriate right about now:
Well, it’s nothing very special. Try to be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations.
Doug, I have been wrestling with precisely the issue raised by your post: what is the collective responsibility of a society to its members? I’m afraid we are rapidly heading into a future where automation (not trade) will create massive joblessness, where climate change may make parts of the world unsuitable for farming/living and thus produce mass migration on a scale we haven’t seen, and increasing globalization and modernization will widen the gap between the “elites” who do well and masses of people who do not. Sociologists tell us that stable societies are those where there is substantial economic and legal equality, and the sort of future toward which we seem to be headed isn’t likely to produce either. We are already seeing considerable social disruption. American government isn’t working for anyone but the wealthy and connected, and absent some pretty significant “corrections,” I’m afraid we’re in for a prolonged (and probably global) crisis.
Not very cheery…
I agree with you on climate change, the next wars may be waged over water resources. India, Pakistan and Egypt are three countries that are having serious discussions over who controls the water resources of various rivers.
“I feel like a primary goal of our economic, social, and legal systems should be focused on helping people reach and remain in the middle class.”
“The best way to get people to a place where they are law-abiding, educated, and productive and the economy to a place where work is adequately rewarded is apparently hellishly difficult, otherwise we would have made it there.”
I don’t think it is, because it feels like we were there from an economic standpoint back in the period after World War II. (Correct me if wrong.) That’s what it feels like many want to get back to.
But when I look back to that time, I see a large middle class, yes, but also much stronger labor unions, and (compared to today) much higher taxes on the rich. I also see much less resistance to the role of government in people’s lives.
It appears to me, though, that to get back to that time that it might require a large brake to be placed on capitalism as practiced today. Which, as you and I know, isn’t going to happen.
An aside: interesting how some people want to get back to the “after WWII” period, but for different reasons.
Back to after WW II is impossible, remember that Europe and Asia were totally destroyed and the only nation standing was the U.S. What is killing the U.S is China’s total disregard for our patent and copy right laws.
What would be nice is to see Japan and China open up their economy so we can buy and own controlling interests in their companies. Until that happens we will not have a true global economy.