A People-Centered Economy

A friend of mine was recently squeezed out of his 25-year career in the publishing business. He explained to me how the move from print to digital media has shrunk the publishing field, leading to massive layoffs. We reflected together about how nearly everything we think of as “progress” results in the elimination of jobs. “Not so long ago,” he observed, “when you pulled up at a gas station, someone came out to pump your gas and clean your windshield. Now, automated pumps have taken those jobs away. And when you went to the airport, there might be two dozen people behind the ticket counter, but now, there are only a handful because most customers use computerized kiosks to get their boarding passes.” Those are small examples of a larger trend. Manufacturing jobs have been eliminated by robotics. And the corporatization and mechanization of agriculture has forced millions of people off the farms and into cities to compete for increasingly scarce employment opportunities. Wendell Berry observes that cities are filled with people who really ought to be on farms, but instead, are stuck in minimum wage jobs with little or no opportunity for advancement. Their natural abilities are not only devalued – they are unknown even to themselves.

Today, the unemployment rate is lower than at any time since before the Great Recession began in 2008, yet that statistic is tainted by the fact that the percentage of people in the workforce is also smaller than it’s ever been. Millions have simply given up. The jobs they can do no longer exist. Politicians typically offer one of two solutions to this problem. The first is to bring back the blue-collar jobs that have disappeared by lowering taxes on businesses. But that won’t work unless large companies choose to de-mechanize their factories and stop exploiting cheap labor overseas. The other cure touted by politicians is to offer training so that unemployed people develop skills for newer “21^st-century” jobs. This strategy is based on the assumption that, for every job eliminated, a new one is created. But if that were true, participation in the workforce would be higher than it is. The market would demand it. So is there a realistic solution to this problem?

I see two hopeful signs. One is the renewal of local businesses. As more people move back to city centers, they create more demand for shops within walking distance of where they live. Big box stores are not feasible in dense urban areas, but creative entrepreneurs have abundant opportunities, and as they open businesses, they create jobs that lots of people can do. The other hopeful sign is the rise of smaller-scale farming and the parallel growth of farmers’ markets. We’re not likely to return to the days when most Americans lived on a farm, but we will be better off economically and physically if more of our food is grown and bought locally. Fortunately, a growing number of people seem to understand that this is so.

But a more fundamental shift will have to take place if we are ever to return to an economy of “full employment.” That shift is back toward the value of people. It is simply not true that every job that can be automated should be. The reason to do it is to reduce the cost of production, thus lowering the price charged to the consumer. (In the case of publishing, digitization has not only eliminated jobs but also made books so inexpensive that authors make almost nothing in royalties.) But what good does it do to decrease consumer prices if more and more consumers don’t have enough money buy what they need? We’ve grown accustomed to everything being cheap – especially clothing, food and fuel. We cry foul when prices go up, not realizing that when they are adjusted for inflation, we’re paying less for many commodities than our grandparents did. But low prices carry a high cost. If inexpensive goods mean higher unemployment, are we really better off as a society? I don’t think so. Frankly, I’d rather pay more for groceries and other goods if I knew that those higher prices meant more people – and fewer machines – were involved in making them available, and that they were being paid decent (as opposed to sweatshop) wages. I know this makes me guilty of heresy in the consumerist economy. But that is because I am writing from a Christian faith perspective, and so much about consumerism is at odds with God’s economy, which first and foremost values people as the agents of God’s work in the world. We have strayed far from being a people-centered society in order to become a consumerist society, reducing human “beings” to human “havings,” treating laborers as dispensable cogs, and turning the gift of life into an acquired commodity. Consumerism has dehumanized both the production and consumption of goods and services.

This trend is unsustainable. At some point, we will rediscover that a truly healthy economy places a higher premium on human dignity than on selling goods as cheaply as possible. Either we will recognize that truth and choose to embrace it, or the calamitous effects of widespread poverty will force us to do so.

©2015 by J. Mark Lawson

Comments

[Mark Lawson]

Dave,

I’m sorry to read that the contract under which you are working wasn’t renewed. I hope your skills and abilities will continue to be utilized in ways that afford you a decent income. And you are right on to question why employees don’t share more equitably in the profits they help to generate.

There’s much to debate about tax and entitlement policies, but to my mind, these discussions amount to tweaking around the edges of a deeply flawed system. What is needed is a fundamental shift away from the dominance of global corporate capitalism toward regional and local economies. This shift is already taking place in pockets around the world, and even here in our own country, but so far it is mostly under the radar.

Since you compared Texas and New York, it’s worth making the point that while Texas has famously low income and corporate tax rates, the state makes up for that lost revenue with the 3rd highest property tax rates in the country (New York is 17th), and a high state sales tax of 6.5% (compared to 4% in New York). This is typical of self-described “business-friendly” states. They collect very regressive taxes, which means that in reality, the less money you earn, the higher your effective tax rate is. Plus, workers’ incomes are depressed by either low or non-existent minimum wages and laws discouraging the creation of unions. Not surprisingly, these states also suffer from the highest poverty rates.

The two examples of New York and Texas illustrate how our current economy forces us to choose between the lesser of evils. It isn’t people-centered and is not sustainable.

JML

[Dave Rosenfeld]

I can relate to this as my job is being removed at the end of February as our customer, Raytheon, believes IBM can move "technology" further into the future than my company can as contract renewal is this year. The one issue that we are facing as IBM will be facing soon is that Raytheon owns all the hardware related equipment such as servers, etc. in this computerized age, most of which is outdated. With Raytheon being a government account, they worry about money so much that they do not upgrade their equipment and leave us managing old equipment that cannot be upgraded software wise thus halting the technology movement into the future.

The other revelation question I have concerning big business is why revenue made by companies is not shared by the employees that have made these companies money? I believe that a little goes a long way. I learned that from my mother where my brother and I used to call her the "tea bag" lady as she could literally get close to 10 cups of tea from 1 tea bag. With that said, if we, as employees were given something in return for our work, we would come away with a feeling of self worth and take pride in what we do which also extends to a better family life.

The last thing to bring up in regards to the economy is in regards to the state tax we face. New York right now is giving new businesses that move into New York a 10 year exemption from having to pay taxes. What if New York gave a 10 year exemption to all businesses across the board thus showing no favoritism. Heck, why can't we be like Texas and eliminate the state tax all together where jobs are created where local communities are thriving and thus giving back.

ON the other side of the fence, the state and federal governments have enabled us to the point that we have the mentality to not bother needing to find a job. I have a friend of mine that is a local business owner that is crying "foul" that he cannot find people to work even after offering a decent salary. With government subsidies and unemployment, I believe the statistics when totalled up came to approximately $30,000 a person could live off of scott free without lifting a finger if they knew where to look. And we wonder why are taxes are going up?

Our sytem is flawed and needs a makeover where I agree with you that the bigger picture needs to be seen where we invest in people again, but not so much as to enable, but enough where appreciation and self-worth can be achieved.

"I can talk on this subject all day. LOL!!"