The Tip of an Expanding Iceberg

Creating jobs is one of the key topics on the campaign trail, with Republican candidates blaming the Obama administration for high unemployment while they themselves are demanding job cuts in the public sector. The public sector, of course, is the area in which the government can effectively influence job growth or decline. Countering the Republicans, Obama and his team are eager to bring forth any statistic that can beam a favorable light on the ever-darkening job scene. No one, however, is willing to consider the very real possibility that the world economy does not require the enormous number of jobs that would be needed to remedy unemployment, nor will anyone admit that unemployment is but one symptom of our global economic crisis.

Globalization, fueled by intense, often cut-throat, commercial competition, has created a relentless chase for cheap labor, moving manufacturing facilities from one developing country to another, ostensibly to protect or enhance the almighty bottom line. After all, without profit, commercial enterprises cannot exist. But an honest look at today’s business environment will clearly reveal that personal greed almost always trumps corporate profit or, perhaps more accurately, corporate well-being. When executive salaries soar to more than 400 times greater than the compensation paid to entry-level employees, there exists a systemic cancer that eats away at not only the institution, but the overall economy as well. Efforts to maximize profit have led to advances in automation, enhanced efficiencies and the global race to capture cheaper and cheaper labor. Technological advances in communication and transportation were the catalysts to globalization which vastly changed the economic, political and even social landscapes. All of which have contributed to a worldwide dilemma that neither liberals, conservatives nor centrists are willing to address.

Socialism as defined in the dictionary may not be all that offensive, but decades of ideological conflict, political unrest and economic competition have resulted in negative connotations being attached to any socialistic programs brought forth in our capitalist environment. Since the birth of this great nation, such concepts as “the land of opportunity” and “free enterprise” have evolved to where they are unquestionably accepted as the American Way. “Come to America, work hard, succeed. The sky is the limit. It’s all in your hands.” These have become commonly accepted phrases expressing the presumed opportunity available to all in America. Paralleling the development and acceptance of this attitude has been the constant denigration of anything that can be associated with socialism or deemed socialistic. To many, perhaps most, Americans, socialism and liberalism connote four-letter words, isms that surely will destroy the American way of life. Were it not for the fear and desperation arising from the Great Depression, there would be no Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid, welfare or even the degree of progressive taxation that exists today. And despite evidence showing the benefits of these programs, they are often condemned as un-American and anti-Capitalist.

The antithesis of that attitude is evident in the fact that some abusive “socialistic” practices are not only accepted by most Americans but applauded and put forth as examples of what makes the American system and the American people so great. We rail against welfare and Social Security as government forms of largess, while we take on airs of righteous superiority by answering the unending calls for charitable contributions. It is just fine for us to “unselfishly” give to those less fortunate, thus providing us with that warm, satisfying feeling of caring and philanthropy, even if we have no clue as to the effectiveness or honesty of the particular charity involved. Using contrived logic, we comfortably convince ourselves that it is better to provide for the poor through the auspices of uncoordinated, uncontrolled and often inefficient charities or faith based organizations rather than a government agency. Granted, government agencies could be better regulated, more effective and more accountable; but overcoming those government shortcomings holds more possibilities than attempting to exercise control over private or faith-based charities. But let’s face it, none of us really wants to give up that smug, condescending air of superiority we relish when tossing pennies to the poor.

We’ve developed a system wherein the very wealthy can establish foundations and institutions into which they deposit large financial holdings that grow in value through sound, relatively safe investing, while lowering their personal tax liability. Through these financial institutions the wealthy can wallow in their self-promoting aggrandizement of charitable giving. These are voluntary gifts. Thus, in spite of the fact that charitable giving is just another form of welfare, it avoids the unsavory distinction of being allied with, or labeled as, socialism. And when it comes to socialism, when it comes to giving and receiving, what could be more unsavory than wealthy political candidates soliciting millions in campaign contributions to secure relatively short terms in office that guarantee them financial security for life? When irresponsible Wall Street bankers and financiers take taxpayer bailouts for personal gain, and when profitable corporations unabashedly belly up to the trough to slurp up federal subsidies meant to sustain those in financial straits, is it really all that difficult to call it what it is, a bastardized form of socialism? No, socialism will never be associated with the handouts given to the rich or financially comfortable Americans. It is destined to carry a negative connotation of taking from the hard working and giving to the unworthy.

Inequality and unfair economic policies are not unique to America. They are global. We see growing unrest as the number of “have nots” mushrooms, not only from birthrates in developing countries but increasingly from aspiring “haves” falling uncontrollably into the realm of the “have nots”. These are people who used to say, but now are angered when they hear, “Why don’t you just get up off your lazy ass and get a job?” And so we see rallies and demonstrations that escalate into riots as protesters gather to demand social and political reforms. It should come as no surprise that the protester was named as Time Magazine’s Person of the Year. Be aware that what we are seeing is just the tip of the iceberg – a unique iceberg that is not melting away.