The dust has finally settled. Disgruntled men and women who rallied on the streets in demonstrations unseen in western societies in recent years have been displaced from news headlines as other conflicts like the territorial disputes in East Asia, and the aftermath of natural disasters on unprecedented scale hog the attention of the media and investors. But we should not stop pondering about the rich poor divide that has segregated nations of peace loving people and thrown societies into chaos. Have the poor really been compromised on certain grounds that should warrant a makeover in the way we run the capitalist free society? Indeed, it has brought about problems that stem from the inequity supported by this system, but in my opinion, there are few other ways to promote efficient societies that bring us the material standard of living that has lifted the masses out of abject poverty that was the characteristic of the late 19th century and early 20th century.
Income inequity does bring about problems. Income inequity has the potential to destabilise societies, putting the economic engine to a halt. When faced with great income inequity, workers who take a smaller share of the economic pie often lose their productivity by taking part in strikes call for by labour unions, be it the white protesters in Wall Street or the blue collar workers in the Foxconn plant in China. Most modern economies are built on the assumption that welfare of people in society should be supported by a basic level of material wealth that promises to relief them of problems like malnutrition, sickness and exposure to the elements of mother nature. This is the most basic goal of most governments even though it is never written in any charter or constitution. All that is threatened when the state of the economy is thrown into a standstill by the unhappiness of men and women who feel the have been left behind by the affluent high society.
Also, income inequity can translate into a setback to the aim for equality among men. For ages, men of great financial clout have been able to bend the will of fellow men, to subject groups of people to their control and to force those around them into submission. That is why the French Revolution was founded upon the principles of "Freedom, Equality, Fraternity", to reverse the grossly imbalanced world that had lasted through centuries. Today, that revolution is being reversed by the ridiculous inequity that exists in capitalist societies. The free market was never a place for equality. In the free market, businesses follow the lead of the "money vote", of which each man holds unequal amounts of depending on their purchasing power. Even political systems have become slaves to money. In the super PAC of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, Sheldon Adelson - the CEO of a major player in the global gaming industry - had donated a stunning USD 36 million, and was quoted saying "I'm against very wealthy people attempting to or influencing politics, but as long as it's doable, I'm going to do it". It seems even democratic systems that had hoped to represent the voices of most if not all citizens equally through a system of "one man, one vote" had failed to rid itself of the influences of the wealthy.
However, we should also realise that inequality is an important driving force for progress in society. In capitalist societies, inequality arises because individuals are paid differently depending on their ability to carry out tasks assigned to them as well as the number of tasks they are willing to devote their time to completing. Such tasks usually aim to create value in society, as individuals work as an integral part of a firm that supplies society with the goods and services that improve the lives of people. But without an incentive, few individuals would probably have chosen to work less or give up on working as not all share this inspired vision. Inequality of income gives people the reason to work harder to achieve a better life, depending on their goals. By promising a greater share of the country or organisation's financial gains, people are motivated to work harder than their peers as they realise that society recognises their additional contribution and rewards them proportionally.
Also, job prospects are different for every job, and the nature of jobs themselves vary. In occupations that demand high level of skills or intelligence, high salaries are given to attract people to undergo the necessary training and to enter the field. For example, the training process of a doctor is notoriously long, spanning at least 5 years at a university. Some jobs also require talented individuals due to the large impacts of their decisions. In a study where CEOs were followed and their daily decisions studied, it was found that an average CEO makes 120 decisions a week of which around 50% are done within 9 minutes.This represents a tremendous strain on the concentration and analytical capabilities of individuals in such posts, where they have to make possibly multi-million dollar decisions within time constraints dealt to them by the large number of problems competing for their attention. Without the possibility of making up for the losses involved in terms of taking up a less taxing job or spending the lengthy training time on leisure activities or on an alternative career, few would be willing to devote themselves to these jobs.
To put all views into context, the poor is indeed an inevitable feature in society, if poor is to be defined in relative terms with their counterparts of the same day and age. It is impossible and even dangerous to imagine a world where everyone enjoys the same material wealth in spite of differences in their contribution to society. At the same time, it would foolish to think that high income inequality can be sustained in the age of the individual, where people are more vocal about their personal needs and wants. To walk the fine line between both is perhaps the eternal challenge of developed nations. But more importantly, while it may be true that sentiments against the rich in the countries mentioned are worthy of our attention, we should also remember that these same protesters are probably enjoying a much higher material standard living than our predecessors. After all, the industrial revolution had done so much to lift humanity out of poverty that even with the inequality that exists, the poorest of today might well be richer than some of the richer individuals of the past. In that aspect, all of us in the developed world are the same.
No comments:
Post a Comment