PHILANTHROPY ON STERIODS

This blog has dedicated quite a bit of space to the concentration of wealth and income that has characterized our national economy. The reason for this attention is that as a federalist – at least in terms of that construct's philosophic commitments – I am concerned with the level of inequality in our society. To remind you, federalism is a belief construct that perceives an ideal national polity as being formulated by the consent of citizens who come together and formulate, first, a society, and second, a government. That, I have argued, is what our founders believed in and it is reflected in not just our Constitution but in a long line of founding documents that can be traced all the way back to the Mayflower Compact.¹ Implicit in such societal arrangements is the belief in the equality of those adults that agree to either form the basic arrangements or are involved in maintaining them; that is, you and I. And, due to the realities of economic and political life, the level of equality a nation enjoys can only be considered meaningful if the variance of wealth within the nation is not so vast so as to allow any group or class to wrestle political control. Given this foundational context, I have argued that we are presently coming awfully close to a ruling class whose control is made possible by their overwhelming wealth and income.

I have, in way of supporting this claim, offered, over the history of the blog, some statistical data. In this posting, let me add to this data: the gap between the average compensation for corporate CEOs and the typical worker is 200 to 1. This has been expanded since the financial crisis hit in 2008. But the developing expansion predates the crisis all the way back to the seventies. A quarter of century ago, the gap was 30 to 1. And when we compare our disparity today to that of some other advanced countries, we have further reasons to question the necessity or advisability for our current gap. Japan, for example, has a gap between corporate CEOs and the typical worker of 16 to 1. On the other hand, there are other advanced countries that seem to be taking up our trend as a model. For example, Great Britain now has the type of disparity in wealth and income that resembles their wealth distribution of the Victorian age – a time known for its exploitative practices. And yet, as Joseph E. Stiglitz asks: have our current CEOs increased their productivity so much so as to justify such increases in their compensation both in relative and absolute terms? Not only is this not the case, but there have been those instances, well documented in the press, where corporate leaders have received additional compensation though their businesses have suffered serious hits during our recent recession.²

What brought all this to mind is the report on the CBS show, 60 Minutes.³ The report was on how there now exists a billionaires' group whose members are committing to donate at least 50% of their wealth to charitable organizations or other socially demanding endeavors such as efforts in advancing education, attacking poverty, limiting or eliminating disease, and the like. Members commit to make their donations now, over time, or upon their deaths by willing the money to charitable or non profit organizations. The initiative has gained enough steam that Forbes magazine is going to dedicate an issue to the group's efforts.

The question was asked during the 60 Minutes report: do these donations result, either through design or as the natural result of their efforts, in these rich individuals controlling and/or exerting undue influence over policy that relate to these areas of need. At the risk of being cynical, do some of these efforts really mask strategies in which the donors will lend up creating markets for the products they produce and sell? Given the examples of those involved, I would find such cynicism unfounded, but in some cases I can see the potential for such a connection. Be that as it may, the Forbes representative, Randall Lane, addressed this question concerning influence. He said, governments are proving unable to address these areas of need, where as, these private individuals can act to address them without the “baggage” that hamper governments. One cannot argue with the claim that our government, at least, is getting to a place where little to nothing is being initiated that really addresses many of these desperate needs. Politics is the apparently stifling obstacle that is preventing anything from getting done or even being addressed.

But, as far as these business people getting involved, be assured, the answers these entrepreneurs will develop or support will reflect the business biases that made them successful. I know that in education, these approaches are proving deficient. Why? They are lacking because business views of problems are excessively reliant on positivist thinking. That is, they tend to be behavioral, mechanistic, and reductionist. For example, the most recent push in education, led by Bill and Malinda Gates, has been for a core curriculum – in the extreme, a one size fits all approach designating what teachers need in order to do their jobs and how they should do them. This I have pointed out is a silver bullet approach that reduces the complex craft of teaching and curricular content to a fixed set of materials and processes for the vast array of conditions and populations that make up our educational institution. While I am not against promoting a set of minimal standards that is aimed at guaranteeing a floor of expectations – a limited goal – a serious effort to instill a unified curriculum won't work as an overall solution.⁴ Yet standardization has been a hallmark of American business.

Don't get me wrong; I welcome the contributions. Philanthropy should be encouraged from all sectors. It is possible: they can give, fail, learn from their mistakes, and try again. They might hit upon workable solutions. I wonder though, do they really have the resources to solve some of these problem areas. According to the telecast, combined, these wealthy individuals can pony up two trillion dollars. Even if this were to be an immediate payment, is that enough to solve hunger, disease, ignorance and the rest? I doubt it. But let them try. I just hope that the ultimate results are not the lose of a very important element of our republican polity and us becoming closer to a full fledged plutocracy, albeit, a generous one.

1See the work of Donald S. Lutz, for example Lutz, D. S. (1988). The origins of American constitutionalism. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press.

2Stiglitz, J. E. (2012). The price of inequality: How today's divided society endangers our future. New York, NY: W. W. Norton and Company.

3Rose, C. (reporter). (2013). The giving pledge: A new club for billionaires. 60 Minutes, aired on November 17.

4For an interesting take on the core curriculum proposal see what a young man had to say about it. For access go to http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/15/this-could-be-one-of-the-best-cases-ever-made-against-common-core-no-one-expected-it-to-come-from-a-high-school-student/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=ShareButtons to gain access to the cite.