JUDGING PAROCHIAL FEDERALISM, XIII

 

An advocate of parochial federalism continues his/her presentation[1] …

Student Economic Interests [2] (cont.)

          The last posting zeroed in on this blog’s continuing reportage on the debate among the American people (and with some, within themselves) over two forces that often lure people in opposite directions.  A catchy title for the debate could be “virtue vs. interest.”  The virtue side concerns itself with the common good (a topic that deserves its own analysis) and takes on a moral sense that relates a definition for virtue to the common good.  The interest side is, of course, is the self-centered sense as to what one what wants, usually inspired by passion and emotions.

          Not all of these passions and emotions are based on selfish aims.  They can be directed to advancing the wellbeing of one’s family, neighbors, friends, and other acquaintances.  But too often, unfortunately, they are selfish and often are pitted against the wellbeing of a community, a state, or a nation.  And one can find this challenge emerge when one investigates the business class.

To the extent any civic message might take on importance in a civics classroom – that is, a study into how one should decide in a given situation where virtue is pitted against interest, or vice-versa – one can only speculate.  As of today, there is evidence that the distinction Robert Dahl identifies (and was quoted in the last posting [3]) still reflects what is brewing among the American public. 

Here is one study that suggests to which direction many Americans, including the youth, seem to aspire.

 

The study generated responses from 1,250 adults and highlights trends across various industries. 

The study shows that 2 in 5 people plan to start a business this year. Forty-seven percent of Americans who want to start a business are currently working for an employer, 34% are self-employed and 19% are unemployed. Fifty-five percent of aspiring new business owners will leave their current jobs within the next 12 months. 

According to the survey, most future business owners who plan to leave their jobs are from the health care, construction, education and finance industries. Employees in the health care and social assistance industry account for 8% of aspiring entrepreneurs. Construction workers and education employees represent 8% and 7% of people who want to start a business respectively.[4] 

 

Is this relevant?  This blogger believes it is.  No, it is not to say that starting a business is anti-communal or against the common good.  Such an effort might even advance those concerns.  But starting a business calls for courage, self-assuredness, and an optimistic outlook on life, the national scene, and one’s abilities.  It prioritizes for most how one advances self-interest. 

And as this blog has repeatedly argued:  that’s okay, as long as one does not choose, in seeking that self-interest, a course of action that counters the common good.  Within that parameter, parochial federalism-inspired instruction at school could help assure that a young entrepreneur does not cross that line.  But before elaborating on this guidepost, one more point should be made concerning the role this debate has had on the establishment and development of the US.

Madisonian federalism, as J. G. A. Pocock shares the views of various commentators, was a system that could allow for the self-centeredness of people to run in an unlimited fashion.  But given the ground rules that the nation’s constitution allows and encourages, such a system would create protocols where these interest positions (among the populace and among the pols) would check each other from being abusive.[5]  In addition, since the system is large – being a national market and/or arena – no one or a limited set of interests would be able to take control.[6] 

To the extent that this is either true in terms of what Madison helped set up or merely what he set out to do, parochial federalism does not agree with this being an attribute of federalism.  Why?  Because it undermines the whole rationale of a compact, that being a shared sense of partnership that a compact-al agreement strives to be.  Instead, parochial federalism would merely consider these attributes of the republic as an effort to deal with a practical set of realities that do not inhibit that sense of partnership.  Yes, as with any friendly competition, one aims to undermine the efforts of others, but plays willingly by the rules of the game.

          In any event, as what was pointed out in this blog’s review of the “student social interest,” this debate over a citizenry’s commitment to republican values (the virtue side of the debate) is not new; one can trace debates over these issues all the way back to the 1600s.[7]  Its actual points of contention have changed but at a fundamental level, it’s the same thing.

          Michael Sandel[8] supports this theme and points out that an integral element of Americans’ view of freedom through most of the early portion of the nation’s history was the ambition of owning one’s own business.  This goal usually meant owning a farm, but the essential concern was that owning a business gave a person control over a large part of one’s life.

          What was the alternative?  Wage labor jobs were considered akin to slavery or even worse in some ways.  After all, common belief held that a slave owner had a vested interest in caring for slaves, where a wage boss did not.  And one can see that currently the economy is open and encouraging the starting of new businesses.  Why?  Well, this elicits different reasons.

          This posting will end here – its main theme turns out to be a longer description than originally thought it to be.  The next posting will pick up on this notion of how inviting the current national economic conditions are to those interested in starting businesses.  It turns out that this concern over the motivation that spurs on this sort of action can be of much interest to an advocate of parochial/traditional federalism.

---

[1] This presentation begins with the posting, “A Parochial Subject Matter” (March 11, 2022).  The reader is reminded that the claims made in this posting do not necessarily reflect the beliefs or knowledge of this blogger.  Instead, the posting is a representation of what an advocate of parochial federalism might present.  This is done to present a dialectic position of that construct.

[2] William H. Schubert, Curriculum:  Perspective, Paradigm, and Possibility (New York, NY:  MacMillan Publishing Company, 1986).  The meaning of this term has been shared in previous postings.

[3] A citation that comments on the historical recurrence of this debate.  See the last posting AND Robert Dahl, A Preface to Economic Democracy (Berkeley, CA:  University of California Press, 1985).  The cited quote is excerpted from pages 162-163.

[4] “Survey:  43% of Americans Plan to Start a Business in 2022, One-Third Are First Time Entrepreneurs,” Upper Cumberland Business Journal (January 18, 2022), accessed May 5, 2022, https://www.ucbjournal.com/survey-43-of-americans-plan-to-start-a-business-in-2022-one-third-are-first-time-entrepreneurs/#:~:text=The%20study%20generated%20responses%20from,employed%20and%2019%25%20are%20unemployed.

[5] J. G. A. Pocock, The Machiavellian Moment (Princeton, NJ:  Princeton University Press, 1975).

[6] James Madison, “Federalist Paper Number 10,” in The Federalist Papers, authors Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay (New York, NY:  Signet, 2003).

[7] Ibid.

[8] Michael J. Sandel, Democracy’s Discontent:  America in Search of a Public Philosophy (Cambridge, MA:  The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1996).

JUDGING PAROCHIAL FEDERALISM, XII

 

An advocate of parochial federalism continues his/her presentation[1] …

Student Economic Interests [2]

          As often stated in this blog, the US has opted for an individualistic perspective in its economic activities.  As is usually the case, this has affected Americans across the board.  This and the next posting will look at two groups and how current economic factors are affecting their, including their families’, economic interests.  The two groups are manufacturing laborers and prospective business owners.

But to start, it is worth pointing out that while economic developments and actual economic conditions are in constant flux, some general principles seem to hold through the years.  In general, one can attribute economic growth to increased levels of productivity.  That is, the more the production of goods and services take less amounts of production inputs (raw materials, labor, and management) to produce them, the more the economy is prone to grow. 

Beginning in the 1990s, to a significant degree, productivity increases regarding goods were due to corporate downsizing – especially in American factories and other production facilities – which entailed the exporting of production jobs.  One economist who wrote back then of this move was Robert Reich.[3]  He pointed out that these moves have lowered costs which have made American prices more competitive. 

For years, the rate of inflation had been very low until the more recent developments caused by the COVID pandemic and now enhanced by the war in Ukraine.  That lower inflation rate and its causes had consequences.  One has been that real wages have been lowered for millions of Americans – mostly those who held the production jobs that are now located abroad. 

Considering the average standard of living statistic, it can be misleading when judging the welfare of individuals. They occupy various life situations relative to how the economy functions.  Overall, Americans find themselves in very favorable positions relative to those in other countries.  But one needs to look more closely at how different segments of the workforce have been affected.

The following excerpt gives the reader a sense of the advantages many have experienced.  In terms of aggregate standard of living measurements, Americans rank first.  But even when one considers more quality-of-life measurements, they do very well, thank you.

 

[Based on the standard of living statistic, it] confirms the conventional view that, broadly measured, American living standards are comparable to those of the richest Western European nations but much higher than the living standards in emerging market economies. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97 percent of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22 percent. Interestingly, this comparison shows that Western European countries such as the United Kingdom, France, and Italy are considerably closer to the United States in terms of economic welfare than differences in per capita income or consumption would suggest, reflecting the fact that Western European countries do relatively well on the other evaluated criteria (namely, leisure, life expectancy, and inequality). For emerging and developing economies, however, differences in income or consumption per person generally understate the advantage of the United States, according to this measure, largely due to the greater levels of inequality and lower life expectancies in those countries.[4]

 

All in all, Americans are doing well whether one looks at aggregate numbers of income and wealth or more relative numbers such as measurements of leisure, life expectancy, and inequality.  But this overlooks the plight of the former manufacturing job holders. 

Given the changes that the economy has experienced, there have been pockets of workers (or other citizens) who have experienced changes that are not in line with this overall picture.  In this blogger’s book, Toward a Federated Nation, he reports the following:

 

The inevitable ranking of individuals leads to an uneven distribution of material values.  Such a reality, though, threatens the level of moral equality in the commonwealth – especially if the unevenness is extreme or functions to prohibit others from aspiring to improve their level of advantages.[5]  In current parlance, the problem is not that there is a top 1% (that’s a mathematical certainty), the problem lies in that 1% enjoys inordinate percentage of the national income or the national wealth.[6] 

If that is the case, not only does such a condition threaten the integrity of those not enjoying a reasonable income, but it makes those upper-class individuals have inordinate resources to affect the formulation of public policy.[7] 

 

And at this point, one is well served to look at the interest of young people who are caught up or reflect the financial situation their home or family situation sustains.

The point is whether young people have been raised in the tumultuous years since the 1990s during which this shift in production transferred those manufacturing jobs to low-wage nations such as China or Vietnam.  Some have argued that a more communal approach – perhaps as those used in Germany and Japan[8] – would encourage a more involved perspective among the young as their parents tell of their daily job experiences at home. 

One can argue that this other general view in society is more republican in nature.  But this nation’s more individualistic perspective has instead encouraged, one can argue, a more passive, pleasure-seeking ethos.  But this is not solidified among all Americans.  Robert Dahl wrote of this bifurcated view – the communal vs. the individualistic view – some years ago:

 

We Americans have always been torn between two conflicting visions of what American society is and ought to be.  To summarize them oversimply, one is a vision of the world’s first and grandest attempt to realize democracy, political equality, and political liberty on a continental scale.  The other is a vision of a country where unrestricted liberty to acquire unlimited wealth [and that] would produce the world’s most prosperous society.  In the first, American ideals are realized by the achievement of democracy, political equality, and the fundamental rights of all citizens in a country of vast size and diversity.  In the second, American ideals are realized by the protection of property and of opportunities to prosper materially and to grow wealthy.  In the first view, the right to self-government is among the most fundamental of all human rights, and, should they conflict, is superior to the right to property.  In the second, property is the superior, self-government the subordinate right.[9]

 

Yes, this oversimplifies a complex – what has become – international issue, but it gets at the heart of this dialectic struggle (between a parochial federalist view and the natural rights view) and provides students with a confusing economic image and befuddled ideals as to what they should be.

          This turn in the economic history of the nation, by the way, can be associated with what has come to be known as the polarized political landscape one observes today.  Those who have suffered from this loss of jobs become fodder for nationalistic political messaging.  In turn, that messaging represents policies that many describe as either authoritarian or undemocratic. 

Here’s a line of argument that has been professed in terms of explaining what has happened. 

 

1.    There is a significant number of workers who held good paying jobs.

2.    This caused them to either have rising expectations of a better financial future or an expectation that current levels of relative affluence would continue. 

3.    Then, in short order, those good paying jobs are lost. 

4.    This loss of jobs counters the rising expectations of those former workers and high levels of anger and general attitudes judging the events as illegitimate. 

5.    Rebelliousness or feelings of rebellion result. 

6.    These people become prime potential followers of any demigod who might arise promising to upend the whole existing system.[10]

 

With that line of events – here offered as form of a hypothetical chain of events or developments – this blog will end this posting. 

The reader is given the opportunity to consider it and decide how true it happens to be.  As for this blog, it is offered as a hypothetical development.  The next posting will continue with this topic, the “economic student interest,” and highlight perspective entrepreneurs.

---

[1] This presentation begins with the posting, “A Parochial Subject Matter” (March 11, 2022).  The reader is reminded that the claims made in this posting do not necessarily reflect the beliefs or knowledge of this blogger.  Instead, the posting is a representation of what an advocate of parochial federalism might present.  This is done to present a dialectic position of that construct.

[2] William H. Schubert, Curriculum:  Perspective, Paradigm, and Possibility (New York, NY:  MacMillan Publishing Company, 1986).  The meaning of this term has been shared in previous postings.

[3] For example, Robert B. Reich, The Work of Nation:  Preparing Ourselves for the 21^st-Century Capitalism (New York, NY:  Vintage Books, 1992).

[4] Ben Bernanke, “Are Americans Better Off Than They Were a Decade Or Two Ago?,” Brookings (October 19, 2016), accessed May 5, 2022, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/ben-bernanke/2016/10/19/are-americans-better-off-than-they-were-a-decade-or-two-ago/ .

[5] As the calendar approached 2020, one could report:  “Currently, the richest 1% hold about 38% of all privately held wealth in the United States; while the bottom 90% hold 73% of all debt. According to The New York Times, the richest 1 percent in the United States now own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent.” “Wealth Inequality in the United States,” Wikipedia.

[6] In 2015, the average gross income of people in the top 1% was $480,930; for the top .01% it was $35.1 million, and for the top .001% it was $152 million.  The top 1% paid 39% of the federal income tax.  The gap between the top groups and the rest is growing.  See Aimee Picchi, “How Much Do the 1, .01 and .001 Percent Earn?” CBS News (February 27, 2018), accessed March 28, 2019, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-much-do-the-1-01-and-001-percent-really-earn/ .

[7] Robert Gutierrez, Toward a Federated Nation:  Implementing National Civics Standards (Tallahassee, FL:  Gravitas Civics Books, 2020), 197-198.

[8] See Michael Ivanovitch, “Only Germany and Japan Have Room for Economic Stimulus,” CNBC (September 6, 2019), accessed May 9, 2022, https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/06/commentary-only-germany-and-japan-have-room-for-economic-stimulus.html .  One point this cite makes is:  “Germany and, to a lesser extent, Japan have plenty of scope for large public and public-private partnership investments in growth-enhancing infrastructure projects of transportation, information technology, life science and social welfare.”

[9] Robert Dahl, A Preface to Economic Democracy (Berkeley, CA:  University of California Press, 1985), 162-163.

[10] This chain reflects the theoretical ideas of the Davies “J” curve model.  See John T. Jost and Avital Mentovich, “J-Curve Hypothesis,” Sociology and Political Science, n. d., accessed October 14, 2019, https://www.britannica.com/topic/J-curve-hypothesis .