Many
of civic related concerns have to do with maintaining cooperative
behavior between citizens by maintaining sufficient feelings of
solidarity. Using federal language, the challenge can be described
as counteracting social forces that tear at or encourage disunity
within a federal association. This challenge can affect families,
businesses, communities, cities, states, nations, or international
associations (for example, NATO). There are a variety of sources for
such challenges. There are jealousies, misinformation, conflicting
aims and goals, corruption, use of excessive coercion, and so on.
One source that is particularly subtle is competition. This last
source is subtle because competition, per se, is not divisive.
Ideally, competition can be a process by which the highest level of
talent and other assets in the association come to bear in its
striving to attain its goals. It can become divisive, though, if
certain transcending rules governing competition are not adhered to.
And what are those rules? One, given the context of the competition,
is that it has to treat all the competitors as equals – equal in
the sense that each competitor has an equal opportunity to win the
competition. Two, the processes and standards by which the
competition is conducted and evaluated need to be logically related
to the prize for which the competitors are striving to attain.
Three, the process needs to be as transparent as possible. And four,
the competition itself needs to advance either the survival of the
association and/or to advance the legitimate goals and aims of the
association. This last rule needs to be explained a bit more.
For
one thing, the consequences of a competition within an association
might accrue short term positive results. In the long term, though,
it might result in consequences that are not only negative, but also
seriously threatening to the health of the association. And in this,
lies the purpose of this posting. Take for example, the competition
between states to attract businesses. This competition has taken
many forms, but a common way is to put in place policies that lower
the wages of workers by, for example, undermining the influence of
labor unions. Recently, Indiana illustrated this by becoming a
“right to work” state in which unions can no longer negotiate to
become the sole representative agent for the workers of a business –
that is, workers do not have to belong to a union in order to land a
job. Consequently, in many states such as Indiana, that have been
hostile to unions, collective bargaining has either become less
effective or more difficult to conduct. Probably more than any other
factor in the last three to four decades, this strategy has been
responsible for the average median wages of workers to have first
leveled off and then to have actually gone down.1
The result is that inequality has been increasing during a time when
production and productivity have increased. This, in turn, has
resulted in the top income groups garnering ever higher percentages
of the national income. The point is: this competitive activity by
states is undermining a central goal of our nation. We are in effect
less equal in terms of not only economic well-being, but also in
terms of political influence. Our whole claim at providing equal
opportunity has, with these developments, become less and less
believable.
Really?
Am I just rationalizing in order to excuse the shortcomings of some?
Well, I have just become aware of how this competition between
states is affecting even the ability of young people from lower
income families to attend state universities. In the past, many
states, through the efforts of their higher education offices, have
provided financial assistance so that academically talented youths
from lower income families could attend state universities. Through
the reporting of Catherine Rampell,2
I have become aware of organized efforts to dry up such assistance to
poorer kids and expand the help to richer kids. “The share of
state aid that's not based on need has nearly tripled in the last two
decades, to 29 percent per full-time student in 2010-11. The stated
rationale, of course, is that merit scholarships [exclusive of
consideration of need] motivate high-school achievement and keep
talented students in the state.”3
Rampell provides enough statistics to back up her claims – for
example, about 1 in 5 rich kids (from households making over $250,000
a year) get assistance while only 1 in 10 kids from households making
less than $30,000 a year get similar assistance. But my point is
that this practice is a form of competition between states, not to
attract talent, but to keep talent. The thinking is that these
richer kids can easily shuffle off to highly respected universities
in other areas of the country; they move to those universities and
they don't come back. If, on the other hand, states can keep these
students in their home states for their college education, they are
more likely to stay in the state after they receive their degrees.
At least, that's the thinking. The evidence, though, doesn't support
this eventuality. It is needless to point out that the success rate
for these wealthier students is much higher than for lower income
students, although even richer kids don't do as well at these state
schools than those who do go off to the more expensive, farther away
schools. So, this form of competition, one that betrays our
national commitment to equality, has become counterproductive. While
the aim of the policy doesn't seem to be materializing, the policy
will still be in effect for years. In the interim, how many poorer
kids will be denied a real chance at economic success because they
will be deprived of the financial assistance to attend state schools
that at one time was there? Besides, one can justly question the
sincerity of the stated justification for such a policy change. Is
it just a way for those with influence, the wealthy, to get more of
the resources that a state government is willing to distribute? Who
knows?
Irrespective
of its justification, I would judge such a competition contrary to
the stated goal of equality that our nation claims it has. There is
nothing intrinsically wrong with entities in a federal union
competing. Competition motivates people to work hard and it
increases the chances of entities developing their potential skills.
In turn, such developments make it possible for organized people to
do what it is they want to do successfully as long as the competition
is productive and just.
1I
claim this factor to be primary because I feel that all of the other
factors, such as transferring work assignments to foreign workers,
are negotiable developments that unions could have moderated and
made less effective in lowering wages. I must admit a lack of
expertise in this, but the decline of wages among American workers
mirrors, in terms of timing, the decline of union membership.
2Rampell,
C. (2013). Freebies for the rich. The New York Times Magazine,
September 29, pp. 14 and 15.
3Ibid.,
p. 14.