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.
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.
What
brought all this to mind is the report on the CBS show, 60
Minutes.
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.
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.
