I just saw a comment written to CBC and aired on their morning news on Newsworld. The gist of the comment was that the writer wanted to know what the next government would do about job creation, and the loss of hi-paying jobs, largely replaced by minimum wage jobs with which people could barely make ends meet.
To my mind this reflects a mindset that many on the left employ when thinking about public policy and the economy. While they definitely care about the welfare of 'the people' the left, and I am looking at you NDP, generally forget the concepts of individualism, personal responsibility, choice and that the concept of 'wealth' does not end at a nation’s borders. My problem with Conservatives, conversely, is that they lack a true care for those who are unable, for whatever reason, to manage their own affairs be those personal or business concerns.
Let me further explain. Conservatives (by definition if not always by practice) generally think that everyone should ‘pull up their bootstraps’, ‘get off their asses’, ‘quit their whining’, rely on their family for social support (even orphans) and generally look after themselves without 'government handouts' and a 'welfare state.' Conversely, those on the left of the political spectrum believe that no one or at best, very few of us, are able to make good decisions, adjust, adapt, re-learn or ‘double their efforts’. They often overlook the fact that certain people’s circumstances are also the result of a record of bad choices and decisions – one ought to be comfortable just because; the sun will never set on their economy.
I am simplifying. To be clear, I am also sticking to economic issues. Our Canadian Liberal Party is not without fault but the grassroots definitely reflects a desire to facilitate those who are able to do as well as they can - they sky's the limit. At the same time, we believe (or at least this liberal does) that there are people who need varying degrees of assistance, from fully supported living to a minimum national income policy that ensures senior's incomes are augmented to a livable standard. Regulation on business ought to be firm but ought to also allow for innovation, competition and wealth generation for shareholders - this is a mixed economy after-all.
On a Macro-economic level, I firmly believe that the wealth of the world is more important than wealth at home and that protectionism harms Canadian businesses more than it hurts them. As a developed nation, we ought to be proud that the jobs that are being created in
Let's go back to the viewer's comment. A socialist looks at 'the working class' as a whole, not as a collective of individuals. Each person has the ability to take various steps and make assorted decisions to improve their lot, whether that be growing within a job or by seeking new employment opportunities. You might say skills are an issue and I agree. However, as I age, the worries of the past seem to fade - As one ages, one's skills and experience similarly grow, maturity improves, work ethic and productivity generally increase and hence the value of one's labour naturally increase. For example the coffee server becomes the chief barista and eventually moves on to store manager and perhaps even to district manager. If the coffee server does not see advancement in the future, choices are available, particularly in an open labour market with competition.
Perhaps my fictitious Barista realizes she really enjoys food service and decides to go back to school to become a chef. Government ought to facilitate that through education, training and apprenticeship programs. But Government ought not to mandate 'lifetime job security' for the Barista either as that would truly disserve everyone from the customer to the lowly newbie coffee server. This is the flaw of considering the labour market as a whole, instead of as a collective. I recall in High School having a similar lack of faith in the individual's ability and responsibility to make healthy decisions - be they financial, education, social; whatever.
And let’s not forget the Barista’s Asian counterpart. As
Is there a concentration of capital occurring to some degree? Yes, and that is a concern. However, to disregard the sharing of wealth amongst the global community is to allow your socialism to end at national borders - "Workers of the white world unite?" Instead of concentrating on those nations that are ‘stealing’ our jobs and trying to organize workers there, improve working conditions and regulations in those countries, fat, western Labour organizers sit and whine about the loss of jobs. Why not advocate for tougher environmental regulations in those countries to ensure developed nations can compete? Too often, labour concentrates on keeping an old order instead of adapting to change and ensuring that change benefits them.
Economics is about action and reaction, cause and effect, supply and demand. The entire basis of monetary systems is the value of human labour. In the west, we have allowed wage rates to grow for low-skilled jobs producing cheap goods that we consume in excess. It's no wonder then that low-wage jobs are moving to labour markets with cheaper labour. However, the wealth that we generated previously has allowed our labour market to become much more educated and highly skilled. We in the west also enjoy something that those in developing nations know little of: Leisure time. Lefties place no value on this. Does a Mexican labourer, driving a rivet for $15/less per hour have the cottage, boat and 4-weeks of vacation that the Ford Talbotville worker has? Yeah....right.
Now, I don't want to just pick on the left. I think that government should provide for those who need to transition or who must make difficult choices with respect to employment opportunities. Workers should be protected on worksites through regulation, for instance. Apprenticeship and training programs should be accessible and affordable for those facing tough times. I don't believe in a totally open labour market without a minimum wage and minimum wages ought to keep pace with inflation through CPI-pegged annual or bi-annual increases.
In an open labour market, the worker ultimately has the most power because they can sell their services to the highest bidder. Some regulation is needed to ensure minimum standards by job class so that un-skilled labour does not under-price skilled labour, though workers also benefit by being able to out-bid other labourers as well – limits on competition obviously limit competition. Individualism also says each labourer has the potential to improve skills, seek new experience and increase the value of their labour.
Health care in all forms must be provided to all Canadians regardless of their ability to pay for it. That is our true competitive advantage and we should do all we can to preserve it.
As you know, I do believe in a strong role for government but I do generally believe in the success of open markets. I believe in a strong social safety net, balanced budgets, Public Private Partnerships with good concession agreements, training programs and worker supports, public health care, user fees, full cost accounting and sustainable development. I believe in innovation to tackle the problems created by old thinking. I believe in experimentation with public policy and in overcoming the fears that prevent positive change. Adapt or die.
No comments:
Post a Comment