In general, I like it. Lot's of good information on the progress we've made as a society (reductions in poverty, pollution, increasing morality in general, etc.), especially in the first couple of chapters. After that, Easterbrook gets into why, despite all the progress we've made, that we don't feel happier. (Among the factors: "anticipation induced anxiety," or worrying about the future; the inability to buy the things that produce happiness, e.g. "love, friendship, respect, family, standing, [and] fun," which ties into what he calls the "nice-hotel-room factor:" "For an increasing number of Americans and Europeans, life is like being in a really nice hotel room, but not having a good time because no one else came along on the trip"; and several more factors which I will not summarize here. Get your own book. :-)). Then he instructs us how to become happier (here's a hint, from one of the chapter titles: "Selfish Reasons to Become a Better Person"). One of the big issues with American society, he believes, is that we (in general) have a lack of purpose. We work, and work, and work, attain a pile o' possessions, then lay our heads on our pillows and ask ourselves, "Isn't there more to life than this?"
Then he attempts to give us a purpose, by describing what he believes to be three "deep structural faults" in our society: The lack of universal health insurance, a minimum wage that is too low for someone to live off of, and the greed of those at the top (specifically, CEO's and other corporate execs). Of course, he appeals to his audience's sense of morality: "Higher wages for the struggling, in return for a clear conscience for the successful, represents an attractive bargain: both a moral necessity and in the self-interest of anyone who is not coldhearted." It was nice of him to couch his argument in language that backhandedly calls anyone who disagrees with him immoral. Leaving that aside, let's address his issues, shall we?
Issue #1: Universal health insurance: Great idea, except for one tiny detail: Who's going to pay for it? Should companies be forced to give all their employees, full and part time, from the burger flipper to the CEO, health insurance? What about the small start-up business that can barely make ends meet at the end of the month? Should they be forced to pay? Pretend that your small business faces this legislation, and that you can find health insurance for $100 a month per person, and that you have 5 employees. Can you afford a new $6,000 expense? Is that going to cost the employees their next raise?
Or will the government provide health insurance itself, in it's typically wasteful and corrupt fashion? Will we start a brand-new, incredibly expensive entitlement program to give the poor free health insurance? And will it stop at universal health care? After all, the poor need transportation too! Let's give the poor free cars while we're giving things away!
But if you can find a way to pay for universal health insurance without robbing American individuals through tax dollars and without robbing American companies through federal requirements, be my guest, it's a great idea. Otherwise, let the poor find jobs that offer health insurance. (You know, even Wendy's provides health insurance to its workers)
Issue #2: Raise the minimum wage: This really bugs me, because Easterbrook even mentions the problem with this idea, but doesn't recognize it. Allow me to quote the book for a moment: "Suppose the minimum wage went to $10 and health insurance became universal. Pizzas, sandwiches, house-cleaning, and everything at the Gap and Target would cost slightly more." This matters very little to the more affluent american, but to the poor person, that "slightly more" makes a huge difference. Essentially you run in a circle: The poorest get paid more, but it raises the prices of what the poor need to buy, so they need to be paid more. You achieve little to no real increase in income.
The other major problem with raising minimum wage is outsourcing. Business are already outsourcing a number of jobs to India and other foreign countries because American employees are too expensive. How much more then, if you doubled minimum wage? Is a $10/hour minimum wage going to be of any value if there are no jobs to put the workers in?
The minimum wage is a price floor like any other, and basic economics teaches us that a price floor will always cause a surplus--in this case, unemployment. Bad, bad idea.
Issue #3: The "greed at the top." We're dealing with this one right now, as Ken Lay, mentioned as an example in the book, is under trial for his actions.
The last main chapter describes how we as a country can help the people who are starving in foreign countries who live on a dollar a day. While noting that things are getting significantly better, Easterbrook calls the West to take it upon itself the goal of ending global poverty once and for all. This I'm all in favor of. Easterbrook says, "But as regards to resources at least, it seems possible that eventually everyone will live like Americans and Europeans, with the world containing billions of passenger cars and detached homes, huge numbers of big-box retails stores, and truly, utterly frightening numbers of fast-food restaurants." Let it be so!
He also credits the (largely unexpected) improvements in poor countries to three factors: "The actions of developing-world citizens themselves," free-market economies, and aid from the West. I cringe at the last one; I approve of aiding those countries less developed than ours, but must this aid be through the government? Let private citizens give to these countries, and let companies start businesses in them and raise them out of poverty! As Easterbrook recommends elsewhere, drop the trade barriers to our country from these poorer nations, and let the free-market really start off for them. Companies are always looking for causes to help (it's both good PR and good stewardship, especially with the tax advantages they get), let them donate food, medicine, housing, fertilizer, clean water systems, etc, etc, to countries in need. Foreign aid doesn't have to be a massive, wasteful government program.
...
All in all though, it's a pretty good book, especially the first couple of chapters, which are a breath of fresh air in the age of panic. There's still work to be done to improve both our and global society, but it's nice to know that we are making progress.
Posted by Blog Jones at July 16, 2004 01:36 AM
| Category: Politics