On Employment
On Employment
Prof. Rank has observed that there are two chairs out of ten missing from the employment market leading to a game of musical chairs. (The Star-Ledger, Newark, New Jersey; September 29, 1994). Why are the two chairs missing?
The main reason is that the rich have a vested interest in keeping fewer chairs available than required so that they can keep wages artificially low to insure maximum profits. This works in two ways.
One of the chairs becomes a victim to the international trade, the other to our obsession for “efficiency” which again is the result of capitalist propaganda.
International trade only helps the richest few of the exporting as well as the importing countries to get even richer at the cost not only of the foreign nationals but also of their compatriots. Business competition does not necessarily benefit a country. The consumers cannot buy the cheaper foreign goods if they do not have the jobs and the income to spend. Imports should therefore be limited to the extent of the shortfall in the production of items really needed by the people of the country. This can only be insured by nationalizing all export and import trades.
Our obsession for efficiency leads us to making 90 to 95 percent of our people work at 100 percent efficiency. This leaves 5 to 10 percent people unemployed. They need to be supported by the rest. But the majority, which is employed naturally, resents being made to support the unemployed and is unwilling to give up their hard earned money in the form of taxes. This leaves us with budget deficits and all the resultant problems. It would be far more desirable for the national economy to let the 100 percent people work at 90 to 95 percent efficiency. The cost of keeping people unemployed far exceeds the loss of 5 to 10 percent in the efficiency or productivity.
Keeping people unemployed only works to the advantage of the rich because it enables them to exploit their employees who feel trapped in their jobs.
Private companies cannot be expected to operate at less than 100 percent efficiency because it would affect their return on investment. On the other hand governments and public bodies should not have to worry about returns. They should be encouraged to operate at lower levels of efficiency. They need not operate with minimal bare bone staff. Rather they should hire a few more individuals who can get trained while working and then leave to join private firms if and when openings becomes available.
“Efficiency” needs to be measured in the proper perspective. Efficiency as indicated by the rates of return may be desirable for evaluating the performance of a private enterprise but not necessarily that of public entities. What is efficient from the point of view of a company is not necessarily so from the point of view of the national economy. Therefore it is improper to try to measure the efficiencies of government and semi-government operations in the same way as the private companies.
If return on investment is the sole measure of efficiency, then the most efficient entrepreneurs are the boiler room operators. Why condemn them? Why not encourage them?
Most of us fail to realize the above distinction. As a result politicians of all types keep trying to make government more “efficient” by laying off large number of workers. In reality, this is counter-productive. The laid off workers need to be paid unemployment allowance. And when they run out of it many of them end up on the welfare rolls. If they are not laid off, they may work at a reduced efficiency. However, they would still pay taxes and, being on pay roll, stay away from crime for preserving their jobs. As a result the expenses on crime prevention and incarceration would be reduced.
It is much more expensive to keep a person in prison than on welfare or unemployment roll which, in turn, is much more expensive than keeping a person employed in a government or semi-government organization and letting him or her work at less than optimal efficiency. The last option also has the advantage of providing on the job training and keeping the person disciplined thereby reducing the probability of him or her turning to crime.
If the above views smack of socialism, think again. What is so sacrosanct about capitalism? Why is it that a camel may pass through the eye of a needle but the rich will not be able to pass through the gate to heaven? It is because the only way people get rich is by exploiting many others. The attached calculations prove that even with all possible favorable attributes like intelligence, hard work, frugality and smart investment decisions, a person would need decades to become a billionaire. The only way some individuals get too rich too soon is by large scale cheating of others.
It may be argued that the government must not rob the rich to pay the poor. Then again, any government worth its name must prevent a few from robbing the masses to get rich.
The primitive society was ruled by the law of the jungle in which the physical strength was used to exploit the weaker people. The very purpose of civilization was to change from the “might is right “ to a “ right is might “ rule of law. In the process we invented several different ineffective systems. For example, communism was just a different form of barbarism in which political strength replaced physical strength as the means for the exploitation of the masses. Then again, capitalism is yet another form of barbarism in which financial might has replaced physical might as the tool to exploit the rest of the people. We have yet to become civilized enough to let the ‘right’ win on its own.
The government need not rob the rich to feed the poor. But at the same time it is certainly the duty of an elected government to prevent the few rich from robbing the many poor through unfair business practices like charging exorbitant prices, paying too low wages, extending hours of work to save on benefits, embezzlement of pension funds, causing pollution etc.
Communism failed because it glorified jealousy. Capitalism is failing because it glorifies greed in the form of freedom to earn unlimited profits.
Communism failed due to its absolute lack of private sector. Capitalism is taking longer to fail because it still has some public sector, which the super rich have not been able to eliminate in spite of their crusade against government. As the public sector becomes smaller and smaller, the failure of capitalism will be faster and faster.
Capitalism is bound to fail due to the crusade against taxes. The rich, not being content with having gotten rich through all possible unfair practices, are unwilling to fulfill their responsibility. They are plotting to pass it on to their victims, the poor millions in the form of flat tax rate and what not. This can only lead to the break down of the national economy with very high unemployment and mass poverty, disease and despair.