Gradually, the US military under the leadership of the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have come to exercise international influence upon a manifold of national militaries. I argue for that direction I find of great value for social uplift, namely, the pervasive presence of US troops in bases on foreign soil throughout the world. Some 150 countries presently permit the US to maintain 714 or so bases on their lands. I believe the US military presence around the globe has heralded peace and permitted a true global economy where businesses can be assured that trade and commerce will continue to foster stable and calm social and political environments worldwide.
The mere presence of these military installations abroad constitutes an American pledge to commerce conducted by international corporations without their fearing threat of social upheaval within these host countries.
Frequently, the host country will ask for military assistance in troop training and technical assistance in the conduct of its own military operations so as to end some internal conflict. For example, the US Military advised the Phillipines during its recent battles with Communists in the country's more remote regions. Though US involvement was advisory, I believe it was significant in bringing the conflict to a successful conclusion.
The US Military under NATO control also lended air support and military advice to the fighting native troops in Libya against its corrupt government, that was rather quickly overthrown. Currently, in Afghanistan and Iraq, the US military is providing training to government troops as well as technical consultation, and in the case of Afghanistan, serves as backup forces to the recently formed governmental military.
So even when not engaging in battle, the US military can play a prominent role in determining the outcome of armed conflicts, I believe. What is more, the military with its complement of weaponry poses a visible deterrence for the sake of peace and is a reminder to governments to opt for non-hostile settlements of disputes with neighboring nations.
Currently in Congress, the issue of next year's military budget is being debated. The point I would add to that discussion is that there need be less funding for military personnel (since the US can significantly act in some advisory capacity); but there must be sufficient financial support to do the research and development of the US military might that is necessary to maintain the US current, prominent role in assuring peaceful environments for commerce and business worldwide.
(P.S. I wish American corporations would bear some of the military costs for the protection and security it affords to the international trade markets.)
Meta-Elements of the US Military presence worldwide
1. The promise. Through cooperative effort of nations, a governing board can maintain a body of rules and regulations established by its membership for the sake of world order and the peaceful handling of disputes; and will facilitate transactions among its members who are the beneficiaries of board governance. This "governing board" is currently the United Nations itself, through a series of resolutions, sometimes NATO, or the US Congress, which sanctions military deployment through the Secretary of Defense.
2. The acceptance. Each nation which harbors US troops must agree to certain rules and regulations pertaining to US military presence on foreign soil with recognition the nation's accepting US military presence is doing so to further trade and commerce and international goodwill.
3. Areas of societal advancement. Armed conflict as a means of settling disputes is eschewed. Rather, when disputes arise involving the nation housing US troops, it is understood that by efforts of cooperating nations, such matters will
come to peaceful resolution.
4. Provisions for breakdown of international law and order. Methods in vogue today apply: sanctions, actions of appropriate governing agencies, training of native troops against terrorists, etc.
5. Utopian vision pursued. Nations must learn to cooperate with one another for the planet's preservation.
.
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
SU: International Governing Agencies
Who should be the 'bystander' (who will benefit by stepping aside)?
If in the previous item the 'bystander' is the developing nations of the world, whose populations are essentially "backward," technologically and economically, who benefit from the re-distribution of wealth from the advanced nations to the developing nations (such as India and China and the majority of nations in Africa), the bystander here is the community of nations on the planet, promised enormous social uplift simply if each nation would become less concerned with national self-interest and more concerned with reaching consensus amid other (member) nations on rules and policies that promote the planetary weal. It is assumed that the nations of the world to benefit should abide by the rules and policies upon which they have agreed altogether.
Put simply, rather than technically, each nation must submit to some particular international governing agency, charged with overseeing an international activity, such as the use of the seas for trade and commerce, and thereby yield a modicum of its sovereignty that could enforce its own power; and must yield essential control to some appropriate international governing agency.
Who are such governing agencies?
There's an ever increasing number. Why? Because they are so successful in enforcing the rules and regulations among the member nations, i.e., those who have joined the governing institution.
Alternatives to the governing agencies' format at the international level are 1) a powerful nation's simply by its own fiat laying down a set of its rules having the effect of
international law in some area of its interest that every other nation must adhere to lest there be armed conflict; or 2) a bilateral (sometimes multilateral) agreement with one or another nation whose interests are to be honored and protected under threat of hostile action as stated in some contractual document declaring the rules all countries must comply with.
1. The Notion of Governing Agencies
International governing agencies represent a moral advance of mankind toward universal peace through the exercise of democratic principles. Typically, an agency is composed of a governing board and member states who sustain it. The international governing agency is charged with maintaining the body of rules and laws voted upon and adopted by its organization's member states. In some cases, the agency demands consensus of its members for adoption of a rule or regulation having the status of international law. Importantly, by being a member, a nation commits itself, i.e., promises, to abide by the institution's rules; and should dispute arise involving its compliance, will submit to the procedures for legal redress and settlement available to the member states. Worldwide aompliance is achieved through the governing agency's membership list.
2. Agency Gradations of Governance at the international level
I think the idea of agency governance took hold in the Western World just after WWII with the founding of the United Nations, which to this day encourages its widespread use.
The lowest level of world governance to my mind are the international banks and bank-like institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. These function primarily to influence political entities, i.e., governments, to conform to well-worn accounting principles that, when stringently applied in situ, should keep them solvent and capable of conducting commerce and trade with the 'advanced' nations of the world.
Next, a grade or two above, are the international conclaves of economically influential nations--the G8 (formerly, the G7) and the G20--where policies and political structures are created and shared among the member states. The purpose of such conclaves is to stablize international economic conditions as to facilitate commercial transactions anywhere in the world. Regionally, there are conclaves such as in Southeast Asia, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), that take up matters pertaining to trade in a geographical region. In North America, the North American NAFTA heralded the establishment of rules and regulations to govern trade among its members--Canada, the US, and Mexico. And, the International Whaling Commission has sought to control fishing extinction by setting forth numerical limits per species, enforced by local governments.
But the shining examples of the international agency concept are the WTO, and what has taken from it to fashion according to particular concerns in the energy field, the International Energy Agency. The World Trade Organization (WTO) seeks to liberalize trade through its rules and regulations agreed to by its member states. Fundamentally, the WTO insists upon trade without discrimination whether a country's trading partner is one country or another (MFN concept--most favored nation) or whether the product or service is native or foreign. It basically aims at lowering trade barriers worldwide. In trade matters contested, the WTO offers a dispute settlement system whereby, instead of fostering armed confrontation, disputants in legal setting plead their case before appelate bodies who decide the matter, including issuing penalties. WTO's enforcement mechanism, accomplished through its dispute settlement procedure (the Dispute Settlement Understanding--DSU) is based on the principle of reciprocity--that no country lose its contractual benefit of trade entry into some other country by failing to live up to the responsibilities it has contractually assumed.
The International Energy Agency controls the many aspects of energy production, research, investment, shipping, and price stablization worldwide. It sets standards and rules for the energy market exchange, similar to what the WTO does for market exchange in general. To enforce its edicts, it has incentives and sanctions available. Member states enter into contractual arrangements with one another--the supplier and the consumer; and the IEA monitors how well the member states contractually perform. Then too, the less powerful nations always can hold over the prominent nations the threat of not enforcing intellectual property rights and copyrights, so highly regarded in the Western World.
It is assumed that each member state does better by abiding by the rules and regulations of the governing agency than it could achieve acting independently. Particularly, this is the case when a developing nation enters into contract with an advanced nation. Indeed, some analysts contend that the WTO, for one, defends the rights of the poorer countries in the trade arena dominated by the powerful nations, who are skilled at constructing and dealing with contracts involving both benefits and obligations of the contractual parties.
3. Backing Off from International Agency Governance
Despite the advantages of participating in a governance institution, sometimes nations feel they are not bound by its rules. For example, should a nation's line of goods be produced by child labor, an importing nation would probably think itself not bound to keep MFN enforcement at its point of entry for this line of goods.
Another cause of non-adherence is some pre-existing deals with trading partners, such as in the banana trade, where Latin American countries had alliances with the United States that granted them special policy treatment long before WTO.
Yet another reason to "go it alone" is more timely. US legislators have sought waivers of tariffs entirely for certain products from other countries to replace the earmark method of granting favors for their home-grown industries. For example, Senator Nelson, D-Neb, has sponsored recent bills to reduce tariffs, to the tune of some $30 billion, on import products that help to protect agricultural crops grown in his state (according to the Omaha World-Herald).
And, nations always can resort to subsidizing native industry to make their products more competitive to those abroad. France has been accused over the years of granting favorable price supports to certain agricultural crops, for instance.
China, a newer member of the WTO, has been charged not infrequently by the US of keeping from its shores US competitive possible entries so as to favor native industry. Furthermore, US companies have presented exhibits that seemingly demonstrate that Chinese manufacturing have copied US products so precisely as to leave imprints of having been initially owned by them, i.e., the US manufacturers. It seems difficult to eye the difference between a Nike sneaker and one bearing the label of some Chinese manufacturer, has been the contention. Accordingly, China has been frequently accused of patent rights infringement.
4. Present-day US Congressional Debate over US signing of the Law of the Sea Treaty
Though the signing began some thirty years ago, the US has not become party to this Treaty's signature. The Treaty establishes a governing board and a dispute settlement procedure pertaining to governance of international waterways.
Instead, the US and Russia have bound themselves in a series of bilateral agreements having the effect of contracts so as to declare themselves sole owners of certain Artic regions possessing mineral and oil and gas reserves. Members of Congress opposing US treaty signature contend that the bilateral arrangements assure that any other countries, who have not borne the burden of reserves' exploratory costs, ought not to have any way to claim benefit from mining the sea region, which both the US and Russia have declared theirs. The Treaty, they say, could grant non-participatory members a share of what is taken from the sea bottom. Apparently, these Congressmen do not contest what the present-day governing board has set forth in its rules and regulations pertaining to sea channels and international waterways, but they focus on what benefits ought not to accrue to member states, simply by being members.
Be it noted, that probably, at one time the US military would have been the dominant force in mapping out and structuring international waterways; and enforcing such edicts.
5. The South China Sea Dispute Addressed at the ASEAN's meeting in July, 2012 in Cambodia
The Obama administration raised with Beijing, both government's being in attendance at the 10-member ASEAN recent meeting, the dispute between China and its neighbors to the south, particularly, the Philippines, over certain territories in the South China Sea. Defending the rights of native fishermen, disputants over China's claim to the region apparently would have this agency take a stand on the matter. But, China protested that any determination against it would be void because China was not a member of the ASEAN governing group. The matter is not of little concern since it is said that the waterway in dispute transports nearly one-third of international shipping, has manifold wealth in fish, and may contain rich reserves in minerals, oil and natural gas.
Enforcement of the Rules and Regulations issued by Governing Agencies
The present-day drive toward making international governing agencies I trace to the founding of the UN. It has encouraged seeking alternative means to handle dispute among nations instead of the military battlefield. But if not armed conflict, how can hostilities over land and people be handled?
With the founding of the WTO (and GATT before it) the mechanism of enforcement by appealing to a country's self-interest as a controlling force in seeking dispute reconciliation through "legal" means of enforcing contracts. That is to say, by appealing to the principle of reciprocity nations are called upon to adhere to a governing body's rules. By so doing, those who enter into trade and commerce will do so as equals--obtaining the same rights of entry into foreign markets as they provide to their trading partners.
Since the economic stakes are so high, nations have by and large submitted to a governing board's edicts. But their are glaring exceptions that should ultimately have less impact as these agencies become more and more accepted and commonplace. The impending results of their increased compliance should be stupendous for all nations of the world!
On C-Span July 24th, Congressman Ron Paul (Republican Primary Presidential Candidate) observed that for the New World Order to take effect, a program he denounces, there would be need for an international currency to replace the US dollar as worldwide reserve or normative denomination. He guessed the IMF would probably become the international currency agency, which would issue and maintain a new international reserve. China has argued for an international currency, independent of the US dollar. I believe Paul is correct in his surmising an international currency would be needed for the New World Order Program to fully be implemented. But I argue for the World Bank as an effective banking agency to issue international currency independent of the international banks behind the US Federal Reserve and the US dollar.
The Meta-Elements of International Governing Agencies
1. The Promise. As bystanders to agency governance, nations would yet pursue their own self-interests in an arena of nations worldwide who wish to enter into trade and commerce agreements so as to enhance the prospects of achieving their own goals in the pursuit of their own self-interests.
2. The Acceptance. Each international governing agency intends that its members are more likely to be successful in their pursuits as members than if they were to otherwise go on their own. This necessitates that nations join the governing group and abide by its rules and regulations even as other nations as members do so.
3. Areas of societal advancement. Following the WTO lead, other international governing agencies should elicit consensus among its member nations as to what rules and regulations are to govern its area of concern and should establish a mechanism for handling disputes among its members. This is a marked improvement over the usual policy a nation takes to overwhelm others who disagree with its foreign edicts by threatening to go to war or to engage in armed conflict with its disputants.
4. Provisions for breakdown of the uplift system. A nation on its own can always enter into bilateral agreements with another nation and can instigate policies which favor those nations that are favorable to it.
5. Utopian vision pursued. The vision here is a peaceful world in which disputes among nations are handled rationally and calmly, not calling for belligerence.
If in the previous item the 'bystander' is the developing nations of the world, whose populations are essentially "backward," technologically and economically, who benefit from the re-distribution of wealth from the advanced nations to the developing nations (such as India and China and the majority of nations in Africa), the bystander here is the community of nations on the planet, promised enormous social uplift simply if each nation would become less concerned with national self-interest and more concerned with reaching consensus amid other (member) nations on rules and policies that promote the planetary weal. It is assumed that the nations of the world to benefit should abide by the rules and policies upon which they have agreed altogether.
Put simply, rather than technically, each nation must submit to some particular international governing agency, charged with overseeing an international activity, such as the use of the seas for trade and commerce, and thereby yield a modicum of its sovereignty that could enforce its own power; and must yield essential control to some appropriate international governing agency.
Who are such governing agencies?
There's an ever increasing number. Why? Because they are so successful in enforcing the rules and regulations among the member nations, i.e., those who have joined the governing institution.
Alternatives to the governing agencies' format at the international level are 1) a powerful nation's simply by its own fiat laying down a set of its rules having the effect of
international law in some area of its interest that every other nation must adhere to lest there be armed conflict; or 2) a bilateral (sometimes multilateral) agreement with one or another nation whose interests are to be honored and protected under threat of hostile action as stated in some contractual document declaring the rules all countries must comply with.
1. The Notion of Governing Agencies
International governing agencies represent a moral advance of mankind toward universal peace through the exercise of democratic principles. Typically, an agency is composed of a governing board and member states who sustain it. The international governing agency is charged with maintaining the body of rules and laws voted upon and adopted by its organization's member states. In some cases, the agency demands consensus of its members for adoption of a rule or regulation having the status of international law. Importantly, by being a member, a nation commits itself, i.e., promises, to abide by the institution's rules; and should dispute arise involving its compliance, will submit to the procedures for legal redress and settlement available to the member states. Worldwide aompliance is achieved through the governing agency's membership list.
2. Agency Gradations of Governance at the international level
I think the idea of agency governance took hold in the Western World just after WWII with the founding of the United Nations, which to this day encourages its widespread use.
The lowest level of world governance to my mind are the international banks and bank-like institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. These function primarily to influence political entities, i.e., governments, to conform to well-worn accounting principles that, when stringently applied in situ, should keep them solvent and capable of conducting commerce and trade with the 'advanced' nations of the world.
Next, a grade or two above, are the international conclaves of economically influential nations--the G8 (formerly, the G7) and the G20--where policies and political structures are created and shared among the member states. The purpose of such conclaves is to stablize international economic conditions as to facilitate commercial transactions anywhere in the world. Regionally, there are conclaves such as in Southeast Asia, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), that take up matters pertaining to trade in a geographical region. In North America, the North American NAFTA heralded the establishment of rules and regulations to govern trade among its members--Canada, the US, and Mexico. And, the International Whaling Commission has sought to control fishing extinction by setting forth numerical limits per species, enforced by local governments.
But the shining examples of the international agency concept are the WTO, and what has taken from it to fashion according to particular concerns in the energy field, the International Energy Agency. The World Trade Organization (WTO) seeks to liberalize trade through its rules and regulations agreed to by its member states. Fundamentally, the WTO insists upon trade without discrimination whether a country's trading partner is one country or another (MFN concept--most favored nation) or whether the product or service is native or foreign. It basically aims at lowering trade barriers worldwide. In trade matters contested, the WTO offers a dispute settlement system whereby, instead of fostering armed confrontation, disputants in legal setting plead their case before appelate bodies who decide the matter, including issuing penalties. WTO's enforcement mechanism, accomplished through its dispute settlement procedure (the Dispute Settlement Understanding--DSU) is based on the principle of reciprocity--that no country lose its contractual benefit of trade entry into some other country by failing to live up to the responsibilities it has contractually assumed.
The International Energy Agency controls the many aspects of energy production, research, investment, shipping, and price stablization worldwide. It sets standards and rules for the energy market exchange, similar to what the WTO does for market exchange in general. To enforce its edicts, it has incentives and sanctions available. Member states enter into contractual arrangements with one another--the supplier and the consumer; and the IEA monitors how well the member states contractually perform. Then too, the less powerful nations always can hold over the prominent nations the threat of not enforcing intellectual property rights and copyrights, so highly regarded in the Western World.
It is assumed that each member state does better by abiding by the rules and regulations of the governing agency than it could achieve acting independently. Particularly, this is the case when a developing nation enters into contract with an advanced nation. Indeed, some analysts contend that the WTO, for one, defends the rights of the poorer countries in the trade arena dominated by the powerful nations, who are skilled at constructing and dealing with contracts involving both benefits and obligations of the contractual parties.
3. Backing Off from International Agency Governance
Despite the advantages of participating in a governance institution, sometimes nations feel they are not bound by its rules. For example, should a nation's line of goods be produced by child labor, an importing nation would probably think itself not bound to keep MFN enforcement at its point of entry for this line of goods.
Another cause of non-adherence is some pre-existing deals with trading partners, such as in the banana trade, where Latin American countries had alliances with the United States that granted them special policy treatment long before WTO.
Yet another reason to "go it alone" is more timely. US legislators have sought waivers of tariffs entirely for certain products from other countries to replace the earmark method of granting favors for their home-grown industries. For example, Senator Nelson, D-Neb, has sponsored recent bills to reduce tariffs, to the tune of some $30 billion, on import products that help to protect agricultural crops grown in his state (according to the Omaha World-Herald).
And, nations always can resort to subsidizing native industry to make their products more competitive to those abroad. France has been accused over the years of granting favorable price supports to certain agricultural crops, for instance.
China, a newer member of the WTO, has been charged not infrequently by the US of keeping from its shores US competitive possible entries so as to favor native industry. Furthermore, US companies have presented exhibits that seemingly demonstrate that Chinese manufacturing have copied US products so precisely as to leave imprints of having been initially owned by them, i.e., the US manufacturers. It seems difficult to eye the difference between a Nike sneaker and one bearing the label of some Chinese manufacturer, has been the contention. Accordingly, China has been frequently accused of patent rights infringement.
4. Present-day US Congressional Debate over US signing of the Law of the Sea Treaty
Though the signing began some thirty years ago, the US has not become party to this Treaty's signature. The Treaty establishes a governing board and a dispute settlement procedure pertaining to governance of international waterways.
Instead, the US and Russia have bound themselves in a series of bilateral agreements having the effect of contracts so as to declare themselves sole owners of certain Artic regions possessing mineral and oil and gas reserves. Members of Congress opposing US treaty signature contend that the bilateral arrangements assure that any other countries, who have not borne the burden of reserves' exploratory costs, ought not to have any way to claim benefit from mining the sea region, which both the US and Russia have declared theirs. The Treaty, they say, could grant non-participatory members a share of what is taken from the sea bottom. Apparently, these Congressmen do not contest what the present-day governing board has set forth in its rules and regulations pertaining to sea channels and international waterways, but they focus on what benefits ought not to accrue to member states, simply by being members.
Be it noted, that probably, at one time the US military would have been the dominant force in mapping out and structuring international waterways; and enforcing such edicts.
5. The South China Sea Dispute Addressed at the ASEAN's meeting in July, 2012 in Cambodia
The Obama administration raised with Beijing, both government's being in attendance at the 10-member ASEAN recent meeting, the dispute between China and its neighbors to the south, particularly, the Philippines, over certain territories in the South China Sea. Defending the rights of native fishermen, disputants over China's claim to the region apparently would have this agency take a stand on the matter. But, China protested that any determination against it would be void because China was not a member of the ASEAN governing group. The matter is not of little concern since it is said that the waterway in dispute transports nearly one-third of international shipping, has manifold wealth in fish, and may contain rich reserves in minerals, oil and natural gas.
Enforcement of the Rules and Regulations issued by Governing Agencies
The present-day drive toward making international governing agencies I trace to the founding of the UN. It has encouraged seeking alternative means to handle dispute among nations instead of the military battlefield. But if not armed conflict, how can hostilities over land and people be handled?
With the founding of the WTO (and GATT before it) the mechanism of enforcement by appealing to a country's self-interest as a controlling force in seeking dispute reconciliation through "legal" means of enforcing contracts. That is to say, by appealing to the principle of reciprocity nations are called upon to adhere to a governing body's rules. By so doing, those who enter into trade and commerce will do so as equals--obtaining the same rights of entry into foreign markets as they provide to their trading partners.
Since the economic stakes are so high, nations have by and large submitted to a governing board's edicts. But their are glaring exceptions that should ultimately have less impact as these agencies become more and more accepted and commonplace. The impending results of their increased compliance should be stupendous for all nations of the world!
On C-Span July 24th, Congressman Ron Paul (Republican Primary Presidential Candidate) observed that for the New World Order to take effect, a program he denounces, there would be need for an international currency to replace the US dollar as worldwide reserve or normative denomination. He guessed the IMF would probably become the international currency agency, which would issue and maintain a new international reserve. China has argued for an international currency, independent of the US dollar. I believe Paul is correct in his surmising an international currency would be needed for the New World Order Program to fully be implemented. But I argue for the World Bank as an effective banking agency to issue international currency independent of the international banks behind the US Federal Reserve and the US dollar.
The Meta-Elements of International Governing Agencies
1. The Promise. As bystanders to agency governance, nations would yet pursue their own self-interests in an arena of nations worldwide who wish to enter into trade and commerce agreements so as to enhance the prospects of achieving their own goals in the pursuit of their own self-interests.
2. The Acceptance. Each international governing agency intends that its members are more likely to be successful in their pursuits as members than if they were to otherwise go on their own. This necessitates that nations join the governing group and abide by its rules and regulations even as other nations as members do so.
3. Areas of societal advancement. Following the WTO lead, other international governing agencies should elicit consensus among its member nations as to what rules and regulations are to govern its area of concern and should establish a mechanism for handling disputes among its members. This is a marked improvement over the usual policy a nation takes to overwhelm others who disagree with its foreign edicts by threatening to go to war or to engage in armed conflict with its disputants.
4. Provisions for breakdown of the uplift system. A nation on its own can always enter into bilateral agreements with another nation and can instigate policies which favor those nations that are favorable to it.
5. Utopian vision pursued. The vision here is a peaceful world in which disputes among nations are handled rationally and calmly, not calling for belligerence.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
SU: Re-distribution of Wealth
Preliminary Discussion: The Natural Flow of Economic Wealth to a Social Elite
The notion of economic wealth is to my mind a social construction and as such is subject to the vagaries of human fluctuation. Just as there is no precise one-to-one relationship between mathematical formulations, such as the square root of three, and physical dimensions, so there is no constant value of wealth to the actual worth of goods and services by which economic wealth is amassed by some social entity, e.g., a government. A recent book by Philip Coggan, discussed on CNN's program Fareed Zamarian with its author, takes up the various methods governments have used, since the Roman Empire up to the very moment in history in which we are living, to rid themselves of debt they have incurred and are owed to their creditors. These methods are ways available to debtor governments to adjust their accounting books, so as to make it possible for them to continue to exist, and thereby, to avoid political upheaval and radical social change.
Now, I believe, the same point can be made with respect to any specified social entity's economic wealth. It is natural, I contend, that a social entity's wealth will ultimately be concentrated and controlled by a few prominent individuals or group of individuals within it. These elite make up the powerful members of the society, its oligarchy, and are at the top of the pecking order of persons comprising it. In the Nineteenth Century America, for instance, the so-called robber barons including the Rockefeller clan, Ford, J. P. Morgan, were part of the ruling oligarchy comprising the United States leadership.
Democracy is important in the States in that the people, through the exercise of their vote, can voice their approval or disdain the direction forcefully provided by its ruling elite. Traditionally in the US, the voting electorate has been conservative--meaning they go along without complaint with the policies advocated and established for the country by its leaders (whether or not occupying governmental positions). So, how these leaders of the US decide the government get rid of its debt burden will be likely accepted by the citizenry. Conversely, voter feed-back through the ballot is a vital way for the leadership to know whether its policies meet with widespread approval.
As in the Roman days, leaders tend to seek peaceful popular complaince. The Roman government would "entertain" the people with sports and games and provide gratis food and drink. Today, the American leadership can boast of cheap goods from China and other Asian countries available in American markets and many inexpensive computer devices and entertainment diversions at low cost for Americans to play with. Put bluntly, US leadership is satisfying the appetites of the American citizenry and finding even more ways to make them happy! Meantime, the ruling elite are amassing vast sums of money and exercising enormous power. This state of affairs withstands the ever-present danger of the ruling elite's being toppled from its social high status.
Re-distribution of Wealth as a Project in Globalization
Where does the project of re-distributing wealth come into play in the dynamics of a social entity's amassing economic wealth for itself? You may recall that one major impetus toward globalization is to transform a country's citizenry into "citizens of the world." This homogenization of humanity wherein everybody becomes treated as equals is being achieved tangibly by raising the standards of living in emerging countries and by lowering the standards of living in advanced coutries.
In the late 1980's, when I first heard of this worldwide re-distribution of wealth project (as I understand it), I wondered whether the citizenry in the advanced countries would go along with it. Particularly, I did not think the ruling elite in these countries would accept it. Well, I did not know that these wealthy oligarchies would exclude themselves from participating in the downing of wealth that equalization of the citizenry, no matter what country they are from, would imply. We see now, today, that in the US, for instance, the wealthy are preempting themselves from the general trend toward a lower living standard. Indeed, there are many spokesmen for the rich who argue the wealthy are entitled to amass huge fortunes on the grounds they are making the middle class and the poor beneficiaries of transfer sums through governmetal action that has established a safety net and other programs for the poor and aged and disadvantaged to sustain them; and, for the middle class, has granted generous tax advantages to lessen the tax burden, such as the income earned tax credit allowance!
But, while it seems indisputable that wages of the middle class workers in the US have steadily lost ground so as no longer to keep pace with inflation, it also seems readily acknowledged, e.g., according to the IMF, that the standard of living in the underdeveloped countries has significantly risen, improving the lot of formerly impoverished populations. Look how China has blossomed, giving rise to a prosperous middle class.
The Goals of Business and Industry Not Necessarily Those of Society
Business is organized to make a profit. It makes use of technological innovations and automative processes to minimize its expenses and costs and thereby to maximize its return on investments. Its CEOs and others in a societal ruling elite are dedicated to achieving business aims. I think it obvious that their goals are not those of the society whose members they influence, even seek to control, through the mass media and their own representatives in government and industry.
The goals of society include: 1) freedom and liberty to pursue individual projects that don't harm or infringe upon the freedom and liberty of others to pursue their individual projects. (Here, the mandate for the individual to take out insurance protection is relevant, since were some individual refuse to participate in his own healthcare monetarily, he would be infringing on others who must be in line to bear his costs for medical treatment.); 2) full employment of its societal members; 3) protection of the societal individuals and to an extent deemed reasonable, to oversee their property preservation; 4) maintenance of the governmental infrastructure to assure the maintenance of roads and bridges and the free-flow of goods and services throughout its social system; and 5) the maintenance of programs which preserve and enhance social living within its bounds.
Let's look at social goal #2: full employment. By substituting machines and automation for worker effort, business and its leaders are certainly not committed to goal #2. It may be a social, common good, but it certainly can jeopardize business' goal to maximize profit. Indeed, one could argue that business is concomitantly aimed to displace as many workers as possible with cheaper methods of doing business.
Overall Evaluation of the Ruling Elite upon Achieving Social Goals
I have argued that the social ruling elite are not dedicated to the aims of society, as I have presented some of these. They may embrace, however, the goals of business, since from the Middle Ages they have engaged in banking and high finance that has brought them, as a social class, untold wealth and power in the many societies of power-starved individuals. Indeed, in the 17th Century, they used the Dutch to advantage in carrying forth their endeavors to claim wealth from around the world; and in the 19th Century they turned to the English navy for protectors of their world-wide fortunes. Now, it's the many, many US military bases around the world (some 741 installations) in some 170 foreign countries to bring peace and relative US corporate dominance in the world, making these financiers multi-billionaires! But, I believe they are not taking allegiance to any one country nor to any particular form of government. Theirs is to retain their high prestige and social influence among all peoples the world over. Hence, their compulsive drive toward globalization!
Nevertheless, in that they are striving toward equalities of all peoples and races and have brought about through the project of re-distribution of wealth a significant upturn in the standard of living of previously impoverished peoples, I think these ruling elite have contributed remarkably to social uplift.
Meta-Elements in Re-distributing Wealth
1. The promise. It is promised through globalization that by levelling the standard of living in the advanced countries and by raising the standard of living in the poorest of countries, equality of peoples will be accomplished.
2. The acceptance. In those countries where social compliance has been wrought, e.g., through outsourcing of jobs and wage lowering in the advanced countries and through a vast movement of peoples from the poorer countries to the advanced, whole societies have worked to cooperated to bring about equality of peoples.
3. Areas of social advancement. It seems evident that the social elite have successfully resisted participating in the re-distribution of its own wealth, yet nevertheless, by re-distributing wealth one society to that of another, a modicum of social integration has clearly emerged among all peoples.
4. Provisions for breakdown in the re-distribution project. It has been delegated to the several national governments to oversee the re-distribution efforts, in order that no one society dominate over any other.
5. Utopian vision. Globalization envisions no particular society or people shall establish its rules and regulations over any other, and all peoples shall be treated equally--with justice and fairness for all, quite independently of a social elite's background and societal preferences.
The notion of economic wealth is to my mind a social construction and as such is subject to the vagaries of human fluctuation. Just as there is no precise one-to-one relationship between mathematical formulations, such as the square root of three, and physical dimensions, so there is no constant value of wealth to the actual worth of goods and services by which economic wealth is amassed by some social entity, e.g., a government. A recent book by Philip Coggan, discussed on CNN's program Fareed Zamarian with its author, takes up the various methods governments have used, since the Roman Empire up to the very moment in history in which we are living, to rid themselves of debt they have incurred and are owed to their creditors. These methods are ways available to debtor governments to adjust their accounting books, so as to make it possible for them to continue to exist, and thereby, to avoid political upheaval and radical social change.
Now, I believe, the same point can be made with respect to any specified social entity's economic wealth. It is natural, I contend, that a social entity's wealth will ultimately be concentrated and controlled by a few prominent individuals or group of individuals within it. These elite make up the powerful members of the society, its oligarchy, and are at the top of the pecking order of persons comprising it. In the Nineteenth Century America, for instance, the so-called robber barons including the Rockefeller clan, Ford, J. P. Morgan, were part of the ruling oligarchy comprising the United States leadership.
Democracy is important in the States in that the people, through the exercise of their vote, can voice their approval or disdain the direction forcefully provided by its ruling elite. Traditionally in the US, the voting electorate has been conservative--meaning they go along without complaint with the policies advocated and established for the country by its leaders (whether or not occupying governmental positions). So, how these leaders of the US decide the government get rid of its debt burden will be likely accepted by the citizenry. Conversely, voter feed-back through the ballot is a vital way for the leadership to know whether its policies meet with widespread approval.
As in the Roman days, leaders tend to seek peaceful popular complaince. The Roman government would "entertain" the people with sports and games and provide gratis food and drink. Today, the American leadership can boast of cheap goods from China and other Asian countries available in American markets and many inexpensive computer devices and entertainment diversions at low cost for Americans to play with. Put bluntly, US leadership is satisfying the appetites of the American citizenry and finding even more ways to make them happy! Meantime, the ruling elite are amassing vast sums of money and exercising enormous power. This state of affairs withstands the ever-present danger of the ruling elite's being toppled from its social high status.
Re-distribution of Wealth as a Project in Globalization
Where does the project of re-distributing wealth come into play in the dynamics of a social entity's amassing economic wealth for itself? You may recall that one major impetus toward globalization is to transform a country's citizenry into "citizens of the world." This homogenization of humanity wherein everybody becomes treated as equals is being achieved tangibly by raising the standards of living in emerging countries and by lowering the standards of living in advanced coutries.
In the late 1980's, when I first heard of this worldwide re-distribution of wealth project (as I understand it), I wondered whether the citizenry in the advanced countries would go along with it. Particularly, I did not think the ruling elite in these countries would accept it. Well, I did not know that these wealthy oligarchies would exclude themselves from participating in the downing of wealth that equalization of the citizenry, no matter what country they are from, would imply. We see now, today, that in the US, for instance, the wealthy are preempting themselves from the general trend toward a lower living standard. Indeed, there are many spokesmen for the rich who argue the wealthy are entitled to amass huge fortunes on the grounds they are making the middle class and the poor beneficiaries of transfer sums through governmetal action that has established a safety net and other programs for the poor and aged and disadvantaged to sustain them; and, for the middle class, has granted generous tax advantages to lessen the tax burden, such as the income earned tax credit allowance!
But, while it seems indisputable that wages of the middle class workers in the US have steadily lost ground so as no longer to keep pace with inflation, it also seems readily acknowledged, e.g., according to the IMF, that the standard of living in the underdeveloped countries has significantly risen, improving the lot of formerly impoverished populations. Look how China has blossomed, giving rise to a prosperous middle class.
The Goals of Business and Industry Not Necessarily Those of Society
Business is organized to make a profit. It makes use of technological innovations and automative processes to minimize its expenses and costs and thereby to maximize its return on investments. Its CEOs and others in a societal ruling elite are dedicated to achieving business aims. I think it obvious that their goals are not those of the society whose members they influence, even seek to control, through the mass media and their own representatives in government and industry.
The goals of society include: 1) freedom and liberty to pursue individual projects that don't harm or infringe upon the freedom and liberty of others to pursue their individual projects. (Here, the mandate for the individual to take out insurance protection is relevant, since were some individual refuse to participate in his own healthcare monetarily, he would be infringing on others who must be in line to bear his costs for medical treatment.); 2) full employment of its societal members; 3) protection of the societal individuals and to an extent deemed reasonable, to oversee their property preservation; 4) maintenance of the governmental infrastructure to assure the maintenance of roads and bridges and the free-flow of goods and services throughout its social system; and 5) the maintenance of programs which preserve and enhance social living within its bounds.
Let's look at social goal #2: full employment. By substituting machines and automation for worker effort, business and its leaders are certainly not committed to goal #2. It may be a social, common good, but it certainly can jeopardize business' goal to maximize profit. Indeed, one could argue that business is concomitantly aimed to displace as many workers as possible with cheaper methods of doing business.
Overall Evaluation of the Ruling Elite upon Achieving Social Goals
I have argued that the social ruling elite are not dedicated to the aims of society, as I have presented some of these. They may embrace, however, the goals of business, since from the Middle Ages they have engaged in banking and high finance that has brought them, as a social class, untold wealth and power in the many societies of power-starved individuals. Indeed, in the 17th Century, they used the Dutch to advantage in carrying forth their endeavors to claim wealth from around the world; and in the 19th Century they turned to the English navy for protectors of their world-wide fortunes. Now, it's the many, many US military bases around the world (some 741 installations) in some 170 foreign countries to bring peace and relative US corporate dominance in the world, making these financiers multi-billionaires! But, I believe they are not taking allegiance to any one country nor to any particular form of government. Theirs is to retain their high prestige and social influence among all peoples the world over. Hence, their compulsive drive toward globalization!
Nevertheless, in that they are striving toward equalities of all peoples and races and have brought about through the project of re-distribution of wealth a significant upturn in the standard of living of previously impoverished peoples, I think these ruling elite have contributed remarkably to social uplift.
Meta-Elements in Re-distributing Wealth
1. The promise. It is promised through globalization that by levelling the standard of living in the advanced countries and by raising the standard of living in the poorest of countries, equality of peoples will be accomplished.
2. The acceptance. In those countries where social compliance has been wrought, e.g., through outsourcing of jobs and wage lowering in the advanced countries and through a vast movement of peoples from the poorer countries to the advanced, whole societies have worked to cooperated to bring about equality of peoples.
3. Areas of social advancement. It seems evident that the social elite have successfully resisted participating in the re-distribution of its own wealth, yet nevertheless, by re-distributing wealth one society to that of another, a modicum of social integration has clearly emerged among all peoples.
4. Provisions for breakdown in the re-distribution project. It has been delegated to the several national governments to oversee the re-distribution efforts, in order that no one society dominate over any other.
5. Utopian vision. Globalization envisions no particular society or people shall establish its rules and regulations over any other, and all peoples shall be treated equally--with justice and fairness for all, quite independently of a social elite's background and societal preferences.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
SU: The Emergence of the Welfare State in the US
There has been a profound shift in the way we think about government. The Conservative view under which our country was founded thought government as an intervening, meddlesome institution, to be tolerated but not encouraged! This idea stems from the experience the founding fathers had with the English system of government as represented by the King of England.
But ever since the New Deal of F.D. Roosevelt, a concept has evolved that government can be a help to the individual, the community and business. It is that concept which Conservatives reject at least in some respects. I refer to this relatively new concept as "the welfare state." The force of the concept lies in its use of science applied to governmental interaction through the deployment of technocrats. Importantly, nearly all advanced governments make use of these individuals in key administrative positions.
How is the individual helped?
Under the welfare program:
The individual receiving welfare stipend: This person is placed in a "holding tank," so to speak. He has no assets, very little money. The county government usually will grant him a meager amount of money so as to live. I lived on the welfare stipend for many, many years. In some counties in the US, there is an additional allotment for a place to stay.
Typically, the program involves the recipient to perform weekly chores on behalf of the county, such as erasing graffiti off the walls, picking up trash, working at a county hospital, e.g., throwing wet sheets just taken from the dryer--an arduous task, and so forth. It is thought that under this status an individual or family can live in a safe environment.
Food stamps from the federal government are available, generally. Under welfare, the beneficiary will receive up to $200 of food stamps a month. He is entitled to health services as needed, recognizing he is unable to pay back.
Since the Clinton reforms of welfare, a recepient must look for work on his own and be enrolled in a training program or attend weekly work-centered seminars. Should a recepient find a job, there are incentives to motivate the individual to keep it: for instance, not shutting off all welfare money at once.
As you can see, the welfare program is meant to provide the safety net to keep an individual socially functional. Where it falls far short is in securing business and industry support for re-integrating the individual back into an employment setting. Clearly, there is no means for such integration as might be achieved through an internship program (that pays or does not pay the welfare recepient) or part-time placement on-the-job, in any job! If there were a mentor from industry to work with each and every welfare recepient capable of working, we might witness a change of attitude toward the person on welfare, one of industry's wanting to help, just as government is helping to keep the welfare individual functional. Too often, a person on welfare is regarded as a pariah in the eyes of most community members.
In fact with regard to my case, I wondered whether industry even wanted me to apply for any job, since the initial interview with their representative was obviously just a formality to offer the job openly. Without a mentor system, industry demonstrates a lack of interest in trying to get the individual re-integrated into the mainstream. Industry simply enables the recepient to shut the door on his way out of each and every place of business he applies for work.
Be it noted that not all counties provide cash stipends or funds for housing. I was told on some TV program that one county in California had nearly nobody on its welfare rolls. The TV presentation of this county's welfare program emphasized the training provided. Of course, there was no commitment by industry that should a recepient successfully complete the program there would be some advantage he would attain in securing an appropriate job in industry. That never, ever is hinted at. Well, I went for a time to this county to live in the hopes that I would secure employment, since the numbers on welfare were heralded as very low. What I discovered upon living there was that the county offered just food stamps--no cash stipend and no proviso for living accommodations. I quickly learned why the relief roles were so low: the county discouraged providing any help to sustain human life for anyone who might otherwise qualify for additional welfare aid. Persons who might qualify for such were being forced out of the county, as was I!
I uunderstand that some counties will provide cash stipends on the promise from the recepient to pay back the amount received en toto! If true, that would be a horrendous burden to place on one who has so little--even acknowledging the cash stipends received.
There is an organization (just one?) that attempts to place the individual on welfare in an intern position with some company, in the hopes that he may work into a permanent job: called something like "Platform to Employment." Certainly, the intern program has been well-developed in the vocational skills area in high schools and community colleges across the country. It should be applied to welfare programs.
Be it also acknowledged that probably half the persons receiving welfare are emotionallly disburbed, such that they are mentally incapable of holding down a job.
Under the unemployment insurance program:
This program offers cash, usually twice or once a month, taking into consideration the former employee's salary of his most recent job. It is a program reserved for those who have been out of work a short time, certainly no more than a year to three years. If he finds no work during the time allotted by government to look for something, he usually is forced into a county welfare program, requiring his divesting most of his assets.
The former employee on unemployment insurance must look for a job on his own. A state unemployment insurance department will attempt to aid in his effort by maintaining lists of available positions in his area; and the newspapers, local and cross country, are available to him to peruse at a public library.
If he has run out of contacts in his field of work, he will most assuredly lose an important resource and may become disoriented over time. Does he still remember how to do welding as well as he once did while employed? By the end of the second year on unemployment, he is bound to be rusty and perhaps out-of-touch with technological and skill upgrades in his field.
Re-training is necessary option and should be part of the unemployment package of benefits. If the particular field of endeavor the former employee was in no longer shows promise for future employment, the person receiving unemployment benefits should meet with a counselor or case worker who should be able to map out an educational program to lead the individual to change careers. To my knowledge, this is not being done widely.
Of course, if the former employee is older than 50, he may find age discrimination will hamper his chances of seeking another job. That's the facts of life.
Some adjunct programs available to the indigent and the working poor
child care: child care services, nearly universally available to those women with children on welfare.
senor companion: for seniors whether living at home or in assisted living housing or in a nursing home, someone is designated a companion to help the senior perform daily routines
migrant and seasonal farm worker program: to help with placement and securing necessary social services
community services: for Indians, for example
legal services for civil matters: available to low-income persons
emergency shelter program: to house the homeless
family planning agencies: such as Family Planning
supportive services for the aging: provides services and financial support to state agencies for the aging
at-risk child care programs: for families on AFDC
Pell grants: enabling students to continue their education, particularly in college and graduate school. Most of these grants are in the form of student loans, payable once they graduate or discontinue attending higher education institutions. The loan grants may prove a burden to young adults just starting out in a career, since their financial resources may be meager for some time.
Under these two principal programs--The Conclusion
The welfare state must be a cooperative effort by government and educational institutions and industry, so as to establish the beneficiary of one of these two safety-net programs into business and the greater society. That is to say, government, education, or business--all three societal groups--must offer a helping hand if the welfare beneficiary is to present himself fit for a new job and for assuming a respected role in society.
In changing careers:
Also a part of the welfare state is a program that fosters an individual's intention to change his career. Here too, the individual must seek the help from government, education, and industry--all three bodies. Typically, an employed individual undergoes a "mid-life crisis" around 35-45 years of age. It commences when an individual asks the question regarding the meaning of life itself (which has become embodied in a popular song) : "Is that all there is?" He finds within himself a longing for living life to the fullest, including his search for an occupation that would enable him to express his inner potentials, heretofore lying dormant, through productive enterprises. He wants to truly be as happy and content with his life as he can live it. The search for his "true" identity, implying self-fulfillment, oftimes is tangibly located in his avowal to change careers.
I went through a change in career very much as described in the above paragraph at age of 41. At that time, I read up on the subject in books written by psychologists, and I consulted the works of famous persons whose life-style I wanted to emulate--particularly, the medieval humanists. I relied upon what interests I had at the time--philosophy, politics, and the study of socities and people, these interests that were demonstrated by my taking graduate courses in them and as teacher, joining community and educational groups where I could develop them further. At any rate, I took additional courses in business and accounting and computer languages, so that I could change from the teaching career, viz., professor in philosophy to the business career of programmer, while retaining the same interests I pursued since college!
So, in some sense, namely, with respect to my interests, I was the very same person I had been since my college days, but now I was to pursue these interests in a business environment as computer programmer. What fun! When I made the switch, there was a sharp decline in my finances, but this was short-lived, because I was to be making more money in business than I had made in education per annum.
How did government, educational institutions and business help me do the switch? I found the governmental rules deployed in industry were vital to my situation: particularly, that businesses should not age-discriminate; and that they should encourage self-development of the employee whenever he sought to take additional training and education, e.g., taking university courses at night school, whether or not such training had immediate application to the workplace! I discovered in the universities and community college where I did indeed take courses to prepare me for the business environment, that computer and accounting advisors were of tremendous help as were the instructors I had in programming. Finally, many particular companies I talked with about the computer field and those I applied to for a job, were most helpful with their suggestions and practical assistance to make it possible for me to change careers.
But must stand out is the passion--the passion I displayed to those I contacted that I really, really wanted to change my career! They could see it in the steps I was taking and in the dedicated enthusiasm I had for the project.
Who are good candidates for career change?
A change in careers is probably not going to be sucessful in the lives of many who attempt it. I've given the topic of who can benefit from undertaking the project some thought over some 30 years since I made the change.
I've come to the opinion that older executives who don't see much further advancement in their particular profession, e.g., are unlikely to be promoted in the company or educational institution, for whom they have been with for many years; and soon-to-be retired law enforcement individuals and military personnel come readily to mind. In my case, it was the enlightening moment when the chairman of the faculty senate at the college I taught one day commented that we were likely to be seeing the same faculty members for the next twenty years--a thought I was not willing to accept as my fate! I expected more out of life than that!
In a way, it was that Buddhistic moment of Truth that propelled me to embark on The Way Up and Out!
Meta-Elements of the Welfare State & Evaluation of these three welfare state programs
The Welfare State, far from being burdensome to the individual who seeks to benefit from it, offers avenues for the individual to sustain himself as he seeks to re-integrate himself--his talents and abilities--into the greater society, providing that all three societal groups participate.
Nevertheless, these three major programs (and their adjuncts) must be evaluated in light of the purposes of the welfare state. It will be recalled that the preliminary of this item alluded to Republican opposition to governmental participation, viewed as an interference, in the structuring of society, specifically, in offering to those beneficiaries of welfare, stipends, referred by them oftimes as "doles," in an effort to sustain life and modest social well-being. I believe, indeed, that Conservative Republicans scorn governmental efforts to lend a helping hand to the poor in need, unless the poor mend their ways.
For instance, Republican Conservatives point out that most poor don't keep to the family structure of a mother and a father and their offspring. The poor woman, more frequently than not, has her child out of wedlock and raises her child thusly. There are other social values of the typical American not shared nor adhered to by the poor. The poor drink alcohol, which is frowned upon by the Christian right, who don't want governmental money going to support that habit. Some poor are not religious, to be sure. On and on, the values and activities of the poor are an anathema to Conservatives. Accordingly, Conservatives don't want to help the poor who remain intransigent in a value system they don't share!
One can then see why business, a group typically conservative in society, refuses to help the poor through face-to-face relationships. Concretely, business won't permit the poor as interns in its companies or won't designate business personnel to become their mentors, i.e., who would sponsor the inclusion of the poor into its realm of activities and affairs. The poor, in sum, are personna non grata in business environments, generally.
Without business' helping hand, the poor on welfare are to remain in a "holding tank" social status, no matter what governmental help is provided, no matter how much educational courses the poor were to take.
The Meta-elements specifically
1. The promise. Society, in the US through its welfare state organizing, has indeed offered a safety net to those in need that permits them to live and obtain health care and a modest living standard. Whether it be the welfare program per se or the unemployment program or the career change program, there's a program for the sustenance of human life for the poor and needy. For career change, since many are middle-class, the program has little social stigma associated with it.
2. The acceptance. Many of the poor have availed themselves of the welfare program, many formerly working poor have accepted unemployment while fewer of these have attempted to career change, that program being pursued largely by middle class persons with some money of their own.
It is important to realize the terms of acceptance by the poor in either welfare or unemployment. The recipient of welfare benefit or unemployment insurance is to be looking for a job on his own. A person on welfare must do community service and attend relevant job-seeking seminars, such seminars may also be required of persons on unemployment. His contact with business is self-initiated, there being little support available to him from the business community, as pointed out in the above discussion.
3. Areas of societal advancement. Since those on welfare, unemployment, even occasionally, doing career change, are bystanders to societal mainstream activities in their welfare state status, they are not obstructing efforts toward societal gain. There are occasional demonstrations but these are localized, usually, and short-lived.
Still, because their existence interwoven into the societal fabric--they buy food, use food stamps, go on buses and trains, etc.--necessitates that others in the society recognize their being "amongst them," they become a social "eye-sore." That is to say, members of the greater society resent those poor and middle-class in a limbo status.
4. Provisions for breakdown of this uplift system, i.e., the emerging welfare state. Conservatives have now lumped the needing poor on welfare, the unemployed and some of those in career change with those unemployed who no longer are doing job searching, whether the latter be stay-at-home moms, those returning to school or doing volunteer work. Thus, the population size of those in bystander status has grown markedly and noticeably. It has led to many Conservative Republican Congressmen calling for immediate "reforms," i.e., cut-backs in the budgets of programs that sustain a welfare state.
5. Utopian vision pursued. No longer is there agreement in the US as to a utopian vision. Indeed, Mark Levine has written a recent book seemingly declaring any utopian vision null and void within the US politic. He wants, apparently, no social goals--forget a greening America, pollute all you want American user of fossil fuels; pay no attention to the aspirations of other countries in the world, don't try to see their point of view and to get along with them, e.g., bomb Iran into submission to the US will and command, if necessary!
Evidently, these right-wing Conservatives have gone back to the vision of America as aspired to by the early colonists on American shores. Commitment to values that sustain human life on the earth be damned, certainly not pursued. Progress towards a united world, apparently, should be halted. They are desireous of forests in a condition unfit for habitation--to the US as it once was when there were 13 colonies.
But ever since the New Deal of F.D. Roosevelt, a concept has evolved that government can be a help to the individual, the community and business. It is that concept which Conservatives reject at least in some respects. I refer to this relatively new concept as "the welfare state." The force of the concept lies in its use of science applied to governmental interaction through the deployment of technocrats. Importantly, nearly all advanced governments make use of these individuals in key administrative positions.
How is the individual helped?
Under the welfare program:
The individual receiving welfare stipend: This person is placed in a "holding tank," so to speak. He has no assets, very little money. The county government usually will grant him a meager amount of money so as to live. I lived on the welfare stipend for many, many years. In some counties in the US, there is an additional allotment for a place to stay.
Typically, the program involves the recipient to perform weekly chores on behalf of the county, such as erasing graffiti off the walls, picking up trash, working at a county hospital, e.g., throwing wet sheets just taken from the dryer--an arduous task, and so forth. It is thought that under this status an individual or family can live in a safe environment.
Food stamps from the federal government are available, generally. Under welfare, the beneficiary will receive up to $200 of food stamps a month. He is entitled to health services as needed, recognizing he is unable to pay back.
Since the Clinton reforms of welfare, a recepient must look for work on his own and be enrolled in a training program or attend weekly work-centered seminars. Should a recepient find a job, there are incentives to motivate the individual to keep it: for instance, not shutting off all welfare money at once.
As you can see, the welfare program is meant to provide the safety net to keep an individual socially functional. Where it falls far short is in securing business and industry support for re-integrating the individual back into an employment setting. Clearly, there is no means for such integration as might be achieved through an internship program (that pays or does not pay the welfare recepient) or part-time placement on-the-job, in any job! If there were a mentor from industry to work with each and every welfare recepient capable of working, we might witness a change of attitude toward the person on welfare, one of industry's wanting to help, just as government is helping to keep the welfare individual functional. Too often, a person on welfare is regarded as a pariah in the eyes of most community members.
In fact with regard to my case, I wondered whether industry even wanted me to apply for any job, since the initial interview with their representative was obviously just a formality to offer the job openly. Without a mentor system, industry demonstrates a lack of interest in trying to get the individual re-integrated into the mainstream. Industry simply enables the recepient to shut the door on his way out of each and every place of business he applies for work.
Be it noted that not all counties provide cash stipends or funds for housing. I was told on some TV program that one county in California had nearly nobody on its welfare rolls. The TV presentation of this county's welfare program emphasized the training provided. Of course, there was no commitment by industry that should a recepient successfully complete the program there would be some advantage he would attain in securing an appropriate job in industry. That never, ever is hinted at. Well, I went for a time to this county to live in the hopes that I would secure employment, since the numbers on welfare were heralded as very low. What I discovered upon living there was that the county offered just food stamps--no cash stipend and no proviso for living accommodations. I quickly learned why the relief roles were so low: the county discouraged providing any help to sustain human life for anyone who might otherwise qualify for additional welfare aid. Persons who might qualify for such were being forced out of the county, as was I!
I uunderstand that some counties will provide cash stipends on the promise from the recepient to pay back the amount received en toto! If true, that would be a horrendous burden to place on one who has so little--even acknowledging the cash stipends received.
There is an organization (just one?) that attempts to place the individual on welfare in an intern position with some company, in the hopes that he may work into a permanent job: called something like "Platform to Employment." Certainly, the intern program has been well-developed in the vocational skills area in high schools and community colleges across the country. It should be applied to welfare programs.
Be it also acknowledged that probably half the persons receiving welfare are emotionallly disburbed, such that they are mentally incapable of holding down a job.
Under the unemployment insurance program:
This program offers cash, usually twice or once a month, taking into consideration the former employee's salary of his most recent job. It is a program reserved for those who have been out of work a short time, certainly no more than a year to three years. If he finds no work during the time allotted by government to look for something, he usually is forced into a county welfare program, requiring his divesting most of his assets.
The former employee on unemployment insurance must look for a job on his own. A state unemployment insurance department will attempt to aid in his effort by maintaining lists of available positions in his area; and the newspapers, local and cross country, are available to him to peruse at a public library.
If he has run out of contacts in his field of work, he will most assuredly lose an important resource and may become disoriented over time. Does he still remember how to do welding as well as he once did while employed? By the end of the second year on unemployment, he is bound to be rusty and perhaps out-of-touch with technological and skill upgrades in his field.
Re-training is necessary option and should be part of the unemployment package of benefits. If the particular field of endeavor the former employee was in no longer shows promise for future employment, the person receiving unemployment benefits should meet with a counselor or case worker who should be able to map out an educational program to lead the individual to change careers. To my knowledge, this is not being done widely.
Of course, if the former employee is older than 50, he may find age discrimination will hamper his chances of seeking another job. That's the facts of life.
Some adjunct programs available to the indigent and the working poor
child care: child care services, nearly universally available to those women with children on welfare.
senor companion: for seniors whether living at home or in assisted living housing or in a nursing home, someone is designated a companion to help the senior perform daily routines
migrant and seasonal farm worker program: to help with placement and securing necessary social services
community services: for Indians, for example
legal services for civil matters: available to low-income persons
emergency shelter program: to house the homeless
family planning agencies: such as Family Planning
supportive services for the aging: provides services and financial support to state agencies for the aging
at-risk child care programs: for families on AFDC
Pell grants: enabling students to continue their education, particularly in college and graduate school. Most of these grants are in the form of student loans, payable once they graduate or discontinue attending higher education institutions. The loan grants may prove a burden to young adults just starting out in a career, since their financial resources may be meager for some time.
Under these two principal programs--The Conclusion
The welfare state must be a cooperative effort by government and educational institutions and industry, so as to establish the beneficiary of one of these two safety-net programs into business and the greater society. That is to say, government, education, or business--all three societal groups--must offer a helping hand if the welfare beneficiary is to present himself fit for a new job and for assuming a respected role in society.
In changing careers:
Also a part of the welfare state is a program that fosters an individual's intention to change his career. Here too, the individual must seek the help from government, education, and industry--all three bodies. Typically, an employed individual undergoes a "mid-life crisis" around 35-45 years of age. It commences when an individual asks the question regarding the meaning of life itself (which has become embodied in a popular song) : "Is that all there is?" He finds within himself a longing for living life to the fullest, including his search for an occupation that would enable him to express his inner potentials, heretofore lying dormant, through productive enterprises. He wants to truly be as happy and content with his life as he can live it. The search for his "true" identity, implying self-fulfillment, oftimes is tangibly located in his avowal to change careers.
I went through a change in career very much as described in the above paragraph at age of 41. At that time, I read up on the subject in books written by psychologists, and I consulted the works of famous persons whose life-style I wanted to emulate--particularly, the medieval humanists. I relied upon what interests I had at the time--philosophy, politics, and the study of socities and people, these interests that were demonstrated by my taking graduate courses in them and as teacher, joining community and educational groups where I could develop them further. At any rate, I took additional courses in business and accounting and computer languages, so that I could change from the teaching career, viz., professor in philosophy to the business career of programmer, while retaining the same interests I pursued since college!
So, in some sense, namely, with respect to my interests, I was the very same person I had been since my college days, but now I was to pursue these interests in a business environment as computer programmer. What fun! When I made the switch, there was a sharp decline in my finances, but this was short-lived, because I was to be making more money in business than I had made in education per annum.
How did government, educational institutions and business help me do the switch? I found the governmental rules deployed in industry were vital to my situation: particularly, that businesses should not age-discriminate; and that they should encourage self-development of the employee whenever he sought to take additional training and education, e.g., taking university courses at night school, whether or not such training had immediate application to the workplace! I discovered in the universities and community college where I did indeed take courses to prepare me for the business environment, that computer and accounting advisors were of tremendous help as were the instructors I had in programming. Finally, many particular companies I talked with about the computer field and those I applied to for a job, were most helpful with their suggestions and practical assistance to make it possible for me to change careers.
But must stand out is the passion--the passion I displayed to those I contacted that I really, really wanted to change my career! They could see it in the steps I was taking and in the dedicated enthusiasm I had for the project.
Who are good candidates for career change?
A change in careers is probably not going to be sucessful in the lives of many who attempt it. I've given the topic of who can benefit from undertaking the project some thought over some 30 years since I made the change.
I've come to the opinion that older executives who don't see much further advancement in their particular profession, e.g., are unlikely to be promoted in the company or educational institution, for whom they have been with for many years; and soon-to-be retired law enforcement individuals and military personnel come readily to mind. In my case, it was the enlightening moment when the chairman of the faculty senate at the college I taught one day commented that we were likely to be seeing the same faculty members for the next twenty years--a thought I was not willing to accept as my fate! I expected more out of life than that!
In a way, it was that Buddhistic moment of Truth that propelled me to embark on The Way Up and Out!
Meta-Elements of the Welfare State & Evaluation of these three welfare state programs
The Welfare State, far from being burdensome to the individual who seeks to benefit from it, offers avenues for the individual to sustain himself as he seeks to re-integrate himself--his talents and abilities--into the greater society, providing that all three societal groups participate.
Nevertheless, these three major programs (and their adjuncts) must be evaluated in light of the purposes of the welfare state. It will be recalled that the preliminary of this item alluded to Republican opposition to governmental participation, viewed as an interference, in the structuring of society, specifically, in offering to those beneficiaries of welfare, stipends, referred by them oftimes as "doles," in an effort to sustain life and modest social well-being. I believe, indeed, that Conservative Republicans scorn governmental efforts to lend a helping hand to the poor in need, unless the poor mend their ways.
For instance, Republican Conservatives point out that most poor don't keep to the family structure of a mother and a father and their offspring. The poor woman, more frequently than not, has her child out of wedlock and raises her child thusly. There are other social values of the typical American not shared nor adhered to by the poor. The poor drink alcohol, which is frowned upon by the Christian right, who don't want governmental money going to support that habit. Some poor are not religious, to be sure. On and on, the values and activities of the poor are an anathema to Conservatives. Accordingly, Conservatives don't want to help the poor who remain intransigent in a value system they don't share!
One can then see why business, a group typically conservative in society, refuses to help the poor through face-to-face relationships. Concretely, business won't permit the poor as interns in its companies or won't designate business personnel to become their mentors, i.e., who would sponsor the inclusion of the poor into its realm of activities and affairs. The poor, in sum, are personna non grata in business environments, generally.
Without business' helping hand, the poor on welfare are to remain in a "holding tank" social status, no matter what governmental help is provided, no matter how much educational courses the poor were to take.
The Meta-elements specifically
1. The promise. Society, in the US through its welfare state organizing, has indeed offered a safety net to those in need that permits them to live and obtain health care and a modest living standard. Whether it be the welfare program per se or the unemployment program or the career change program, there's a program for the sustenance of human life for the poor and needy. For career change, since many are middle-class, the program has little social stigma associated with it.
2. The acceptance. Many of the poor have availed themselves of the welfare program, many formerly working poor have accepted unemployment while fewer of these have attempted to career change, that program being pursued largely by middle class persons with some money of their own.
It is important to realize the terms of acceptance by the poor in either welfare or unemployment. The recipient of welfare benefit or unemployment insurance is to be looking for a job on his own. A person on welfare must do community service and attend relevant job-seeking seminars, such seminars may also be required of persons on unemployment. His contact with business is self-initiated, there being little support available to him from the business community, as pointed out in the above discussion.
3. Areas of societal advancement. Since those on welfare, unemployment, even occasionally, doing career change, are bystanders to societal mainstream activities in their welfare state status, they are not obstructing efforts toward societal gain. There are occasional demonstrations but these are localized, usually, and short-lived.
Still, because their existence interwoven into the societal fabric--they buy food, use food stamps, go on buses and trains, etc.--necessitates that others in the society recognize their being "amongst them," they become a social "eye-sore." That is to say, members of the greater society resent those poor and middle-class in a limbo status.
4. Provisions for breakdown of this uplift system, i.e., the emerging welfare state. Conservatives have now lumped the needing poor on welfare, the unemployed and some of those in career change with those unemployed who no longer are doing job searching, whether the latter be stay-at-home moms, those returning to school or doing volunteer work. Thus, the population size of those in bystander status has grown markedly and noticeably. It has led to many Conservative Republican Congressmen calling for immediate "reforms," i.e., cut-backs in the budgets of programs that sustain a welfare state.
5. Utopian vision pursued. No longer is there agreement in the US as to a utopian vision. Indeed, Mark Levine has written a recent book seemingly declaring any utopian vision null and void within the US politic. He wants, apparently, no social goals--forget a greening America, pollute all you want American user of fossil fuels; pay no attention to the aspirations of other countries in the world, don't try to see their point of view and to get along with them, e.g., bomb Iran into submission to the US will and command, if necessary!
Evidently, these right-wing Conservatives have gone back to the vision of America as aspired to by the early colonists on American shores. Commitment to values that sustain human life on the earth be damned, certainly not pursued. Progress towards a united world, apparently, should be halted. They are desireous of forests in a condition unfit for habitation--to the US as it once was when there were 13 colonies.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)