And that is not because I deny or do not know how important they have been in making this country great.
Anyone who studies US History and thinks we would have been better off without unions has chosen ideology over evidence (a choice far too many make - and a trend this blog tries to reverse).
The rise of unions in the United States led to the creation of safe working conditions and livable wages for millions of Americans who were previously (and who otherwise would have continued) living in poverty while working under oppressive and dangerous conditions. Our unions are one of the primary reasons the United States had such a large and strong middle class throughout the latter half of the 20th century.
But the world changed, and, for a variety of reasons, our unions did not adapt. They became too big, too corrupt and too susceptible to the claim that they impeded the freedom and competitiveness of both employers and employees. They lost a massive PR war, and that isn't because they didn't spend enough or put enough effort into it. It is because their message did not resonate with the public - while the message of Republican union busters did.
And here I must make a relevant side note:
------------------------------------------
Last week Teal and I were attempting to watch television (something we suck at) and settled on "The Last Samurai" - the epic 2003 Tom Cruise flick. In that movie, Ken Watanabe plays a rebel daimyo who is fighting to preserve the decaying Bushido culture from the Japanese bureaucrats who want to westernize the country. He fails, but even though you know he is going to fail, you are suppose to root for him and believe that his cause is noble and that he "should" have won.
I was vocally critical of this sentiment (to Teal's annoyance - part of the reason we struggle to watch TV together). One conclusion I have come to - part of my pragmatism - is that the world doesn't make mistakes. Whenever a battle is fought and one side wins, they win because they are suppose to win - because that is the only way the world can go forward. That is not to say that the winners are "better" than their opponents from an ethical standpoint. Often they are not. But even if a cruel and ruthless group comes and conquers a kind and gentle group - that conquest is necessary. It is necessary because those kind and gentle people, despite their goodness, were not able to generate enough power to protect their way of life from those who would take it from them.
In this world, it is not enough to merely be "good". You must be able to defend yourself and to adapt to changing circumstances.
----------------------
And so as I witness the Wisconsin congressmen returning to their capitol to participate in a vote that will almost certainly not go their way - I am reminded of Ken Watanabe in "The Last Samurai" and his army as they rode, wielding their katanas, into the face of machine gun fire and got mowed down.
There will always be a place for unions in this country, but after the events of the next several months their significance will be greatly reduced - and they will never return to their time of glory.
The question becomes, what, if anything, can replace the role of unions as a force protecting the rights of workers and strengthening the middle class?
Over the past few decades, unions weren't doing a very good job. Today, unemployment is high, tens of millions of citizens are without health insurance, home ownership is declining, wealth is polarizing and much of what was once the middle class is starting to realize they are now the lower class.
I have posted similar graphics before - but let me attempt to explain what this means:
Let's say you are a middle aged, middle class person with a house, two cars and a few kids. You and your spouse combine to make somewhere between $100,000 and $200,000 per year. You have student loans, a mortgage, maybe a car payment, term life insurance, a couple of 529 plans for your kids, and a couple of underfunded IRA's or 401(k)'s. You feel like you are doing well - and you may be. But even if you are able to pay off all your debt and catch up your IRA's to generate enough for your retirement, you will very likely have little, if anything, to leave your children when you shuffle off. And maybe that is OK, but here's the problem:
If the current rate of wealth polarization continues, how are your kids going to avoid falling into the lower class?
The middle class is currently about 20% of the country. If the current polarization continues, in 30 years it will be nonexistent. There will just be the top 1% - the elite - and then a very large underclass. If your children are to avoid being in the underclass, they will have to make the leap into the elite - which means they will have to out-compete everyone who is trying to do the same thing. What are their chances of succeeding? I know you all think your kids are the smartest, most beautiful children in the world. But are they really smarter, more ambitious, more confident and popular than 99% of their peers? If not, they may be in trouble.
A couple of posts ago I explained how a new era of automation may soon lead to the evaporation of greater and greater numbers of jobs. In 30 years, how many jobs will be left that will allow someone to make today's equivalent of $50,000 to $100,000 a year? Not a lot.
The only solution to this crisis that I can see is to start reversing the trend of wealth polarization. And the best way I can think of to do that is for greater numbers of people in this country to share ownership in the companies that reap profits from automated production.
The demise of the unions is due to their failure to see workers as anything but workers. They spent too much energy fighting for higher pay, more benefits, more security and more vacations, and not enough energy fighting for employee ownership of the companies for which they worked.
The salvation of this country, if there is a salvation, lies in the increased distribution of ownership in the companies that produce our wealth. Instead of coming together to fight for benefits, vacations and higher pay - i.e. handouts - people should be coming together to fight for shared ownership.
And, as I alluded to a couple of posts ago, one way we might do this is through the formation of tight-knit communities that pool resources to invest in companies.
No comments:
Post a Comment