John Henry and The Common Good

Well John Henry said to the captain

"By  god I ain't no fool

Before I die with a hammer in my hand

I'm gonna get me a steam drill, too, lord, lord

Get me a steam drill, too"

- parody by the great Smothers Brothers

They had the right idea.  Instead of millions of workers being put out of work by robots, workers should have ownership of the robots that replace them, which they then lease to the companies that they once worked for, giving them a wage, a stake in the success of the company, and the opportunity to do other work as well. 

This would be not too dissimilar to the annual dividends that all Alaskans get from the energy companies, although there will need to be an alternative as we move away from fossil fuels. 

This would all fall under the broad umbrella of taking care of the common good, a concept that we've too often replaced with individualism.  Entrepreneurial spirit is fine.  I had it when I ran a small business.  But I believe we've all seen what happens when "free enterprise" replaces respect for the commons: vulture capitalism, disregard for the environment, disrespect for civil rights.

In this vein, I hear from my libertarian-leaning friends that it isn't fair to the entrepreneurs to limit their opportunities, that they deserve the profits because they take the risks.  In the same manner, I hear that progressive taxation (higher tax rates as incomes climb) also isn't fair.  It would be better if everyone paid the same percentage.  I have two replies.  First, not much is fair, especially if you try and take a pure look at it.  We are always balancing personal good versus public good.  Using the same percentage works fairly well for average incomes, but not at all for the extremes. 

A person making minimum wage has no disposable income (income after paying for necessities, such as rent or mortgage, food, transportation, health care, child care, etc.).  Low wage earners have little or none.  Whereas, a wealthy person might have close to 100% disposable income.  Perhaps an equal percentage tax on disposable income would be more fair.  Then there is the inherent unfairness of where and to whom you are born.

But, second, fairness isn't the only good measure.  Sometimes, we would be wise to take into account the common good.  In an earlier blog, I laid out a representation of what massive accumulation of wealth might look like.  In my summary I pointed out that the top ten billionaires at that time had $610.5 billion.  I posed the question: Is it better for the economy to have 10 multi-billionaires or 610,500 millionaires?  It might be fair by today's standards, but is it good for society?  I think there are many answers and nuances, but we should at least be asking the questions.

P.S. I highly recommend The Common Good by Robert Reich

- PeteBarkett.blogspot.com