Skip to main content

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

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

 Bannon Up! This analogy is far from perfect, but it represents to me a futile mindset.   A sacrifice bunt in baseball involves giving up an out to advance a runner into a better position to score a run.   Occasionally, a pitcher tries so hard to throw pitches that are difficult to bunt, that he ends up walking the batter, which moves the lead runner into scoring position, gets no out, and puts another runner on base.   I’ve heard former coaches and players announcing games cry, “He’s trying to make an out.   Let him!”   I believe Steve Bannon wants to go to prison, to make himself a martyr and hero to the right-wing nuts who support him.   I say, let him.   I’ve heard some pundits worry that convicting him would further infuriate the right-wing nuts.   I think it’s time to abandon that type of thinking.   We have seen time after time that making concessions to appease these people is completely unproductive.   They see conces...
Post a Comment
Read more

Musings

  Right-To-Lifers Don’t Go Far Enough       I was pro-choice, but I’ve changed my mind.   The problem is not that the State should govern what a woman does with her body, the problem is that the State has not gone far enough.   The argument is that to protect the life of a fetus, the State must overrule a woman’s privacy and bodily autonomy and regulate her body for her.   Fine.   If we want the State to be in the business of protecting life through bodily regulation, then go all in.   Stick to the prime directive.   Protect all life.   The State should govern both men and women to protect life.   The State should tell any healthy person what to do with their body in order to protect life.   So, if someone needs a kidney, liver, or any organ transplant to save their life, the State should find someone and take whatever parts are needed to save that life.   If not, then we are allowing organ-icide.   (...
Post a Comment
Read more
Inspired by "Is religion a force for good in the world?" - the debates with Christopher Hitchens Let's compare general religious tenets with general humanistic tenets: I assert that to be a good humanist you must follow the rules.   To be a good religious person you must break the rules. Religious:                                             Humanistic: love thy neighbor                                   love thy neighbor do good works                                       do good works live according to the scriptures              live according to what can be drawn from evidence (science) try to follow the dictates of god       ...
Post a Comment
Read more