Category Archives: Working For A Living

Our Mutual Obessession

Posted on by

WebLoon

 

There was considerable splash in the regional media about the Congress being held at the University of Victoria with large numbers of delegates flooding the campus and the city as they attended sessions and debated questions in the Humanities and Social Sciences, those forgotten areas of study that have taken such a back seat to the core sciences, both theoretical and, ultimately, practical, engineering, math and business. First, we seem to have forgotten that all knowledge is connected, and that social, spiritual and ethical considerations are attached to all the results of all the research that fills institutions of higher learning, as well as government and commercial labs: we seems generally to have forgotten the lessons of the fable of Pandora’s Box, be it in relation to nuclear energy, the general use of fossil fuels, the implementation of genetic modifications, nanotechnology, as well as all the panoply of new communication devices. In all the reporting, there was little or nothing about the content of the Congress, about questions debated or about what resolutions might have united groups of delegates in the quest to further our understanding  of human and social phenomena. Instead, we have been told repeatedly how good this gathering is for the local economy, wherein the delegates bring money and spend it on lodging and meals, double-decker bus tours, kitschy souvenirs or weighty tomes from Munro’s, whale watching excursions, copious quantities of single malt whiskey, or newspapers that lack any substantive content. Pride of place amongst those interviewed is given to the chamber of commerce types, the hôteliers and restaurateurs, the boutiquiers and tour operators who will funnel this manna back into the pockets of Victorians in general. Hardly a word that there might be some benefit beyond the simple pecuniary, sad to say, and the question of our infatuation with monetary considerations needs to be one of the questions put front and centre.

Of course the same reporting applies to almost any community event worthy of mention, from social justice film festivals to minor hockey tournaments. Granted, some of these events are only spectacle and entertainment whose legacy will be a note in the statistical compilation of sports and entertainment superlatives as well as the money left behind by those who managed to be on the screen rather than camped in front of it. Does it not, however, seem that the benefits of community interaction might be worthy of a mention? What about the opportunity for our local Pee Wees to measure their mettle against that of their counterparts from over the hill and far away? The reports seem to be generally lacking any of these considerations as though no one among the reader-/listener-/viewership had any interest beyond personal gain. Sadly, that may be the case, given that we’ve been so thoroughly trained to focus on the material economy.

A piece on Northern Reflections by host Owen Gary lays out the ugly truth of the results of humanity serving the economy rather than the economy serving humanity (perhaps the rest of the biosphere is just collateral damage):

http://nor-re.blogspot.ca/2013/06/democracy-and-efficiency.html

Not only is Gray’s piece a telling slice of prose, some of the comments are revealing, as are Gray’s  replies. It’s a tonic for the tripe that passes for information in the press in our time.

Misbehavin’

Posted on by
Reply
What Comes Around?

What Comes Around?

 

Complaints about constraints on doing business are rife with taxes, regulation, red tape and labour unions high on the list. Businesses may face constraints on hours of operation, location, waste stream, supply chain, manufacturing processes, noise, smell, unsightliness issues and, of course all manner of labour regulations regarding hiring, firing, salaries, benefits, pensions, working hours, breaks, and workplace safety. Why all the regulations? The regulations exist because of the long litany of bad behaviour on the part of a segment of the business community, overworking, underpaying, absconding with the cash register, failing to consider the safety and well-being of employees and clientèle, sending toxic waste directly into the waste stream without treatment, faulty storage of chemicals and toxic materials, harassment, assaults, situating business such that they infringe on the ability of the community to carry on without nuisance: every time some of these people get out of line, government seems to be the only recourse and we end up with more red tape and more regulation. Of course there are businesses that get around much of this by manufacturing in low-standards jurisdictions where environmental and labour standards allow the manufacturer to operate without regulation. Isn’t it interesting to note that in those jurisdictions, business tends to seek the lowest common denominator, to so the least they possibly can so as to maximize profits. Some of this may be due to laws on the books that state that the business may have no other concern than to generate profits for shareholders, but even privately held companies tend to hew to the same line, perhaps because they have to compete with the publicly held outfits, perhaps because it fits their view of what constitutes a sound business plan. When we tack on poor quality, lack of workmanship and planned obsolescence, and then export the goods back into our own jurisdiction where the lowest price seems to be the most important consideration, then there are profits, but the people who made the mess don’t seem to bear any responsibility for cleaning it up, for finding additional space in landfills for the shoddy goods they’ve brought on shore or for the people put out of work because of a tilted labour market (see the previous post about RBC and offshoring). Then there are the convoluted and sometimes outright fraudulent schemes concocted to avoid taxes, funds that ought rightly be used to provide health, education, infrastructure, policing, fire protection, bylaw enforcement and diplomatic services, but which end up in offshore accounts, The executive suite has also been an inordinate beneficiary of the gains built on externalities and junk economics: J.K. Galbraith famously quipped: “The salary of the chief executive of a large corporation is not a market award for achievement.  It is frequently in the nature of a warm, personal gesture by the individual to himself.” Should we wonder, then, that there be a clamour for something to inhibit the victimization of citizens by the investor group? What?, you say, we won’t be able to produce anything if we keep all these rules and forbid the waste, planned obsolescence, exploitation of labour, and the ability to externalize whatever interferes with the profits. True, and it probably means that we can’t go on changing electronic devices every six months, our wardrobe every season of every year, our home decor at a whim and kids toys on a daily basis. Fewer, truly durable goods, easily repaired in case of failure, manufactured with all byproducts recycled and without toxic material let loose manufactured by people as close to market as possible and by workers well enough paid to exist comfortably in society. When greed ceases to be the motivating factor in society’s business, we’ll need fewer protections and will be able to simplify our code of legal protections. Please, let’s have less griping and moe constructive moving to a real economy.