Sometimes I think "honest money" and employment in general are related.
First off, what I mean by "honest money" is money that is 100% backed by whatever it is claimed to be backed by, even if what it is backed by is nothing. I know the latter part of that statement sounds absurd, but let me explain. In the days when money was backed by gold and/or silver, money (in principle at least) was worth its weight in gold, silver, and copper...the three typical money metals. But this was never truly the case. It was a polite fiction at best and outright robbery at worst. In the old days, kings could inflate their money supply by adding small amounts of lead to their gold and you could see how they could get away with it (at least a little bit) because who would notice a bar of lead mixed in with a hundred bars of gold when all melted together? In modern times, this is accomplished by printing more banknotes than could possibly be redeemed if everyone sought their holdings at once. In 1880, for instance, when the Gold Standard reigned, (though the Standard was a guarantee between nations and not a promise to redeem all outstanding notes at face value, such a promise is implied), there was only 16¢ of gold on deposit in the United States for every paper dollar circulating. By 1970, over thirty-five years after gold ceased to circulate as coins in the U.S., its dollars were still backed by gold in international trade (i.e. foreign nations could redeem their holdings of U.S. dollars for gold, but the citizens of the United States could not). This window would close under President Nixon's watch permanently (read about it here if you are so inclined). And while U.S. currency was officially backed 25% by gold (meaning one dollar of gold would exist for every four dollars in circulation), the reality of the situation by that time was more like 0.5% of U.S. dollars were actually represented by gold meaning there was only ½¢ of gold on deposit for every dollar in circulation. Dishonest money indeed.
And for that, I do blame the Federal Reserve System [FRS] greatly because they, since its creation in 1913, have controlled the money supply of the United States. One would think the FRS would have an obligation to maintain parity or at least an approximation of parity while in existence. What a great failure that represents less than sixty years into its creation. I would argue its third great failure with the first being the loss of the Gold Standard in 1933 a mere twenty years after the FRS's creation and the second being the loss of silver in circulating coins due to inflation in 1965 removing the last "stores of value" from our money.
As for what I had meant when I said that money should be "100% backed by whatever it is claimed to be backed by, even if what it is backed by is nothing", is that there should be no more dollars in existence than there are dollars to back them up. Under a gold standard, that means there can be no more dollars than there is gold to back them and under a fiat system like we have now, that would mean only the physical dollars would be legal tender (and thus "real") and the promises to pay, interest promised, money that exists only on paper or electronically, etc. would not be legal tender (and thus subject to market pricing like stocks which can rise and fall depending on circumstances). Right now, money that exists only on computers is as real as the dollars in your pocket and why that's a problem is because of something known as "fractional reserve banking" and fractional reserve banking creates a far larger pool of money than there actually is and I personally consider that dishonest and seemingly criminal that a bank can effectively create money out of thin air (read here for an example of how you can turn $1,000 into almost $19,000 under this system).
The whole system runs just fine during good economic times, but when the shit hits the fan and people start demanding their deposits from banks, it reveals the fraud being perpetuated and people lose a lot of money because of the dishonesty inherent in the system. And how good can any system be if it only works when times are good? I know it is argued that backing our money with gold is unfeasible because liquidity and velocity are necessary to keep the engines of the world's economies moving, but I think that's the point of a gold standard...it's an inherent inefficiency built into the system to keep it from speeding up to the point of breakdown (kind of like how centrifugal force ultimately limits how fast a planet or star can spin before breaking apart). The system seems geared toward unlimited money creation, unlimited credit expansion, unlimited liquidity, unlimited velocity, etc. and I guess mathematically, it could work especially as computers can handle shit faster and faster but that doesn't mean it's better and I think because we are not a planet of machines, but rather people who have a maximum rate of comprehension, an inherent inefficiency is needed to keep things from spinning out of control. Imagine if stocks could still only be traded on the floor by humans like in the pre-computer days. Volatility in the markets would certainly go down and "flash crashes" would be impossible. I'm not saying go "total human" on stock trades because there are ways to game the system that way too. If I'm not mistaken, that was part of the plot in Trading Places with Dan Aykroyd and Eddie Murphy. However, I don't think it would be impossible to carve a balance between maximum efficiency (computers executing trades many times per second according to algorithms) and maximum inefficiency (only paper trades executed by human brokers) for the sake of keeping stocktrading stable over the long run. The same with money supply.
Now, I am way off point but I hope I have set up what I set up in my topic sentence in that I believe, employment, like money, wishes to achieve maximum efficiency. That is, spend as little on labor and other expenses as possible in order to maximize profits. This is (and has been) accomplished through mechanization, automation, and shipping jobs to cheaper labor markets. However, the thing I feel is overlooked in this equation is the human factor. See, a computer can replace thousands of jobs but the people who lost their jobs to that computer still exist. People are not disposable like machine parts so what to do about them? On the one hand, yes, it can be very good. Mechanization on the farm brought with it the concept of recreation. Remember, historically farmers weren't ignorant because they were stupid or otherwise inferior, it was because their means of not-dying (i.e. farming, cattle-raising, etc.) took up almost all their time. Only the wealthy had the luxury of time which could lend them an education. When mechanization meant a day's worth of farming could now been done in half or even a quarter of the time, you were left with more time to pursue hobbies, education, etc. that you couldn't before when struggling merely to survive. So increases in efficiency can yield vast improvements to people's lives and cause economies to grow in response to demands brought upon it by vast numbers of people with sudden leisure time.
However, I think at some point, the gains of increased efficiency and productivity are outweighed by the increases of the ranks of the unemployed and underemployed produced by those gains. Like I said, the people displaced don't disappear and human lives are long and the population still only increases as our species is still decades away from contraction and balance. The trouble is, in recent decades especially, improvements in technology have occurred far faster than the population can be adjusted to conform to those improvements leaving people poorer as a result (if more people are competing for fewer jobs, wages will drop). Technology too needs some inefficiency built into it if only for compassion's sake.
I'm not saying we should go back to having human operators direct all our calls nor am I saying we need a bellhop positioned in every elevator announcing items to be found on various floors. But what I am saying is maybe drop the self-service shit. New Jersey does (nominal) Full Service Gas stations by law which means more people get employed (and while on the topic of gas stations, New Jersey also prohibits selling gasoline for less than the price it was purchased allowing many small "Mom and Pop" gasoline merchants to continue to exist whereas in other states, places like Walmart destroy the competition because they're allowed to undersell). And you can't even argue that self-service is cheaper because Pennsylvania, with no Full-Service law (and if you remove the taxes each state imposes on its gasoline for fairness purposes), has gas that is only a penny cheaper than New Jersey's. Is that one cent difference worth all the jobs lost because stations can hire fewer employees if they are self-service? As for cheaper labor markets, in some cases, they probably help, but what about cases like Nike sneakers where the shoes retail for $100-$140 but cost less than $15 total to make (parts, labor, shipping, taxes, etc.). You could justify it somewhat if manufacturer to middleman to retailer each doubled their price along the way (doubt 100% margins even exist, but sake of argument please) giving you $60 shoes but that's clearly not the case as sneakers I had bought recently (Nikes, but not sports player endorsed like Jordans, and made in Vietnam), sold for just $40. My point is, if you're gonna sell them for $100 anyway, why not make the shoes here in the United States? I can't imagine Nike could not still make a profit even if it paid its employees well. Even if they cost four times as much to make in the U.S., but with the same distribution costs, Nike would still profit at the retail level. This would not and could not apply to all cases, but it would seem the United States could afford to build its luxury items not-overseas. Maybe it's appropriate for the Dominican Republic to be making my generic T-shirts, but Calvin Klein can certainly have its clothing manufactured domestically. We don't need "self-service checkouts" in supermarkets and quite frankly I'm amazed customers in these stores embrace them rather than get offended by them. It's not like you get a discount to perform the labor yourself. If you're saving the store on labor costs by doing the labor yourself, don't you think you deserve to get at least a little something-something for your troubles? Buying online saves stores a shit-ton on labor costs, but is it cheaper to buy the product from the same chain online as it is within the company's store proper? (and I mean overall and always, not because of some discount)
This race-to-the-bottom in terms of labor costs I think is bad overall for not just the economy but for society as a whole. The bottom line is ultimately affected if your employees can't afford to buy the products/services you sell. That was (part of) the rationale behind Henry Ford paying his workers the then unheard of $5 a day to make his cars. I guess that makes me a socialist of sorts if not in actuality. Yes, I do believe it beneficial for businesses to maximize their profits not for just their owners/shareholders, but to use them to benefit their employees as a whole (and in turn the communities they're based in). Poorer people spend their money so giving them a share in the company's profits (in addition to their wages) not only incentivizes them to perform better and value their employer, but puts more money into the economy in areas that count like everyday consumables (because even if a billionaire spends lavishly on food, he is still only one mouth whereas millions of people with their millions of mouths spending even modestly on food can make entire supermarket chains and their related businesses run). I don't see how concentrating wealth at the top is good in the long run for society. As one book I read put it, wealthy citizens in a moribund society merely "...buy themselves the privilege of being the last to starve or die."
Okay, I've gone on way too fucking long and I've probably made exactly zero points throughout so I'm gonna shut up now and note that this was barely proofread...
ADDENDUM: Here is a recent article from Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis blog about gasoline prices around the country: Highest Price Ever of Gasoline in March; State-by-State Gas Price and Gas Tax Comparison
No comments:
Post a Comment