It is true that "the poor will always be with us" in the sense that there will always be some group of people in society who are 'least well off.' The reason why it is true is because there simply aren't enough of the highest quality [most desirable] "experience opportunities" available for everyone to experience them. There is only so much beach front property, only so much mahogany that can be harvested, only so many of the 'best' restaurants, entertainers, scenic views, etc. The varying scarcity of natural resources is what guarantees that there will always be rich and poor...distributions of money have nothing to do with it.
Any serious effort to end poverty is therefore not an effort to make everyone rich or upper-middle-class, but is simply an effort to do whatever is realistically possible to improve the economic well-being of those at the bottom of the economic ladder. There is much that can be done. What in particular? Well, I'm someone who agrees with John Edwards that what is needed is 'fundamental, transformational change.' But what kind of transformational change? For the sake of argument, let's start by asking ourselves what the best deal is that we could ever realistically hope to offer to the poor and lower-middle-class.
The single most important thing we could do for those living in poverty is completely eliminate the problem of unemployment. I'm not talking about simply creating 'more jobs' for them, or providing them with training for jobs that we think might be available somewhere in the country; I'm talking about creating a jobs environment where there are more jobs available than there are people to fill them. Forget about any other considerations for a moment; let's just spend some time focusing on the many ways that the poor and middle-class would benefit if our political leaders were to create and maintain a constant labor shortage.
In such an economy, the Poor and Middle Class would soon discover that they'd be living in the best of all possible economic worlds. Yes, people would still lose their jobs as they do today, but it wouldn’t matter. New jobs would always be easy to find. Market forces would put constant upward pressure on wages because all employers would be forced to compete with each other for scarce labor. Many employers in a tight labor market would discover that they have an incentive to actually treat their employees with respect. For the first time, the poor would actually be able to enjoy a large measure of economic security (No, they wouldn't have specific-job security, but they would enjoy employment/income security.)
To put it quite plainly, there is nothing that society could do for the underprivileged that would be more kind, more helpful, or more generous than to maintain a labor shortage for them. What would it cost the rest of society--the upper-middle and upper classes in particular--to bestow this great blessing on the disadvantaged? The answer, in the purest of economic terms, is NOTHING. On the contrary, the upper classes would actually reap a great benefit from the elimination of poverty in this way. Even the rich would enjoy an increase in the amount of real wealth they’d be able to consume.
The reason for this is quite simple: people who are not working do not stop consuming; they just aren't producing any of the stuff they consume. Somebody else is. As a society, we all become richer in real terms when all those who are idle become productive. If part of your productive output is no longer needed to provide for the basic consumption needs of the unemployed (because they are now producing for themselves), then that means more of your output becomes available to you, for your own consumption. When/if we employ all those who are able-bodied and able-minded in real wealth producing activities, everyone else automatically gets a pay raise IN REAL TERMS.
There are other real benefits that a maintained labor shortage would bestow on the wealthier classes. With jobs more than plentiful and wages on the rise, social pressure on those who are not working in the poorer neighborhoods would increase dramatically. I'm talking, of course, about the social pressure that the working poor would be putting on those able-bodied/able-minded individuals in their neighborhoods who are not working. With the elimination of all unemployment--and a dramatic reduction in idleness--crime rates would drop significantly, providing those who are not poor with an enhanced feeling of personal security.
Another benefit: Since the intelligent way to create and maintain a labor shortage is for Congress to increase its spending on a variety of public investments--e.g., infrastructure, education, environmental cleanup, health care unencumbered by paperwork headaches and qualification issues--both the rich and the middle-class would end up enjoying a higher quality of life as a consequence of the elimination of poverty through the elimination of unemployment. These are true economic investments, the kind that make us all wealthier in the long run.
And then there are the intangible benefits of eliminating poverty that would accrue to the wealthy. By allowing themselves to be taxed more, they would make it possible for Congress to eliminate poverty through increased expenditures on public investment. If it were made clear to the poor that the acquiescence of the wealthy to a higher level of taxation is what made it possible for them to finally enjoy true economic security, the lower classes would quite naturally feel a deep sense of gratitude toward the affluent, instead of resentment and hostility. What would that kind of feeling be worth?
Gratitude, a cleaner environment, a big reduction in crime, less highway congestion, a better educated populace...all are benefits that those at the top of the economic ladder would be able to enjoy if poverty were eliminated by eliminating all unemployment. If John Edwards wants to turn his dream into a reality, he would do well to emphasize loudly the ways in which the upper classes would benefit from the elimination of poverty and not allow the Republicans to frame his crusade as little more than a Robin Hood scheme to steal from the rich and give to the poor (guaranteed to fail, anyway, right George?).
"Don’t do it for them; do it for yourselves, if that is what matters." This is the kind of message that the press, in particular, needs to hear from the Edwards campaign. As we have witnessed over the past two and a half decades, the press has been all too willing to accept as legitimate the self-interest arguments that the Republicans have continuously promoted. (Not all that surprising, since most news reporters/anchors are solidly members of the upper-middle-class, if not the upper class.) They are the ones that John Edwards needs to win over with his own self-interest arguments.
(There is still one more major reason why the rich should want to eliminate poverty by eliminating unemployment: it wouldn’t cost them anything in terms of lost purchasing power to do so. See why this is true here.)
(Concerned about the problem of inflation? You'll want to read this.)
Comments are closed on this story.