DEATH PANELS AND COVID-19

We live in an economy that works on a"just in time" supply system that cuts down on storage and finance costs.   Compound that when government budgets influenced by the need to cut taxes encounters the unexpected we have a problem.

The "unexpected" most recently demonstrated on a global scale is the Covid-19 pandemic.  Actually it is only the details that were unexpected.  Intelligent planners always realize the unexpected should be expected.  Many budgets provide for emergency funds that could be used for a wide range of (unexpected) problems.  Some organizations even have roles for "experts" to determine future problems.

We live in a world that is increasingly poisoning itself.  We all love the benefits of immediate gratification and seldom dwell on the costs.  One example might be the pleasure of driving a car partly for the joy itself and partly to reach a destination much quicker than our distant ancestors could conceive.  For that to happen many resources of the world had to be extracted such as metals, rubber, and oil while they were reconfigured to perform as a car.  These resources are finite, although some can be recycled.  In the various processes waste and even poisons are generated.  Almost every aspect of what we consider civilization has a connection to using the earth's resources.  Even the joys inside one's minds are a luxury provided by a surplus of resources to survive.

The earth that literally took billions of years to form must have seemed to the first humans to be infinite and we realize they actually had a narrow view of it.  The number one driver of the poisoning is population.  Growing populations generate complexities that in many ways enhance human enjoyment, but also use up finite resources faster.  Taking the earth for granted has been the default attitude of most of us, but like the backyard garden it needs careful minding to optimize results.

The benefits of globalization are also taken for granted.  We love learning about new ways to enjoy life and many of those ways come from previously unknown or inaccessible parts of the world.  We are inter connected in obvious and hidden ways and much of that strengthens us, but much is not understood.

Years ago I heard of concerns of spreading diseases among rubber plants that were concentrated in two distant locations--Brazil and Malaysia.  For awhile it wasn't too much of a concern as they were so far apart and there were few if any quick connections.  But with jet flight the danger increased that disease in one location could rapidly decimate plants at the other location and lessen the world's supply of rubber.  I am not really sure if this has been satisfactorily resolved, but realize such dangers are more possible than ever.

What seems to be common knowledge is that the current Covid-19 pandemic started in Hubei province of China.   It is very possible that it had something to do with animal to human contact.  Viruses are everywhere and usually survive under our radar, perhaps striking down individuals and small groups of individuals.  But we have known for centuries that viruses and their cousins, bacteria under the right circumstances can spread to larger and larger groups.  To-day we have intricate global communications that are quicker than ever.

There are scientists and medical authorities that have been given authority and resources to anticipate possible "problems."  It is always prudent to anticipate the unexpected because it really is not unexpected.  Governments have been formed to better organize our human affairs to optimize our resources better than competing individuals.  Even competitors have common interests that are at best only partially recognized by most of them; transportation, communication, conflict resolution systems, environmental factors, etc.

Governments are sources of power which means they are easily corrupted and misdirected.  In order to achieve power promises are made, but often one sided such as we will lower your taxes (and maintain your services).  Efficiencies should always be strived for, but everything has a cost that must be paid or there will be consequences.

Many governments find themselves in a trap.  They are expected to provide services, but not to burden the workers (and others) too much.  All too often wealthy individuals resent paying for services for those less fortunate and those seeking power need to balance between satisfying enough people and obtaining the necessary revenues from both the masses and the wealthy.  This also applies to dictatorships who can be overturned if enough people organize against them.

Hindsight allows us ordinary mortals (who sometimes vote) to appreciate that the world was not as prepared  as we needed it to be and it is likely the future will not be what virtually any of us anticipated even a few weeks ago.  Work, retailing, entertainment are only a few endeavors that will require major adjustments.

In the very near future (already happening) life and death choices will have to be made.  Medical resources (trained personnel, pharmaceuticals, medical equipment, facilities) cannot be instantly expanded to cope with the stress caused by the pandemics.  Uncertainty is frightening.

While we have this new stress we still have to cope with established stresses including many medical conditions, paying off debts that have been building and countless problems demanding attention.

Who gets access to limited medical resources?  The general wisdom of the day says the young and the healthy are most likely to survive and contribute to the benefit of (wo)mankind.  Those who have money or power or even just the support of loved ones are going to have an edge.  Individual medical personnel and a few others will be caught in the middle of the dilemma, unable to satisfy everyone.  Even deciding what to load on a truck and in which direction to send it will mean life or death for someone.

My position is that when resources are limited and decisions have to be made immediately the future of mankind should be the main criteria.  This doesn't mean that the old and the unhealthy should be discarded after all we all want to reach old age and any of us could find ourselves with compromised health.  Triage can be brutal, but also can be the most optimal.  Human value is very difficult to measure.

There is no easy solution, but my point is not just to forgive and understand those forced to make these immediate life and death decisions, but to take our long term responsibilities more seriously.  Taking care of ourselves means we will be able to contribute to the well being of others.  Voting for the right candidate or party requires more than just a reflexive decision, but requires serious thinking.  Everything we want costs something and deciding what is fair and desirable has to be integrated with how it will be paid for.  I believe every individual can contribute, but many are not given a reasonable opportunity.  Some are shoved aside or forgotten so those in better positions can boost themselves (and that is not just the very wealthy).

Irresponsible decisions have helped us to arrive at this point, not just by the wealthy and powerful, but those who enabled the short sighted to gain power.  Meaning those who could vote, but didn't and those who voted with little real effort or thought.  If we make the right long term decisions we will not be forced to make as many brutal life and death decisions.

Unions and their role

The decline of unions is a major factor in increasing inequality.  A union represents the worker to the employer.  Unions tend to get involved in the larger political process ideally representing the interests of their members, but some times the individual members have a different vision. Individuals do have power, but using their power collectively synergizes their efforts and frightens the owners of capital.

I grew up in a union town, Oshawa and later settled in another, Hamilton.  But my father in particular did not seem to like unions.  He was an independent trucker and was aware of hard tactics by the Teamsters.  My maternal grandmother was a great admirer of unions and I learned later that her husband, my grandfather Marshall Coakwell had taken part in a significant historical strike at General Motors.  From my father (and others) I heard stories of lazy protected workers and hard tactics of such groups as the Teamsters, but he also thought his father in law was a conciliator.

I had some union connections as I had worked for the Children's Aid Society and as a supply teacher for only about 3 days.  The Teacher's Union tracked me down more than 30 years later to give me my accumulated contributions with interest pension.  Most of my life I have been non union and never really felt hard done by.  On one job I actually received a call from a co-worker trying to form a union and turned it down as I felt I was in a semi management position.  The very next day I was forced out (I don't think the phone call was a factor) with a moderately generous settlement.  I did feel cheated as very misleading statistics were used against me and I had felt my work was above and beyond.  read about my involvement in newspaper circulation: http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2012/08/my-career-in-circulation-part-3-winding.html

I cringe when I hear of union corruption.  It justifies anti-union rhetoric from those representing the interests of the wealthy.  Unfortunately human nature lends itself to the adage "Power corrupts, Absolute power corrupts absolutely."  The problem includes all groups, union, political, NGOs, families and even social relationships.  Leadership requires followers and historically there have been natural restraints that have been diminished. see:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2014/07/selected.html

It seems on both sides of the border efforts have been made to weaken unions.  More success in the United States where right wing philosophy supported by large amounts of money legislated against them.  It is a critical factor explaining increasing inequality.  Corporations have consolidated their power at the expense of workers and with co-operation of voters.  Wages had stagnated while union membership has diminished.  Ronald Reagan was pleased to break up the Air Traffic Controllers union. and had made a lot of efforts to boost inequality.

Divide and conquer was one strategy employed.  We were always told how lazy and overpaid union workers were with the implication it was at the expense of hard working non union members. Ironically it was the power of unions that kept wages and working conditions up for non union workers.  One of the best examples was provided in my adopted city of Hamilton where Stelco would go on long strikes that once settled almost immediately set the wages and benefits for their rival Dofasco who avoided the costs of strikes.

An argument is made that high wages, unreasonable benefits  and restrictive regulations are what has killed manufacturing in North America.  That certainly is a factor, but a few other factors should also be considered.  Cheap energy and international trade agreements allowed corporations to shift jobs to cheap labour and looser regulated countries.  Another factor is rapidly creeping up and that is automation supported by computerization.

German companies recognize there are other stakeholders than the owner.  Unions are encouraged and listened to.  Union managers hear and are heard.  The company benefits.  Peter Drucker made me aware of the concept of stakeholders.  Workers and their communities are often more committed than the owners who will pull up stakes if a better opportunity is perceived.

The world will have to make some adjustments to avoid increasing tensions towards more violence.  Inequality will not disappear ever and automation will increasingly take away the need for workers of all types.  We could easily evolve towards societies depicted in such books as "1984" or "The Time Machine" where basically a few elites control the masses.  That is a clear possibility

While a lot of attention is publicly given to corporations and investors and what it takes to motivate them, little attention is given to consumers, citizens and labourers.  We won't be needed to produce the goods and services to nearly the same extent as historically.  We will be wanted as consumers, but with fewer people controlling the distribution of goods the rules will be set by them.  Democracy seems to require a lot of money and so those with lots of money will control that as well.

At one time it was suggested that the poor would vote in the own self interest to the point of being counter- productive.  I can see that, but it is not working out that way.  Voters regularly vote against their own self-interest.  Social interests are manipulated by those with the power and who are more comfortable with the status quo.  Unfortunately many voters feel apathetic, i.e. their vote is not worth the effort. link to proportional voting

An alternative would be for the 99% to assert their rights.  Of course there are too many conflicts of interest to keep track of (unless you have lots of money for the task).  Education is basic to the idea and will be resisted by those in power.  I don't mean just job skill education which will be supported, but how to think critically, how to enjoy life and how they fit into the global reality.

Corporations are global.  Capital can shift to any corner of the globe that promises better returns with out concern for other stakeholders.  Unions need to match that power more closely or they will just be played off against one another.

The photo is of a Worker's Art and Heritage Centre in Hamilton, Ontario.

GLOBALIZATION SCARES MANY PEOPLE

This post is inspired by the Brexit vote, but the concerns are truly global and have been accelerating over several centuries. Hard to say exactly when globalization started, but really once humans overcame their distrust enough to trade goods with strangers there developed a rise in our standard of living.  Long distance trading was significant well before the time of Christ

Trade brought more choice in food, clothing, utensils.  Most people did not directly take part in this and were mostly marginally benefited  As trade stepped up more people benefited.  Marco Polo was an interesting example.  He, his father and uncle risked their lives and fortune traveling to China.  Trade had been going on over the centuries within and between Asia, Europe and Africa, but for most people we saw only the products brought back.  Ideas were also traveling, but the average person was unaware.

People were moving as well.  Slavery was often the result of wars with many unwilling people forced to travel to strange places to labor for others.  Much of America's early wealth was the result of slave labor forcibly shipped from Africa and dehumanized.  Traders sometimes found themselves living far from their homes and some adapted quite well.  Other ordinary citizens moved for safety or financial reasons, but often bringing new skills and ideas to safe havens.

The United Kingdom is a blend of Scandinavians, Germans and French among others.  Other races left tiny footprints in the British Isles.  People went where they could get a job and other countries often reached out for skilled workers and mercenaries.  The British Empire, desiring tea grew opium to trade with China who didn"t want any British goods, resulting in Opium Wars.

North and South America were devoid of any humans until people crossed at Alaska--others speculate that Polynesians crossed the Pacific.  Eventually Europeans landed in America and started to exploit its resources..

We in the west overlook that Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey have taken several million refugees and have suffered much more than ourselves.

Admittedly immigrants do put downward pressure on wages.  It seems some downtrodden people are willing to work as hard for a bicycle as we would work for a car.  It is not their fault, but as time goes by future generations adopt native attitudes.  Inequality is even more extreme taken on a global scale.

Communications have been increasingly global from pigeons to cables under the oceans and now increasingly wireless.  Language is less of a barrier.  We certainly have better opportunities to learn about people on the other side of the world, and so do they.  Eventually knowledge will prevail, but many barriers have to be overcome.

Free trade rules are set up by those in power for their benefit.  They want new markets, cheap parts and labor.  They don't want any regulations restricting their business practices.  As a small investor there are funds set up in all sorts of foreign countries.  I have invested a small amount in an India fund that I feel confident their hard work and ingenuity will make me seem smarter than I really am.

Multi national companies are reaching out to markets in other countries, setting up manufacturing and even management  Corporations are for profit, meaning reducing costs and increasing revenues.  That means whenever possible they will have labor done in the cheapest areas with the least restrictions on processes.  Taxation often dictates where they operate.

Globalization is viewed by many as manipulation from elite people for selfish ends.  Those who make the rules almost always take their own interests to account.  The best hope is they take a long range view.  Balance is in everyone best interest.

Causes of immigration are always the same:  fear and greed.  We overlook our involvement--we in the West drive climate change, we voted for leaders that saw violence and deception as the way to solve problems.

Does the average person get any benefit?  Well in some cases people who did not have work now do, but unfortunately others lose their jobs or take a hit in wages and job security.  In a cultural sense most people would admit they enjoy many things that come from other cultures, although many might not be aware--pizza, tacos and increasingly sushi are eaten everywhere.  Movies and music and books are enjoyed across borders.  Overall poverty and hunger are being reduced.

All of humanity share future concerns.  Inequality, climate change/pollution, automation, (nuclear) war are all to be feared.  But there are opportunities.  Automation can free up humans from boring, demanding manual labor.  The air, water and soils can boost our health instead of degrading it.  Climate change is a tough one demanding international co-operation if it is be controlled.  Inequality makes it difficult for greater understanding and co-operation for all humans.

Any change to the plans of the elites will be resisted and they are skilled and powerful at manipulation

Some people think the biggest hope is the inter-net.  The elites are still trying to control it, but for the most part more people communicate across borders every day.  Information is power.  Education is also power and there are efforts to control it.

While capital is truly globalized, labor is not.  In many countries unions have declined under political pressure.  The working class in many cases were complicit in this.  For instance in the United States the pro business party has attracted many votes for single issue social concerns such as abortion, gay rights, gun rights but are really more interested in benefiting the elites.  Voter education is key, but very difficult.

Germany is an example of a country that works with unions and it is part of their success.  Employees are stake holders in a company and often have a longer relationship than investors.

Climate change in many ways  has already impacted us, but not to average consciousness.  A big part  of that, drought created pressures in the Mid-East that have fueled conflict.  This can increase stresses elsewhere--forest fires, floods.  Israel right now is making it difficult for Palestinians to get water.

International trade agreements will not win the support of the working class if they do not participate.  This is true of any strategic plan  At a minimum I would like to see a credible representative of environmental concerns and of labor have veto power.

When we work together we are all stronger.  Freedom is not given so much as it is taken.

BOOMERS AND THE GENERATIONAL CONFLICT REGARDING JOBS

There has always been a generational conflict, but as a boomer approaching the normal retirement age I am more conscious than ever that it is not  always healthy for anyone.

When I was just past puberty I wondered why I should have to do what my parents wanted, certainly resented any restrictions. A lot of harsh lessons were learned, but gradually I attained some independence. Like many I got a job, got married, got a house and had kids. Like my parents and grand parents going back forever my focus changed quite a bit as I took on more responsibility.  I felt I needed to provide for, protect and guide my children.

In all history we boomers are the first generation to depend on those younger for advice. We recognize that young people are much quicker to pick up new technologies. We would be lost without their co-operation. Balancing that is still wisdom that comes from life experiences gained over the years.

Those in power do what they can to consolidate their power. The boomers are not all big power brokers, but some certainly are and all of us to some degree contribute to maintaining our generational control. Not to say that younger generations don't have any power, but really a lot of what affects them is decided by the boomers and traditionalists.

My focus in this post is jobs. Jean Chretien once said there is "dignity" in a job. We are denying our youngsters this dignity and that will affect everyone. A job helps provide good habits, helps to give a sense of purpose and gives the necessary security to form families. Take that away and a lot of bad things start to happen that are difficult to reverse.

A major part of the problem is the relentless pressures lessening work opportunities. One of the big ones is our increased efficiency through machines and technology. When I was in grade school this was predicted and was thought to be a good thing in that more of us would be able to enjoy life instead of feeling the drudgery of hard labour. Not quite working out that way for most of us.

Our investments seem to be better off when we shift the cost of labour to cheaper markets. Those of us who have jobs want to keep them for financial security and a sense of purpose. Those of us concerned about retiring in comfort are much more apt to vote (and we already have the numbers on our side) to maintain pensions at high levels and to start at an early age. If money is tight we might accept cuts to education and child care and other "less important" things.

Globalization is thought to be a good thing and to some degree we all enjoy the benefits. Communication with the far ends of the earth are quite easy and becoming more normal for more of us. Culture in the form of entertainment has spread and inter-mingled in all directions. Products (manufactured or agricultural) we find useful come from anywhere. For investors new markets are opened up, new resources made available. Unfortunately some have leveraged labour cost differentials to give themselves more profit and more power. Eventually there will be a leveling off of labour costs. Right now some people are grateful for the opportunity to work for a bicycle while others are finding it more difficult to work for our cars (and other symbols of previous high standards).

Credit has been abused because we don't want to give up our lifestyle while others are encouraging us in this direction. At one time it was common for one breadwinner per family, then two became normal. When we still can't afford what we have become used to we borrow.

It is time to take a long view. We are all humans wanting to enjoy life and have some sense of purpose. We can and mostly all want to add something to other people's lives. We have a different set of problems today. We also have new opportunities.

Mostly I have more questions than answers, but we need to start the dialogue. To me job sharing in different forms is a key solution. Why should some people burn out while others live in despair? One obvious place to start is the required hours of work. Henry Ford was trying to figure out the best way to work his auto plants 24 hours a day. He had 2 nine hour shifts. By cutting the hours back to 8 he was able to have 3 shifts. Not only that, but he paid a higher wage than usual, so much so that many of his workers could afford to buy one of his products. They also bought other products from other manufacturers and other service providers and boosted growth everywhere.

We over manufacture in that we can make more goods than there are people to buy and dispose of. We pollute and endanger our environment. Our natural greed is steering us to new problems. I will suggest some solutions, but they won't work without a change in attitude. To some degree all of us are concerned about accumulating big bank accounts and lots of consumer goods. I plead guilty, how about you?

What kind of disaster will it take to change our attitudes about what is important? Natural disasters threaten and have been linked to consumer behaviour.  Revolutions have recently occurred in parts of the world fueled in part by unemployed youths. On the positive side we do have resources not available even to our recent ancestors. We have technology to make work easier and we do have knowledge to change how it is distributed.

Some people would argue very strongly to let the market solve this problem. I think that is very short sighted and self-serving. The market is in some ways just a collection of individual greedy desires with some people leveraging their resources at the expense of others. Leisure (especially that of others) is frowned upon as lazy. If you worked half the time what would you do with the spare hours. You could spend them enjoying life and part of that using services provided by people that might otherwise be unemployed. This has already been happening, but has run out of steam.

To me one of the foundations of modern civilization is education. For much of our human history it has been limited to the rich or connected. Literacy has improved society for all people. A key thing is that education is most effective in small groups, sometimes that means one on one. Not everyone has the temperament or skills to be a teacher, but this is an area that can be expanded. By education I don't mean just learning the basic reading and math and productive activities, but also to understand and enjoy life more, for instance the arts, human relations skills, recreation. Leisure, instead of being a dirty word can be a goal for all of us.

Job education is still important, but a lot of it has been wasted in the past. The Minister of Labour really might be labelled Minister of Human Resources and his or her main task is to help match up needs with talents. Obviously need to work with the Minister of Education. In my observation too many people are chasing after the big money, but it is often the big money of yesterday.

The environment needs much greater care. We need to find ways to make energy more environmentally efficient and ways to stop pollution. There are jobs that can help ensure our survival.

Where is the money for all this and what about the restrictive regulations that upset some people? Taking restrictive regulations first, and admitting they are not all beneficial, they do provide jobs and they can provide security for all of us. The money is a touchy issue, but the problem boils down to it seems to accumulate in relatively few hands. Those relatively few hands will have to decide what benefits them the most. Does it make sense for them to have another lump of money in the bank and have to build a security system to protect it and watch the world deteriorate around them; or is it better to live in an enriched civilized world where people can afford to buy whatever it is they sell.

If they decide that the lump of money is more important then I believe all of us are destined to live in relative misery until violence replaces the power of money or we go the way of dinosaurs. A truly civilized world is a more pleasant place to live in (and might survive longer) for rich and poor, for young and old.

A lot of problems to sort through, but I think it is time for the dialogue to move forward a little faster. The baby boomers can cling to their status quo or they can be crusaders for a better future for their offspring.

The photo is just meant to symbolize people enjoying nature.