So, if rich people do not create the jobs, what does?
A healthy economic ecosystem — one in which most participants (especially the middle class) have plenty of money to spend.
Over the last couple of years, a rich investor and entrepreneur named Nick Hanauer has annoyed all manner of other rich investors and entrepreneurs by explaining this in detail. Hanauer was the founder of online advertising company aQuantive, which Microsoft bought for $6.4 billion.
What creates a company’s jobs, Hanauer explains, is a healthy economic ecosystem surrounding the company, which starts with the company’s customers.
The company’s customers buy the company’s products. This, in turn, channels money to the company and allows the company to hire employees to produce, sell, and service those products. If the company’s customers and potential customers go broke, the demand for the company’s products will collapse. And the company’s jobs will disappear, regardless of what the entrepreneurs or investors do.
Now, again, entrepreneurs are an important part of the company-creation process. And so are investors, who risk capital in the hope of earning returns. But, ultimately, whether a new company continues growing and creates self-sustaining jobs is a function of the company’s customers’ ability and willingness to pay for the company’s products, not the entrepreneur or the investor capital. Suggesting that “rich entrepreneurs and investors” create the jobs, therefore, Hanauer observes, is like suggesting that squirrels create evolution.
Or, to put it even more simply, it’s like saying that a seed creates a tree. The seed does not create the tree. The seed starts the tree. But what actually grows and sustains the tree is the combination of the DNA in the seed and the soil, sunshine, water, atmosphere, nutrients, and other factors that nurture it. Plant a seed in an inhospitable environment, like a desert or on Mars, and the seed won’t create anything. It will die.
I’ve listened to podcasts for several years now. On my way to work or while running, I find them to be a valuable way to learn about new topics and events from around the world. Below are some of my favorites – ones I’ve followed for a long time – and some new ones I’ve only recently found but highly recommend.
These six podcasts have several years of episodes, so you’ll have plenty to sift through and learn. Continue reading
“Sport is war minus the shooting,” wrote George Orwell.
For a long time, I have been thinking about sport and its role in society. It can be like simulated warfare, as Orwell notes, with teams commonly attacking each other, injuries abounding. It can also seem like a religious experience, with fans idolizing players and dogmatically watching every game available.
It seems to be a mixed bag of the best and worst in society. Sports are found nearly everywhere and played by nearly everyone at some point in their life.
These are some of the intersections that Joe Humphreys explores in his book Foul Play: What’s Wrong With Sport. Largely based on his football fandom, Humphreys describes in six chapters the virtue and vice of sport. I found the book to be a timeless expose of a world unable to face criticism. Recent news from the world of sport, like fighting between football fans at Euro 2016 or doping at the Rio Olympics, point to the continued challenges found in competitions around the world. I will explore some of the book’s topics below. Continue reading
In the past weeks, there have been two major political announcements in the Anglophone world. The first was the United Kingdom (UK) referendum vote on June 23 to leave the European Union (EU), referred to as “Brexit”. The second bit of news was the nomination of Donald Trump as the Republican candidate for President of the United in July. Both events attest to the changing politics of these two countries. In fact, their divisions.
The UK and US are both facing immense changes to their demographics. While both have a history of being ruled by upper-class white men, things are changing. Female politicians and leaders are slowly eroding the barrier of political patriarchy. Minority groups are gaining larger representation as well.
According to the US Census Bureau, “by 2044, more than half of all Americans are projected to belong to a minority group (any group other than non-Hispanic White alone); and by 2060, nearly one in five of the nation’s total population is projected to be foreign born.” By 2050, the Latino community will triple in size to 128 million and play a greater role in America, as shown by the Pew Research Center chart below. The era of white American hegemony is going to end soon and it’s unlikely to be greeted by acceptance by those in positions of power.
Similarly, researchers find that the ethnic minority populations (including the Other White) would increase from 13 percent of the UK population in 2006 to 28 percent by 2031 and 44 percent by 2056. The UK is no longer a “country of emigration” either as, since the 1990s, the net inflow of foreign citizens remains about triple the net outflow on UK citizens. This demographic change may be altered by Brexit but will likely continue as the UK continues to be a popular destination for migrants.
I will try to argue below that politics in the UK and US are pushing two powerful narratives. One is that the country is white and Christian, and needs to stay that way by pushing away migrants. The second is that this needs to be done through hatred and violence, which I believe only make the situation worse.
A Return to the Past
During the campaign trail, Donald Trump has said, “We’re gonna take our country back from these people!” in his speeches. This purposely vague rhetoric, never explicitly saying how or from whom, has also been used by other self-declared “outsider” Republican candidates like Rand Paul and Carly Fiorina during campaigning. Trump has been slow to give specifics on what his potential presidency would look like but has indicated pieces in line with the most conservative elements of his party, which were summarized in these six planks on Fiorina’s advertisement spot:
- Simplify the tax code
- Pass zero-based budgeting
- Repeal Obamacare
- Stand for life and religious liberty
- Secure our borders
- Defeat ISIS
These six ideas can be grouped together based on their audience. The first three ideas are about promoting neo-libertarian ideas: reduce taxes for the rich; slash government welfare; privatize health care. Although the Republican party is not alone in promoting a plutocracy (ruled by the 0.1%, literally as Trump is a member) in the US, following vile maxim of “All for ourselves and nothing for other people”, they are more fervent about it. Their reasoning is that welfare leads to a bloated government (which is a fair criticism) and thus hurts the middle and lower classes (a bit contradictory). This latter reason of helping American workers is a bit troubling since Trump, as well as Fiorina, lead businesses that profited from corporate globalization at the expense of American workers. So, it’s very hypocritical of them to now come out against free trade deals.
The last three ideas focus on two imagined enemies: Hispanic and Muslims. A chorus of “Build that wall!” fills the auditorium at Trump rallies, spreading a hate-filled message to keep Latin American migrants out of the country, even if they do so through the proper legal channels. It is their “otherness” that this figurative wall is trying to keep out. During the Republican National Convention, a whole day was dedicated to the theme of “Making America safe again”. Leaving aside the fact that crime in America is declining, the rhetoric of security allows Trump to declare himself the “law and order” candidate. Trump has blanketed Latinx and Hispanics with the label of “criminal”. Trump recently stated that he wants to implement “extreme vetting” and possibly ban all Muslims from entering the country. The hypocrisy of these messages is that Republicans say they stand for religious liberty on one foot but kick Islamophobia with the other. Clearly, the idea is that Christianity is the only religion that will be tolerated. The difference in language of these two groups (Spanish and Arabic) is also used as means for their exclusion.
Trump (and other American politicians) are pitting Americans against each other. One one side are the white American workers who have seen stagnant wages and high employment as a result of corporate globalization, something these same politicians promoted before and businessmen, like Trump, profited from. On the other side are people of color and anyone who isn’t a Christian. Supporters of Trump see people from Latin America as stealing “their” jobs. Even more divisive, Muslims are seen as stealing the American way of life. It isn’t said that both of these statements are false as businessmen like Trump exported many lower and middle class jobs over the last 30 years and that the country was founded on the merits of immigration.
The UK has seen a similar trend in anti-immigration xenophobia, with the two groups being those from Western Europe and also Muslims.
The collection of advertisements used by UKIP in the 2015 National Election use the language of ‘Take Our Country Back’ without providing any clear answers other than to be angry.
Two months ago, the United Kingdom went to the polls to vote on Brexit – the British Exit from the EU.
The Brexit vote highlighted very clear geographic divisions. On the Leave side is Wales and England, minus London. On the Remain side were Scotland, Northern Ireland and London. Large urban centers like Cardiff and Manchester also voted heavily to Remain. This clear division has one Washington Post writer predict a ‘Wangland’ of the future if Scotland and other territory were to gain independence.
UKIP won 3.88 million (12.3%) votes in the National Election.
David Cameron has called refugees and migrants “a swarm of people coming across the Mediterranean” as well as other dehumanizing language.
Last month, the USA saw nominations for the two primary political parties: Democrats and Republicans. Two firsts were made. The Democrats nominated the first women to a major political party. (The Green Party may also nominate a female candidate – Jill Stein – but unfortunately the press isn’t covering other parties, or allowing them into the debate. The Libertarian Party nominated Gary Johnson in June.)
These two countries, which speak English, mostly Christian and have red, white and blue flags, both see a rise of people shouting “Take Our Country Back”.
- TAKE, through force
- OUR, belonging to the group speaking (see white)
- COUNTRY, for the group speaking without recognising minority groups
- BACK, from the people in power (who we disagree with)
Beyond the UK, other European countries are also beginning to see
Taking Back Europe
Beyond Islamophobia in the UK, there are similar fears in Europe. As well as other longer ingrained anti-Semitism and anti-Roma sentiments. All of these fall under the banner of Western xenophobia.
Taking something back implies that that thing (a country, even) is beyond your control, no longer yours.
In the build up to the Brexit vote, the UK was shocked by the assassination of British MP Jo Cox by a white nationalist is clear evidence of the extent that xenophobic rhetoric can have on people who feel disenfranchised and looking for a target.
Immediately following the Brexit vote, a large increase in race- and religion-based violence was recorded. This is also seen across Europe as ultra-nationalism, neo-fascist and anti-immigration parties gain attraction.
- France – National Front
- Greece – Golden Dawn
- Poland – Law and Justice
- Slovakia – Slovak National Party
So, what to do?
We, the people, must call out these toxic trends and work together to overcome the hatred and violence that far-right and neo-fascist groups are bringing to the West. There reemergence should shock us into action and not let us forget their damage caused in the early parts of the 20th century.
We must promote compassion for and acceptance of human differences. We need to look forward and not repeat the mistakes of the past. We don’t need to take anything back.
We need to make our countries home to anyone who needs sanctuary and to everyone who already live there, irregardless of how long that’s been.
The thing about new human endeavors is how easy and obvious they seem in hindsight.
We’ve designed telescopes that peer deep into the universe and particle colliders that tell us how it all began. We’ve built airplanes that defy gravity (and made the world seem smaller). We’ve even sent men to the Moon! This last great achievement, accomplished in 1969, is what I would like to discuss now.
The Space Race of the 1960s between the USA and the USSR showed how human imagination, combined with technology and science, can make something which seems impossible possible. It’s astonishing to think that John F. Kennedy promised (quote below) to have an American land on the Moon less than 60 years after the Wright Brothers first flight! From our feet off the ground to our first steps on another body of the solar system in only six decades! Continue reading