“As worker’s comp benefits have become more difficult to obtain, the threat to workplace safety has grown more serious. During the first two years of the Clinton administration, OSHA [ Occupational Safety and Health Administration ] seemed like a revitalized agency. It began to draw up the first ergonomics standards for the nation’s manufacturers, aiming to reduce cumulative trauma disorders. The election of 1994, however, marked a turning point. The Republican majority in Congress that rose to power that year not only impeded the adoption of ergonomics standards but also raised questions about the future of OSHA. Working closely with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, House Republicans have worked hard to limit OSHA’s authority. Congressman Cass Ballenger, a republican from North Carolina, introduced legislation that would require OSHA to spend at least half of its budget on “consultation” with businesses, instead of enforcement. This new budget requirement would further reduce the number of OSHA inspections, which by the late 1990s had already reached an all-time low. Ballenger has long opposed OSHA inspections, despite the fact that near his own district a fire at a poultry plant killed twenty-five workers in 1991. The plant had never been inspected by OSHA, its emergency exits had been chained shut, and the bodies of workers were found in piles near the locked doors. Congressman Joel Hefley, a Colorado Republican whose district includes Colorado Springs, has introduced a bill that makes Ballenger’s seem moderate. Hefley’s “OSHA Reform Act” would essentially repeal the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. It would forbid OSHA from conducting any workplace inspections or imposing any fines.” – Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser.
Amongst many others, one of the issues “Fast Food Nation” made me face was the drawbacks of capitalism. In the book, there are quite a few examples where large companies, which are major revenue sources and employers in a state, push around the congressmen of the particular states. When a corporation, regardless of its size, gets to tell a political figure what sort of law he can and cannot introduce in a state, I think it’s fair to say that there’s something wrong with the system.
I’m not against capitalism as a concept. I think there’s much to be said for the motivation provided by the knowledge that hard work can yield to a wealthy life style. Same goes for healthy competition. Often times the lack of monopolies provides for a more fair price for the consumer and allows for materials to stay close to their market value. I think incentives and personal benefit are better motivators than pep talks or long-term promises. Competition also promotes the push for better results. More efficient ways. I think in recent history, much scientific and electronic progress has been made in capitalist societies.
However, and you knew this was coming, it appears mankind is not necessarily exemplary in its behavior. There appear to be intoxicating effects of the money that encourage people to bend the rules far enough to break them. It appears the rich have no problem taking advantage of the poor, less educated or less advantaged. It appears there are some people who will do anything for the right amount of money. Even at the cost of human lives.
Until human beings grow up and grow a full-time conscience, I don’t think it’s possible to live in a fully democratic and fully capitalist society. I think organizations that watch out for the benefits of the thousands of people who don’t have a voice are crucial to our society’s life cycle. I think the government needs to remember its purpose and protect all of its citizens equally. Most importantly people need to care more. Humans are not an endless commodity. They are not a commodity. Humans have rights. Humans need to be treated like humans.
Sometimes it feels to me like thousands of years have changed little and we’re still not much better than the savages we started out as.
Previously? Eat Meat?.
“I don’t think it’s possible to live in a fully democratic and fully capitalist society.”
Democratic societies are empirically troublesome. A true democracy is little more than mob rule. That the majority makes the laws. A majority of Germans may think it okay to kill Jews and you have another holocaust. A majority of whites believe it okay to own blacks and you institute slavery. A majority of Americans feel it’s okay to kill Indians and you have a genocide. Democracy, then, is not-so-good. Especially if you’re in the minority.
However, if you live in a Constitutional Republic, like … say … the United States, you have a set of rules that protects the minority from the majority. And you have elected and appointed officials who swear to uphold that document. Hey, it’s not perfect, but it’s better than what we’re using now.
But what is the option if not capitalism. Capitalism pre-supposes that people can work hard, keep their property (including wages) and do with those wages (buy, sell, invest) as they see fit. Any system outside of capitalism assumes that your property is not your property. That someone else, usually the State, owns what the fruit of your labor and feels it can distribute those fruits as it sees fit. Doesn’t sound right to me. Give me freedom. Give me liberty. Give me capitalism.
“I think organizations that watch out for the benefits of the thousands of people who don’t have a voice are crucial to our society’s life cycle.”
And what is the hammer of said organizations? Should they too “push around the congressmen of the particular states” and create laws that are in their favor? Doesn’t seem right.
“I think the government needs to remember its purpose and protect all of its citizens equally.”
Protect us from what? Foreign aggressors? Or imbalance of poor vs. wealthy?
“Most importantly people need to care more. Humans are not an endless commodity. They are not a commodity. Humans have rights. Humans need to be treated like humans.”
I think the outpouring of love, volunteerism and cash post the 9-11 attacks show us that we do care. Certainly, the capitalist United States gives more financial relief to the poor in this world than any other country. Perhaps, the capitalist United States gives more relief than all the rest of the nations of the world combined. So much for not caring.
“Sometimes it feels to me like thousands of years have changed little and we’re still not much better than the savages we started out as.”
I couldn’t disagree more. The advances of a modern (capitalist) world has created more wealth and health for more people than ever before! Pre-1900’s the poor in the United States lived in squalor. Now the poor have televisions, cable, electricity, heat, automobiles, and health care.
Prior to the Industrial Age, a majority of people were living in mud huts and deficating in their drinking water. Wars were rampant and whimsical. Is this what you prefer?
I agree with a lot of what J i m says. Few additional comments. One is, the piece seems to imply that the weaking/dismantling of OSHA is due to capitalism. Well, how did it get there in the first place? That was also under the same capitalist/democratic system. The fact that Democrats are in favor of it and Republicans are against it is just part of natural healthy debate and give and take over issues. People who feel the Republicans were wrong to get rid of OSHA write books like Fast Food Nation to try to advance their agenda. That’s the way it works. Of course, ideally we would always make the right decision as a society the first time, then there would be no need for debate, but that’s just not possible.
As for US foreign aid, in terms of percentage of GDP, the US is one of the lowest givers of the industrial world. Denmark is the highest as I recall. Japan is up there.
“Wars were rampant and whimsical.” Well, I would still say that one could say that today wars are rampant and whimsical. They may not seem that way, but neither did they seem that way to primitive “pre-Industrial” man. Also she didn’t say she preferred the savage lifestyle, she said it seemed that we had changed little since then. (Though I agree that things have changed significantly myself.)
Just a sec…
One more thought to add to yours…
Consider this. Maybe the issue is not systemic but rather social.
You all seem to look at this as institutional in nature.You all look at the government and the economoics rather than the individuals that make the decisions.
The society/economy is a sum of it’s parts. For that most part this is usually true. The notable exceptions are very large industries whose leaders make a large part of the decisions. And even in these organizations there is usually no ONE person that make it all. The stock holders and the board of dictors will usually have some say in the matters.
This is where my point leads to. These people who make the decisions by virtue of their circumstances understand very little about what goes on in their companies. All they see and act upone are numbers and statistics. It is very easy to lock the door on a statistic. After all theft if very high and there is a large number of break-in that happen in a ny given location so why don’t we just lock the door right?
Now, normally the HR departments should have a health and safety person to monitor this right? But then those recommendations are often evaluated by people who do not work in the conditions and who cannot make decision with a basis in the full circumstances.
We as a people around the world need to open our eyes more. We need to look past what we see and do everyday by routine and begin to thing about the impact of what we do on others. I think that if anything that is one of the greatest lessons from 9-11.
Government should be an example to the people. Government should not be biased by special interest. Government should consult with larger organizations and instead be concerned about the people. I do not recall any lines in the declaration of indepence that read “We the special interest groups…”
Being Canadian living in the US I can understand the pride that the people of this country have in it. There are many good things here. The people of this land are so well off that even their poverty is lavish to those really poor. We can rage and bellow at each other over injustices so grave as cutting each other off that we forget to think of who it is we are railing at and who it was that we cut off. All we think about is us. By no means are we Northerners any better. We just need to keep warm more but we still do it.
It is this lack of thought, maturity really, that is the root cause. We adults raise are not raising our children well. You can see it in the actions of those that run these big corps and sit in the halls of government.
If we were then this conversation would not be in progress. Let’s concentrate on the next generation. And in so doing let’s try to understand ourselves a bit better in the process. Do not yell at me. Instead look at your own reactions and emotions and see if anything rings that bell.
I’m not advocating an end to capitalism and/or democracy, but there are times when I think “Fast Food Nation” and books like it raise valuable questions about the society and the world we live in.
Yes, technological advances have made it possible for us, some of us, to have clean drinking water and cars and TV’s. Inarguably, we have the highest standard of living that the world has ever known.
But, nonetheless, there are over one billion people living in this world on less than one American dollar per day and who still do not have access to drinking water, still live in mud huts, and can expect to lose a family member due to curable diseases. There are tens, if not hundreds, of millions who have seen their standard of living go down within the past few decades. There are tribes of native, communal tribes (the U’wa being one) that have lost their ancestral homes as the land they live on have been ruthlessly violated by deforesters and oil companies. There are thousands of people working in sweatshops for pennies a day while the CEO’s for those companies make thousands an hour.
As important as they are, volunteerism and cash only go so far. They do not change the things that have made it possible for one-quarter of the children in the richest nation in the world to live in poverty. They do not change the fact that the richer get richer while the poorer get poorer.
Only long, hard questions about our policies and our actions, and I thank Schlosser and others for raising them.
Thanks for your entry, Karen.
Err…
Make that second-to-last sentence “Only long, hard questions about our policies and our actions will change that, and I thank Schlosser and others for raising them.
Lani:
“But, nonetheless, there are over one billion people living in this world on less than one American dollar per day and who still do not have access to drinking water, still live in mud huts, and can expect to lose a family member due to curable diseases …”
And what political system do these people live under?
Clark:
“As for US foreign aid, in terms of percentage of GDP, the US is one of the lowest givers of the industrial world …”
Why use “percentage of GNP”? Why not use actual dollars? When I go to the grocery story I don’t pay for bread as a percentage of my annual income. I buy bread in actual dollars.
Just when I thought no one was reading my entires. I go away for a day to take a test, and the comments pour in. I blame you, jim. 🙂
first of all let me do the cheesy thank you for all of you who took the time to write your opinions, that’s exactly what’s great about the web and why I write. I never claim that I’m right about anything I write here. most often they are just thought and/or opinions. Sometimes they are well thought out, sometimes they are whimsical. Often they are in between. Ahem, I’m not writing this cause I want to back out of anything I said, I’m just trying to say thank you, I loved seeing such well-thought out comments. Ok, cheesy bit over.
I agree with you jim that a purely democratic society is mob rule, and that could spell trouble of a lot of minorities. And I do agree that the idea of Constitutional Republic sounds much better and, if implemented properly, would work wonders. But where we disagree seems to be on the issue of how well it functions. If I understand it correctly, you seem to think “well enough,” and I think “not well enough.” I believe the constitution and it’s original intent is not the way its being used today. As michael said, it was meant to be for the people, all people, and it should not be biased. I also agree with him that most people who make these decisions don’t understand/know the exact situations for which they are passing judgements/creating legislation. The government’s job is to watch out for all people. and I’m not saying it’s easy, I’m just saying there are times when it fails miserably.
The government is supposed to protect us (the common people) from, in this case, a few wealthy and therefore powerful people who are acting in their own monetary interest and causing harm to the society as a result. The government has many jobs, I believe this is one of them: impartiality and acting in the common interest of the society as a whole.
The idea is that no one should get to push around the congressmen. They, or the people who advise them, should be knowledgeable about all sides of a situation, they should have done their full research and then make the decision that’s in the benefit of the society as a whole. So no one person or group should get to push around the congressman.
You know what? September 11 did cause an outpouring of love, generosity and kindness in most countries and of course in the US, but to be honest, it shouldn’t take the death of thousands for people to feel the need to give. And more importantly as Lani said, even volunteering and aid only go so far, in most cases we should stop those situations from arising in the first place. I know some are beyond our means, but others are created by individuals who do have the power not to create such an awful situation where workers get injured and no one cares.
And when I said that sometimes I feel like little has changed from the savages, I meant that sometimes people act solely in their own benefit and forget that we live in a society and the people who might get harmed in the process are other humans. This, to me, is how early humans, who didn’t live in societies, behaved and I think we owe more thought and consideration to our fellow men. I didn’t mean things aren’t considerably better in some ways, I just meant at times some behavior seems unacceptably poor in judgement.
I don’t mean to imply that the US isn’t amazing. You can ask anyone who knows me that I will defend the united States move avidly than most Americans. As opposed to many people, I wasn’t privileged enough to be born here, I chose to live here and feel lucky daily that I get to be a part of it. and I will defend it to anyone who says otherwise. That doesn’t mean we do things perfectly and doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try an better a society even if its better than all others out there. that’s one of the reasons I like america, it never says, “okay, I am well ahead I can rest now.” it keeps trying to improve.
And I totally agree with Lani, that these issues are always good to discuss and think about. we often live in our own world and worry about ourselves. hard questions about policy and legislation are always worthwhile to discuss.
As for the aid, the percentage of money or the actual amount isn’t the point to me. even tho you can’t go by actual number since it wouldn’t be fair to tiny countires who may not have 1/100th of amercian population. I am not saying america doesn’t aid others or itself even. I am just saying that there are times people are selfish at the cost of other human lives and I don’t believe that should occur in a civilized society.
Firstly, I’m lazy and was wondering what kind of “pen cam” you own. Secondly, I perused your notes about “Savages”. My oldest stepson passed away a few years ago and ever since, I have become increasingly concerned about this country we live in.
A friend of mine assures me that society is like a pendulum (sp?): It swings back and forth. I hope it stops soon and starts back the other way.
Regards,
Bob
Jim,
Unfortunately, most of those billion (or so) people live in democratizing capitalist countries. Granted, some of those people live under non-democratic regimes (China, Burma, and North Korea being some of them) but most do not. They live in countries whose legal, political, and economic frameworks are based on those of the UK, the United States, or France. India is one example, Brazil is another, Argentina is yet a third–and there are dozens more.
I wish I could tell you that such abject poverty only existed in areas like Iran and Iraq–areas that are blatantly undemocratic and/or are authoritarian. Really, I do, because it would be a very nice, comforting thing to believe that democracy and capitalism brought about prosperity. If that were true, once the war on terrorism was won and done, many of our world’s problems would just resolve themselves.
Unfortunately, that simply isn’t the case.
I forgot to add…
On the absolute dollars versus percentage of GDP thing:
There are a variety of reasons why aid is calculated in percentage of real GDP versus absolute dollars or pesos or yen or whatever. However, there are two big ones: inflation and economies of scale.
(I’m not sure this is a particularly adaquate explanation, so if you’re confused, let me know and I’ll try to come up with an example that illustrates what I’m trying to say.)
Yes, when we buy bread, or set the national budget, we use dollars. And when Argentines set their national budget, they use Argentine pesos. So when Argentines decided last August (or whenever they begin their fiscal year) to allocate X amount of pesos to aid, that amount was equivalent to some amount of their GDP (let’s say for our sake that they decided to give 3%).
But now, with hyperinflation running rampant, pesos are worth a lot less than they were in August. But if they contribute the same amount of pesos they said they would back when they set the budget, they aren’t contributing the same amount of actual *money* they said they would. Instead of contributing 3% of the budget, it may be that they are giving 1% of the budget. And that doesn’t help people who were counting on the aid, because when they exchange the money into usable currency, they get less than expected.
Yeah, I know that was confusing. I think I can explain this other reason much better.
We generally use percentage of GDP because there is such a disparity between the rich and poor nations of the world, an example of which would be the US and Jamaica. In
1997, the US had a GDP of $7.61 Trillion, and Jamaica $8.4 Billion. Now, that means that if the US were to spend $76.1 Billion in aid, it would equal one percent of our national income. On the other hand, if Jamaica pledge the same amount, they would be spending their income entirely on aid for the next 9 years.
One percent versus nine hundred percent. When put in those terms, I think we have a better picture of what’s going on, don’t you?
It’s the thought that counts….
The numbers may seem very significant but the pauper who gives is far richer than the banker who gives only so much.
Also the care which the pauper goes through when they give will usually exceed the diligence of the banker as the impact of the contribution is more dear to them and therefore the expectation conversely higher.
– Just a thought.