Jack and Aston Martin V8 Vantage Monaco street signs
Jack Yan: the Persuader blog
  Click here to go to home pageWhat I stand forMy stuffWhat others have recently saidMeet some of the coolest folks I knowDrop me a line Visit my workplace
> My stuff > The Persuader Blog


Bringing the haves and the have-nots together 

I had the pleasure of interviewing a prospective intern here, aged 18. She’s very smart and -like, and when you are 18, you do have . You see the world and the bad shape it’s in. And you think: something can be done.
   Every generation, I think, sees this, and after a while society or the sheer lack of change drives some to despair. Go back to, say, my father’s generation. He went through WWII as a kid and saw how the postwar institutions tried to create a more peaceful world. Things like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights attempted to say to the world: there are minimum standards. is bad. The idea of one group over another, limiting their , leads to ruin or bloodshed.
   But go back through history and it seems to be . Slavery has often accompanied : slavery in pre-Civil War US, programmes in certain nations, and even in occidental nations today, (illegal or legal) immigrants who have fewer than full citizens doing the tough work. has narrowed the distance at which certain corporations or individuals can have control over another group of people who may work for less than a dollar a day.
   This upsets us because we pride ourselves on being civilized and because we know that no one should be without dignity. What this reminds us of is the fact that we are closer to the Darwinian ape than to anything civilized, as we struggle to narrow the gap between on our planet. We have enough food and certainly enough weapons to blow ourselves up many times over, yet we can’t feed nations. For all the coolness of causes such as ending or , where are we?
   I imagine that as people hit middle age, these questions flash across their minds as the looks remarkably similar to the one a generation ago, albeit with higher water levels, warmer temperatures, more motorists and SUVs.
   So what is the solution? There are good blogs out there with very wise ideas—many are linked at the right of this page in my blog roll—but I know it is dangerous to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Yet the is often clueless, particularly establishments that seem to have shorter collective memories than even the population.
   Labour in moans about the high Kiwi dollar when it has done little to encourage business or ; instead, our companies are being acquired left, right and centre or are forced to to Asian countries. That is a digression, but it highlights that the weak dollar that we had in 2000 (versus the US, the Kiwi was at $0·40) and the strong dollar we have now (which looked perilously close to $0·80 in July) can be linked to a lack of direction and economic inaction. This is just seven years, yet the government has forgotten what conditions we had a short time ago. (The Opposition still seems equally clueless, because this is a heck of a big target that Clark and Cullen have painted on themselves—perhaps John Key needs glasses, or does his ignorance suggest something more sinister?)
   What we do know is that the way of managing our planet has not really worked. The growth of globalization and the creation of nations of underclasses to be exploited can’t really meet a healthy end. Idealists may point to the potential of equalizing as outsourcing continues, which is not totally incorrect. I, too, believe in healthy and as a means of addressing some of these concerns: as Simon Anholt wrote in Brand New Justice, it is possible to give second- and third-world nations techniques to help their products be in first-world nations, the price premium going back to boost local economies and communities.
   Simon’s is not a technocratic solution; it is not the sort of thing that Robert McNamara or the Whiz Kids might have come up with for President Kennedy. Yet we keep listening to the technocracy when I am not terribly convinced that it has had the answers. The US, for instance, has the most unequal distribution of income among richer nations, yet its political–economic model is followed. Can any New Zealander who can think back to the pre-, pre-Ruthanasia days honestly say that appears more stable, or that we have proportionally fewer murders? We have grown an underclass.
   I was just chatting to someone at Clemenger BBDO who had been to . She reports that while Valencia shopping isn’t what it should be, Spain is a lovely place. Many of us can remember post-Franco Spain being a pretty run-down sort of place, even if Franco himself had attempted to modernize the nation during his time in power. But His Majesty King Juan Carlos I and his governments have turned the around, brought it into the as a successful —without following too many of the monetarist theories that have been oh-so trendy since the 1980s here. I remember how Spain overtook the UK as a car producer many years ago—as a child, that prospect would have been unthinkable.
   Spain was in bad shape after Franco and even the centrist government could not do much to deal with the oil shocks. When Felipe Gonzalez’s government took over in 1982, inflation was running at 16 per cent. It closed the big, unprofitable SOEs. It introduced energy policies that were more efficient. It did encourage private . But by the early 1990s, reached a horrendous 23 per cent, but by all accounts, as measured by the , Spain is now in good shape.
   Look more closely, however, and Spain has done a lot to bolster the , not just the wealthy. It abandoned low-cost manufacture as its claim to fame in Europe; today, Spanish are often trendier than those from the more brand-developed economies. Spain went to more skilled enterprises, its standard of living and cost of living—taxation was needed to finance many of its programmes—both steadily rising over the decades.
   When I think about it, the most stable, growing economies these days are not the ones that go for the flash—the ones that create millionaires and billionaires at the expense of others. The enduring ones have bolstered their middle classes, allowing many to share in the nations’ growing wealth. And domestically, I don’t think I have seen that for a while: certainly not the last National Government, which followed the technocrat’s playbook, and Labour, with its good intentions in 1999, has not narrowed the rich–poor gap. The middle class is disappearing because it is no longer the politicians’ focus: there are better photo ops alongside celebrities and the wealthy in an age of party-marketing. As with Wall Street, celebrity CEOs get more headlines than the ones who have continued to steer an organization quietly into its fifth decade of growth.
   Even our own Department of Labour paints this grim note:

From 1986 to 1991, work-poor households grew from 13% to 20%. Yet when the economy and job growth picked up in the early 1990s, the proportion of these households declined only a fraction, to 19.4% in 1996.

as does the Department of Statistics:

the bottom half of all households had considerably less of the disposable income in 1996 than 14 years before (31.1% as compared with 27.8%). Conversely, the top 10% of households saw their share of the disposable income rise from about a fifth to over a quarter.

   What politicians need to decide is whether there is a long-term vision for our planet. If we can get our own doorstep right, then maybe we can begin to influence the rest of the world.
   I am not sure if our present government knows if we are to be an exporter or a net importer. If we were to be exporters, then the favourable climate in 2000 should have been maintained, and growth in -intensive industries encouraged (which was the National Government’s plan in 1999). Yet there has been every sign since the Labour Party’s election that that was not desired as have been encouraged more and the currency strengthening in accordance. In 2000, an could have made NZ$2·50 for every US$1 earned. Now, that same exporter would make just over NZ$1·25 on the same sale. That company is less able to put its profits to benefit its workers—assuming it hasn’t got rid of all of them because of our draconian laws. I think it is pretty clear based on this simple analysis by a layman—I would never proclaim myself an —where this government’s priorities lie when it comes to exports.
   Instinctively, I am sure its tax take has lessened in real terms from our businesses, despite a rise in the rate soon after its election in 1999, with less going back into our institutions. I have not checked but with so much foreign ownership of our enterprises and profits flowing to, say, Australia (Griffin’s) or Eire (the New Zealand Listener), should I need to? Perhaps someone better versed in this can do the sums and inform me.
   I believe in strong businesses. I also believe in those businesses acting ethically and putting something back into their communities. I welcome the good parts of globalization: the connecting with people halfway around the world, learning their specialities and collaborating with them. If we are to take one more step, let us ensure it is not one that seeks to create yet another divide between the haves and have-nots.
Post a Comment  Links to this post

When I was a teenager Mao was wrecking havoc with his "Cultural Revolution" and Red China was in chaos. This destruction cost human lives, intellectual freedom and put Red China in a destructive state of affairs that most westerners like me can barely comprehend. Look at China now, very productive and change is advancing freedom both economic and intellectual. I am amazed how China has changed. I still realize that China’s government is still an Oligarchy.

I see my own government as a corrupt post-socialist system where the politicians continue to buy votes through the electoral process unaware that this is going to deplete both the wealth and freedom of the American people. It is not possible to make things “fair” by decree and to think that central planning can improve the quality of my life has been disproved by history.

My paternal grandfather immigrated to America from what was part of Hungary (now Slovakia) at age 20 in 1903. He didn’t speak English and had little education. He was ambitious and found employment at US Steel in Gary, Indiana. The boom years of American steel production. He succeeded at a time before collective bargaining as the Wagner Act wasn’t passed until the 1930’s when he was in his mid-fifties.

He started his economic rise by buying his first two lots and built houses which he rented out. His retirement plan before Social Security was to own rental property and live off of the rental income. When he passed away at age 82, he owned an apartment building in Sherman Oaks, California which is an upper middle class suburb of Los Angeles. We need vertical mobility in the economic sense where one has the freedom to succeed.  
Thanks for your thoughtful piece, Jack.
Just to throw in some thoughts of my own, on Zak's contributions – I don't see how America is socialist. Socialism is about democratic "social" values and equality, neither of which exist in America today. America is a capitalist system where a powerful state acts largely to promote the interests of the capitalist system.

To me "corporate power" is "central planning." A small group of unelected executives control the system and the costs in terms of environmental pollution and worker exploitation are "outsourced" to the Third World. As for China, its seems we find it very easy to identify with the small capitalist elite there (doing great) but not the majority of people working in sweatshops.

Making things "fair by decree" does work. That's how the working class got the vote. That's how we got public health and education and the minimum wage. They were democratic reforms put in place by the politically organized working class. They weren't handed out by the rulers on a plate. Democracy requires equality to function, otherwise it is subverted by wealth and power.

The "wealth and freedom" of the American people is largely concentrated in the hands of a corrupt plutocracy – people who make money simply because they already have money and who now control and manipulate the political system for their own advantage.

Frankly I am not interested in vertical mobility. In fact in a world that is collapsing through environmental and social crisis, it seems kind of missing the point somewhat?
What I am interested in is a society in which all people have access to fundamental basic rights: education, health care, housing, power, secure jobs.

Part of the equation would have to include strong unions, a strong public sector and co-operative enterprises, alongside socially responsible businesses of the type Jack describes.

In an advanced technological age these basics should simply be supplied to people. Imagine the great release of human potential if all these concerns were taken care of, allowing all individuals to fill their potential, freed from fear and manipulation. Free access and equality is the basis of any democratic society that wants to promote the common good.

In fact, in New Zealand we were moving towards this type of society over the twentieth century. Now we have lurched towards the unregulated capitalist model, and surprise, surprise, the economic and social divide is widening rapidly and we have all the problems that come from a stressed, unequal society.

The great idea that everyone can somehow accumulate wealth through investments or property is flawed. Someone actually has to do the work? And pay the rent through their earnings? Unfortunately the entire population cannot exist as landlords.

There is nothing wrong with individuals saving for their retirement, but housing should primarily be about a secure home life for people, not an investment vehicle for capitalists.

Under the current system, we will continue to see massive deprivation alongside ostentatious wealth. It can't continue indefinitely, so we need to find positive human centered alternatives. As a democratic socialist – a number of steps to the left of Jack! – I appreciate his thoughtful contribution to the debate. Cheers.  
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link




Entries from 2006 to the end of 2009 were done on the Blogger service. As of January 1, 2010, this blog has shifted to a Wordpress installation, with the latest posts here.
   With Blogger ceasing to support FTP publishing on May 1, I have decided to turn these older pages in to an archive, so you will no longer be able to enter comments. However, you can comment on entries posted after January 1, 2010.

Quick links

Surf to the online edition of Lucire
  • More ramblings at the Lucire Insider blog
  • The Medinge Group
  • Jack Yan for Mayor
  • My Facebook page
  • Follow me on Twitter
  • My Vkontakte page
  • Book me for public speaking
  • Contact JY&A Consulting on business projects
  • Check out fonts from JY&A Fonts
  • Add feeds

    Add feed to Bloglines

    Individual JY&A and Medinge Group blogs

  • Lucire: Insider
  • Summer Rayne Oakes
  • The Medinge Group press room
  • Detective Marketing
  • Amanda van Kuppevelt
  • Delineate Brandhouse
  • Paolo Vanossi
  • Nigel Dunn
  • Pameladevi Govinda
  • Endless Road
  • Avidiva news
  • Johnnie Moore’s Weblog
  • Steal This Brand Too
  • The Beyond Branding Blog
  • Ton’s Interdependent Thoughts
  • Partum Intelligendo
  • Right Side up
  • Headshift
  • Goiaba Brazilian Music
  • Jack Yan on Tumblr (brief addenda)

  • +

    Previous posts

  • CareerBuilder.com may be triggering spyware ads
  • More proof that politicians hate innovation
  • Murdoch eyes The Wall Street Journal as a brand
  • New Zealand’s type guys turn out for Helvetica
  • Dumb Kiwis, as perceived by the USA
  • Lucire cards take shape
  • Preview: the Cadbury Dream Model Search ’07 TV sho...
  • Anatomy of a business card
  • In praise of Ben Goodger
  • Top ten reasons Bullitt should not be remade

  • Donate

    If you wish to help with my hosting costs, please feel free to donate.