The Have/Have Not Dichotomy: What Does it Say About Us?
Marcel J. Harmon, Ph.D.
September 06, 2006
What does it say about a nation, where from 2000 to 2004, the overall extreme poverty rate grew by 20 percent, or 3.6 million people? Where one in eight citizens (and one in four blacks) lived in poverty last year? Where, since 2000, the number of children living in poverty has grown by 11.3 percent to approach 13 million? Where, over the past five years, there has been a 22 percent increase in the number of children (reaching 5.6 million) living in conditions of extreme poverty? Where, except for the elite few, the middle and upper classes are sinking ever closer (and reaching) the poverty level, with slightly more than half of the nation’s income going to the top 20 percent of wage earners? Where the average family that can manage in some way to scrape the money together pays $2,700.00 per year for health insurance, not counting co-payments and prescription drugs? Where 15.9 percent of the population (46.6 million) had no health insurance in 2005? What does it say about a nation where lack of health insurance is estimated to cause 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]?
What does all this say about a nation that also has the world’s largest economy? Whose citizens spend $10 billion annually on adult entertainment? Whose citizens, in 2005, spent $110 billion surfing the net buying retail? That in 2005 spent $500 billion on defense, more than the rest of the world combined? That in 2003 spent from combined private and public sources $94 billion on biomedical research? That has a fiscal year 2007 budget for health and human services amounting to $698 billion (84.1 percent consisting of Medicare and Medicaid)? That spends more on health care per individual person than any other nation in the world, yet out of 29 developed nations is ranked 25th in male life expectancy and 19th in female life expectancy [6, 7, 8, 9, 10]? What does all this say about the United States of America?
One could say the U.S. is a nation of misplaced priorities, “governed” by special interests whose short-term interests are in conflict with those of the average individual citizen as well as the long-term interests of the nation. It’s a nation struggling to find its place in the emerging global economy and changing global community. And for those in power, ideology often trumps empirical evidence. The growing unease and dismay I feel as a result of all this is succinctly captured by the wailing soul in Edward Munich’s “The Scream.”
Money, connections, and the power inherent in large, organized groups have always fueled government corruption and wasteful spending, but the special interest groups of today, led by the large and powerful corporate world, seem to have reached an unprecedented level. As pointed out in a commentary by Ivan Eland [11], the same incentives for government spending operate across all areas of government, whether we’re talking about building fighter jets, building roads, or “building” public housing programs. Defense budget increases have as much to do with providing “welfare” for politically connected defense contractors as they do fighting terrorism. In a similar manner, food stamp and health care programs may very well benefit large agricultural and health care corporations as much as the poor they’re intended for (if not more). The limited political influence of the individual taxpayer compared to these organized, connected, and politically powerful special interest groups provides little incentive to streamline government programs and make them as efficient as possible with respect to their intended functions. As a result money flows from the individual taxpayer to the pockets of special interest groups.
And though U.S. productivity has continually increased over the last ten years, worker wages as a share of the national income are actually at an all time recorded low. Conversely, corporate profits are the highest they’ve been in the last 56 years, with corporate CEOs earning 262 times more than the average worker in 2005 [12]. This is partly the result of corporate America, in a bid to maintain, as well as increase profit margins, eliminating many jobs and relocating others overseas as it competes on the global economic playing field. While new jobs have been created to offset those manufacturing, professional, and technical jobs that have been lost, they for the most part are lower paying service industry jobs, without adequate benefits such has health insurance and retirement. Add to this the existing structure of social services which cuts people off in ever increasing amounts before they have a chance to fully climb out of these lower pay ranges, and we’ve made escaping poverty that much more difficult. Those hardest hit here are typically minorities and single parent families, particularly households headed by mothers.
And while we may still have the world’s largest economy, it is largely driven by consumerism. This was made apparent by our own President’s urging to go out and shop after 9/11 to help prevent our nation’s economy from being disrupted by fear. Much of our economy focuses on determining the “need” for a particular service, good, or upgrade, then developing/producing it, and finally marketing it through the mass media. The marketing campaigns are as much about establishing the “want” for a particular good or service (in the guise of establishing its “need”) as they are about informing the consumer of its existence. As a result, we spend the less money we have on more things we don’t really “need,” but often feel socially compelled to acquire. Think of the items we spend our money on now – cable/satellite television, cell phones, computers, Internet access, etc.– most of which were not available thirty years ago.
All of this leads to a decrease in the numbers of those within the “haves” group, while the “have-nots” grow ever larger. Extreme poverty is on the rise and people die – children die – as a result. In the United States there are parents forced to watch their children die from lack of adequate health care because they have insufficient or no health insurance. This isn’t because they are lazy or have a poor work ethic, but because our society is broken, or at the very least in need of a major tune-up.
Unfortunately there is no quick fix here, as complex changes are required at all levels of society. At the federal level, more of a balance is desperately needed between the left and the right to prevent policy driven by ideology at the expense of empirical evidence. I look forward to some of this balance being restored during the mid-term elections, and I’m greatly anticipating the eventual departure of the Bush administration, perhaps one of the most ideologically driven administrations in recent memory. In addition, the stranglehold that special interests have on our government must be relaxed, accepting that it will never be completely eliminated. Short of an extremely vocal and unanimous grassroots message to our leaders in Washington, I’m not sure what will have much of an effect here.
At a local level we need vibrant, sustainable communities with a variety of local businesses, activities and places to gather to help build strong social ties. A strong, local social network would fill some of the voids and needs within our lives that we currently fill through consumer spending and an accumulation of material goods. Tight-nit communities also instill in us a sense of caring for our fellow community members (by recognizing them as one of “us”), and a drive to improve their well-being. In addition, a cohesive group in the form of a strong community has much more power to affect change at higher levels of government than individuals do.
And more societal changes are required at all levels in between. But for real change to happen, it will have to start with you. You have to “care” about those around you, even if, in the end, it’s driven by self-interest. You have to pay at least some attention to the world around you – from your own neighborhood to our global neighborhood. You have to discuss all this with your family, friends, and neighbors. You have to vote. You have to take some kind of action, no matter how small. Otherwise, people will die – children will die – and our collective quality of life will continue its free-fall. It’s your choice.
Copyright 2006
References
1] Elsevier. 2006. Increase in Severe Poverty in the US Has Serious Implications for Public Health. Webwire, August 29, 2006. http://webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?SESSIONID=&aId=19326.
2] James, J. S. 2004. Institute of Medicine Calls for Universal Health Insurance by 2010. AIDS Treatment News. http://www.aidsnews.org/2004/01/IOM.html.
3] Lyman, R. 2006. Census Reports Slight Increase in ’05 Incomes. The New York Times, August 30, 2006. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/30/us/30census.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin&oref=slogin.
4] Rice, S. 2006. Poverty and Poor Health are Intertwined, Experts Say. CNN.com, August 30, 2006. http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/08/29/poverty.health/.
5] 2006. US Data Show One in 8 Americans in Poverty. Zeenews.com, September 01, 2006. http://www.zeenews.com/znnew/articles.asp?aid=319250&ssid=204&sid=LIF.
6] Nordhaus, W. 2005. The Problem of Excessive Military Spending in the United States. Prepared for American Economic Association Session on “The Costs of War,” January 8, 2005. http://www.aeaweb.org/annual_mtg_papers/2006/0108_0800_0302.pdf.
7] Kroft, S. 2004. Porn in the USA. 60 Minutes, CBS News, Sept. 5, 2004. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/21/60minutes/main585049.shtml.
8] 2005. Online Retail Strong, Store Sales Falter. The Buzz, November, 2005. http://www.ebuzz.biz/archives_thebuzz_2005.htm#nov%202005.
9] 2006. Medical Research. Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_research.
10] 2006. Department of Health and Human Services Fiscal Year 2007 Budget in Brief. http://www.hhs.gov/budget/07budget/2007BudgetInBrief.pdf.
11] Eland, I. 2005. Greater Government Spending Has not Enhanced National Security. The East Valley Tribune (Mesa, AZ), January 5, 2005. http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1444.
12] Boodhoo, N. 2006. More Work, Less Pay: U.S. Productivity Climbs but Wages Lose Ground. McClatchy Newspapers, in the Lawrence Journal World, September 4, 2006. http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/sep/04/more_work_less_pay/.
What does all this say about a nation that also has the world’s largest economy? Whose citizens spend $10 billion annually on adult entertainment? Whose citizens, in 2005, spent $110 billion surfing the net buying retail? That in 2005 spent $500 billion on defense, more than the rest of the world combined? That in 2003 spent from combined private and public sources $94 billion on biomedical research? That has a fiscal year 2007 budget for health and human services amounting to $698 billion (84.1 percent consisting of Medicare and Medicaid)? That spends more on health care per individual person than any other nation in the world, yet out of 29 developed nations is ranked 25th in male life expectancy and 19th in female life expectancy [6, 7, 8, 9, 10]? What does all this say about the United States of America?
One could say the U.S. is a nation of misplaced priorities, “governed” by special interests whose short-term interests are in conflict with those of the average individual citizen as well as the long-term interests of the nation. It’s a nation struggling to find its place in the emerging global economy and changing global community. And for those in power, ideology often trumps empirical evidence. The growing unease and dismay I feel as a result of all this is succinctly captured by the wailing soul in Edward Munich’s “The Scream.”
Money, connections, and the power inherent in large, organized groups have always fueled government corruption and wasteful spending, but the special interest groups of today, led by the large and powerful corporate world, seem to have reached an unprecedented level. As pointed out in a commentary by Ivan Eland [11], the same incentives for government spending operate across all areas of government, whether we’re talking about building fighter jets, building roads, or “building” public housing programs. Defense budget increases have as much to do with providing “welfare” for politically connected defense contractors as they do fighting terrorism. In a similar manner, food stamp and health care programs may very well benefit large agricultural and health care corporations as much as the poor they’re intended for (if not more). The limited political influence of the individual taxpayer compared to these organized, connected, and politically powerful special interest groups provides little incentive to streamline government programs and make them as efficient as possible with respect to their intended functions. As a result money flows from the individual taxpayer to the pockets of special interest groups.
And though U.S. productivity has continually increased over the last ten years, worker wages as a share of the national income are actually at an all time recorded low. Conversely, corporate profits are the highest they’ve been in the last 56 years, with corporate CEOs earning 262 times more than the average worker in 2005 [12]. This is partly the result of corporate America, in a bid to maintain, as well as increase profit margins, eliminating many jobs and relocating others overseas as it competes on the global economic playing field. While new jobs have been created to offset those manufacturing, professional, and technical jobs that have been lost, they for the most part are lower paying service industry jobs, without adequate benefits such has health insurance and retirement. Add to this the existing structure of social services which cuts people off in ever increasing amounts before they have a chance to fully climb out of these lower pay ranges, and we’ve made escaping poverty that much more difficult. Those hardest hit here are typically minorities and single parent families, particularly households headed by mothers.
And while we may still have the world’s largest economy, it is largely driven by consumerism. This was made apparent by our own President’s urging to go out and shop after 9/11 to help prevent our nation’s economy from being disrupted by fear. Much of our economy focuses on determining the “need” for a particular service, good, or upgrade, then developing/producing it, and finally marketing it through the mass media. The marketing campaigns are as much about establishing the “want” for a particular good or service (in the guise of establishing its “need”) as they are about informing the consumer of its existence. As a result, we spend the less money we have on more things we don’t really “need,” but often feel socially compelled to acquire. Think of the items we spend our money on now – cable/satellite television, cell phones, computers, Internet access, etc.– most of which were not available thirty years ago.
All of this leads to a decrease in the numbers of those within the “haves” group, while the “have-nots” grow ever larger. Extreme poverty is on the rise and people die – children die – as a result. In the United States there are parents forced to watch their children die from lack of adequate health care because they have insufficient or no health insurance. This isn’t because they are lazy or have a poor work ethic, but because our society is broken, or at the very least in need of a major tune-up.
Unfortunately there is no quick fix here, as complex changes are required at all levels of society. At the federal level, more of a balance is desperately needed between the left and the right to prevent policy driven by ideology at the expense of empirical evidence. I look forward to some of this balance being restored during the mid-term elections, and I’m greatly anticipating the eventual departure of the Bush administration, perhaps one of the most ideologically driven administrations in recent memory. In addition, the stranglehold that special interests have on our government must be relaxed, accepting that it will never be completely eliminated. Short of an extremely vocal and unanimous grassroots message to our leaders in Washington, I’m not sure what will have much of an effect here.
At a local level we need vibrant, sustainable communities with a variety of local businesses, activities and places to gather to help build strong social ties. A strong, local social network would fill some of the voids and needs within our lives that we currently fill through consumer spending and an accumulation of material goods. Tight-nit communities also instill in us a sense of caring for our fellow community members (by recognizing them as one of “us”), and a drive to improve their well-being. In addition, a cohesive group in the form of a strong community has much more power to affect change at higher levels of government than individuals do.
And more societal changes are required at all levels in between. But for real change to happen, it will have to start with you. You have to “care” about those around you, even if, in the end, it’s driven by self-interest. You have to pay at least some attention to the world around you – from your own neighborhood to our global neighborhood. You have to discuss all this with your family, friends, and neighbors. You have to vote. You have to take some kind of action, no matter how small. Otherwise, people will die – children will die – and our collective quality of life will continue its free-fall. It’s your choice.
Copyright 2006
References
1] Elsevier. 2006. Increase in Severe Poverty in the US Has Serious Implications for Public Health. Webwire, August 29, 2006. http://webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?SESSIONID=&aId=19326.
2] James, J. S. 2004. Institute of Medicine Calls for Universal Health Insurance by 2010. AIDS Treatment News. http://www.aidsnews.org/2004/01/IOM.html.
3] Lyman, R. 2006. Census Reports Slight Increase in ’05 Incomes. The New York Times, August 30, 2006. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/30/us/30census.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin&oref=slogin.
4] Rice, S. 2006. Poverty and Poor Health are Intertwined, Experts Say. CNN.com, August 30, 2006. http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/08/29/poverty.health/.
5] 2006. US Data Show One in 8 Americans in Poverty. Zeenews.com, September 01, 2006. http://www.zeenews.com/znnew/articles.asp?aid=319250&ssid=204&sid=LIF.
6] Nordhaus, W. 2005. The Problem of Excessive Military Spending in the United States. Prepared for American Economic Association Session on “The Costs of War,” January 8, 2005. http://www.aeaweb.org/annual_mtg_papers/2006/0108_0800_0302.pdf.
7] Kroft, S. 2004. Porn in the USA. 60 Minutes, CBS News, Sept. 5, 2004. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/21/60minutes/main585049.shtml.
8] 2005. Online Retail Strong, Store Sales Falter. The Buzz, November, 2005. http://www.ebuzz.biz/archives_thebuzz_2005.htm#nov%202005.
9] 2006. Medical Research. Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_research.
10] 2006. Department of Health and Human Services Fiscal Year 2007 Budget in Brief. http://www.hhs.gov/budget/07budget/2007BudgetInBrief.pdf.
11] Eland, I. 2005. Greater Government Spending Has not Enhanced National Security. The East Valley Tribune (Mesa, AZ), January 5, 2005. http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1444.
12] Boodhoo, N. 2006. More Work, Less Pay: U.S. Productivity Climbs but Wages Lose Ground. McClatchy Newspapers, in the Lawrence Journal World, September 4, 2006. http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/sep/04/more_work_less_pay/.
Print
Email
