David Brooks wrote a column today that focused on our social milieu.
He contrasted various stereotypical interpretations of the phenomenon, ranging
from the more liberal, and libertarian perspectives to the conservative or
neoconservative views. He negatively critiqued the various economic
explanations and focused on a more sociological view.
Jason's willingness to give his interpretation of
the situation prompted me to think a bit about my views. I have shared through
Facebook and my blog that I have serious concerns about our society, if not the
world. My general view is that our inability to share in order to promote the
common good is a principal factor, putting me within the framework of Brooke's
view of liberalism.
I want to think more about this situation. My prior
concerns have focused on the middle class primarily, but often I have included
those considered in the poor class. I have been unable to project how the needs
of these people within our own society, far less in other nations, will be able
to enjoy the benefits of society. I have not seen any vision that would
generate the broad range of jobs required to employ the numbers of people who,
for one reason or another, do not enjoy a good education (I refer to being able
to function within our modern society, e.g., reading, reasoning, moderate math
ability, if not specialized skills).
Jason voiced a reasonable interpretation of our
situation, viz., the inability to delay gratification of our needs. Surely,
this must be included in any understanding of our situation. Without knowing
how to address the problem, my rather depressing view, influenced by Walter
Mead, is that our society has transitioned from an agricultural society through
a manufacturing society to what one can label now as an entrepreneurial
society. Apart from jobs associated with bureaucracy (government, education,
health care), jobs either require high skills and education or service-type
jobs. The latter will not support a middle class life-style. My only solution
to their economic and social situation is some type of income credit, designed
to supplement their earned income to ensure that everyone has a certain level
designated as at least minimally necessary to promote our national interests
(N.B. I do consider the economic plight of people to be related to our
self-interests, i.e., no society will avoid social unrest if their economic
needs are not met in a reasonable fashion).
My major problem is the enormous sector considered
the private sector. With the rise of our economy after WWII, many jobs were
available that paid reasonably good wages, sufficient to warrant inclusion
within the middle class. Jobs in manufacturing did not usually require advanced
education. Many people were employed in sales and support positions without the
benefit of higher education. As the demographics expanded, more education was
required for jobs previously satisfied by high school graduation or less. It
was a means of inserting more hoops in the process in order to discriminate in
some rational fashion. Educational requirements for positions were tightened as
well as expanded to stratify people into the available jobs.
I view our current situation as one where
technology has now intervened to the point where no one will be able to remain
employed consistently over a lifetime in a "steady" situation. More
and more jobs change ever so quickly because of the knowledge and technical
explosion. This is even true within the bureaucratic world, e.g., recent
article focusing on a school in N. Carolina that has improved dramatically by
making computers available to all students. Children learn via technology with
teachers now assuming a role of being an "assistant" to the students
who are relying on the information gained through the various computer
programs. A teacher's background in the techniques of educational theory is
principally an historical relic that must be replaced by brand-new techniques.
People with a solid education will be able to make adjustments, but what about
similar changes in other settings where the working population was not as well
educated? The President is hoping that community colleges will address this
need. I find that solution as theoretically feasible, but not terribly
productive.
And now, we are back to Brooks' column. He thinks
that we have to reorder society. I think this too is theoretically possible,
but I find it realistically impossible to achieve in any significant degree.
I think of this problem in two ways.
First, from an individual point of view, I would
strongly encourage my grandchildren to avail themselves as much education as
possible. The more knowledge a person acquires will enable a person to move
from one job to another as change continues. We will be living in a more
entrepreneurial environment where everyone's job becomes a product of his/her
talents. When the job no longer requires such talents, then a person moves on,
if the person has not already essentially "changed" the job with
his/her ingenuity.
Peter Thiel's principle view is that our society is far too regulated
to enable our brainy people to achieve all that would be possible otherwise.
Just as computer technology has exploded over the years without any regulation,
he would see such progress in energy and other sectors. He has a very
libertarian view of how society should function. People in such a society would
be rewarded by the ingenuity, imagination, and intelligence. It is hard to
envision such a society that would meaningfully utilize the broad demographics
of our society.
Second, regardless of how we transition into the future, I cannot
imagine how it would work without a significant transfer of wealth on an
ongoing basis. It is beyond my comprehension how a significant segment of the
population could ever acquire the intellectual and personal skills to navigate
a history of employment commensurate with middle class standards.
