Posts under ‘economics’

Seeing the new independent film “Ballast” several days after Barack Obama’s inauguration was a stark reminder that, once the party is over, economic and social change will be hard won.

According to Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary, ballast represents “a heavy substance placed in such a way as to improve stability and control” or “something that gives stability (as in character or conduct)“.

If ballast is indeed what this country needs in order to lift those who live in abject poverty out of their plight, then it will take a lot more than hundreds of billions of dollars thrown at banks and car manufacturers to accomplish what looks to be, at best, a Herculean task.

In many rural, urban, and—let’s face it—suburban American homes, putting food on the table and into the stomachs of our children hasn’t been so difficult in a generation. When it comes to making mortgage payments or keeping up with rent, that is a task made even more challenging by the scores of jobs being slashed each week as prices rise and families struggle to keep up. People with Master’s degrees are applying at Wal-Mart and Starbucks, and retirees eke out their survival by joining the ranks of the unemployed at job fairs.

In the deep South, in California, in Harlem and Detroit, most everyone is waiting to see how the new economic recovery plan will create jobs, stimulate the economy, and bring some sorely needed ballast to a nation afloat in uncertainty.

Just as we all need stability and accountability in our personal relationships and communities, we also expect the same from our government and our leaders. With a new leader wielding the power and speaking from Teddy Roosevelt’s proverbial “bully pulpit“, all eyes are turned towards Barack Obama and his stated desire to reverse the course of trickle-down economics, creating instead a trickle-up economy that first feeds those in most dire need of an infusion of hope and hard currency.

I am personally waiting on the edge of my seat, hoping with all my heart that whatever is undertaken will accomplish what needs to be done. There are vulnerable people among us who need the succor of the state and a way out of their economic plight. May the tears and hopes of last week’s celebrations give way to the hard work and clear decisions that lead us to where we truly need to be.

A live webcast on Monday, December 15th at 2pm EST, will feature a panel of experts discussing how to keep public health programs afloat during the economic downturn.

Entitled “Public Health Survival: Leadership in a Falling Market,” the webcast will be hosted by the Gillings School of Global Public Health at UNC, and will include a number of expert panelists.

The times for all U.S. time zones are thus:

2:00 - 3:00 pm Eastern Time
1:00 - 2:00 pm Central Time
12:00 - 1:00 pm Mountain Time
11:00 am - 12:00 pm Pacific Time

To access live web coverage, please click here for a link to the webcast homepage, where you will also find a downloadable pdf file of the webcast slides, links to articles, and organizations of interest.

Last night’s post only scratched the surface of the culturally accepted norm dictating that mental health is not on par with physical health when it comes to one’s needs for rest and rejuvenation—especially where work is concerned.

Work is, for better or worse, part and parcel of our lives, a veritable necessity for putting food on the table and clothes on our backs. As we moved out of an agricultural society into an industrial—and eventually technological—society, it obviously became necessary for an astronomical number of individuals to become workers who performed duties under the auspices of companies and corporations which held our livelihoods in their hands. Granted, an agrarian society is no panacea—share-cropping and slavery are excellent examples of that scheme’s miserable failings—yet the industrial age brought with it abuses and restrictions on individual freedom which, while not necessarily slavery in name, certainly have kept many segments of society in quite similar and dire economic straits.

So, when one has chosen to enter a field of work in which the vagaries of the economy and the edicts of one’s employer shape one’s destiny, there is a certain amount of freedom that is abdicated. That said, even the self-employed feel that they too must abdicate some freedoms in the face of restrictive tax codes and the high cost of health insurance and healthcare.

For myself, I have chosen to enter the “Medical Industrial Complex”, to riff on a phrase originally popularized by Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1961. Within said Medical Industrial Complex, a hierarchy exists, similar to the hierarchies within other disciplines and professional societies. The members of such systems are rewarded for their work based upon algorithms which take into account such notions as experience, education, applicable skills, and other factors which make one a candidate for the assignment of various tasks and responsibilities.

As I stated in yesterday’s post, certain segments of society are held in higher esteem than others, earning astronomically higher salaries and benefits than those of us who slog away in blue-collar, “pink-collar” and even many white-collar positions. Most of us would agree that celebrities—including many actors, some entertainers, as well as many professional athletes—receive remuneration for their efforts which far seems to outstrip the relative value and social import of their (cultural and economic) contributions to society. CEOs are another story, and the scale of their remuneration is also sorely out of balance (think Ken Lay, may his soul never rest).

I stated yesterday that the hypothetical baseball player who experiences occupational stress could be pretty certain that his salary—often in the millions, or at least hundreds of thousands—would not suffer in the face of a leave of absence for reasons related to stress.

In my post, I compared myself to that stressed-out baseball player. Let’s imagine that I was a nurse who was experiencing incredible levels of stress and burnout by caring for the destitute, chronically ill, and elderly who live in that baseball player’s hometown. Maybe several members of his extended family—saddled with substance abuse, mental illness, or other disabling medical conditions—were actually on my caseload. When I decide that I need to take a leave of absence due to stress related to my work, why is it that I—a person providing essential services related to the health, well-being and survival of members of that baseball player’s family and community—must do so without pay and with risk of economic hardship, while the baseball player (who essentially swings a piece of wood at a leather ball and catches balls hit by others with the same piece of wood) rests on his laurels and fat bank account, taking a break from his on-the-job stress on Maui? What is wrong with this picture?

Teachers, nurses, police officers, EMTs, substance abuse counselors, social workers, senior center directors, outreach workers, AIDS workers, hospice counselors, homeless advocates, housekeepers, medical assistants, home health aides, daycare workers, laborers—-we all experience on-the-job stress, yet it seems only the rich and famous can have respite without negative economic consequences. The families of people in the military live on food stamps in decrepit barracks for the enlisted, yet we say we “support the troops”. Again, what is wrong with this picture?

Our measure of “heroes” is askew. Who truly are the heroes? Who should be celebrities? Where are the trading cards of famous nurses and home health aides? When will substance abuse outreach workers have their day? Something is wrong in a culture wherein those who care for the dying must themselves struggle to survive. This is an emergency of priorities, one for which parity and balance seem far beyond reach.

In essence, the true heroes go unsung, and the make-believe heroes take home the prize.

So, you’ve heard about Fair-Trade Coffee, wherein indigenous coffee-growers and harvesters earn living wages via trade practices which honor workers’ rights, human rights, and the inevitable environmental impact of coffee growing, including widespread pesticide and herbicide use. Dean’s Beans, Global Exchange, Equal Exchange, and other progressive companies have catapulted this practice into the mainstream, and Middle America is beginning to understand how its thirst for coffee can fuel worker exploitation and environmental degradation.

That said, places like Starbucks (no link needed—they don’t need free advertising) pay some lip service to fair trade, inconsistently offering one or two fair-trade flavors, but could do a great deal more to support the cause. With their profits through the roof—and a potential move into small restaurants under the Starbucks banner in the near future—the “Evil Coffee Empire” (as it is known in some quarters) could adopt 100% fair-trade practices vis-a-vis its coffee and chocolate, jettisoning recognition of fair trade further into the mainstream. Even though many of their practices are laudable—like employee benefits, socially responsible investing with Calvert,
and attention towards the environmental impact of coffee growing, Starbucks could use its cultural ubiquitousness and name recognition to take Fair Trade to the next level. Perhaps some day they will. That said, I still buy the odd coffee at Starbucks myself, though I always choose a local cafe if one can be found.

Next comes Fair-Trade Chocolate. Like coffee growers and harvesters, indigenous cocoa farmers are often exploited by middlemen and global corporations which ignore human rights, environmental impact, and the need for a living wage. Fueling the worldwide demand for a luxury item—chocolate—is a billion dollar industry, and many families suffer as they try to feed, clothe and educate children on the subsistence wages earned growing cocoa, often the only viable choice in a globalized market that has shut out small independent (and mostly indigenous) farmers. Lutheran World Relief, A Greater Gift, Global Exchange, and many other companies have stoked the flames of consumer activism in the interests of cocoa farmers, and many chocoholics are realizing that their predilection for chocolate does not need to be borne on the backs of indigenous farmers.

On Valentine’s Day of this year, I posted a missive which included a paragraph dedicated to the human costs related to the flower industry. As detailed on DemocracyNow!:

“Approximately 60 percent of all flowers sold in the United States come from Colombia. A third of Ecuador’s yearly production is exported to the U.S. for Valentine’s Day. Flower workers in these countries earn poverty-level wages, work long hours, and suffer significant health problems due to pesticides. The report also finds that over half of women workers in the flower industry in Colombia and Ecuador have been subjected to sexual harassment“.

According to Jobs with Justice, Dole is the sole U.S. wholesaler that owns flower plantations abroad, including 20 in Colombia alone. Dole has reneged on contract agreements, and has periodically fired workers for no apparent legal reason other than workers’ efforts to gain access to living wages and humane working conditions. You can sign a petition at Jobs with Justice’s website to petition Dole to negotiate in good faith.

Failing tackling Dole and other multinationals singlehandedly, what is the earnest consumer to do? Just like with chocolate and coffee, one can make the informed decision to go to reliable sources which offer fair-trade certified organic flowers which are often reviewed by third parties for compliance with agreed-upon standards. The cost is often comparable, and we have never paid more than a few dollars extra by choosing fair-trade. Organic Bouquet is one of many sites where you can buy with a clear conscience, and as usual in these types of endeavors, Google is still your best friend.

So, without wanting to be a nay-sayer or kill-joy, one of my self-appointed missions on this Earth is to be an activist for causes which I feel are in need of attention, are relatively easy to address as an individual consumer, and whose impact can have far-reaching reverberations. If you’ve already ordered your Mothers Day flowers (and I hope by now you have, for your sake!), please take this message to heart and consider buying fair trade the next time you have occasion to order flowers or plants for someone you love.

In this culture where purchases are often only a click away from the comfort of our homes with credit-card in hand, we can easily choose to use the savings on gas from not driving to the store to buy with our heart and our conscience. Of course, we choose our battles carefully in this life, and there are daily decisions that we must make which have far-reaching impacts of which we are blissfully unaware (with a nod to George Orwell).

That said, every choice is an opportunity, and with every opportunity we take to do good in the world, we are contributing to a growing movement towards humanitarianism, environmental awareness, human rights, and a world where all are equally able to pursue liberty and happiness for themselves and their families. Does that chocolate bar effect the life of a Colombian cocoa grower living in the bush? Ask her, and one look in her eyes will answer your question. Consider eschewing Nestles, Hersheys, Maxwell House, FTD, and flowers.com, and spend your money through the filter of your conscience. We’ll all feel better, and some of us will actually live better. What could be a better Mothers Day gift than that?