A smart consumer will seek out added value, what we call "getting more for your money." In obtaining the material objects and services that we need and want for our lives, we seek out the best prices; we try to get the most that we can and spend the least that we can. Economically, it's smart thinking.
However, this idea of efficiency does not translate to other aspects of life, and it can be especially damaging if people try to carry it over. Approaching a marriage or any other romantic relationship with this attitude -- let me see how much I can get out of this person while giving him or her as little as I can -- is a recipe for disaster. Yet, some people do it. (Approaching any human relationship like a business transaction, in terms of goods and services, is a bad idea.) This consumerist mentality of added value cannot translate to raising children, to educating future generations, to managing public works and services, to ending social ills, yet some people hold the political ideal, which resembles consumerism, that those of us who are working for the public good will just have to "do more with less." Parents will have to raise children with smaller paychecks, lesser housing, and cheaper food, while working longer hours; teachers will have to teach larger classes with fewer supplies; law enforcement and courts will have to maintain public safety and legality with smaller staffs and fewer resources; non-profit organizations will have to assist more downtrodden and defenseless people . . . you get the point. Corporations offer value-added deals by taking smaller profits on a single transaction for the sake of amassing larger overall profits from the large number of transactions that will be incited by the deal itself. Yet the public good is not a corporation, and there is no profit margin there.
Through some warped kind of logic, an idea has surfaced that successful business ideas that have led corporations to profitability will somehow make good politics that will administrate public works and services in a way that maximizes yield while reducing costs. The problem is that businessmen, especially corporate executives, become successful through indoctrinated exploitation, making their employees believe that being exploited -- being a "team player" -- means being a good person; the ideal that the selfless and hard-working employee who contributes to business's bottom line is the kind of person we should want to be . . . well, that's a very effective piece of propaganda perpetuated by the people who benefit from it: You work harder so I get richer!
Those ideas are bad politics, because the government is not a business. But the perception of that scenario being possible allows some politicians to expand their voter base by riding both sides of the fence: claiming to be able to provide services and lower taxes. But an under-staffed and under-resourced operation can't perform on the level of a legitimately well-staffed and properly resourced operation, and any smart businessperson will tell you that. We're seeing that fact now, since the pro-business Republicans and their more radical Tea Party members have gotten their way and now our government is sorely under-funded . . . and under-performing.
The truth is that the concept of added value can't be applied to the public good. We either take responsibility for achieving the public good -- educating children, stopping crime, etc. -- or we don't, and accept the consequences of our choices. We can't put the public good on sale and mark it down at discount. We are previewing the consequences of our misguided ideas now.
However, this idea of efficiency does not translate to other aspects of life, and it can be especially damaging if people try to carry it over. Approaching a marriage or any other romantic relationship with this attitude -- let me see how much I can get out of this person while giving him or her as little as I can -- is a recipe for disaster. Yet, some people do it. (Approaching any human relationship like a business transaction, in terms of goods and services, is a bad idea.) This consumerist mentality of added value cannot translate to raising children, to educating future generations, to managing public works and services, to ending social ills, yet some people hold the political ideal, which resembles consumerism, that those of us who are working for the public good will just have to "do more with less." Parents will have to raise children with smaller paychecks, lesser housing, and cheaper food, while working longer hours; teachers will have to teach larger classes with fewer supplies; law enforcement and courts will have to maintain public safety and legality with smaller staffs and fewer resources; non-profit organizations will have to assist more downtrodden and defenseless people . . . you get the point. Corporations offer value-added deals by taking smaller profits on a single transaction for the sake of amassing larger overall profits from the large number of transactions that will be incited by the deal itself. Yet the public good is not a corporation, and there is no profit margin there.
Through some warped kind of logic, an idea has surfaced that successful business ideas that have led corporations to profitability will somehow make good politics that will administrate public works and services in a way that maximizes yield while reducing costs. The problem is that businessmen, especially corporate executives, become successful through indoctrinated exploitation, making their employees believe that being exploited -- being a "team player" -- means being a good person; the ideal that the selfless and hard-working employee who contributes to business's bottom line is the kind of person we should want to be . . . well, that's a very effective piece of propaganda perpetuated by the people who benefit from it: You work harder so I get richer!
Those ideas are bad politics, because the government is not a business. But the perception of that scenario being possible allows some politicians to expand their voter base by riding both sides of the fence: claiming to be able to provide services and lower taxes. But an under-staffed and under-resourced operation can't perform on the level of a legitimately well-staffed and properly resourced operation, and any smart businessperson will tell you that. We're seeing that fact now, since the pro-business Republicans and their more radical Tea Party members have gotten their way and now our government is sorely under-funded . . . and under-performing.
The truth is that the concept of added value can't be applied to the public good. We either take responsibility for achieving the public good -- educating children, stopping crime, etc. -- or we don't, and accept the consequences of our choices. We can't put the public good on sale and mark it down at discount. We are previewing the consequences of our misguided ideas now.
0 comments:
Post a Comment