The new semester is starting this week, and it's a change from the last month and a half for me. I haven't had any classes for a while, since what I wanted to take during Intercession was canceled, so it might take a bit to get back into the swing of things. We did have Earl Lectures this past week, so that was a nice way to work up to more scholarly work for myself again. Also, we had the President's State of the Union speech last Tuesday, which I found very inspiring while not full of concrete ideas. Also, there was this, which made me want to throw things at the television:
Yet, through all this, the thing foremost on my mind was Monopoly. Yes, the game I'm exceptionally good at made a mad return through the last few weeks on the coffee table and the Wii. I'm trying to dissect why I'm good at Monopoly, why I've always been good at Monopoly, why people bug out in the middle of a game by selling all their property for a dollar, or refuse to play me any more in the first place. My basic idea currently is that I'm a master trader that takes a lot of risks and gets a little luck. But I'm sure it's more complicated than that.
As I listened to the Earl Lectures last week, I still had Monopoly on the brain. Perhaps my approach to economics is different than some at seminary due to my training as an Assistant Manager at Walmart. I'm groovy on the idea of paying wages equal to the work performed, with a higher minimum wage (really, a living wage). I'm groovy on the idea that people should get benefits from their place of employment at part of their compensation package. I'm groovy on taxes to pay for services from the government not provided by business, services that people may otherwise be unable to afford. I'm ultra-groovy on health care quality, the same great system provided by the government and available to everyone. I love the idea of social security to help those in old age manage to make ends meet when they otherwise are unable to work.
But, while I'm not economist, I also understand business is business. The wages, the taxes, the benefits, the services need to come from somewhere. A business needs to have a customer base to serve, and income to pay for goods and/or services for the customer base, and profit to make the venture worthwhile. In our economy, without a decent profit, there's no incentive to have the business, let alone ability to make the business run. Where do we draw the line, then? Sure, we want the business to supply the proper compensation to it's workers, but if we overextend that compensation, there is no compensation because the business has failed. While this is perhaps more applicable to smaller businesses, just look at the big car companies that required a government bailout. When the economy turned south, and there wasn't enough money rolling in from sales, the commitment to the workers became overwhelming, and without government assistance, there would have been catastrophe. I endorse unions that want to get a better slice of the pie for the workers, or, in some instances, even basic worker rights, but I have a hard time supporting a union fighting for worker rights that lead to the destruction of the company.
At the same time, money is out there. Profits are growing for the large companies in the world, as are CEO compensation packages, while the workers at the bottom of the chain are not getting any better. The current solution in place is to take these much higher earners to help the government fill in the gaps for the less compensated workers. Conservatives fight against this, with the general argument going something like, "I worked hard for this money, it's what I earned, why should I be forced to give it to someone else?"
And this is where Monopoly really started to enter my brain again. Let me give you a basic example of the economy, as I see it, using Monopoly. I'll make some assumptions and generalizations here, but, like I said, it's basic. So we start life, and somewhere along the way we start making choices. Some of us make more money than others, but we get to pick how we spend it, and where we make the sacrifices. Some of us make purchases that end up going nowhere (Baltic Ave?), some of us get a chance to make money that while providing for the essentials, doesn't give us opportunity to get going somewhere (the railroads?), some get to take their money and turn it into more through investment in the right place at the right time (the orange monopoly with some houses?), and some get out and out luxury from their investment income (Boardwalk and Park Place, with hotels?). We all have similar rules to live by, we all have a basic income, but some get more than others. What I find interesting about this model is that it isn't sustainable. Once someone gets a monopoly, and a higher income through development, we all know the game is going to end soon. The person with more money, and a way to turn that money into more money, is the winner. It will happen very quickly if there is no equal competitor, but there's more equal a chance of winning for the players if more have monopolies at the same time.
The game ends when there is one player left after all the rest have debt that exceeds their assets. That's when we declare a winner and pick up the pieces people have scattered in (sometimes) mock anger from their loss. Happy day for playing a game! But in the real world, the game ends there too if things aren't done to maintain balance. I wonder if the winner might not realize they are out of luck in this scenario too. For, if the rich are given all the money, then who pays for hotel stay to recoup the investment cost? In other words, if the rich are the ones with the money, how do they increase that income if there are no customers left to purchase the goods/services offered because you already have all of their money?
Wouldn't it be prudent, then, to extend the life of the system, to ensure that the workers, the ones that are the beneficiary of the success of the company through a wage paid for a job performed, are able to continue to pay for the goods/services offered by the company, as well as others?
I remember studying trickle-down economics in high school and college and not understanding. I've heard the argument from conservatives that they don't trust the government to make the choices. They say that businesses, guided by the principles of capitalism, are the best judge of what is the right thing to do with the money.
I've seen in the last ten years a Congress enact legislation to make that happen, and I've seen pay scales for high-level employees (especially CEOs) skyrocket, and I've seen a system crash to almost unprecedented levels that required government intervention to stay afloat. I've seen companies grow, potholes grow, and an education gap grow, as we collect less taxes to stimulate private spending while ignoring investing in the things that are for the common good. So I was inspired by President Obama's dedication to increasing infrastructure spending. We all benefit from increased transportation and communication capabilities, and the jobs that result from that spending.
Yes, I've heard the argument that companies need less taxes and more profit in order for the economy to run successfully. I've heard the argument that people don't trust the government to spend our money. Frankly, I don't trust business to make those choice, because they haven't. At the end of the day, the business is just like the owner of Boardwalk and Park Place. They know they have it good, but they want to be the best. So they spend money in places that work for them, not for the common good. The rest of us are left to hope we don't fall into bad luck through our roll of the dice. And so we get left behind, and as we are left behind, the rich lose out as well, because we can't afford to pay for their goods/services offered. We can't afford the rent. The game is over for all of us.
How do we keep the game going? By giving the less fortunate more opportunity. What kind of game would we be playing if everyone had a monopoly, and everyone had a hotel, and we all could pick which hotel we wanted to stay at without worrying about if we had enough money to pay for it. I don't think that'd be a very fun game (I have a pretty competitive spirit!), but I do think that would serve well as a life model. All it comes down to is the right implementation, which is an argument for another day.
In the meantime, we can all be a little more trusting of each other, and a little more loving with each other. We can all give each other a helping hand in times of need. We can invite a friend over for a meal, a movie, a chat, or a game. We can find something to laugh at, offer a shoulder to cry on, or just find a hand to hold when we need it most. We can create connections that transcend money and rely on community. We can be to each other the best we would want for ourselves. We don't need taxes for that, and we don't need business for that. We just need each other.
