A youth who had begun to read geometry with Euclid, when he had learnt the first proposition, inquired, “What do I get by learning these things?” Euclid called a slave and said, “Give him three pence, since he must make a gain out of what he learns.”
Tullius: Your stories are all allegories of your inner desires.
Marcus: What do you mean by that?
Tullius: I’ll ask the questions here. Don’t you see the problem?
Marcus: I’m not sure I do.
Tullius: Well, your stories seem to reveal your wish that the world be orderly, with no conflicts other than on a philosophical level – your protagonists generally accept and help each other, and your antagonists are simply motivated by their own self-serving philosophy. Do you wish the world were more like your stories?
Marcus: I’m not sure what I wish the world was like. All I know is I want to live in a world where cooperation and acceptance are more important than competition and tribalism.
Tullius: So, do you want to live in a world where life is generally fair?
Marcus: Who doesn’t? But we all know life isn’t fair. Some people get to take the elevator. Others get the shaft. Often it seems the only thing separating the haves and have nots is dumb luck.
Tullius: Come on. You know that’s not all there is to it. Isn’t there something else?
Marcus: I suppose some people are good at taking advantage of their opportunities. They work hard and build wealth rather than squandering money. On the other hand, some are very good at taking advantage of others, benefitting from others’ hard work, and manage to build wealth on the backs of others.
Tullius: Now, we’re getting somewhere. Are you saying you want a world where there is no advantage for people who take advantage?
Marcus: That’s a clever way of putting it. We’ll always have happenstance, serendipity, people being in the right place at the right time, so-to-speak. I just resent it when people are rewarded for gaming the system, contriving to manipulate – workers, investors, the government, whoever. I guess I’d like it very much if the system found a way to filter out the manipulators and only reward those who are truly hard-working, creative, and contributing to society.
Tullius: But we do reward them. Don’t we?
Marcus: I don’t think so. At least not any more than we have to. Sure, we have token rewards – employee of the month, retirement watches, raises of a whole dollar an hour – but the real money goes to the one percent club, those with the connections and charisma to take in billions while others barely get by. To make big money, a person must be aggressive, or at least assertive, and take steps to make sure he gets what he thinks he deserves, whether he deserves it or not. A landlord who raises the rent without making the slightest improvement to the property is one example. Overall it seems to me too many people accept the notion that nice guys finish last. Show up on time, work hard, do what you’re told, and when you’re in your 50s your job will be eliminated. Don’t say, ‘I’m sorry,’ because it shows weakness. Find ways to take credit and deflect blame and you’ll get ahead. Oh, and loyalty means blanket agreement, even when the boss is incompetent, wrong, or dishonest. There are exceptions, of course, but when so many people can’t stand their boss or hope to find a new job, I’m afraid a Mother Theresa here and a Tom Hanks there isn’t enough to sway my opinion. The world rewards those who know how to cover their asses and keep the higher ups smiling. Just try to be a whistle-blower and you’ll see I’m right.
Tullius: That’s…a bleak outlook. Isn’t there any way you could be wrong? What about all the ways people are rewarded spiritually – with family, friends, personal well-being, and so on?
Marcus: Now, you’re going to go with, ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’? I’ve heard it all before – ‘No man is poor who has friends.’ Right. Society throws that bone to people who will never get rich, no matter how hard they try. The rich benefit from the set of assumptions that made them rich. Period. It just seems to me these assumptions are wrong.
Tullius: How so? Why shouldn’t those who work hard, invent something worthwhile, and catch a break get rich?
Marcus: I’m not saying they shouldn’t. I’m saying we’ve always made everything about competition. The cream rises to the top, we say. Aristotle proposed that wealth, power, and honor are conferred through merit. He thought if a man rose higher than others, he deserved it because he showed more merit. My dad taught me the same thing, as his father taught him. They said hard work, intelligence, perseverance, the ability to think, speak, read, write, and be a team player would lead to positions of responsibility, and consequently, more pay. Ben Franklin wrote, early to bed, early to rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy, and wise. Thousands of African Americans would no doubt dispute old Ben on the healthy and wealthy parts of that saying. There are people who follow this advice to the letter and work themselves into an early grave with no real wealth to show for it. Somehow the concept of merit breaks down. Maybe merit isn’t enough. Maybe one needs to add something else – having connections? Graduating from the right college? Joining the right fraternity? Being a member of the right family or social class? Being the right race? Being part of the right religion? Knowing what to kiss and when?
Tullius: So, it’s all about having or currying favor? Is that your opinion? What about what you said about competition? You sort of left me hanging on that.
Marcus: For many people, life might be a competition to curry favor. It certainly seems that way sometimes. Even in so-called democratic countries, people who learn to ‘bend the knee’ seem to get ahead. One of my friends once told me it’s important to keep your head down and your mouth shut if you want to keep your job. Don’t ask too many questions or offer too much critique. It’s a warped form of competition, with unspoken rules. I don’t mind fair competition, like what Aristotle and my dad assumed life would be. But if life is competitive, and that competition is rigged in favor of a few, how can anybody say it’s about merit?
Tullius: I understand. The game seems rigged, but isn’t competition inevitable? It’s always been true that some get ahead while others don’t. The fittest survive. Not everybody can be wealthy. Not everybody has the same brain power or the same work ethic. Some do alright when told what to do, but they need to be told or trained. Others can work on their own, with very little supervision. Some are late to work, if they show up at all. Some are addled by drugs. Some just do a poor job. Others show up to work each day and do a good job without having to be cajoled or threatened. It doesn’t surprise me that some get ahead, and others don’t. Why is this wrong?
Marcus: It’s not wrong. We shouldn’t reward people who are intentional slackers. My complaint is about those who have showed initiative and self-discipline and are still barely getting by, while some are awarded thousands of times as much money and stock options to boot. My complaint is about those who are expected to compromise their ideals, their integrity, or even their bodies to ‘get ahead.’ My complaint is about the claim that anyone can become rich, when that’s not true. My complaint is that we have built the whole system on competition in the first place.
Tullius: What alternative is there? Socialism? Communism? What will motivate people to do more, invent more, and work harder if there is no reward, if they gain no advantage for doing so?
Marcus: Now that’s a good question! The key words are, gain no advantage. Let me rephrase your question. Why is it that people think they must gain an advantage over others in order to become a success? Why must one have more money, a bigger house, a fancier car, or state-of-the-art gadgets to get ahead? What is getting ahead, anyway? And why is it important? Is there no value in doing good work and contributing to the well-being of others? Is there no value in accomplishing a thing just to accomplish it? What about the value of pursuing a calling or finding a purpose? Must there be an opportunity to win an award, get a boatload of money, or seize a position of power for someone to be motivated to work? Is there no value in just doing well for the sake of doing well? Or is value only measured in terms of gain?
Tullius: I see what you mean. Yet, many Olympic athletes, scientists, scholars, writers, artists, and musicians, for example, work hard just to be among the best. They work for the satisfaction of improving their abilities. Some have said monetary rewards are secondary to the privilege of working alongside their peers and challenging themselves to do their best.
Marcus: Exactly. Some among us work hard to be able to work alongside other competent people. You might say they compete to be able to collaborate in a larger community. Money becomes secondary to being able to work in the same arena as others who seek improvement and purpose.
Tullius: Aren’t you forgetting that many of the people you mentioned are poorly rewarded in terms of money? I thought you wanted a better system of reward. Isn’t money how we do this?
Marcus: Yes. Unfortunately. Money is our medium of exchange. If you have a lot of it, you can live a better life than someone who has only a little. A prominent economist once said a lack of money is a major obstacle to freedom. If you don’t have enough money, you can’t travel, you can’t go out to dinner, or even eat the kinds of food that keep you healthy. You can’t even pay for health care. What good is living in a free country if you’re too sick or malnourished to take advantage of that freedom? What good is freedom of movement if you can’t afford a car, or even bus fare? What good is the freedom to live where you want if you can’t afford an apartment? What good is freedom of speech if nobody will pay attention to you because someone with more money can speak louder? Much the same can be said about any of our rights. If you’re accused of a crime, and can afford to hire a good lawyer, you have a great advantage over a person who has no money. You may even be able to afford your freedom. So, money is important.
Tullius: So, what do you propose? Guaranteed income? Equality of outcome?
Marcus: No. There’s no way we can assure equal rewards, especially with so many diverse abilities, not only in terms of natural talents, but in terms of the willingness to develop them. As you said, not everyone has the same strengths. Yet, everyone is equal in terms of their natural endowment – their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I’m arguing that having adequate money is important to survival – what we call life – and being free to live that life in the way we choose – liberty – as well as to seek happiness – by using our time to improve our lives and the lives of others. If we waste life in mere competition over who gets to die with the most toys, I’d argue we’ve failed to use the power of money wisely.
Tullius: So, then what?
Marcus: Many studies have shown that people are happier and most productive when they have enough income to not worry so much about money. Let’s face it, if a person is struggling to survive, to make ends meet, so-to-speak, there are severe limits to their happiness. They tend to live life under threat of losing the little they have, of everyone else nickel-and-diming them to death, sometimes literally. Try maintaining a minimum bank balance when you’re earning too little. Most banks will assess a penalty and take what little you have. Many people who want to work have been fired for being homeless, but if they can’t work, how will they be able to afford rent? If you’re worried about how you’re going to afford your next meal or your prescription drugs, how productive can you be? The command to ‘be productive’ starts to sound more like a lash than a carrot-on-a-stick. Look, if we want better productivity, we need to make sure people can make a living wage and then manage them better. It’s not the little guy’s fault management is lazy or ignorant. Punching a time card is a classic example. Why are some people held to serving a specified amount of time while others are not? Maybe management can’t be bothered to guide and develop them. We pay to the minute for lower wage workers, bragging about 15 cents per hour raises, while C-level employees get six-figure bonuses. Nobody calculates an executive’s productivity down to the minute. Why? Because above a certain salary level, productivity does not increase, and in many cases it decreases.
Tullius: So, you do want guaranteed income or some sort of income parity?
Marcus: No. I want people to be paid and supervised adequately. Period. I want business models to include adequate wages. I want managers to do their jobs. I want people to be rewarded for productivity and doing good work, not for their ability to play the game. Too often workers bear the brunt of bad management decisions. It seems to me layoffs and restructuring are often the result of prior missed opportunities and failure to look ahead. Eastman Kodak missed the digital camera revolution, and who paid the price? The workers.
Tullius: To be fair, the shareholders paid the price too.
Marcus: Granted, but do C-level types typically suffer losses when something like this happens? Usually when a company loses money or goes bankrupt top management walks away with generous severance packages. And stock prices often tend to recover. Even failed executives get multi-million-dollar severance deals. The lower level employees just get to look for new jobs.
Tullius: You have a point. Sometimes I think I’d be willing to do the same bad job for half the pay!
Marcus: Now you sound like me. All I’m saying is that the system as we know it shifts risk from those who can afford it to those who can’t. By way of contrast, in the old days of banking, we had the Mary Poppins model.
Tullius: What’s that?
Marcus: Remember the song? The Fidelity, Fiduciary Bank…? Banks were owned and controlled by groups of partners who were also personally liable if their investments went bad. It seems to me we wouldn’t have had the 2008 meltdown if the risk was confined to the rich guys who decided to put their money in bad investments. Instead they packaged the risk, sold pieces of paper to insure or underwrite the risk, then in the end taxpayers had to bail them out. This would be like me going to Las Vegas, losing a lot of money and expecting all my neighbors to cover my losses. The guys who decided to take the risk were shielded from its consequences, but the rest of us weren’t.
Tullius: So, you want to go back to 19th Century banking practices?
Marcus: Well, banks back then were generally conservative. They evaluated risks, set proper expectations for returns, and generally invested only what they could afford to lose. I’m not saying 19th Century practices should be reinstated. Those guys were terribly elitist, after all, and they had their own problems with economic bubbles. Just because they claimed to be fiduciary didn’t mean they were infallible. Avarice is a tale as old as time. And, even if we could turn back the clock, the world has moved past that point. I suppose what I’m arguing for is conservative management practices with shares owned by depositors, not shareholders. Banks should not be like manufacturing corporations. They don’t make money like Toyota makes cars. I believe banks should have a responsibility to protect the world’s economy as well as their depositors’ money, not provide maximum returns for shareholders. Yet, we expect the government to bail out all the so-called smart people who take enormous risks! And by government, I mean taxpayers.
Tullius: I was under the impression you were possibly a socialist. But perhaps you’re more of a mercantilist.
Marcus: I’m not trying to be any kind of ‘-ist.’ But I think every corporation should look ahead to how they see themselves staying in business over the next 50-100 years. Too many decisions are made with only a short-term perspective. How can companies succeed in the long run if they are afraid to invest in new technologies or workforce development because their quarterly earnings might suffer? It takes an exceptional management team, especially a visionary CEO, to look twenty years ahead. Sony CEO, Akio Morita, saw the future of digital recording technology and promoted the development of the compact disc, even though it cost money in the short term.
Tullius: I see. Long-term thinking. Burden of risk where it belongs. More equitable rewards. Is that it?
Marcus: Not entirely. We need a better view of competition. More and more, we are all competing together for survival. Climate change, resource depletion, population growth, immigration, religious and political conflicts, inconceivable levels of debt, and many other problems confront the whole world, not just the one percent or the people of this or that country. We need a better paradigm than survival of the fittest. Darwin wasn’t talking about individuals or making a living, anyhow. He was talking about species. And our species has adopted ways of thinking that put everyone’s survival at risk. We simply can’t sustain our ways of doing things for many more years.
Tullius: What do you propose then? It seems you think competition as we have understood it will stop functioning at some point. If you’re right, unless we want our grandchildren and great grandchildren to live in a Mad Max world, it occurs to me we must do something soon.
Marcus: There are two ancient stories that apply. One is the story of Adam and Eve and the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. The other is about Cain killing his brother, Abel. For me, the connection between these stories is what constitutes the knowledge of good and evil. If we accept the premise that before eating the fruit, Adam and Eve were innocent, living off the goodness of the Garden of Eden, not having to compete with the animals or each other for survival, and so on, we get a picture of bliss, or of unity of purpose at least. After the fruit was consumed, we get a picture of shame, and the consequences that Adam and Eve were expelled from paradise and had to go out and work for a living. They had to compete for survival. The animals did too. Cain raised crops. Abel raised livestock. As a result of their choices, people were no longer part of a cooperative society. Cain and Abel were even competing for favor with God. That competition eventually resulted in jealousy and resentment, enough to provoke Cain to kill his own brother. Had Cain and Abel worked together, perhaps they wouldn’t have quarreled, and Cain wouldn’t have committed murder. But the knowledge of good and evil, like Pandora’s Box, contained the concept of cut-throat competition – survival of the fittest – the almost irresistible desire to gain an advantage. We’ve chosen to accept the paradigm of competition. But it’s possible to choose the paradigm of cooperation. I think we haven’t chosen cooperation because competition is so deeply ingrained in our culture. Yet, the only kind of competition that works is competition to cooperate. We can build massive dams, bridges, and super colliders, or even send a man to the moon, if we compete to cooperate. Yet, whenever we practice winner-take-all, last-man-standing competition, we get massive suffering, murder, genocide, and war. We must choose – good or evil.
Tullius: Interesting. Maybe you have a point or two. We’ll talk more later.
MurrayWorks 