Its one of those days... well...those means those when I can't avoid thinking.
I have been wondering for some time now, what differentiates one person from another. Certainly, their intelligence, hard work, capabilities, attitude does. And being a great Ayn Rand fan, I do want to believe that you get to make your destiny... that you are not bound by circumstances... that except for what is within you, nothing else matters. But now I am forced to think if it is actually so?
I watched "Slumdog Millionaire" recently and saw the ground reality. Not that I was unaware totally, but somehow I could close my eyes... everytime. It hurt initially when I saw Mumbai slums, but two years of stay at M'bai and I could deal with it. I went to a poor area in Delhi (call it slum) recently and the cocoon that I had built around myself was shattered. There were kids running around, laughing, giggling, playing in mud.. unaware and careless. There were parents also laughing and giggling... unaware and careless, that they have kids somewhere. That there are humans struggling for scarce resources of planet.. food and compassion, humans who are here because they brought them to life, humans they should be accountable for... their kids. And yet no body cares.
I am sure that among these kids there would be hundreds who are far more intelligent and sharp than me and all of them are certainly much more hard working. Yet, I work in an air conditioned office while they beg on streets. Why? I don't think it can be solely due to attitude. Is it possible for someone who has 5 siblings, a drunkard father and hapless mother to see life as we see it? If you have always seen violence and cruelty as a way to resolve things, does there remain a way for you to see things otherwise? If you have never been told importance of education, can you just pick this up one fine day and get degrees? If you have to wonder whether you are getting the next meal or not, can you worry about books and pen? I guess not. Its just luck by chance. Where you are born decides quite a lot of things on earth.
We crib that the meal was not good, missed a movie, shoe of my size is not available. While there are kids there, who do not know if they are eating tonight or not. Or if they would be beaten again. Doesn't our cause of worry seem really trivial. But this is how life on earth is designed. Not fair. Not fair at all!!!
Child-free by choice: A growing trend
8 years ago
7 comments:
While the in-depth discussion that we had planned is still on the cards, lemme set the ball rolling here :).
On Ayn Rand and the whole "personal happiness as the moral purpose of life", I am afraid it's been convoluted and pushed way out of context. In a world with equal opportunities, particularly at the start of life, I see merit in the argument that executing my own profession/life with excellence, with hardly any concern for anything/anybody else, would serve the world alright. But, the world doesn't work like that, not where you and I inhabit, not yet anyway. Please bear in mind that I have only read cursorily about this author and her views, and am uninterested as well as out of my depth to get judgmental on her. I only brought this up here, since you refer to her quite a bit. All I am getting at is that with half the children malnourished, if we, the Indian elite, believe that just doing our comfy jobs well enough will paint the future rosy, it's indeed true, but only for us, not for the society or the country at large. Expecting a slum kid dwelling in an 8X5 shack, fraught with grossly inadequate nutrition/education, to "write her own scripts", because Ms Rand beautifully theorized so, is an insanity of barbaric proportions. Almost all of us owe a huge deal to the opportunities we have had. How, then, can we apply a different yardstick for those born poor? I know you well enough to know that your views are similar to mine on this one, but I know some who use Rand's writings to justify their indifference as the best thing for the world! It's plain disgusting.
My next point concerns one of your statements somewhere on this blog about free market, the sanctity of demand-and-supply, etc. Let me begin with a recent piece of news - US auto giant Chrysler files for bankruptcy. The biggest advocate of free marker capitalism - the US of A - is set to issue yet another bailout package for a private entity (from the taxpayers' money). So, capitalism has its own frailties, if left unchecked by the state.
On the point of minimum wages, even the US recognizes its virtue, ensuring a minimum of ~7 dollars an hour, which roughly translates to 1600-1800 dollars a month. Contrast that with the monthly 1500-3000 Rs in India. It's utterly unfair. The motive of minimum wages is simply to prevent the exploitation of the workers by the companies which, as entities, only seek profit, not necessarily fairness. The concern of lack of quality/productivity can always be offset with performance based incentives. Besides, quality is important, but not as much as the need to ensure that an industrious poor chap's 10 hours of arduous work do meet what they deserve. Sure, every profession can't be paid the same, but you certainly can boost the minimum wages enough to ensure the access of all to basic amenities.
PS: We also need to deliberate upon our priorities with regards to climate change and production/consumption (Rand's 40-year old views seem to obsess with the latter). But, let me save it for later :).
yeah.... the proper discussion needs to be done. :)
As for Rand, her basic view is that a person who is talented and dedicated enough will rise above circumstances, no matter what. This is not totally wrong, in the sense that few exceptionally talented people rise above their initial conditions. And she certainly did take writers liberty on that, which I believe is acceptable.
But she is not the topic of discussion ;) I agree that normally it is very difficult, if not impossible for a person of talent to rise above all differnces. And that precisely is the theme of the post. Two people of equal calibre may land at different spots due to difference in their birth place.
As for pure capialism vs pure socialism, I'll any day support capitalism; though a balance between two would be the best option. The reason is that humans are not as selfless and ethical as socialism expects them to be. It is good to share what you have with other less fortunate humans, but it is wrong to force anyone to do that. If I work hard for 16 hrs a day, I'll not like being asked to give half of what I earn to someone who has been sleeping the whole day.
Minimum wages and rules can actually be implemented when the population is in control and the competition is not as fierce as it is in India. If there are 5 jobs and 50 ppl ready to accept it, someone will agree to do it for lesser wages to avoid starvation. Simply put, if nobody agrees to work below minimum wages, I will have to pay minimum wages.
For the first time in the entire history of this blog I got to read a well thought and reasoned reply from the author (replies on the post titled "makes me wonder" made my head reel with disgust).
@Author
The person you are discussing these things with seems to be a learned and a responsible person (I really mean it). I would love to see this discussion reach a conclusion and hope to have some of my own doubts about government policies (socialism/capitalism/minimum wages) cleared.
Various opinions on social service and how one should contribute to the society and nature were also interesting...in the sense that it made me think. Otherwise I don’t really care. It's important that people like me read these kinds of blogs to compare opinions, judge right and wrong and then make right ones a part of their lives/character. What mostly happens is that all such posts (written by people who care) are read by the same kind of people and what's discussed is minor differences of opinions. People who don’t care (like me) simply skip these posts. But it feels good to see that you and your friends are actively involved in doing the right thing and that's exactly what will make a difference.
@Anonymous ... great to know that it made you think :)
Good that we unequivocally agree on the fact that without the support of the administration and the privileged, the disadvantaged sections will perennially live in undeserved misery.
@socialism vs capitalism: I am with you on the remark that a combination of the two might work the best, but if that's infeasible, I back socialism. The basic discriminating principle between capitalism and socialism is who dictates the economy - the govt which is democratically chosen in our case, and is representative of the people or companies who give hardly a damn to any human that's irrelevant to the bottom line. My vote surely goes to the govt. Yes, capitalism provides competition/incentives, but socialism could also achieve that, by borrowing ideas from its counterpart. Let's examine where this west-imposed privatization has led us. Today, many drugs, including a few life saving ones, are too costly to be within the reach of the lower middle class, let alone the poor. I guess that's reasonably well known, but what very few are aware of is that this is rarely so because of the high production costs, it's chiefly down to patents. The same reason makes software so astronomically expensive. It's not the physical cost of producing it, it's got all to do with the IP (Intellectual Property). Not for a moment, am I suggesting that IP/innovations should not be rewarded/promoted. What I am opposed to is the current means to do so. Through the vehicle of royalties, companies make titanic amounts of money (there's no better example than Microsoft), to the extent that they become richer than several countries! So, we must force some sense into this maddening exploitation. You can get around the Microsoft problem by pirating Windows XP, but when it comes to medicine and other walks of life, it's a matter of life and death.
What about the price being paid in terms of food safety and climate change? US-based Monsanto's Genetically Modified products have been proven to be a health hazard, banned in several countries (of course not including the US). But, for Indians, globalization always feels gold! Note that despite all the govt regulatory bodies in place, these firms are able to run riot. Imagine what would have happened in a totally market-powered scenario. The same apathy of these corporations is seen for climatic issues, with industrial-pollution-control norms being routinely breached. The rule of market ensures that the ecological cost is hardly ever built into the monetary cost of a product/service. The might of automobile industry sees to it that buses are taxed while cars meted out subsidies. Take the simple case of power. Before the recession hit them hard, very few IT companies bothered about - many still don't - energy conservation, because, compared to the astronomic profit margins of software businesses, the cost of power is frivolous. Water and plastic are another examples where the economical and ecological prices are completely misaligned.
These blatant issues apart, a subtle but defining illustration of my point is today's advertisements. Even as the shadow of global warming looms larger over our shoulders, companies find newer ways to promote bigger TVs and fatter cars, when any honest, thinking person would tell you that it's the buses and bicycles that ought to be popularized to defy climate change (as well congestion)* ! View this against a thought-provoking ad by the govt, urging the viewers to conserve fuel. There is no way I'd willingly let the profit-blinded corporates take full charge of whatever is left of this world.
Contrary to your 16-hour example, most IT chaps, in the last few years, have had to stretch far less, in terms of hours as well as type of work, on an average, compared to the poor laborers. But, the disparity in pay is outrageously inverse. This very aspect should be paramount to any economic system that we talk about. It's not about 'forcing' anyone to give away money, but demanding the reinstatement of the thoroughly deserved, long-lost right of 2/3rd of our population to fair wages. It's because the system fails to uphold this, along with its other obligations such as affordable health and education facilities, that people like you and me have to chip in.
Minimum wages are enforced by govt thorough the law, not left to the mercy of the employer, so the question of competition doesn't arise here. While no one can deny some implementation challenges, if the govt does amend the law and specify 'livable' wages, it's gonna ease inequality no end. Just a few days back, it was done in Karnataka for the garment workers, but the raise was inadequate. To my knowledge, the implementation of minimum wages, at least in urban areas, is fairly decent (The trade unions are designed to fight any such disobedience to the law, aren't they?).
* You may like this witty yet thought provoking cartoon and related facts:
http://pulzinponderland.wordpress.com/socio-personal-updates/a-cartoonists-take-on-congestion-witty-thought-provoking/
Here is a slideshow made by a couple of experts from HasiruUsiru: http://www.slideshare.net/pulkitparikh/tackling-traffic-and-pollution
We certainly do need to take up that discussion on phone :D
But for now, its back to socialism Vs Capitalism. :) India is not a socialist economy. Had it been, I would not be allowed to post this comment sitting in the office of an MNC.
Socialism is based on a general assumption that humans are inherently good, honest, idealist and that they agree with the concept "All work-all share". When that fails; when people do not accept this concept or when they try to cut corners( which many do in long run) Govt. has to get to punish them in order to ensure that the system run. Why have there been so many human rights issues in China?
Agreed that capitalism renders some things expensive beyond limit. Certain necessities and luxuries become out of reach. But had it not been for capitalism (read profit motive) what would be the reason to excel? What would drive men to spend countless numbers of dedicated hours in research. Why would one want to get to establish the factories and bear the cost to produce them. Why would there be any advancement. Certainly if the Govt. does not distinguish between performers and non-performers; between dedication and laziness, people will sooner or later lose the zeal.
Socialism says "Equal pay for equal number of hours". Capitalism says "Equal pay for equal amount of work". Work is measured in terms of output that you produce. What you are worth, not how many hours you have in a day. Your dedication, your intelligence pays.
This was reply to the first part. Will continue
Well, People in China do send emails from work, and more importantly, their work results in some really efficient products too :).
I am not sure where this assumption comes from, and to me, it appears misplaced or overblown. The central point you are making is lack of incentives in a govt-controlled economy, which is perfectly valid, and which is precisely why I said a combination of the two would work the best. Bear in mind that through well-crafted policies, there is no reason why the govt can't put in place incentives. Talking of research, some of the finest has come from universities and govt agencies (ISRO, NASA) too, along with corporate research (I have experienced both).
@"Equal pay for equal number of hours": Again, it's an extremely simplistic understanding of socialism, which is quite far from reality. The above para on incentives fits here as well.
The core issue, in my humble opinion, is that of checks and balances. Today you come up with one (however ordinary) idea, and try to patent it so that it allows you to either block its usage outside or eat away royalties for decades to follow. I have already referred to its devastating effects on the entire world in many spheres including the critical one of health. It's just exploitation in the shiny cover of globalization. There are alternative, fairer models of incentives being explored and advocated, and that's what I am all for, along with stronger govts which ensure that the profit is checked and not attained at the cost of people or the planet.
With this, I reckon we are more or less on the same boat with this one. If not, we could catch up online or extend this thread.
Post a Comment