How we are made to work

In the recent years there has been more and more pressure on academic workers and educated workers. Work gets extremely standardized and regulated, much like factory work did a 100 years ago. The long-term goal of companies, and the humans behind them, is to make every kind of job a collection of small, well described tasks, so that they can evenetualy be automated and humans can be replaced. This will lower costs for the owners and investors, and make more profit. These people don't give a single solitary f..k about the people who lose their jobs, who cannot support their family anymore, and societies where the general buying power is decreasing. It is an extremely short sighted and selfish direction the economy is going in.

Politicians assist this. Since no one else but the richest companies and individuals have enough money to influence politicians and their parties, no one else has substantial influence on politicians. Except some of the strongest and oldest media products, much of tv, websites and newspapers is politically motivated fake news stuff that only serves to sway people's attention away from the real issues and keep them occupied with movies, scandals, sports, and non-issues (gender-related issues, minor corruption cases, etc.).

The political classes in Europe and the US, as well as in Japan, have been cooperating in bleeding out the social services, freezing the pay of people below top managerial level in all public services. All good people are driven to the companies, which enforce stricter and stricter regulations on workers, and demand long hours and ridiculous flexibility. They demand relocation, constant travel and other forms of engagement which ruins social structures. It makes proper family life impossible and taking part in one's local community is not an option either. The networks which are necessary for a healthy society disappear, old people end up in care homes, kids spend their times with nannies if the parents are well off, and in daycare or on the street if they're not.

This is not a serious way to make a society work. And it requires urgent change.

Drive for climate change and drive for healthy societies demands states which can regulate the economy and companies. For this, ownership of means of production needs to be regulated too.

Sadly, we know from history that such changes do not happen without violence. Unless our politicians push now for radical change in the economy and ownership structures - homes and means of production - the inequality will increase, buying power levels will drop further, this will lead to higher crime rates, more insecurity, and shrinking populations.

Tensions between the US, Japan, and China

Trump is pushing ahead with his extremely aggressive trade attacks. He is indiscriminate: he attacks rival China, which has an economy of the same size as the US, but also long standing allies Japan, South-Korea and Germany. It is obvious that what Trump can gain are mostly short term small wins, insignificant in real, long term economy. But that's enough for a celebrity who wants to get rich quick and then be out of the game. That this policy ruins trust between allies, undermines the international trade treaty system and institutions is of no concern to him.

How he treats Japan is also a good example of his arrogance and neglect for long term goals. The US has a policy of being present militarily in all regions which it perceives as important to its defense. Since its coastline is open to the Pacific, East-Asia is such a region. That is why it was important to the US to stop Japan from becoming a large power during WWII (not out of humanitarian concern for the Chinese or anyone else).
The US used the defeat of Japan to keep it under control. This is even so today. Its stationing a large part of its Asian military force in Japan. Every time Japan is doing well or would gain any advantage over the US in terms of technology or trade the US is using the 'we defend you' card, meaning: our military is in your country, and if you don't cooperate 1 we won't defend you, even though we have restricted your military development for 70+ years, and 2 we can attack you easily.
This has already happened, most notably during the 'trade wars' of the 1980s. This period saw large troubles in the US economy. Rather than addressing the microeconomic issues at home, US politicians bashed Japan and other trading partners with made-up claims of unfairness, etc., and used their military and political weight to force these countries to open their markets to US products. This happened for example with Microsoft, Intel and other companies. They entered Japan, and with heavy state backing killed off the local rivals. Meanwhile the US only opened its market to Japanese products partly and typically avoided purchasing the products of Japanese companies if possible (this is what happened to Fuji, Hitachi and other tech companies in the late 1980s/early 1990s). All these, to put it mildly, unfair actions were justified by aggressive, sometimes downright hateful propaganda by US politicians and corporate lobbyists.

 The US is now doing the same. Trump is not a genius who is shaking up the US economy. He is just an opportunist who is using old tricks to gain short term advantages. His threat to increase tariffs on Japanese cars by 25% could cause huge losses for Japan, which is a much smaller economy dependent on exports. It is also an ally of the US, hosting its military bases, and often supporting the US's interests.
What Trump doesn't seem to grasp is that many Japanese voters, many foreigners, and many Japanese politicians are fed up with the current situation. If he keeps pushing policies in this direction Japan will lose its incentives to cooperate with the US in the future. If it aligns itself more with China or carves out a more independent position that would be a huge diplomatic, political, credibility and economic loss for the US. It could of course retaliate financially, but the many competitors of the US who would be happy about this could offset much of the losses of Japan, and a political-military realignment could lead the country to a much more independent or at least less directly threatened position.

A realignment for Japan might be the good idea then. If the US is not only an unreliable business partner, but it also cannot be trusted to keep its and its partners' long term defense interests in mind, then why stay close to it? China is closer, its economy is already in some measures larger than the US and a market of 1.4 billion buyers will have more potential as it develops than a 330 million market. Militarily, if the US is pursuing such an opportunist, short term strategy as it is doing under Trump, its presence in East-Asia can be reasonably doubted.
The Chinese government is already putting enormous pressure on Taiwan politically and militarily, while integrating with investment and joint ventures as much of its economy as possible. The US supports Taiwan on paper and sells its weapons, however it doesn't recognise the country formally. It is, as in many cases, not making a clear commitment and is balancing between two interests.

The Chinese leadership would of course love nothing more than having Japan on its side. This is after all how things were for most of the history: the two countries existed relatively peacefully, trading and exchanging diplomatic missions since 500AD. We might be headed back to those times. Trump is just hastening the dawn of US influence in the region by undermining his country's credibility.

Democracy and capitalism don't necessarily go together

http://www.truthandpower.com/blog/blog/politics/capitalism-and-democracy-a-lesson-from-hong-kong/

A very good essay showing that capitalism is not aligned with democracy and the most influential people in a capitalist system do nothing to maintain a democracy if that is not in their immediate interest or even threatens it.

 

To me it seems obvious, that in the US and the EU at the moment we are making the mistake of giving way too much room in decisions about public policy to business interests, and especially those which are aligned with the interests of the big political parties' supporters. If we want to resist the current trends of authoritarian governments rising we would need to push society centred legislation.

 

For example when looking at health spending, what matters most isn't whether it's good business to provide health services but how they can provide best for most people. When looking at legislation on child support, maternity/paternity leave, working hrs, what kind of products can be introduced in a market, whether advertisers can push certain products in schools, etc. should be dependent first on their immediate social effects and just second on the interests of business doing even better.

 

If people are doing well, that will rejuvenate local economies and society will do well. This would create the real disruption, breaking the dominance of giant companies on politics.

 

Democracy and capitalism can work well together. But only if there are strong governments putting the interests of society first, rather than of business or the economy in itself.

Why people leave Hungary

Janos Lazar, one of the leading FIDESZ politicians, offered an explanation of why so many Hungarians left the country in the last 13 years (about 800,000 out of 10.2 millions). According to Lazar people are deceived: they earn more on paper, but actually their quality of life is lower than it would be in Hungary. They can't afford anything and live as wage slaves.

Well, let's have a look at the numbers. I think it would be reasonable to say that Hungarians would be wiser to stay home given three things: the value of their earning would be high in international comparison, they could make savings that would amount to something at national level, and the ratio of their income to the price of consumer goods would be at least as good as in other countries. To find out how Hungary performs in these three respects we will have a look at the average earnings and consumer price indices, looking at data both from the EU, the Hungarian state, and individual business analysts.

Most Hungarians leave for other EU countries like Germany, Austria, Sweden, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, and the UK. These are some of the most robust economies of the EU (and the world) and they have managed to regain growth and expand since the crisis. Most of the Hungarians who've left the country are young, speak at least one foreign language well, and a large proportion has University education (a big number are trained nurses, doctors, and engineers with significant work experience too).

What do the numbers tell us then about staying in Hungary?

First earnings: one of the lowest in the EU. The average someone makes in a month after taxes is around 600-650 Euros (£550 or $700). Not a lot. In international comparison it is very little. This means that Hungarian will have difficulties in travelling, doing business internationally, investing, and of course accumulating significant savings.

Here is the official data from the Hungarian Central Statistics Department. Take into account that they actually show higher levels than real earning averages because they don't include people who are on the public-work programme (kozmunka program). They earn only 76% of the minimum wage. Also, pay attention to the huge gap between Budapest and the other regions. Add to this that the top 10% of earners earns about 10x as much as the bottom 30% and you get a very scary picture of what it is like to be poor, working class, or lower working class in Hungary.

What do the consumer price indexes tell? We see that the salaries are about one-third of the EU average, or a little below, and are about 20-25% of that of the more developed EU countries.
Accordingly, prices should also be one fourth, one fifth, to get the same quality of life.
Sadly, that is not the case. The prices in some respects (accommodation) are around half of what they are in West Europe, but everything else is around 60-80% of the prices one pays for goods in Germany, Austria, or the UK. Which means that the average Hungarian can buy one fourth or one fifth of what the average German, Austrian, or Brit can. If the average Hungarian wants to spend more, or has to spend more, than they can't make any savings or get into debt.
This is not very interesting when it comes to clothing or computer games, but when we think of what one's insurance or what treatments one can pay for one's children it becomes very dire and gloomy.

What's the conclusion? Nobody should stay home to make FIDESZ richer. As much as I love and respect Hungary - the universities, the land, the Balaton, the food, my parents, my family, my friends, the amazing literature and art scene, the remarkable health system, the solid school system - at the moment decent lives can be better built abroad. Until the government channels most of the EU development funds into its own pockets, condones corruption, flirts with Russia and curtails rights, demolishes the free media, closes down universities, and goes against civil right groups and punishes refugees instead of helping them, it is not a good place to live.

Why low salaries, low taxes on the rich, and sitting on one's money isn't good for the economy

Inequality is bad for the economy. When masses of people don’t have money they can’t spend it on goods and services, and therefore there is no consumption. The concentration of wealth in the hands of a few families is harmful for everyone in society. No matter how rich someone is, they can only buy so many cars, and dine at so many luxury restaurants. Their spending will be minuscule compared to the spending of thousands, or millions of people. Companies and businesses can't grow, competition just gets fiercer the way  things are now, which will lead to even more companies failing. If we want more growth and more social justice, as well as political stability, we need to have higher taxes on the rich and the biggest corporations, and raise wages. Simple as that.

Giffard's 'Japan Among the Powers 1890-1990'

I've just finished Sydney Giffard's 'Japan Among the Powers 1890-1990'. The book offers an excellent overview of the political, social, and economic changes that took place in Japan in the century covered. It's main focus is on politics and governance, and thanks to Giffard's background as an active diplomat who has spent years in Japan, the book offers especially insightful and in-depth descriptions of the considerations informing key policies and decisions that have shaped many of the big decisions of Japan's, and Asia's, past.
Giffard is also an excellent writer: the book offers flowing prose, precise and evocative language. It has an arch, it creates a narrative, but avoids forcing the facts into a 'theory'. It has respect for the facts and the many different strands of processes that together constitute the fibers of reality.

An outstanding reading, and I can wholeheartedly recommend it to anyone who is interested in Japan, the history of East-Asia, the Second World War, in history in general, or in politics and international relations.

Michael Sandel in Oxford

Michael Sandel is a philosopher working at Harvard Uni. His specialization is in political philosophy. Sandel has been working in the last years on the connection between markets and morals. He is well known and respected for his work as a researcher among philosophers since a long time, but he became sort of a celebrity a few years ago when his lecture series on 'Justice' at Harvard went viral on the net.

Yesterday he gave a dashing talk at the Sheldonian in Oxford. The event was organized by the Oxford Martin School, who have a strong programme of outstanding speakers impacting public policy.
Sandel is not only an eloquent speaker, but also holds the ability to engage his audience, fostering a debate in which people actually get to voice their arguments and positions. Sandel then masterfully summarizes these, points out their strengths and builds up a very common sense argument for a strong moral position.

In this particular talk Sandel argued against the view that it would be sensible to monetize every social issue and to always look for economic and/or financial solutions for social issues. The example of most importance he - and the audience - discussed was that of the proposed option that many countries with developed economies would like to have, that instead of reducing their carbon emission they should be able to pay to developing countries so that rather they reduce their emissions. As it emerged from the discussion, while in the short term this might be a solution for the particular problem of CO2 emission levels, in the long run it simply fosters the avoidance of problems and of assuming responsibility - political, economic, and moral - of dealing with problems caused by one's behavior. Such thinking will just lead to the same kind of structural problems re-emerging again and again, and instead of avoiding them by changing one's behavior - or economic policy - the problems will simply be put off, or 'outsourced'. The issue here is of course that moral harm is done by harming the environment to such an extent that it might become uninhabitable and lead to the death of hundreds of millions of people in the future. To mask this as an economic problem is to avoid dealing with it at face value.

You can buy Sandel's recent books here and here, the reader to the 'Justice' course here, watch a neat TED talk of his here, and download his Tanner Lectures talk here.

Why everyone should be a feminist

In my previous post I proposed that there is inequality which disadvantages all women around the globe. Anyone not wanting to change that situation seems irrational, or self-serving and hence morally blameworthy. Since this situation affects half of the Earth's population the matter is urgent, that is why it merits its own treatment.

Why should everyone accept that this is so?

Well, we know at the moment the following: We know that there is inequality that we can all agree is wrong. Namely:

- Income inequality: women doing the same job get lower salaries in many places.

- Chance inequality: often when admitting students or hiring applicants for a job male's are preferred, even if there is no other relevant differentiating detail in the applicants' CVs.

- Recognitional inequality: women get promotions and favourable performance reviews less often. This even happens - sadly - when women rate women, or for example when students rate teachers and lecturers.

- Inequalities in further gender-role based expectations: it is widely different how much work is expected from a woman to be spent raising her children, cleaning, and providing other essentials for her family. On top of this in many societies there are further unequally spread expectations such caring for the elderly and the sick, playing community roles, or being physically attractive.

To the last inequality some people object: but there is a similar expectation towards man, just look at the fact that handsome man are on TV and in ads. But this argument is wrong because it mixes up two things: it is very different that some people (among them some women) enjoy, and on men expecting women to look good. This is especially salient, because for women looks are often less important in choosing partners, whereas men sometimes 'punish' women on the basis of their looks, going even as far as to leave them, or making employment, promotions, and so on conditional on appearances.

All the above listed are inequalities between men and women that are proven, that have been measured and observed in experiments, and can be read off from economic data. It is certainly obvious to any grownup that this situation needs to be changed.

With this, I’m not saying that woman should not care about their looks, not have children, etc. but that this should be in their freedom to choose, and not what is expected of them to be prioritized. I’m sure many would choose to those these things, as these activities can be very joyful, rewarding, fulfilling, etc. for some people, and there is nothing wrong with them in themselves. What is wrong if someone chooses these activities because they are made to believe that that’s the only right thing to do and they should choose it otherwise something is wrong with them.

Of course as with any problem that is very large scale we should look at the causes of the problem. As with other social-psychological large scale problems there are social structural problems in the background. Most plausibly the factors are that: 

- Girls are not encouraged to follow certain career paths, and life-way, and to also experiment with new life paths, and

- women are given role models and feedback that prioritizes the traditional gender behavior, plus

- there is a lack of viable role models and alternatives, a lack of support for these, and a lot of punitive political and social action and feedback if one tries to step out of line.

- Add on top of this that due to implicit bias even people and organizations who are consciously and explicitly committed to equality make sometimes biased judgments.

What we need to do is to provide choices, and a range of role models, and to protect those who are punishing women for following their own paths. Just as a man nowadays one can aim at becoming a good father, an astronaut (the most boring example of aiming high), a lawyer, an electrician, and a nurse; a carer, an artist, a dancer, a bachelor, a family man, a community fighter, a lone wolf, etc. so all options should be open and the same should be available for any woman. And just as all these different types of men are cheered on, and there are people who reassure them that they are filling in a role that is needed, that they are making the right choices, so, women need the same kind of assurance, whatever track they choose, and whichever way they go.

There are some important mistakes that need to be avoided while giving positive feedback. One of them is essentialism, the idea that there is some element of the traditional gender role that has to be maintained to be still a woman. This mistaken notion has had harmful effects already in many cases in the last 40 years. Just look at supposedly ‘empowering’ videos featuring woman who train hours every day and appear in the videos dancing in minimal clothing  - reinforcing one of the most harmful stereotypes that being attractive sexually is what being a woman is - and perform stereotypical male actions like handling power tools, fighting and shooting, taking revenge, driving sports cars, and so on.

What would be needed instead would be the message that "Hey, you men – most of you – aren’t like that either, and I don’t need to be like a man anyway. I’m happy to let go of the traditional woman package too: I don’t have to be sexy, and I don’t have to wield power tools or be a top business executive. I can be an okay lawyer or counselor, or ... whatever! I can have my average business dealing in whatever I know about, I can write books or pretty much do whatever I want. I can identify with whatever I want, and I can change. If I want to be like that I will be." Of course I'm not advocating radical individualism or that in making up one's mind about how one should live one shouldn't take into consideration one's family, loved ones, and community. But not in the way that one only thinks of the ways one could contribute to the life of others as people living in more rigid times did.

 

Of course in some cases there might be people who can 'max out' both the requirements of the traditional male and female stereotype. But that to me seems overly ambitious taken that most of us don’t even succeed in either one of those two categories even when some of us try. What seems to be much saner is to treat these options as a basket into which one puts what one can identify with – this can change as life goes on. Of course commitments have to be taken seriously and people should be encouraged to foster their skills, talents, work hard, help others, raise amazing kids and so on – but not to do all these things at the same time. 

The mistake of pushing woman to pursue corporate and top-manager careers at all costs definitely has to be avoided. Liberation is not to have to be like some of the most competitive, stressed, overworked and sometimes unscrupulous man. And it definitely isn't being like that, plus taking upon oneself to also tick the boxes of fitting the traditional women-roles. One should not be forbidden to achieve such things, but no one should be expected to accomplish such crazy feats which are not good for employers, persons, and kids in most cases. 

So, what needs to be done? Our communities need to provide more support and give more trust to woman whatever their goals and pursuits are. We need to provide girls with many options. Whatever they want to keep or reject from the traditional ‘woman’ package, and whatever else they won’t to buy into, they need to be encouraged to give it their best and figure out if it fits them.

As I said, getting rid of inequality is not taking on elements of the traditional male package or combining those elements with traditional female elements. This also calls for work-place reform: workplaces and environments shouldn’t be built to suit mostly guys, and then claim that they are women friendly if a woman can adjust and get along in them. That’s not equality, that’s expecting women to take on traditional male roles.

What’ better is to offer more employment flexibility: 4 and 6 hours positions, work from home options, opportunities to learn and stay engaged and connected while at home with children and return later, etc. There is nothing necessary in constantly prioritizing people in jobs who are 100% percent devoted to their workplace. While this might be good in short term profits for bigger companies in large economies, it surely isn’t good in the long term. Humans live in states partly to foster happiness and cooperation, not the operations of super-wealthy individuals owning companies. And surely not, that companies can make profits on employing unhappy, unsatisfied, and unhealthy, overstressed people.

Companies get away with these things too easily: they focus on profits, and that is said to be okay in capitalism. Nobody seems to notice that companies only get the best of the employees and state services and communities bear the burden of dealing with stressed, burnt out, disillusioned individuals. Capitalism is not a higher order system when compared with a society, and its demands should not be placed higher than those of communities of humans.

This proposal is in my opinion a modest feminist proposal with which everyone could get on board. It focuses on eradicating striking inequalities as well as their roots. It does not propose that people of either gender should rule or dominate the other gender, nor that one or the other gender is better. People of both genders show a striking variety of emotion, thought, taste, and preferences in lifestyles. Why is it that men can tolerate this in each other but not in women? Once we let go of the notion that there is one type of women it will also be easier for men: just treat women as people, as persons who might or might not like different things, who think this or that way. You can ask questions, find these things out, get to know them, talk with them and so on. Don’t stress about figuring out some supposedly existent female mystique, or getting right 'what women want'. It is as different as what we guys want. I guess you will find that you can even have female friends, because, guess what: they have thoughts, ideas, can be fun, and are interesting.

Bullshit worries about 'bullshit' jobs

David Graeber is one of those folks who do not help much to better the reputation of Anthropology, or tenured professors. His article 'On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs' went viral on the internet and every week a couple of my friends put it on their wall as if it would help them achieve some sort of revelation. 'Oh my, I might work in a bullshit job!' 'Wow, we would be so much better off if we wouldn't do all these jobs!' I can imagine them thinking stuff like this. But I cannot imagine that they actually spend one more minute thinking because then they would just close the tab with Graeber's article, blush because at first impulse they agreed with it, and then forget about it.

So, what's wrong with the claims of the article?

On bullshit jobs: Graeber claims that many service sector jobs (including admin jobs, but he also mentions jobs in transportation, PR, health admin, fast food restaurants, etc.) are meaningless, and the people who have to do these jobs are the worse off for this. They do not gain self-respect or self-fulfillment from working in these roles.

That's one of those 'oh, in the past everything was better (big sigh)' type of claims which do not make sense. When were masses of people employed in easy jobs which afforded them a living? In the middle ages? Clearly not. In the Roman Empire? Not really. During the Industrial Revolution? All those happy people toiling in the factories and mines? Or the ones sent off to the colonies? The proud ones in forced labor? In the early twentieth century? And why would everyone find a fulfilling job? If no one cares for sewage and cleaning will we be better off? A happier society with no butchers, because it is kind of hard and sometimes disgusting? Not to mention the early starts!

Graeber also laments the loss of jobs where people do 'real work'. It is true that it often causes problems if a skilled worker is replaced by a machine on the production line. But this is also more complicated than just the personal tragedy of that single individual. Probably the machine is more productive. Hence the company can make more profit. And then it can pay more taxes. And that goes back to public services. Also, people with only one skill-set were never in an easier situation. It was the false promise of the WWII enthusiasm and economic boom when people thought that they will have secure jobs 'til the end of their lives. But that was during the economic upheaval following the war. Not before that, not after that. And not in general terms: one of the reasons for it was that the colonies were still mostly under European control, so, they could pay for much of the losses of the European societies. So, if you do not just concentrate on your own neighborhood, you can easily see that this kind of comfort has a high price.

On the uselessness of service jobs: Graeber is one of those guys who didn't get economics 101. When you are thinking of what you pay for it is not only the material and the product that is involved. No one is - and shouldn't be - doing work for free. People's effort and time isn't for free. If someone prepares your food, walks your dogs, takes care of your kids, prepares your taxes, etc. that person is saving you time. The trick is to make good bargains: try to get the money you need to pay them in such a way as to be better off. If you can save 2 hours of work by getting your meals done, while you can pay for this with money you earn in an hour and a half you are better off. You can earn more in that half an hour, or even better, relax, be with your family, kids, walk your dog, read a good book, visit your parents.

Add to this that someone with good skills can probably earn more per hour - say an engineer - than someone without good skills. So, why would this person spend his or her time preparing food every day for a long time if he can in that same time earn more and thereby 1. she/he can pay someone else who doesn't have skills which are in demand, thereby helping that person earn a living, 2. provide better for her/his family and community, and self. So much about the loss of 'real jobs'.

Then take the rants about administration. People are shocked how there are more and more admin people about. Funnily, they always forget to mention that there are also way more people around, living for a longer time, being in better health (due in large part to well organized and accessible health services), enjoying more and more services. To coordinate all this demands larger admins, and yes, not proportionately larger ones, but exponentially larger ones. Why is that so? First, because the same amount of humans can create more data and do more types of things, have more demands, if they work more effectively. Which is just what technology enables us to do. Also, it enables us to enjoy our free time in many-many more ways then we used to. We get everywhere quicker, can communicate and therefore make decisions quicker, calculate and solve problems quicker, plan quicker, run experiments quicker. Maybe these things aren't easy to recognize for someone being as far from the competitive public sector as possible, but it is still so. These exponential growths in demands, opportunities, work output call for larger admin bodies to run well.

Graeber doesn't cite any statistics or any data confirming that bigger administrative structure makes things run less effectively. What does the decreased effectiveness then consists it? That he himself has to fill out more papers at work? Well, that's life: whereas earlier we used to have privileged positions in society where you weren't really accountable, that is not so anymore. Not as bad as you would think, at least not for the people who pay you, and the ones who you are supposed to serve.

Or that administration is boring? Sure it is. But nobody said it would be easy to live nowadays in a highly developed industrialized society. At least, not that easy that you have only to do what you enjoy and find fulfilling, and even that activity only for as long as you like to do it.