The Democratization of Indolence

The modern industrial state has created a phenomenon that I call the democratization of indolence. That is the expansion of the number of people who do not work for a living, but instead have their economic support provided by others. Once the preserve of the wealthy, freedom from the need to work has now grown to cover large numbers of every socioeconomic class is our society.

Historically, almost everyone labored for their sustenance, almost until the hour of their death. If you were too old and broken down for physical labor, you were taken in by your children to support. Almost the only exceptions were the landed gentry, whose lifestyles were supported by the possession of large estates. The cash flow from that capital base enabled a lifestyle freed from the requirement to hold down a job.

Two factors have enabled enormous growth in the number of people who are exempted from the need to work. The first factor has been the institution of social security, disability, and pension programs. If you are old enough, sick enough, or have worked at one place long enough, these programs guarantee you monthly cash payments for life.

The second factor has been the dramatic advances in medical knowledge of the last few decades. It used to be that retirement would last only a few years, if you reached that point, before some degenerative disease would take you out. But nowadays our medical abilities have advanced to the point that diseases can be arrested, or symptoms managed.

Clogged arteries? We can put in a stent, and you’ll have more energy than you’ve had in years. Cancer? Catch it early enough, and we can cure it, or at least put it into remission for years. Joints worn out? We can replace them, giving you decades of increased mobility. I even know some folks who are “disabled,” yet give few signs of it. After all, once you get on the free money train, why would you ever get off?

Consider the case of a 55 year old schoolteacher who retires after 30 years on the job. A reasonable expectation is a life expectancy of 85 years, meaning she will be supported without having to work for as long as she actually worked. And for much of that time she will be able to sustain a high level of vigorous activity. Or not. After all, I call this the democratization of indolence. The key is, our hypothetical schoolteacher now has the cash flow to support a life of leisure, and the health to pursue whatever interests tickle her fancy. An enviable position.

The problem is that the promises to pay were made before the advances in life expectancy came about. The system is in danger of breaking down, because it is financially unsupportable. In France, the government is proposing to increase the minimum retirement age from 60 to 62. The result has been large scale protests and a general strike. Everyone wants a life of financial freedom, even if someone else has to pay for it.

The economist Herbert Stein once famously remarked “if something cannot continue, it will stop.” Despite the amazing advances in productivity of the last century, our society will not support half the people working while the other half does not. So we can either find a solution to the problem and coast to a stop, or stop by hitting a brick wall. It’s like jumping off a tall building. It is not the fall that kills you. It is the sudden stop at the end.

Education: Risk versus Reward

All investment entails risk. It is built into the very nature of the activity. You cannot expend resources, hoping for the promise of a reward, without accepting the possibility that the resources will be lost, and the award not achieved. After all, we cannot predict the future.

Anytime you make an investment, there is a chance that it will not pan out. As so many of us have discovered during the last couple of years, that is certainly true of our financial investments in our 401K’s. But it also true of the capital we invest in ourselves.

I’m talking about the money and time spent on higher education, specifically about post-graduate work. It’s not cheap. I’m taking graduate level classes in accounting at a local university. This is after completing an executive MBA a couple of years ago. Tuition and fees run about $1500 per class. I’m trying to get 18 credit hours (six classes) under my belt, because that is the minimum required to teach at the college level. I’m not quitting my day job, but I would like to teach at the adjunct level, part-time.

So I’m spending around $9 grand, along with hundreds of hours, plus the gas money to get to class, plus the opportunity costs of giving up what I could be doing with my time and money instead. In exchange, I get the potential to teach junior college students entry level classes, for about $1500 per class taught.

Strictly from an economic perspective, it is hard to make the numbers line up on this endeavor. Even ignoring the time value of money, it will take more than a few years to recoup the cash investment alone, disregarding the time invested. And what if I try teaching a class and discover that, contrary to my hopes, I hate teaching? There’s a technical term for that experience: it would suck.

From the risk-reward perspective, it is hard to make a valid case for continuing to go to school. The obvious question is: why do I continue to make this dubious investment?

First of all, I have a deep seated belief that continued acquisition of new skills is vital, both to expanding career opportunities and to enhancing job security. The more versatile and up-to-date your skill set is, the better able you are at withstanding the vicissitudes of an uncertain job market.

But ultimately, I have discovered that I love being a student. Oh, I’m not so fond of it when a paper is due, or I’m struggling with a problem set. But overall, I truly enjoy the educational process.

Basically, I’m an education junkie.

A Modest Proposal: National Park Pricing

I just got back from a week in northern California, including three nights in Yosemite National Park. The admission fee for the park is one of the best things going. It costs $20 for a carload. The problem is that the price is too low. The Park Service is underfunded, and has a backlog of maintenance projects that aren't getting completed. The other problem with underpricing admission to the National Parks is that it leads to overuse and overcrowding.

One thing you will notice almost immediately when you visit a National Park is that a lot of the visitors are not Americans. I would guess that half of the people at Yosemite when I was there were Europeans or Japanese.

I wonder if anyone has ever studied the idea of increasing the price of admission, then offering a discount to US citizens. Lets say the price goes up to $40 dollars a carload (still cheap), but drops in half if the driver presents an American driver's license. You could even include Mexican and Canadian driver's licenses, on account of NAFTA.

This type of differential pricing would raise a lot of additional revenue for the Park Service. The potential downside is that it might dissuade some foreign visitors from coming, and with car rentals, lodging, and meals, foreign tourists pump a lot of money into the US economy. You certainly don't want to injure that golden goose.

Because we have a lot of National Parks, we could conduct an experiment. Several of the parks could be selected for a trial run of this idea. The makeup of the attendees could be monitored both before and after the price change to see if it makes a difference. If there is no change, the new pricing structure could be rolled out across the entire system.

There may be existing international agreements in place prohibiting such a scheme. If that is the case, we still should increase the price charged for entry into the parks. That way the people who use the parks will be paying to maintain them. And I don't think there is any argument against maintaining the National Parks, so that future generations will also be able to enjoy them.

Anyone who has visited the wonders of one of our National Parks will agree with that.

If the Inmates Run the Asylum

Even though I am a conservative, even I have to admit there is a loony right wing fringe:
“Obama is a Muslim.”
“The income tax is unconstitutional.”
My personal favorite:
“Keep the government’s hands off my Medicare.”

But there is also a loony left:
“The previous administration should all be shipped off to the Hague to face war crimes charges.”
“It’s the government’s job to provide everyone with a minimum income. And unlimited healthcare. And housing.”
“We should unilaterally disarm and shut down the Pentagon, then take the money we save and give it to the poor.”

The thing is, the right wing is the side of the debate that argues for limited government. The left wing proposes more government intervention as the solution to almost every problem.

You can be as crazy as you want in your own home, and I’ll still sleep well at night. But give the crazies access to the machinery of the state, and a license to expand the state’s power and reach, and that’s when I get scared.