...Of course, she's far from the only one. All of us could take a bit more time to make thoughtful responses to one another even when it's tempting not to do so. Because in today's world, the fact that it's easier to just poke fun and jest at one another has left the most unusual of results: Sad, lonely, empty buildings to match our sad, lonely, and yes empty unemployed...lots of such structures all over the U.S., some aging and in need of repair, others really could be torn down for something better. But here's the "kicker" - in too many small town downtowns as well as big cities - essentially "new" buildings, which were never utilized for the intended rents or purposes they were built for. Sometimes they get stuff stacked in them from adjacent businesses, which elicits the reaction "that's some mighty expensive storage space you've got there". The former contractual expectations seem to lie somewhere lost in the wilderness between North and South Korea...
Such buildings aren't easy to hide, certainly not the way that the unemployed sometimes are. It's not like people didn't want to utilize these buildings - be they old, new or somewhere in between. Would be entrepreneurs, waiting in the wings or digging through the regulatory maze for their chance at convincing the landlord they were a worthy cause: "lusting" after the potential they dreamed of and the desire to create a vibrant environment which would - hopefully - be just as appealing to a paying public as to their own imagination. Sometimes these business wannabees got their chance, other times they didn't, and of course it's debatable whether actually a good thing if they didn't get their chance, as that meant escaping with one's hide intact.
Nancy Folbre had some good points to make in her recent NYT article. Had I continued over the years as strictly an employee rather than also an employer and businessperson, I probably would have agreed with the whole thing. The world I once lived in also seemed to suggest that "Business should just take care of this unemployment problem, already! Git er done!" Of course, that was also a world that didn't seem to require the same thought processes as today's world. The first time I really had occasion to think about that oddity was when people came in to my little bookstore looking for work (mid nineties), who clearly had more knowledge, skills and abilities than myself.
One of the things I like about Nancy's writing is the fact that her snark level doesn't really seem all that different from my own. Yes, we have the "let them eat cake" allusion in the title of her article, but then also there's the understanding that for entrepreneurs, the long road to success is certainly no cakewalk. She gets that the problem is especially demand related in terms of skills, which is extremely important. Perhaps her confusion is the same as the rest of us in this regard: yes, the Fed has the ability to provide an appropriate monetary demand response, providing it doesn't stumble on the road to additional stimulus. But who is ready to answer the call, in terms of making the most of the Fed's continuing efforts to maintain economic stability? That is the factor which has yet to be truly addressed, and it's not necessarily the businesses one thinks of first. Also not ready to meet the call (clearly) is the still contractually significant "no man's land" of asset "sadness and desolation", which loudly proclaims its continuing importance even as it fails to meet its own expectations.
Empty buildings and empty individuals sitting in spare rooms whenever family circumstances prove too harsh to overcome, are the direct results of a lack of common meeting ground between left and right as to economic solutions. As mentioned in my past post, "far" thinking can be easier in its way than the hard work of the present, as it sometimes creates "feel good" thoughts that step over the present day impasse. However, the time has come, to bridge near and far in terms of solutions. That means I don't just walk away from people like Nancy Folbre who is not taking about this issue to belittle anyone. She's talking about it because she wants to see something done about it. That's the really important distinction from some conversations in which it appears people are making progress over time, only to discover the conversation was taken on just to score points, in what turned out to be opponents in a purely ideological debate.
No comments:
Post a Comment