...that is, the circumstance of those who are either unemployed or insufficiently employed. In contrast to the idea of teeming masses locked away from society (as some dystopian stories describe), today's unemployed exist in disparate groups which often appear quite different from one another. These in turn are shaped by institutions, of which the most obvious are prisons which "mop up" the anger of economic exclusion. Of course this is a broad generalization, but prisons remain the primary institutions in the U.S. which attempt to reduce social uncertainties stemming from unemployment or low employment.
Too few hours on the payroll can mimic unemployment, when an individual struggles to save enough for the prerequisites which lead to either shelter or transportation options. Even prior to 2000 when the economy was booming, I knew of homeless people who came to work from tents or their vehicles, at a time when management could still afford to be understanding about their circumstance.
Indeed, there are times when homelessness turns out to be a rational choice. What society sometimes misses - particularly in zoning laws - is that some find more equanimity in peaceful settings which are possible to control, when they are able to live alone. One young man in my workplace had parents who were both college professors. After attempting to live with roommates with a very different lifestyle, he wanted to save enough to live in an apartment on his own, but was set back a number of times by illness (exposure to the elements) before he was able to do so.
Much as low income individuals are often "hidden" in city environments, those without any work at all - who are not homeless on the streets - tend to be hidden in environments which include "more reasonable" real estate. However, a lack of local work options is often the reason for either the affordability or the availability. As a result these individuals may have tenuous relationships with family members, whose lives are also affected by the lack of economic inclusion on the part of their kin.
For many in this circumstance, the additional burden on family members is a recent development. So long as transportation options remained within the perimeter of low income potential, this single factor was responsible for maintaining greater market depth at multiple levels. Some of that market depth has been lost, in ways that now require changes for infrastructure settings, before market depth can be completely regained. This particularly presents a problem for the U.S., in that many cities and towns were laid out with the automobile in mind.
Drugs and alcohol use are heightened in the unemployment and low employment landscape, which leads to numerous knock on effects as well. Because there are few systems in place which allow the marginalized to seek their own solutions, their shortened lifespans often act as a net positive for the states or institutions which are tasked with their responsibility.
The "deadweight loss" rationale is one of the most powerful arguments we have, to allow the marginalized to help themselves. Even from a completely dispassionate perspective, the social exclusion of low income and the unemployed can drag down not just longevity statistics for nations, but also long term growth prospects as well.
And while empathy may sometimes enter these discussions, economic inclusion - more than anything - is really a matter of common sense. Who cares if some elite end up embarrassed by the potential of individuals with "no impulse control and little intelligence", who find it in themselves to prove the naysayers wrong. The only thing we would lose - should the marginalized create a better reality for themselves - is the incomplete marketplace which continues to undermine the stability of nations.
No comments:
Post a Comment