Benefits

It's really rather amazing. One thing I have noticed in the numerous and wearying political debates I have been unfortunate enough to bear witness to is that invariably even the smartest, most informed and educated persons are trapped by their class. Considering that the middle class is growing remarkably fast, it is this group that is beginning to dominate the debates.

This morning, while waiting for the class to start, the professor, who is French, somehow got into a discussion of labour compensation with some of the American students. The contents were predictable, with the Frenchman arguing for quality of life, higher minimum wages, lower maximum wages, reduced workweek, acceptance of higher prices as the cost of eating a real chicken, and the Americans taking the side of classical economics. What struck me is the complete failure of the Frenchman to see how individualistic his view is, even as it is a completely social one.

The French apparently have far less of a concept of the importance of the individual than Americans. So they retain the concept of a culture, and this culture is far more important for each person to maintain than to forge an individual identity. So it is that the average French citizen will support high unemployment benefits, government subsidised healthcare and public transport, high taxes, more equitable distribution of income, and so on. Of course, there are other things, such as the food, the wine, and all that, but those are not at issue here. So the Frenchman sees himself as part of a society. As opposed to this, the classic American stance is that of Adam Smith's invisible hand, where by each pursuing his or her own interests, the greater interests of society are served best. Society is the individual. How the citizen fares is the indicator of how the society is doing. For the French, how every citizen fares is the indicator.

This is pretty much obvious to all. What marked today's argument for my attention today was that the French professor, by all accounts a very educated man, failed to acknowledge that his notion of society was merely the middle class and above. For the reasonably well-off, certainly, paying a higher price for a real chicken, as opposed to the cheaper genetically modified chicken, is totally acceptable. The difference is not significant enough to really alter consumption patterns. What about the poor? What about those people for whom a chicken is a luxury? My parents tell me so many stories of how when they were children, families ate chicken once a year. Is the insistence of the affluent that all should be willing to pay more for real chickens worth more than the opportunity for kids to eat meat more than once a year?

There's always the argument that in France, there are unemployment benefits and all that. How long can this system last if other countries that are more efficient start stealing jobs?

Ah, I don't really give a damn. I'm tired, and don't want to type anymore.