The world is a place of limited resources. There is a finite amount of land, a finite amount of water, a finite amount of food, and of course, a finite amount of money. With these limited resources, there is inherent competition; thus, as the economists say, how do we maximize the pie and how do we divide the slices up among the people?
This past Friday, the third installment of the movies called “The Purge” came out. I obliged my inner curiosity and bought tickets to the 3:30 showing on Saturday. Walking into the theater, I couldn’t understand what had compelled me to purchase tickets to my first horror film. Nevertheless, I was there, and I did not want to leave, though I was well aware of the sunk cost fallacy (the cost of the tickets made me want to stay).
The purpose of the movie is simple: one day each year, for twelve hours, all crime (including murder) is legal. Now, the horror flick in a dystopian world has nothing to do with the limited resources that I mentioned in the introduction. However, in the first scene of the film, there is an interview conducted with the resistance leader in which he states that the purpose of the 12 hours is for the government to murder all of the poor, sick, and homeless to allow for the minimization of social program payments. In this dystopia, there is minimal Medicaid, minimal food stamps, minimal aged programs, and minimal poverty, because people in these dire economic situations, simply do not exist.
Medicaid cost our country around $400 billion dollars each year. Medicare costs are nearly double, and social security is about three times that of Medicaid. The costs are truly staggering and take up a large percentage of our government spending.
Now, in NO way am I advocating for twelve hours of murder. However, what I am attempting to discuss is the obvious need for all of us to address this societal dilemma. With our government debt over $18 Trillion dollars, we need to somehow find a way to decrease our costs. The dystopian answer is found in the Purge. The socialistic answer is found in the complete redistribution of wealth. The democrats are interested in taxing the rich and corporations at a higher rate (though less than the socialists). The Republicans are in the camp of the trickledown effect, which calls for greater tax breaks to the rich and corporations that will ultimately allow for profits to alleviate the burdens of the impoverished via economic expansion. Which way is correct? With constant regime changes in our American political system, I doubt we will ever be on the path of a certain economic policy for a long enough period to allow adequate time for society to determine the success of a given policy solution. (I do believe, with great certainty, that the Purge scenario will never occur.)
Barbara Ehrenreich’s book Nickel and Dimed focuses on an even greater problem. She wants to bring to light the near impossible survival of those living on minimum wage. She, who holds a doctorate in Cell Biology, decided to embark on a minimum wage career for the purpose of a book. She worked in restaurants, hotels, and Wal-Marts in three cities across the country. In each location, she desperately attempted to survive, which, by her definition, included adequate nutrition, health, and housing. The challenge was immense, and frankly, impossible in many instances.
If Ehrenreich is correct, then our society must not only focus on the homeless and sick, but we must also focus on the full time workers who do not make an adequate living. We must consider assisting the Walmart workers, cleaning staff, and waiters/waitresses. We must extend our net of help even further than it currently is extended.
The pie is a fixed sum of money, which allows for a finite level of sustainability in the United States. Therefore, in the spirit of Garrett Hardin, we are on a lifeboat and can only bring aboard a fixed number of those economically drowning.
What are we to do? Who will pay? How do we help?
thereisnopeak.com 