GINI & Corruption: Democratic Socialist Protection for Government Workers Only Isn't Nearly Enough

"We must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered."

"We must honestly admit that capitalism has often left a gulf between superfluous wealth and abject poverty, has created conditions permitting necessities to be taken from the many to give luxuries to the few, and has encouraged small hearted men to become cold and conscienceless so that, like Dives before Lazarus, they are unmoved by suffering, poverty-stricken humanity. The profit motive, when it is the sole basis of an economic system, encourages a cutthroat competition and selfish ambition that inspire men to be more I-centered than thou-centered."

Martin Luther King Quotes

http://shetterly.blogspot.com/p/martin-luther-king-quotes_4.html

There is a feeling like the clenching of a fist
There is a hunger in the center of the chest
There is a passage through the darkness
And the mist
And though the body sleeps
The heart will never rest

Shed a little light, oh Lord,
So that we can see

Excerpt from “Shed a Little Light” by James Taylor

Source: http://stats.areppim.com/stats/stats_corrxginix06.htm

     It has been known and accepted for some time that government workers need to have at least a living wage to keep corruption to a minimum, or at least have the hope of containing it even slightly. From my university studies of Eastern Europe and Russia, it is a common maxim that if you do not pay public workers enough, they will have to supplement their income other ways, often through accepting bribes in relation to their public duties.

     But also having studied in and about countries with extremely low corruption, such as Sweden, in addition to insights I have gained while working in government here in the United States, it began to seem obvious that there is a correlation between social equality in pay and corruption. In researching briefly when about to write this, it seems there have been some research studies done and this is hardly and unknown or never-thought-of-before concept. But I think that from what I have seen, they are looking at it from not the best angle. It is not just that greater corruption leads to higher disparity in incomes and wealth, whether it is classical corruption or governments run by the elite few which makes their elections and democratic processes more of a sideshow than any significant threat of any real changing of power, or that greater and more fair social policies will ever have any chance of being implemented.

    I look at it from the other direction. Simply paying government workers a living wage and their getting benefits the same as most or all people get in countries with low corruption and low inequality, like Norway, Sweden, or Denmark, is meaningless if those benefits are not shared by non-government workers alike.

    I wrote here a few years ago that public unions and unions in general in the United States are under attack because the general public at large, have long been shut out of such protections such as I have been fortunate enough to have had at least up until now, 4 weeks of vacation and 4 weeks of sick leave every year. As private sector unions have been decimated, public sector unions have been increasingly at odds in how their members have been treated compared to the rest of society. As I said then, the United States, in comparison to every other industrial country has virtually no protection or guarantee of sick leave or vacation time for any of its workers at all. Most every citizen in all other industrialized countries have benefits roughly in line with how U.S. government workers are treated.

    Hawaii, where I have been fortunate enough to have lived and worked for quite some time, is somewhat different in some ways in that many lower end government workers in white collar clerical jobs are well underpaid in comparison to similar private sector jobs. However, it is similar to most government jobs across the country in that benefits such as paid sick leave and vacations, affordable medical, dental, and prescription insurance, are reasons why many who can afford to take the cut in pay to work in the government sector compared to the private sector, will often gladly do so to get those benefits increasingly limited to government employees, at least at lower salary levels. For those with family members with chronic or serious illness, or if they themselves have such needs, losing their government jobs with these for them necessary benefits would be catastrophic for them and force them into bankruptcy, insolvency, homeless, and other such harsh realities they are painfully aware of every single day.

    As I have written in regards to whistleblowing, how it is most never effective, almost always leads to horrific consequences for those who stand up against corruption and illegal policies or bureaucratic malpractice, the added concern that doing so will cost a person their job will shut up nearly every person with evidence to give more than anything else. But in countries where their health insurance, sick leave, vacation time, and all other benefits are not “privileges” due to having a “generous” or “magnanimous” employer/benefactor, but are instead a right of all citizens, they have far less to fear about coming forward and giving testimony about corruption.

    From what I have found, yes, they are also still likely to be punished for doing the right thing, will most probably often still lose their jobs or status, because corruption does not exist without being protected itself by the very system that supposedly “does not tolerate it.” If they had to worry about being caught, they would not do half the illegal things that corrupt officials do on a day to day basis.

    But as I said, those who lose their government jobs for exposing corruption in those societies such as Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, for them it is not the catastrophic event that it would be for those whose government benefits, with good reason, need to be at a living wage to lessen the corruption of lower level employees, but for whom these benefits would be lost forever to them if they should lose their government jobs. Paying them better or having far higher job benefits and job protection, when not shared by most in society, does not exactly lessen the potential for corruption. It serves as another protection or safety valve in keeping governmental malfeasance from every being exposed to the light of day, when losing their positions would literally destroy their lives.

    That last bastion of such protection and guaranteed benefits in the United States may well fall, government unions, due to removing their source of influence, money, by making it optional for workers to pay union dues. As with the private sector, this will cripple what little influence they have and those who are against this state that those who chose not to make the payment will still benefit from the contracts and greater benefits as those who do pay the union fees. However, the benefits are likely to slide, influence will be lost, and those benefits will be lessened so much as to eventually make paying the union fees a waste of money. And this breaking of the influence of these unions is the whole point, so it would succeed.

    But as I stated before, keeping these benefits as something out of the ordinary, increasingly exclusive to the public sector, lessens public support because they no longer see those unions, any political parties, or the government itself making any meaningful, not to mention successful, attempts at making sure these job protections and benefits will be shared by all. The increasingly seeming “privilege” of having benefits which should be taken for granted and available for all, means that they would eventually be lost or lessened anyway simply because they increasingly will make for a easy target for those who have not such benefits.

    And as I stated, when the chasm between public sector workers and private sector workers benefits is growing, providing a higher wage or living wage only for public workers will increase corruption since they will become more fearful of being shut out and losing them, so they most always will tolerate higher up or official wrongdoing in their offices out of fear of losing their positions and benefits.

     In “Bladerunner,” by Phillip K. Dick, Rick Deckard (played by Harrison Ford) was persuaded to go back to the police force with the threat, “Remember, if you are not one of us, you are ‘little people’.” The threat was that he would not be “protected” should anything go wrong, or that if he ever needed help, or could be killed. That sentiment of “special protection”, especially for those high in office of being exempt from the law and having little to fear of accountability for their corruption, favors, bribes and so on, is not helped to be battled when lower level workers who almost solely are the ones who could give evidence of and fight this, are themselves increasingly “specially protected” in comparison to those outside the government completely. Who really would be willing to risk losing that if doing so meant medical bankruptcy, no sick leave, no paid vacations or 2 weeks if you are very lucky but only after a year, a complete loss of necessary medical insurance or medicine, and so on?

     Martin Luther King said, “We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools.” Without those who had such benefits fighting to make them the norm, it is no wonder they will come under increasing fire and eventually be lost. The same goes for those countries which languished having them but not fighting to make them universally available in all other countries as well. They too are increasingly becoming seen as “privileges” there, and no longer “rights” which now must be shed to make their economies “competitive” again.

    Perishing together as fools seems to be the only plate on the menu increasingly across the world and at home these days.