It's just that I'm bummed out about this sense of entitlement that seems to be permeating this city. The people of Detroit cry out for more services, more opportunities, more jobs, more tax breaks, and then recoit at the thought of having to pay for things themselves. "Let the corporations and the rich fat cats for us. They don't need all that money," they cry. There are a few fundamental problems, however, with that sort of outlook...
Whose job is it to tell how much money is too much? Is there a set line? Isn't it some sort of discrimination to punish the people who have money, just because they have money? Let's say that I make $100,000 a year. Is that too much? Well, if I went to college and advanced in my career and worked hard in my schooling and my occupational life, then it's not too much. Right? If I'm the one earning it, I doubt that I would ever say that it's too much. And I'll be damned if someone else tells me that I make too much. Right? What am I missing here? If I'm making $100k and Joe Schmo is making $20k, why is it alright for him to chastise me for being "rich" in a relative sense? Isn't it a form of jealousy run amok? The amount of money that I have should be a) my own personal business and 2) to be dispensed with how I decide. I don't see why anyone could really take umbrage with this.
But here's the thing I can't stand about Detroit. These unions claim that they want people to care for them. They think it's so terrible that their wages are being cut while the owners make so much money. What these unions fail to understand is that the owners giving back some of their earnings will have an extremely minimal effect on the total income of the union workers. There are millions of blue-collar workers and only a handful of owners. The money is actually not very substantial.
The other thing to think about is the entitlement again. Why do they feel that they are entitled to a higher wage? Jobs are a privilege, not a right. You're not forced to work, and you're certainly not forced to work at the same place for life. If something is rubbing you the wrong way (lower wages, reduced benefits, etc.) then walk away. There will be someone to replace you. The new worker will not be so selective and will accept the "insulting" wage offers. And the reason that there was someone there to replace that worker is because these are low-level jobs. They require no specialized training or education. Anybody can do the work. So why are they being rewarded for something that anyone can do? I mean, I see the socialist view and that may be the overarching goal to begin with, but that doesn't mean that it's right, or even effective.
And then all these calls for improved infrastructure and more services and more this and more that. Where is that money coming from? The people who use these items the most (busses, museums, etc.) constantly complain that their taxes are too high and that they can't live. First, downgrade the lifestyle if your ways outgain your means. Second, these public services are not free. We can't sit back and expect the government or the corporations or anybody else to pay for the things that we use. One of the biggest examples of this that I saw in the documentary was about the Detroit Opera House. They are funded by 70% "Big Three" money and 30% smaller individuals/businesses. These "fat cats" are already keeping alive an important artistic aspect of the city for the benefit of the residents, and yet it's not enough. Money is not a renewable resource! There is a limit to how much can be spent. And yet it seems like a large amount of Detroiters do not understand this. They're in a rut and, like Sisyphus, keep trying to do roll out of it the same way every time. It doesn't work like that...
No comments:
Post a Comment