Print
Email
I was riding the No. 174 bus out to the airport late the other night when the guy sitting across from me tried to sell me a pair of leather pants. He had a large black garbage bag full of wares. "You look like about a 32," he said. His sales pitch was insistent, desperate. But I just wasn't looking to buy leather pants, I told him. After I turned down the pants, he tried to sell me a dual-speed food processor. It was still in the box. The bus was running late. It felt like there was no air; there was a smell of stale urine, and sweat. Someone outside was yelling and pounding their fist against the window as the bus sped past. I watched a couple of young white kids on their way home from Folklife sell some blocks of hash to a middle-aged black man sneaking sips of liquor from a can in a plastic bag. I overheard someone say that two people had been shot at the Folklife Festival. The guy with the gun was a diagnosed schizophrenic and was on methadone to try to shake his substance-abuse problems. I wondered how he came to be carrying a gun.
My wife and I spent the last year traveling and working in various parts of Asia. Of all the memories that come back to me about those countries, one seems to stand out from the others. We had been pulled off our bus at the Malaysia/Thailand border by a security official. He was looking for a bribe, claiming there was something amiss about our passport stamps from Singapore, threatening to throw us in jail. We sat on our bags by the side of the road and waited until the change of shift. An hour later, the new security official stamped our passports, and my wife and I walked a mile or so through no-man's land from the Malaysian checkpoint to the Thai frontier town of Sadao. After the polite sobriety of Malaysia, the shift to the famous Thai cultural abandonment of Sadao is about as subtle as pole dancing. Hawkers, strip-joints, shysters, cock-fights, cheap booze and food, promises, hookers, people sleeping in alleys, maimed beggars, fireworks, explosions, the heat, the lights and everyone yelling all at once created the feeling that if we weren't very careful with our money, someone would be more than happy to relieve us of it. It was desperate and energetic, a 'be quick or be dead' type of place. When my friends back home in Australia ask me what it's like in an American city, the memory of this Thai border town is the first thing that comes to mind.
Australia is one of the most regulated countries in the world. The government is a strong presence in the day-to-day life of Australians — some say too strong. It's the legacy of our British upbringing, and in terms of enabling a functioning and enjoyable society, the government is a double-edged sword. Relatively high income tax rates greatly reduce disposable income and lead to disgruntled wage-earners. The public service is a huge and stumbling bureaucracy; its most notable purpose is providing employment for thousands of mid-level managers where sometimes no employment exists. But the pay-off with over-regulation and high taxes is the provision of social services such as public health care, high minimum wages, and substantial government contributions to retirement benefits. High progressive income tax rates reveal a society that at least partly believes in a more equal distribution of income. The wealthy should help support the poor, and there should be a safety net of sorts for those at the bottom of the ladder. Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, France and Norway have the highest relative tax rates in the world, as well as the best social services. These countries feel that one of the key roles of the government is to provide for and support its citizens and to reduce the fear of poverty, preventing its citizens from falling into desperate situations.
At the other end of the tax scale from Sweden and Denmark, only four countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development pay less tax than America: Mexico, Korea, Greece, and Japan. Only Poland, Mexico, and Finland have a greater gap between the rich and the poor. Though national economic statistics and figures don't tell much about the actual experience of a place, this data supports the things I see around Seattle, riding the No. 174 out to Tukwila or the No. 2 through Belltown and up to Queen Anne. I always thought it was a harmless catchphrase for rappers to garnish their stories of 'hood wars with "Cash Rules Everything Around Me" or "The Dollar Is King." But after living in Seattle for the past seven months, I have come to understand these phrases are the inherent truth about survival and prosperity in American society. To some extent, capitalism is all there is. A government that favors minimal restriction of its people has the option to offer them minimal support, like a referee in a no-holds barred ultimate fighting contest. The pursuit of money rises to desperate, frantic proportions. It is not just the possibility of luxury and prosperity at stake, but the basic elements of food, shelter, health care, and safety.
As I remember my first impressions of this American city, the desperation I witnessed was palpable. The hawkers, shysters, cheap booze, people sleeping in alleys, and everyone yelling at once come flooding back. The desperation gives the city its energy and vitality, making it a 'be quick or be dead' place. There are hardly any cops anywhere. The road laws are ignored. Like the frontier town of Sadao in Thailand, the laissez-fare economy and society and lack of basic social provisions have come to define the attitude of the people and the atmosphere of the cities of America. There is no safety net. By looking at the way people move on the streets, the fierceness in the marketplace, it is evident that they know this intrinsically. I don't have to wonder what this knowledge would do to a group of people; I see it everyday.
The immigrants that have been flocking to America for the past 200 years came to be part of a country with great opportunity, where if you work hard enough and are smart enough, untold riches could be yours. Though much has changed in business and bureaucracy since the days of the Gold Rush and opportunism of the kind portrayed in Horatio Alger's dime novels, the capitalism of 2008 America is as rampant and powerful now as ever. It still tempts the faithful and the hopeful.
This examination of modern America is not entirely cynical or critical. One product of the free market, especially here in Seattle, is an example of the powerful good that can be achieved with private wealth. The philanthropic support of social works programs is a relatively modern phenomenon, and one that grows from America's free economy. According to the The Washington Post, 21 individuals each gave $100 million or more to philanthropy in 2006, including Warren Buffet's pledge of $31 billion to the Gates Foundation. The desire to give so generously shows an awareness of the huge disparity between the haves and have nots, and recognition of the government's unwillingness to become more involved in public services. Business is the government in America, where the most social progress occurs. The most remarkable social gains since the 1970s have been market driven. An example is the success of Whole Foods, which rewards sustainable, responsible farming through their own profitable practice, at a time when the government encourages toxic and unsustainable agriculture.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Thu, Jun 12, 11:15 a.m. Inappropriate
Too bad it is true: Thanks for the outsider perspective.
Posted Thu, Jun 12, 1:02 p.m. Inappropriate
NRA?!: I'd like to know what the author considers abusive to democracy about the NRA. Such a provocative statement deserves some explanation. Unless, of course, he means not the National Rifle Association but the National Recovery Act; in which case, 'nuff said.
Posted Thu, Jun 12, 2:13 p.m. Inappropriate
Great article: Alas, your perspective rings true.
And, thanks for pointing out that many other nations have much more cooperative dispositions. The "me, me, me" mindset around here get's kind of depressing after a while.
With the European Union now firmly in place, it will be interesting to see which model is more economically competitive - American individualism or European collectivism. Which reminds me, time to research a European house swap for next summer...
Posted Thu, Jun 12, 2:26 p.m. Inappropriate
Don't get too excited: So 21 obscenely wealthy individuals give back some pocket change and we little people should be grateful. How did these 21 folks make their money? How do they treat their employees? Did they make their money through monopolies or political influence they exploited to the detriment of the public? You know: like Paul Allen, the owners of the Mariners and so on.
Below is 's a cut and paste of an editorial from today's Seattle Times. Reading it one would think shelter beds and jobs were available for the asking. That as far from true. And no mention of the many folks sleeping in those tents who have jobs. The Seattle Times' problem with tent cities is not concern for the poor and homeless it is that Tent cities interfere with Seattle's brand and the profits of it's wealthy elite.
Editorial
Tent City: pointless
"Tent City," which camped in Kirkland in late winter, and is in Bellevue now, is scheduled to move to Mercer Island Aug. 2. This encampment has been on the Eastside since 2004, migrating from one church or temple to the next, 100 people living rent-free in camping gear. What is the point?
It cannot be the provision of housing. As a housing solution, this so-called "city" is no bigger than a smallish motel. This is not New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. That was a public emergency, and there is no public emergency here.
There are always people with private emergencies, and we help them with shelter beds.
We don't need to use tents – and nobody thought of it until some political activists at SHARE/WHEEL devised Tent City eight years ago.
The point of it is politics. It is to have homelessness in the face of well-housed people to make them feel guilty.
As a protest, it had whatever impact it is going to have. Now it becomes tiresome. There are shelter beds. There are opportunities for work.
Posted Thu, Jun 12, 2:36 p.m. Inappropriate
And PS: While it is not uncommon in Seattle to read editorials and news items with a poor must get off their ass and pay their own way theme; it s more than rare to read anything calling for Seattle's wealthy elite to pay their own way. And by that I don't mean buy a politician and get them to tax the community for your benefit.
Posted Thu, Jun 12, 3:05 p.m. Inappropriate
RE: NRA?!: Depends of course on how your understanding of democracy differs from the author's.
If for example you believe democracy should strive for all members to have an equal voice and access to power, then it follows that when you have a small group paying enormous sums of money in a successful effort to buy disproportionate political influence, you have a very different idea of democracy. In that democracy each dollar magnifies a voice and access to political power and I would argue the NRA has been remarkably successful exploiting this devolved variation that increasingly characterizes America's "democracy." I suspect the author might agree with one person, one voice democracy and, from your response, suspect you prefer your democracy with heap of money.
Posted Thu, Jun 12, 3:43 p.m. Inappropriate
RE: Don't get too excited: "So 21 obscenely wealthy individuals give back some pocket change and we little people should be grateful."
I must be missing something. Who exactly is saying you should be grateful?
Posted Thu, Jun 12, 4:11 p.m. Inappropriate
Australia vs USA: Jake, I have to admit I have missed a lot of what you see in Seattle (I ride the bus, walk and ride the bike). I see some cheap booze, some of which I buy myself; it's not often that I am accosted by a disturbed or drunken person. Happened one time in the past year I think.
Australian tax rates for $100 thousand dollar income:
$27,850
US rates for $100 thousand dollar income:
$21,978
Big difference. But corporate tax rates in Australia are a flat 30%. In the USA the corporate tax rate is 35% to 38%. So the corporations help us out (until, of course, we buy the corporate products, then we reimburse them). I don't understand how Australia funds it generous health care, retirement benefits, etc., on, what looks to me, like roughly the same bite out of the economy. Maybe they (you) are just smarter than we are or maybe there is some obscure Australian tax I am unaware of.
Posted Thu, Jun 12, 4:24 p.m. Inappropriate
RE: NRA?!: Try substituting "NAACP" or "ACLU" or any other group that defends citizens' Constitutional rights for "NRA" in the author's article (or your comments), and tell me if you don't find the text jarring. One of the principles of American democracy is that we cannot pick and choose which parts of the Bill of Rights we want at the moment, and crush the rest. Any organization that defends our civil, human and Constitutional rights, even by employing a "heap of money" contributed by its members to achieve that end, is doing good work. The fact that they sometimes must employ heaps of money to preserve our rights shows how daunting the task can be.
Posted Thu, Jun 12, 7:42 p.m. Inappropriate
RE: NRA?!: Agreed, the NAACP and ACLU benefit from heaps of money in pursuit of their political ends. Regardless, a democracy that gives more representation and access to members who can buy their political power is fundamentally different from a democracy that strives to give all an equal voice and access.
Played into the hierarchical and decidedly non-democratic structures of America's Congress, its committees, obscurant procedures, and its elections and earmarks, the well-financed have nearly everything in their favor except for the public's one vote every two/four years. With the right money and contscts, they will respond to your righteous issue or to my righteous issue. The NRA plays prominently and almost exclusively in that "democratic" arena and is what I imagine the author finds objectionable.
Surely America can find a better way to preserve our rights than exchanging money for votes to influence elections and legislation. How about taking it to the courts? My understanding is the NRA feared that, until the recent appointments anyway.
Posted Fri, Jun 13, 4:12 a.m. Inappropriate
Palpable referees: A few thoughts...
"As I remember my first impressions of this American city, the desperation I witnessed was palatable." I'm assuming the desperation was, as it usually is, "palpable."
I do particularly like the simile that our government is "like a referee in a no-holds barred ultimate fighting contest." I hope I'll remember that one. They'll keep you alive -- barely -- but they're not going to do much more, and they're probably not really all that impartial to begin with.
Posted Fri, Jun 13, 6:45 a.m. Inappropriate
RE: NRA?!: The problem is, there's no way to avoid that kind of back room influence peddling. Unless we come up with a better way to reign in government power, citizens are going to need to resort to the same tactics as the special interest groups (by utilizing PACs, lobbyists, etc.) to remind those in power they they have a stake in what's being done. Sad but unavoidable. Relying on the courts to maintain your freedom is a gamble. I'm enough of a small-D democrat that I'd rather fight for my rights right off the bat, with Congress, than wait for the legislative process to complete its course and end up with something like McCain/Feingold only to have the Supreme Court wash its hands of the issue.
Posted Fri, Jun 13, 12:23 p.m. Inappropriate
RE: Palpable referees: Thanks for flagging that error. It's corrected now to reflect Lynch's intended meaning.
Posted Fri, Jun 13, 12:32 p.m. Inappropriate
some thoughts: I think comparing America to a Thai border town is an extreme comparison and probably negates by hyperbole some of the valid points you are raising.
Just as the FDR era that lasted into the 70's represented one approach, the Reagan era that actually had seeds in the 70's represented another approach. America once led the way in creative social programs and environmental legislation but no more - the pendulum has swung far in the other direction.
But a more key point is the breakdown in community that a hyper-capitalist society creates. The feeling of all against all. Robert Putnam, who wrote the book 'Bowling Alone' has well documented this breakdown in the social structure in the United States - a much decreased involvement in civic, club and other interstitial social organizations that De Tocqueville admired about this country. The economy is always an important aspect of the culture but in America the economy and its dictates has come to overshadow and dominate culture.
Posted Sat, Jun 14, 10:10 a.m. Inappropriate
RE: NRA?!: I agree with your point to a large extent and Obama's fundraising is a testimony to such a success. Money can and arguably should never and be complete eliminated from politics. But depending on a sustained populist contribution of money to maintain the general public's stool at the political bar has hsitorically always failed. Collectively sustaining such a means is only possible via taxes that then become mandatory obligations, decline in populararity and are particular unsuited for the special-interest legislation which characterizes the worst abuses of our system. Recall our federal 1040 form's presidential election check-box and how candidates have rejected 100s of million$ it in favor of private donations. No, given the influence of money today in America's democracy, the increasingly concentrated wealthy minority who aspire to wealth for sake of accumulating wealth and power have enormous political advantage over the ordinary citizen who, in addition to picking up the tab, is increasingly relegated to leftover and pacification policies.
From the American Conservative Magazine, Sep 25, 2006:
"But immigration policy is only one example of the most serious problem with increasing economic inequality: the holders of great wealth–especially if they are organized into a political lobby of similar holders of great wealth–can buy not only more goods, more capital, and more people. They can also buy (through the vehicle of campaign contributions) more important people: politicians and other public officials and therefore public policies.
"Some of these bought policies may be for the purpose of making the rich even richer, most obviously the current regressive tax policies of the Bush administration. The wealth of the very rich is never the product of free enterprise and the free market alone but comes by operating within and exploiting a network of government supports, such as licenses, regulations, subsidies, and contracts. It is the product of a sort of giveaway. Consequently, to reduce the taxes on wealth (estate taxes) or on the income from wealth (capital-gains taxes), when that wealth has been acquired with one or another kind of government support, is in effect to give the wealth holder an additional give-away. Again, there is nothing authentically conservative about this process."
Posted Sat, Jun 21, 9:37 a.m. Inappropriate
RE: Don't get too excited: There are reasons to join reverendmoney in a critique of the SeaTimes June 12 editorial. After all, the statement: "There are shelter beds. There are opportunities for work." resonates hauntingly of Charles Dickens's Scrooge asking "aren't there poorhouses" et cetera.
On the other hand, rev's opening sentence is a reason not to join in a critique. "So 21 obscenely wealthy individuals give back some pocket change and we little people should be grateful." When individuals lavish themselves with opulence it can get pretty obscene but I'd condemn their spending behavior, not the individuals themselves. When wealthy individuals give back to the community, the community ought to consider the direction they're moving, not how fast they're getting there. That's what generally happens. The rev might consider me a "little person". I don't know. The important thing is to be grateful that we can live and let live, isn't it?
(As far as condemning their earning behavior, it's not clear that they do any differently than less financially successful people would. When would you be so altruistic as to renounce political or monopoly-fed powers that came your way?)