To: politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk
Re:  A "minimum/maximum wage" and the "Moral Economy"
Date: Monday 27 September 04

"£5 an hour minimum wage would not cost jobs, says pay expert"

 

"Guardian Leader: Onwards and upwards"

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

I appreciate the Guardian's continuous campaigning, first for the minimum wage and now for a substantial rate of increase in its value. 

 

However, the minimum wage, on its own, does not go nearly far enough. You are like those who in the 18th Century struggled to improve the conditions of slaves, which surely was an admirable thing to do, but what was really needed was the abolition of slavery.

 

We need to change from an "amoral " to a "moral economy", in which minimum, average and maximum wages (and income generally) are linked in a way that creates much fairer and more proportionate differentials. This may seem absurdly idealistic at the moment, but 300 years ago, I imagine, so did the abolition of slavery.

 

The trouble is that we do not have 300 or 100, or even 50 years, in which to make the change. The reason has little or nothing to do with fairness or humanity, but with human survival. The grossly materialistic lifestyles of the wealthy are utterly unsustainable on a planet with limited resources and a finite carrying capacity, not simply because they place a far greater per capita drain and strain on them than others do, but more importantly, because they act as role models which billions of others are seeking to emulate.

 

We have been brought up to believe that poverty and the poor are the world's biggest problem, when in fact, because of their non-sustainability, wealth and the wealthy are a far bigger problem (an imminent threat to human survival). Unless someone seriously wishes to suggest that we attempt to restrict material wealth to a tiny proportion of Earth's population.

 

Everyone has heard about "the straw that broke the camel's back " - and perhaps wondered, "whose straw was to blame?"

 

Paradoxically the answer is, "no one's and everyone's".

 

But that is assuming, of course, that each person placed just a single, or the same number of straws on the camel's back. The answer is rather different if some people place more straws on its back than others.

 

Let the camel represent Earth's finite carrying capacity, on which each of us has to place a certain number of straws in order to live. Although we do not know exactly how many it can carry, we can be sure that there is a limit - which will be exceeded if increasing numbers of people continue to pile on more and more straws.

 

Insanely, this is exactly what we are doing. Everyone can pile as many straws onto the camel's back as they have - or can borrow - the money to pay for, and are encouraged to do so, not just by their natural inclinations, but also by a growth-dependent global economy and its multibillion dollar credit and advertising industries.

 

That may take a while to sink in, because it is difficult recognising the "insanities of normality", which we have all grown up with, especially when so much (income, lifestyle, aspirations, etc.) depends on them.

 

We urgently need a rough, working definition of what constitutes a "straw" and an estimate of how many the camel's back (our planet) can support, because we don't want to go anywhere near that limit. Not unless we are completely mad.

 

Also, we need to think about and discuss the degree of "fairness" with which this limited number of straws should be allocated amongst Earth's 6 (soon 7-9) billion human inhabitants, because allowing the free-for-all we have at the moment to continue will result in catastrophe, if not in self-extinction.

 

 

I am not suggesting that you now campaign for the government to introduce a "maximum wage" That would be pointless. A 16th Century gentleman might just as well have written to Henry VIII advocating constitutional monarchy and democracy!

 

Instead of trying to change society as a whole we have to create an "alternative ", within existing society but distinct from it. Thus we avoid conflict with those who do not wish or are not yet ready to change; as the alternative grows we (each at their own pace) will be able to transfer more and more of our activities and dependencies to it. The imperfect beginnings are already there (organic farming, fair trade, moral investment, recycling, renewable energy, cooperatives, etc.), but currently constitute just small niche sectors of the existing non-sustainable economy. They need to come together within the framework of an alternative "moral economy ", in which both a minimum and a maximum wage are firmly rooted as multiples of the average wage.

 

As important as they are, there will be a lot more to the "moral economy " than just proportionate income differentials, of course. But how on Earth are we going to agree on all the things that need to be agreed upon in order to establish a framework for an alternative "moral economy "?

 

What I can offer is a guideline, around which the details will have to be worked out:

 

The existing socio-economic order is very largely based on man's primitive, "more animal than human" nature - which, in view of what Darwin has taught us about human origins, is hardly surprising.

 

An alternative, "moral economy " must be based on our more enlightened human nature.

 

Socialism was a not wholly vain attempt at transforming an amoral economy into a moral one. Things went tragically wrong because of a lack of understanding regarding the depth and strength of man's animal nature, in society at large, as well as in each and everyone of us, and also regarding our more enlightened human nature with which we can transcend it.

 

With the mistakes of the past to show us how NOT to go about it, we must now make a fresh attempt at creating a "moral social and economic order ", based not on our primitive, more animal than human nature, as at present, but on our more enlightened human nature.

 

There is no time for reform, I'm afraid. It has to be a revolution (i.e. rapid and radical change). We cannot afford to fail: not just the prosperity, but the very survival of our children and coming generations depends on our success.