Cheap and Fast Trade-off for Quality

January, 2015
Living in the Future Tense #05

When Fast and Cheap Is Not Good Enough

Edward Renner

For 5,000 years, humans lived in the past tense: “Yesterday was the same as tomorrow. “ For the next 500 years people lived in the present tense: “Today can be whatever we want it to be.” But now, for the next 50 years we must start living in the future tense: “Tomorrow’s social, economic and political constraints must become today’s reality.”

As a boy, I knew that my grandfather respected the John Deere dealer. At 15 I got my first job in agriculture. A John Deere tractor did the heavy work. Although I lusted to drive it, I was never allowed to do so.

My chance to own my tractor came when I purchased 3 acres in western North Carolina. As an urban back-to-the-lander, everything I know about tractors I learned from Keith, who runs a small engine repair shop near Hendersonville North Carolina. His specialty is to fix and resell used tractors.

I now know that my grandfather’s deep sense of loyalty and respect for the legacy of John Deere was well deserved.

In 1933 when small farmers were losing their land, houses and equipment to foreclosures, the exception was tractors financed through John Deere. The company, though losing money itself, told farmers who owed them money to keep the tractors and pay as much as they could when they could. The nation needed food, and the farmers needed their tractors.

Keith has a classic 1941 Model B John Deere tractor. This model

was the most popular one in the company's history, remaining in

production from 1935 until 1952. With the exception of the occasional

replacement part it is still mechanically sound and functional. It has

already seen more than one owner out. Photo courtesy of Keith. 

But it is not 1933. The small farmer with his own tractor is a thing of the past. In 2000, John Deere obtained a banking license in Luxembourg giving it the ability to finance the sale of large equipment used by corporate agri-business throughout Europe. In 2012 it celebrated its 175 anniversary with record sales of over $36 billion.

In 2003, not to be closed out of the small rider mower market by cheap garden tractors from China, John Deere sold the use of their label to Home Depot. Now, you too can have a John Deere label for a two hundred dollars premium price, but other than the green and yellow paint it will be just like the ones for sale beside it with a 500-hour life expectancy before major repairs or replacement is required.

But this essay, like most legends, is not just a story about tractors. The John Deere legend is about the political and social consequences of achieving cheap prices and easy access at the expense of reduced quality. What economic globalization has created is the 21^st Century mind-set that fast and cheap is an acceptable trade-off for quality.

John Deere is not alone. Levis did the same thing for Wal-Mart, as other brand names have done for big market retailers. This is the new normal.

The modern way to make a profit is by shifting the commercial focus from quality and customer loyalty to cheaper prices and more accessible markets. While this may serve the financial returns of global corporations in the short term, it is not necessarily in the best long-term interests of individuals, the nation or sustainable living on a finite planet.

But, the potential damage is magnified when this global economic mindset also intrudes into the political and social aspect of our lives. In particular, that a cheap (lower taxes) smaller (fewer regulations) government is also best for our general wellbeing.

 

If we insist on lower taxes and smaller government with fewer regulations we will not have effective food inspections, air traffic controllers, parks and recreation, affordable public education, and all of the other services that living in a complex global world requires. Adequate taxes, effective government and a high level of social wellbeing are each fully dependent on the other two.

What would have happened in 2008 if the Bank of America had said to the people who had lost their jobs “keep your house and pay what you can when you can”?

The Bank of America would have been better off in terms of customer loyalty, and perhaps financially, if they had done so. Certainly the homeowners and the nation would have been better off. In the end, the bank had to pay a 17 billion dollar settlement for their predatory loan and automated foreclosure processes.

The John Deere legend perhaps explains why I bought a 15 year-old garden tractor manufactured in Kentucky for which I was able to download a complete mechanical schematic and parts list. This summer it hauled 5,000 pounds of gravel, mowed my field and carried logs from the forest for firewood.  Last week it wouldn’t start. I replaced the ignition solenoid for $14.03 plus shipping and it is working fine again. With the exception of an occasional replacement part, I expect it will see me out, thanks to Keith, unlike the one I might have bought new from Home Depot.

Fast and cheap is not a substitute for quality, either for us as consumers or for our government. Two out of three is not good enough.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Edward Renner has been a Professor of Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Illinois in the US, and at Dalhousie University in Canada. He is now retired and teaches one course, Forums for a Future, as an Adjunct Professor in the Honors College at the University of South Florida. . He blogs at http://forumsforafuture.blogspot.com

on the modern challenge of living sustainably and peacefully on a crowded planet in the 21st Century. He maybe reached at kerenner@usf.edu.

Low Wage Jobs Are Bad for the Country

Living in the Future Tense #04 January, 2015

When First Is Last

Edward Renner

For 5,000 years, humans lived in the past tense: “Yesterday was the same as tomorrow. “ For the next 500 years people lived in the present tense: “Today can be whatever we want it to be.” But now, for the next 50 years we must start living in the future tense: “Tomorrow’s social, economic and political constraints must become today’s reality.”

My wife just walked through the door declaring “I may never again shop at T J Maxx!”

She had just seen the store’s advertisement for clerks and supervisors at $7.93/hour.

The large number of low wage jobs is one reason why the World Bank, in its business Environment Ranking 2014, ranked the US fourth out of the 185 nations of the world in which it is best to do business.

Some of the other criterion are permitting indefinite out-sourcing of permanent jobs, not requiring paid vacation time nor giving notice or severance pay for redundancy dismissal, to list a few examples of what makes a country good to do business in.

Other countries that are similar to the US, but are less easy to do business in, have government regulations that provide workers with higher levels of economic security and benefits.  One such comparative set of nations are the members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which account for 85% of the world’s economy.

A report by the OECD, Employment Outlook 2014, sheds some light on what it means to be one of the best countries in which to do business, and whether that is something the US should want to be.

Source: OECD Employment Outlook 2014, Table N, page 288.
Data for Norway 2009, France 2008, the Netherlands, 2005

Of all of the OECD countries, the US has the largest percentage (25.3%)of its workforce in a low-wage job (less than two-thirds the median wage) and pays its low-wage workers the least amount of money (46.7% of the median wage).

Source: OECD Employment Outlook 2014, Table N, page 288
Computed from OECD data on 1st to 5th decile earnings ratios

It is important to understand that this data is compiled by experts from the member countries and are the agreed upon benchmark for these comparisons. They are not “just statistics,” but an occasion for civic discussions about the proper balance between the ease of doing business and the social price of the US becoming a low-wage economy – a country with a shrinking middle class and a large gap between the rich at the top and all the others at the bottom.

Should the US strive for first place -- to be more like Singapore and Hong Kong, which topped the World Bank ranking – or rather to be more like the European Union countries with whom we share a democratic political process?

  

One reason why the US is in last place among the OECD nations is that we have allowed corporate money to corrupt the political process toward favoring business over individual wellbeing. As voters we have accepted their purely theoretical message that little government regulation and low taxes are best for the country.

In contrast, the actual reality is the exact opposite.

Historically, lack of regulations has led to corporate excess. Theodore Roosevelt in the early 1900’s introduced anti-trust legislation as the corrective action to end abusive labor practices by the large industrial monopolies. The regulations of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal in the 1930’s corrected the unsanitary conditions in the meat packing and food industry, established industrial safety standards, and constrained the financial sector from the speculations responsible for the great recession.

In this Century we have experience the cumulative negative results of de-regulating the progressive legislation of the Roosevelt eras. First there was Enron, then the mortage bubble of 2008, and now there are more financial troubles on the horizon, such as the pending student loan defaults.

Likewise with taxes. Sufficient tax rates are essential for general well-being. People need to be healthy. Public parks, community centers, art and recreation make life livable for everyone. Schools have to prepare students for success. A living wage is the basis for equality of opportunity, social stability and personal happiness.

Over the decade preceding the OEDC report (2002 to 2012) the average measure of inequality in the member nations declined from a score of 3.44 to 3.38. In contrast, the magnitude of inequality for the US actually increased from 4.66 to 5.22, the highest of all OECD nations. While the rest of the developed world held steady through the great recession, it became an opportunity in the US for the wealthy to increase their ability to restrict government regulation and to increase their share of the income.

The prescription for swinging the balance back from corporate excess to greater individual well-being is to move toward greater similarity with the OECD countries which share our democratic political processes: A steeper income tax on the very wealthy, a living wage for low-wage workers, more public entitlements such as universal healthcare, and sufficient government regulations to insure that workers are not treated as disposable components of a global economy.

What is difficult to understand is why this pending end of the American Dream – once the envy of the world -- could be possible in a country with freedom of the press, democratically elected leaders and a political philosophy of equality of opportunity.

The essential role for government is same today as it was in 2008, 1929 and 1908. Theodore Roosevelt had it right, an essential role of government is to protect individuals against the abuses of corporate power.

________________________________________________________________________________

Edward Renner has been a Professor of Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Illinois in the US, and at Dalhousie University in Canada. He is now retired and teaches one course, Forums for a Future, as an Adjunct Professor in the Honors College at the University of South Florida. He may be reached at kerenner@usf.edu, and blogs at http://forumsforafuture.blogspot.com on the modern human challenge of how to live sustainably and peacefully on a crowded planet in the 21st Century.