The Right To Be Heard--Facebook As A Tipping Point

Anyone within hailing distance of a newspaper or TV has heard about the imminent underwriting that will make Facebook a public company.  Much as been said about the wealth of Mark Zuckerberg, the people who invested in his company and the cadre of Facebook managers who are poised to purchase expensive cars.  We have also heard that much of the Arab spring was rooted in social media such as Facebook.  Facebook has been excoriated for violating privacy rights.  What is undeniable, though, is the sheer scope of its reach:  soon to be one billion persons all over the world.

In a recent CBC radio program, Sparks, the social and political impact of Facebook and the Internet as a whole was thoughtfully examined.  Facebook, it was said, had the same impact of socializing people in the same way that the printing press gave access to information heretofore dominated by the elite classes.  The ability of a large number of ordinary people to communicate with one another, easily, will change the world. All of this is well known and predictable.  What was different about this discussion were the following points.

• Most social upheaval is a bottom up process.  From the Magna Carta through to the French and Russian revolutions through to the Arab spring, the impetus for social change was not "granted from above" but rather demanded from below--from relatively ordinary people (notwithstanding that the Magna Carta was promulgated by the earls and barons).  
• Strong leaders depend on the relative inability of the rank and file to communicate with one another.  They are top down leaders.  While all this goes well when strong leaders are also good leaders, it does not go so well when strong leaders are poor leaders.  Strong leaders tend not to listen to the rank and file:  being strong and self indulgent they believe that they know better.
• Social upheaval depends on the rank and file having access to information and being able to meet to formulate plans for change.  Sometimes this information is disseminated through pamphlets, sometimes through underground radio but, recently, through social media.
• Social change depends on perceived entitlement of the rank and file.  This entitlement is wide ranging and, if wide ranging enough, leads to significant social change.  The Internet and social media such as Facebook grant this entitlement.

The discussion then turned to the current leaders in the United States.  Both President and Obama and the Republican contenders point to themselves as strong leaders.  This appears to be exactly what the rank and file do not need.  Strong leaders got the United States into the mess that it's in.  What the rank and file want to hear is the political leaders will be collaborative.  We have a classic confrontation between the the rank and file and the political leadership.  The Republicans are hidebound in that they will not entertain higher taxes and more spending.  The Democrats are hidebound in that they will entertain higher taxes in order to preserve the social safety that citizens are entitled to expect.  The two solitudes are unable to have any meaningful discourse.  And so there is a political stalemate that is not going to get better in the near term.  Unless one of the parties can carry the presidency, the house and the senate, the negotiation need to pass meaningful legislation will lead nowhere.  The rank and file can't understand why this is happening.  After all, the country is in a mess and it appears relatively easy to identify where the mess is and what to do about it.  They are not doctrinaire about this.  The fact that legislators couldn't pass a jobs bill is criminal.  The fact that banks are still foreclosing on mortgagors because only by foreclosing can they collect from 

Fanny Mae is equally criminal.  Aside from the political rallies of the faithful there is no real dialogue going on between the leaders and the rank and file.  This is, potentially, dangerous. While the "Occupy" movement was poorly organized and directed, the next group will be better organized and better directed.  Look out.  

Bernie.

Old Age Insecurity

The current firestorm over deferring the OAS payments until age 67 brings up some key issues involving Canada's social safety net. Unlike the CPP (which is, theoretically, funded out of contributions made over the lifetime of the pensioner) the OAS is a direct hit on the consolidated revenue fund--that is the public cash fund from which government receives taxes and pays expenses. As Canadians age, the cohort that is upcoming (and making a significant bite into the consolidated revenue fund) is the so called "baby boomers". This population bulge will work its way through the system the way a rabbit works its way through a snake. After that, the working cohorts will contract significantly and the OAS should become more sustainable out of current taxes. However, with a smaller workforce, the tax base should contract--that is unless we woo more new working Canadians to our shores. These will make up the labour shortfall that is predicted in about 20-30 years from now. However, as lifespans continue to lengthen the OAS hit on the revenue will continue to make a sizable dent. This problem affects no only the safetynet of seniors but also will put stress on the cost of medical services and social services that deal with the elderly.

The problem with attacking the OAS is that it represents only part of the puzzle. Canada opted into a social safety net in the 1930s and that has largely distinguished Canadians from our southerly neighbors. If we are to continue to be a more enlightened society we need to rethink the whole social safetynet. This would include employment insurance (newspeak for the old unemployment insurance), social assistance for the poor, the whole medical insurance system and the guaranteed old age security system and so on. They go lock step with one another. The greater difficulty is that no level of government speaks for all of these services. Some are provided by municipalities, some by provinces and some by the federal government. If we can, for example, forsee that there will be significant immigraion in the future we can also see that families will want to bring elderly parents to Canada. These will put an undue burden on the system without making a contribution through taxes for their working life. The OAS is just the tip of the iceberg.

One area that has already been earmarked for federal provincial conflict relates to health insurance. It is well recognized that the health system is highly inefficient. However, bringing efficiencies into the equation means that some citizens will be more affected than others. Perhaps it is time to rethink the "universal" nature of our medicare system instituted by Trudeau. Perhaps we should be thinking about user fees or some private facilities that can operate more efficiently than what we now have. Whatever it is, it appears that the Harper government has served notice that current funding will continue for several years and then be recast on a formula that is not yet revealed. Just part of the puzzle.

Social services agencies throughoput North America are overworked and underfunded. Their impact on the community is challenged against higher crime rates for young offenders. There has been no real dent in poverty over the past 50 years. Social housing is a scandal. Municipalities should now buldoze many rent to income properties that are beyond repair,
Aside from education, the delivery of social services has a highest impacT on the public purse than any other public expenditure. And yet we keep pouring money into the same hole without the slightest idea of whether these "investments" are making a positive difference.

If 65 is the new 55 then the OAS should cut in at age 75. The low income unemployed should be assured that, through some program, they will be brought up to a minimum standard of living. The high income retirees are already having their OAS payment clawed back through the tax system. If people are living longer they should be entitled to contribute to tax deferred retirement accounts until age 75 with mandatory removal of tax deferred funds after that age. Those who need the money will break up their tax deferred saving accout earlies. Others will not.

We need a rethnk of the whole system. Putting a patch on the OAS doesn't cut it.

Bernie.