Download This Article in PDF Format
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
E3S Web of Conferences 119, 00007 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/201911900007 Science and the Future 2 Destroy the planet for the sake of the very rich? A plea for fair distribution as common sense Eisabetta Grade1 1 Uiversit degi Studi de Piete rietae Aede Avgadr Abstract. This paper will address from a peculiar point of view the key issue -raised today by Greta Thunberg and her peers- of the unlimited economic growth in a limited planet. It is its aim to point out how a relentless growth, while entailing dramatic ecological consequences in terms both of resources’ consumption/destruction and of climate change, contrary to a common perception does not benefit everybody. In contrast, because of the unequal distribution of GDP and wealth that is largely driven by the legal systems such as politically shaped, it benefits only the very rich. This new understanding should finally lead the vast majority of us to stop asking for an unlimited growth and to join Greta Thunberg in her protest, calling for something different, namely a less unequal redistribution of what we have via different legal rules. Why in fact should we destroy the planet, such as we need it for our survival, just to make the very wealthy even more affluent? 1 Introduction differet aey a ess uequa redistributi f what we have via differet ega rues Why i fact shud we This paper addresses fr a pecuiar pit f view the destry ur paet ust t ae the very weathy eve ey issue – raised tday by Greta Thuberg ad her re affuet peers – f the uiited ecic grwth i a iited T prve y pit I wi first csider the Uited paet States’ case iasuch the eadig experiece i Wester As a awyer I wud ie t shw hw the uequa traditi I wi the tur t the Itaia case i rder t distributi f GDP ad weath argey drive by the shw hw Itay (ie st wester cutries) fwed ega systes such as piticay shaped aes the the Uited States’ path Fiay I wi ae the case assupti that a grwig ecy wi beefit that ctrary t a c rhetric high prductivity everybdy iusry ad grwth t eve hep pr pepe t ive a better ife Cversey the icrease f GDP ad weath fte i the gba Suth brigs abut re pverty fr the idiget ad at best a great stagati fr the rest except f curse fr the very rich 2 The case of the United States Uveiig the ipsture that ies uder the It is a fact that in recent decades, on varying dates iseadig essage i the very idea f a gd fr a depending on the country, the western world has ecic grwth” cud ea that pepe acquire a experienced a substantial growth in GDP and wealth, at ve csciusess abut the rea csequeces f times entirely amazing, albeit accompanied by the prducig csuig ad wastig re every day squeezing of the middle class (even bottom 90% [1]), We a cud abad the wrg assupti that a and by an increase in extreme poverty. The rise of an estiated GDP icrease wi ed up i a ecic unknown phenomenon like homelessness everywhere in aeirati fr a f us ad that because f that grwth the western world is the most obvious evidence of this the very pr wi be ess pr the ess idiget re growth. prsperus ad the very rich eve richer By discverig Let me take the experience of the United States, that the prectis t beefit fr the ecic grwth which seems to be the leading model in the West. What are erreus fr the vast arity f us ad that y we notice is that from the 1980s until now, while the the very rich ca seriusy expect t gai fr it we wealth of the country practically tripled - from roughly ay fiay stp asig fr a uiited grwth that 10 trillion in 1980 (29 trillion in today’s prices) to 107 etais draatic ecgica csequeces i ters bth trillion in 2018 [2] -, extreme poverty almost doubled (it f resurces’ csuptidestructi ad f ciate actually doubled from 1973 to 2014, according to the chage I ctrast the great arity f us ay fiay very conservative parameters of the Census Bureau [3]). i Greta Thuberg i her prtest ad as fr sethig In the same period, there was a great decline in the share * Corresponding author: [email protected] © The Authors, published by EDP Sciences. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). E3S Web of Conferences 119, 00007 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/201911900007 Science and the Future 2 of the growing national income going to the bottom “GDP growth”) and of course in a substantial wage 90%, while the top 1% saw an unbelievable rise, and an decline for the unskilled workers in the United States acceleration for the top 0.1% and 0.01% [4]. Wealth (and in the global north generally). distribution over time became even more unequal: the American workers did not even gain any protection share of wealth held by the top 1% rose from 25/30% in from the national legal system when, due to the global 1989 to 38.6/40% in 2016 [4, 5]. Three people today race to the bottom, their working conditions began to have more wealth than the bottom half of the population worsen badly from the mid-1970s. Unlike in Roosevelt’s and the four hundred richest persons own as much days, when social legislation contrasted with the wealth as two thirds of Americans [6]; the top 10% of exploitation of workers that extensive economic freedom the wealthiest people, moreover, own 80% of the entire would have otherwise continued, the market completely national wealth [7, 8]. On the other side of the spectrum, prevailed over workers’ legal safeguards from Reagan’s. the share held by the bottom 90% fell from 33.2% in Abandoned by the law, many American workers started 1989 to 22.8% in 2016 [7, 8], with the bottom 60% to work for very low salaries, especially in the third having seen a decline from a 5.7% share in 1987 to a sector, since the intense factory relocation phenomenon, 2.1% share in 2014 [5]. driven by the international legal order mentioned above, Accrdig t ay surces the icreased ice vastly reduced the first one. Their work became more ad weath f the weathiest is acceeratig at the and more insecure, not only because they could (and expese f the btt 90% f the Aerica ppuati can) be easily fired, but especially because their working 4 9 10 If this grabbig f a everwider share f the hours became extremely erratic, depending on the will Aerica weath ad ice by the very rich is gig t and the interests of the employer, who got used to ctiue it wi ievitaby affect the webeig f a dumping the risks of their business on them. New forms icreasig part f the ppuati I su whatever has of extremely precarious working agreements, such as the happeed i recet decades t the pr wh did t “on call shift”, entered the working scenario with bece ess idiget despite the aaig grwth f the complete impunity, together with a compulsory conflict Uited States’ GDP ad weath1 but becae eve resolution mechanism, such as the mandatory arbitration, prer edig up heess i the wrst cases2 sees that effectively cancelled out any workers’ rights. iey i the future t affect a arger share f the The minimum wage, a safety net for the otherwise Aerica ppuati The iusi f a gd fr a exploited worker, has never again reached the threshold ecic grwth” which aes everye drea abut that existed during Carter’s presidency. At that time, the becig better ff wheever the ecy grws wi minimum wage was enough to allow one person to crube re ad re agaist the wa f grwig sustain themselves and two more people with their job. It iequaity decreased from Reagan’s times to the point that it is Hw did the weathiest expit the prest i the Uited today not even enough for a single worker to live a States decent life. I a arge part it has bee the resut f a ega syste A new kind of worker had arrived: the working poor. that is iteratiay ad atiay rgaised t aw The law of the strongest, in sum, overcame the force of the richest t bece richer at the expese f the st law. vuerabe At the iteratia eve a treaty ie the It is therefore surely not a surprise to discover that GATT which ater erged it the WT has brught from 1979 to 2011 the hourly wages of all workers up to abut se crucia csequeces, which would not have the 70 percentile stagnated; or that in the same time-span occurred if the countries had ratified the Havana Charter the hourly wages of the poorest workers, corresponding instead. This provided indeed for the sanctioning of to the 10th percentile, experienced a decline, while the countries that did not respect the minimum standard of hourly wages of the top silver (i.e. the top 0,1%) workers workers protection established by the ILO. On the grew by 278% [13]. The pay-cheques of CEOs, of contrary, the GATT, together with the later WTO, which course, have seen almost inconceivable growth: in 2007 took effect in 1948 and 1995 respectively, not only did a Wal-Mart CEO was earning in two weeks what a Wall- not, and still do not, sanction such violations, they even Mart worker would have earned in their entire life if they sanction those countries that do not import from the ones had been able to retain a job there [14].