By Kevin D. Williamson
Tuesday, May 12, 2020
“I was born one morning when the sun didn’t shine. I
picked up my shovel and I walked to the mine.” So sang Tennessee Ernie Ford in
his recording of Merle Travis’s “Sixteen Tons,” a surprise hit in 1955.
That song is an interesting mess of elements that
shouldn’t work together: Travis’s semi-autobiographic miner’s lament delivered
in Ford’s smooth, classically trained baritone, the singer’s tough-guy
posturing sustained by a pretty bad-ass riff played on the . . . clarinet.
Merle Travis came from coal-mining people in Kentucky;
Ernest Jennings Ford was a man of the middle classes, a former radio announcer
who studied singing at the Cincinnati Conservatory of Music. The arc of his
life is a familiar one: He went away to war and came home to seek — and find —
his fortune in California. “Tennessee Ernie” was one of his radio personae, a
stereotypical hillbilly. (The cheerful contrivance of these personalities was
part of the charm: Louis Marshall Jones became “Grandpa Jones” when he was in
his twenties.) Ford lived the American Dream: If you have a decent off-road
vehicle and a few jerry cans of gasoline, you can camp out at his former
retreat in the Nevada wilderness, well past where the blacktop ends. He died of
liver failure after a state dinner with President George H. W. Bush.
The working-man hero of “Sixteen Tons” was and is a
staple of American popular culture. From Merle Haggard’s “Working Man Blues” to
the Dropkick Murphys’ “Boys on the Docks,” the poets of the American scene have
long sung of the heroic virtues of work, perseverance, and endurance. Merle
Haggard’s working man liked to “drink a little beer in the tavern,” while the
Dropkick Murphys’ battered hero finds peace in sobriety — and more work,
summing up his program: “Wake and pray, work all day.”
Work is the original curse — “the curse of the drinking
classes,” Oscar Wilde called it, inverting the proverb. That tradition is very
old: “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread,” an unhappy Adam is
informed on his way out of Paradise. The workers of the world, Karl Marx
informs us, are in chains.
Or maybe work is the original blessing. When asked about
the secret of his success, there is a chance of about 94.6 percent that any
celebrity will answer: hard work. They will forswear possession of any special
talent and insist, with a great deal of pride, that they simply outwork the
competition.
Will Smith: “Where I excel is ridiculous, sickening work
ethic. You know, while the other guy’s sleeping? I’m working.” Louis C. K.:
“I’ve learned from experience that if you work harder at it, and apply more
energy and time to it, and more consistency, you get a better result. It comes
from the work.” Lucille Ball and a thousand thousand other entertainers have
said much the same thing. Entrepreneurs, too. Ray Kroc: “Luck is a dividend of
sweat. The more you sweat, the luckier you get.” Thomas Edison (perhaps): “The
reason a lot of people do not recognize opportunity is because it usually goes
around wearing overalls looking like hard work.” And politicians, e.g. Margaret
Thatcher: “I’ve got a woman’s ability to stick to a job and get on with it when
everyone else walks off and leaves it.”
You hear less of that happy talk from coal miners. Merle
Travis’s narrator in “Sixteen Tons” won nothing for his labors: “You load
sixteen tons, and what do you get? Another day older and deeper in debt.” Noel
Coward insisted that “work is much more fun than fun,” but he belonged to that
class of people who, in P. J. O’Rourke’s memorable formulation, are seldom seen
to “lift anything heavier than money.” And lifting 16 tons of that is a
labor of love.
“The lot of man is ceaseless labor,” T. S. Eliot wrote.
“Or ceaseless idleness, which is still harder.”
Idleness can be very enjoyable, provided three things:
(1) It is voluntary; (2); it is temporary; (3) you don’t need an income.
My sometime National Review colleague Kevin
Hassett, currently serving as White House economic adviser, tells Face the
Nation that he expects unemployment to hit something “north of 20 percent.”
This is the result of — what do we call it? Is the coronavirus epidemic a
“natural disaster,” or is it a public-health crisis made far worse than it had
to be by the incompetence and corruption of the government in Beijing and by
imperfect policy choices in capitals from Washington to London to Stockholm?
The idleness enforced by the coronavirus shutdown is not voluntary, and most of
those affected need income. It will be temporary — but how temporary?
In mid-March, I suggested that the federal government
adopt a policy of directly subsidizing the wages of lower-income workers for
the duration of the shutdown. This appealed to me as an emergency measure for
several reasons: For one, having idled workers able to rely on their regular
paycheck (or something close to it) for the duration of the epidemic seemed
likely to be more effective than sending “stimulus” checks willy-nilly;
maintaining the relationship between employer and employee would make it easier
to return to normal when — if — such a thing became possible; recognizing that
this mass unemployment is the result of necessary government action rather than
organic economic changes and addressing that situation in a full and forthright
way would help to achieve popular buy-in for what was always bound to be a
controversial set of policies; and, finally, the most likely alternative is
spending the same money or more in the form of unemployment benefits, which are
paid to people who become unemployed — the very thing we are trying to
minimize.
Should we be trying to minimize that?
Many progressives have held up Denmark as a
counterexample. (Denmark is a very popular counterexample for progressives: It
is a happy, healthy, well-governed country with high taxes and a relatively
large welfare state, a useful if limited datum to bring into conversation with
conservatives who sometimes talk as though it were impossible for such a thing
to exist.) Denmark’s strategy was to put its economy into a kind of hibernation
for the duration of quarantine measures, with the national government
subsidizing up to 90 percent of the wages of workers who might otherwise have
been laid off, while offering struggling firms direct assistance to meet other
costs while their usual revenue streams are dammed up by artificial but
necessary barriers to doing business. The United States has spent trillions on
stimulus and other measures, and the unemployment rate still is expected to hit
Great Depression levels. Denmark’s unemployment rate at last measure was about
one-third the U.S. rate. Denmark, too, has spent a ton of money, but if
unemployment is our metric, then there is a lot to say for the Danish model, at
least with the evidence that we have at hand right now. The usual caveats — the
United States is not much like Denmark — apply here.
There are two ways of looking at this. One would be to
embrace the Schumpeterian “creative destruction” with which we are faced: There
is a new reality, no amount of wishful thinking will change that, and the
genuinely humanitarian approach would be to let businesses and industries
adjust — through failure — as quickly as they can to this new reality, while
providing support for the unemployed and newly incomeless through the ordinary
instruments of social welfare, from unemployment benefits to food stamps. A
second view would be that we have adopted an unprecedented set of emergency
measures in the face of a genuine national and worldwide crisis, that there is
a big difference between businesses that have been shut down by government
order and buggy-whip makers on the eve of the automotive revolution, and that
what our economy is faced with is not “creative destruction” but destruction
pure and simple.
There are millions of Americans who want and need to work
but cannot find it. We need them to work, too, not because of some abstraction
called “the economy” but because of the millions and millions of real-world
daily tasks and exchanges that we talk about when we talk about “the economy.”
It is important that people get paychecks, but it also is important that the
work be done — jobs are a means, not an end. The point of hauling up those 16
tons of coal wasn’t to produce a paycheck for miners — it was to produce energy
from coal, for heat and power and for all the things that come from heat and
power.
Unemployment north of 20 percent is going to be very hard
on the unemployed. But it is going to be hard on everybody else, too. That’s
the paradox of capitalism, the vicious cutthroat arrangement by which we learn
how best to serve one another, in which we talk about competition as though we
were hyenas fighting over the last scraps of a wildebeest but act like people
who are working together to provide for ourselves and one another. Adam Smith
did not write a book about marketing, management, or entrepreneurship — he
wrote A Theory of Moral Sentiments.
No comments:
Post a Comment