While politicians exalt the mythical splendours of a workers' paradise, the economy they tend produces 35% unemployment.
With meticulous care, our political leaders have tended the South African economy for the past 16 years. They paid attention to every leaf, every branch, every twisting root. However, the efforts to transform the weak and wilted sapling bequeathed by the national socialists from whom we were liberated has not led to a thriving, prosperous economy.
On the contrary, our government is creating for us a bonsai economy.
In his May Day speechification, president Jacob Zuma promised workers that in future, they would labour under even more limitations. He envisioned regulation of casual and contract labour, preventing willing employers and employees from entering into contracts on terms agreeable to both parties, in favour of terms that supposedly protect workers.
The labour unions, for their part, loudly threatened blackmail, extortion and economic sabotage. This is the only way to describe legally protected strikes, since they permit one party to break contract terms without granting the aggrieved party any recourse but to pay a ransom.
Like a shallow pot, scant water and clipped roots, these restrictions find their reflection in the small size and stunted shape of the visible result, the bonsai tree.
More rigid labour laws might appear to protect workers, but in reality they restrict the willingness of companies to hire staff according to their needs. The marginal benefit of employing staff will be lower, as will the company's ability to adjust rapidly to changes, both upwards and downwards, in market demand. The upshot will be that jobs will be harder for a prospective employee to secure, and if they do, they will probably be paid less, since inflexible labour means less productive and efficient labour.
It is no surprise that our economy has been unable to absorb the large pool of available but unemployed labour, even when world markets were booming. Partly, this symptom is attributable to the most criminal of all apartheid's legacies: the neglect of education and training. However, that we have for so long continued to suffer high unemployment and anaemic growth rates compared to our emerging market peers is just as much a symptom of our closed and highly regulated market.
Industrial policy has likewise been highly restrictive. By licensing a limited number of operators in many key industries, the number of branches permitted on our economic tree was intentionally kept low. The few companies lucky enough to obtain official consent to carry on trade were burdened with directions concerning the nature of the business in which they could engage, and onerous licence conditions designed to advance what the government believed to be in the social interest.
Like wires wrapped around bonsai branches, our state-sanctioned companies were trained to perform only as the government wished them to.
Even the leaves and budding twigs did not escape the gardener's merciless attention. Ostensibly encouraged but usually clipped, they cowered and shrank away from the sunlight they sought. There they languish, in a "second economy" of indeterminate size and little property protection. Even the prospect of earning tax revenue has not motivated the government to make it easy and legal to establish and run small businesses for which there is market demand in South Africa.
The result of letting a tree grow as best it can in its environment might be a slow-growing but towering oak. It might be a fast-growing but profitable pine tree. What it shouldn't be, but what our government has delivered for us, is a fragile little bonsai.
To improve the outward appearance of this sham, it is typically adorned with decorations. Like moss that covers the soil in a bonsai pot like meadow grass, many of these fake landscape elements are designed to fortify the impression of size and maturity.
Many an imperfection is hidden by such sleight-of-hand. A glaring example is the publication of an "official" unemployment rate of only 25%. Shocking though this is, the real rate is much higher. The legerdemain is achieved by just ignoring the 10% or more of working-age adults who have given up looking for work. Such gross injustice to the poor souls which our economy has left to the mercy of family, friends, charity and social welfare is the price we pay to maintain the social myth of a ruling class that extols economic justice for all.
Stones that mimic large rocks, or even water features and elaborate model bridges, complete the spectacle. Pay no attention to the few tiny fruit our bonsai tree produces. Most of it is picked by the gardener anyway. Just blow your vuvuzela in your new multibillion-rand stadium, and forget about the little prison of a garden in which your economy grows. Public works projects contribute not one inch to the vitality or scale of our economic tree. They merely hope to complete the illusion that what we are looking at is the real thing.
It is not. It is a stunted shadow of a vibrant, free, prosperous and durable economy. It is a shame that so much care and attention to detail has been wasted on what is merely a bonsai economy. It is downright criminal to proclaim, from the May Day hustings, that the failure of our bonsai to grow tall and strong is reason to redouble the miniaturisation effort.













note that the gardener tending a bonsai tree waters it carefully but daily, precisely because it is being tended so assiduously and because it is in a shallow dish.
that would indicate that the bonsai tree is a plant that is extremely carefully and conscientiously tended. you could certainly argue that it gets too much care as part of the deal wherein it is bent to the designer's plan, but it is not undernourished or under-watered or under-cultivated in any way.
This 'smallness' is then naturally blamed on the only ones who are actually helping it to grow - the business owner / capitalist
As always thought provoking - thanks Ivo!
Brooks, like a Bonsai tree our economy receives endless attention from our esteemed government. The real point here is that no matter how carefully a bonsai is tended, pruned, watered, fed and shaped, it will never produce useful fruit or shade - it is restricted by its container and pruned roots. No matter how aesthetically pleasing it may be, it will produce no worthwhile fruit.
Most of all though, the bonsai metaphor is appropriate to the classical liberal economist because of the comparison to what the tree could have become if allowed to develop its natural, untended shape, influenced only by conditions and circumstances as they occur.
ok, take this back to the economy - a healthy bonsai tree, er, economy, would have all the naturally occurring features of its bigger cousin and, if it is a fruit-bearing tree, oranges or lemons or whatever as well. it just has to fit in the tiny garden or inside shelf in the house.
take this metaphor back to an economy and we could just as easily argue that a well-brought up, well-groomed economy would start small and once we get the hang of it, we could certainly unbind its roots, branches and let it grow upward, outward, 'large-ward'.
Firstly, not every shape is pleasing to every eye; the grower is free to (and will certainly be tempted to) "improve" on or accentuate natural shapes according to his preferences. Secondly, a grower is not able to perceive every possible subtly interacting natural shape - any natural tree will offer a subtly different visual stimulus to each observer - and will naturally prefer some shapes over others according to his personality or mood. He will grow and shape his bonsai according to his own preference, or perhaps to a theme, to accentuate what he finds appealing while eliminating other shapes.
In addition to this, the bonsai grows in an environment where its ecosystem is limited and tightly controlled - it is artificially watered and fed, and protected from insects and animals.
Taking this to the economy, what essential parts - flexibility, balance, backup systems, redundancies etc - do we lose when our economic roots, branches, shoots and containers are regulated by a group of individuals with imperfect vision, perception and understanding of the infinitely complex interactions of each part with the other and with its ecosystem? What missing factors would have protected it from the uncertainties of existence in a natural ecosystem?
Your "well-brought up, well-groomed economy" might well work perfectly and be entirely appropriate to its bonsai climate-controlled environment with simulated stresses, but transplant it into the real world, and it's likely that the unpredictable, unremitting combination of stresses it must face will overcome it in short order if it is not able to adapt, whatever its size.
The point here, and this is why it's such a great analogy, is that much like a tree's natural growing environment, it is impossible to predict every possibility in an economy and, like a tree forced to assume a specific shape in an unpredictable environment, it's almost inevitable that an artificially shaped economy will sooner or later see its ass.
Labour regulations are usually nothing more than another set of barriers to entry: this time against non-unionized folk who must languish in unemployment so that a select few can benefit from higher wages and perks; no coincidence that they're big friends of big government too!
Let's get our minds out of these false paradigms. Nothing government does is of net benefit to everybody. Long live the shadow economy.
Instead of a regulated labour market should female workers have to choose between a job and an abortion? Between a job and being exposed to toxic chemicals? Between being worked to death or starved to death? The fruits of Ivo’s proposed freedoms are dubious. At present Raymond Ackerman is free to import textiles made by Burmese slave labour and pocket the wages that used to employ 300 000 breadwinners in the Cape. Is the problem there that South African workers are too greedy for wanting to put shoes on their children’s feet, or the fact that in the totally unregulated labour market of investor’s paradise Myanmar, workers work for the privilege of not being killed?
No mention is ever made of globalization as factor in South Africa’s high unemployment. China can at the moment produce most of the products we consume not just at lower cost than we can but can make and transport them here for LESS THAN THE PRICE OF THE RAW MATERIALS in South Africa. I fail to see how being able to hire and fire on a whim will be decisive in achieving a competitive advantage in manufacturing or anything else.
On the contrary, I would argue that union action for living wages and job retention is probably the main thing preventing a final, total collapse in domestic consumption. Sweatshop workers are not known for being able to buy the products they lose their limbs, health and family life to produce, never mind browsing the deli counter at Woolworths.
Chinese manufacturing was 20% idle even before the bubble burst, G*d knows what it is now. Beyond that there are still 100s of millions of peasants ready to be absorbed into the industries, same with India, rest of Asia etc. with most of the West following them down the road to Feudal boss class nirvana. Combined with seldom mentioned factors such as automation, resource scarcity (something that is simply denied in Ivo’s Ayn Rand world) and the steady diversion of spending power from working people to parasite investor caste ponzi schemes, competitive devaluation of wages and working conditions won’t work their advertised magic for decades, probably never.
I won’t argue with anyone who says the present government is screwing up big time but Ivo’s repeated attacks on worker’s rights can only be cheered on by those who are either clueless or psychopathic.
To complete the metaphor we would have to say that government's current approach is like having someone who only knows how to grow bonsais trying to establish an orchard. And then wondering why the fruit are so small.
Which to my mind makes the metaphor so much more appropriate.
you asked: "How do you see the steadily climbing unemployment rate as an indicator of the success of labour policy and union action? "
I don't. The whole point of my rant was that union activity is at best a marginal factor in SA's high unemployment rate. The facts I shared tell me that much of South Africa’s theoretical post worker’s rights output would remain uncompetitive even if you reduced labour and associated costs to ZERO. I also pointed out that the SA economy depends on the higher wages and job security that unionised work places are proven to provide. For example, banks tend to look more favorably on mortgage applications from union protected civil servants as opposed to freelancers and how much KFC is a R20 a day assembly line worker going to buy after that 18 hour shift anyway? Without inflated union wages a lot of business people like yourself would lose it all – you would have to find someone else to blame.
You also ignored the point I made that many bosses are simply exploitive scum (not you of course!). If unions were not there to raise the game a bit, employers with conscience (presumably like yourself) would face even more competition from other businesses which don’t have to waste money on things like safety gear, sick leave, decent lighting, overtime etc. (Gresham’s Law: Good money can’t drive out bad money)
And, in the practical department: The abolishment of unions and worker’s rights will be an incredibly hard thing to do. I don’t see how it could occur without massive violence and destruction. Union members will ask why they have to give up their teeny little below CPI increases, their health and safety and their jobs to help the poor, when their bosses seem unwilling to part with their BMW X6, Camps Bay holiday flats and cosmetic surgery. They would have a point, and however you phrased your reply you would have to hammer home the notion that Capitalism is a tough game with winners and losers, where a Darwinian struggle see some able to claw their way to top of the heap while the weak are crushed without mercy. You would have to explain that you are the wellspring of all that is good and in high demand around the world and that they are an instantly replaceable industrial input on par with leased machinery. That’s the bottom line, right?
I’ve tried to engage with the John Galts here on what exactly they find so troubling about our labour laws, or why they think abolishing them will have such a dramatic effect on this country’s development. The market for unskilled labour is utterly saturated worldwide and domestic consumption is collapsing. What part of supply and demand theory do you think my little worker brain doesn’t get?
Please elaborate.
http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=561&fArticleId=5354282
That sunrise after the dark night just doesn't want to come. Keep in mind that these kind of published figures never break down who is spending on what but it's safe to assume that the working poor are the ones making the most dramatic cuts in their spending, if they are still spending at all. (increasing electricity prices (35%), food (23% -Argus food basket) and transport (10% -don't quote me) can't be helping matters as these make up the bulk of their expenditures.
In terms of price inflation you've mentioned the most important sector: energy. Eskom is a state-backed monopoly so no surprise that it's badly managed and forever increasing its prices.
The fuel price is also set by government and it has, surprisingly again, been forever rising! I wonder how this could be considering the Rand's recent strength against the dollar and plateauing oil prices for the past year? I guess we need to ignore the fact that about 40% of the local price is pure government theft.
So, is it safe to say government interventionism is, yet again, to blame for hurting the working folk?
Let’s also assume there is no uprising and the country doesn’t get burnt to the ground as a result (big assumption).
Now what? Surely for such a dramatic step you have some idea of what will come next? How many jobs will be created? How much will these new workers will earn? How long will it take this rising tide of prosperity to bring us back in line with what union workers are earning now? How long before the world runs out people willing to work for a bowl of rice or R5 a day? How long before we become a kind of Afro-Switzerland?
I’m assuming you have a wealth of data to answer these questions.
Now, most of your first paragraph is a giant non sequitur. As you've admitted, the terms of employment will be negotiated and entered into freely. Working as a cash-transit agent or a crab fisherman is an exceedingly dangerous job and no amount of government legislation will change that. By the same token, no one is coerced into these positions. Likewise, an employer who mistreats his employees as drastically as you outline will simply be outlasted by the competition of other employers. The point is people make the risk-benefit analysis themselves (and this is entirely the point, personal choice; personal liberty). When government steps in with barriers to entry all they are doing is saying to people who would otherwise be productive by choice that they may not be.
It will initially be a take-it-or-leave it situation in South Africa, but when there are millions of unemployed people who are relatively unskilled and lack experience you can't start by lavishing them with a salary and benefits not marginal to their productivity.
The point is the status quo of the fortunate few gaining co-opted benefits via union action are doing so at the behest of the unemployed. In the US the average union worker makes over $28 an hour more than his non-unionized counterpart when you include all the perks and benefits. If you take the Federal minimum wage at just over $7 an hour that means there is an artificial barrier to entry of 4 unemployed people for every union worker. Does this sound reasonable, fair or sustainable?
With regards to your second paragraph: Developed or "1st world" countries didn't magically have abundant higher order capital structures to begin with. These had to be developed, over time, hence why the atypical job of factory manufacturer eventually became middle manager in an office. All of this took the effects of increasing marginal productivity per capita along with the specialization of the division of labour. However, this whole process can happen a lot faster when the hands of government are kept out of the way in terms of regulation and taxation. For a real-world example, I'd recommend looking up India's economic reforms following the 1991 economic crisis in that country. Within a decade they went from being a stagnant mostly-socialized basket case to a major industrialized country with literally hundreds of millions of people earning a greater living and experiencing a greater relative quality of life. If becoming employed in what you would term "sweat shops" was not of marginal benefit to their lives then, guess what, tens of millions of people simply wouldn't do it!
In conclusion, I am not advocating that labour unions become outlawed or that people be treated as slaves. What I am advocating is the elimination of the various barriers to entry the bulk of the unemployed face through the co-opting of governments and special interests. I am advocating that people, not governments, decide what is in their best interests in terms of employment. Your counter is that a few should experience an artificially higher standard of employment at the behest of swathes of the unemployed. I find this position, frankly, immoral and ultimately untenable.
We are in the beginning of what will probably be the greatest recession of the modern era. Ignoring fundamental economic principals such as a market rate for labour and the necessity for government to decrease its influence, taxation and spending will only serve to prolong the situation of stagnant growth and limited employment.
I will end with a quote from a recent article by economist Doug French:
"In a depression, all prices must be allowed to adjust downward. Wages are no different. First and foremost, the government's artificial wage floor should be removed. The future of a generation depends upon on it."
Read more: Mises Institute: http://mises.org/daily/4355#ixzz0nXE8MzH2
That's exactly the opposite of what I'm saying. I'm saying artificially higher standards are keeping more people in work than they otherwise would have been.
"In the US the average union worker makes over $28 an hour more than his non-unionized counterpart when you include all the perks and benefits."
Supports MY position but the comparison to the US minimum wage is meaningless because those union jobs include highly skilled/qualified workers. The US$7 figure (is it really that high?) must surely only apply to hole diggers and burger flippers at McD's
Don't know much about India I have to admit but some have argued that the post-independence socialistic phase was important in laying the groundwork for the current expansion. For example they trained masses of engineers soviet style, handy thing for a developing economy. Food price controls were important in a country that had experienced a famine every single year (sometimes killing up to 1million per famine) right up until the year they were imposed in the 1950s – after which they just. Stopped. Happening. Indians have always been very in to small family run businesses as far as I know.
"We are in the beginning of what will probably be the greatest recession of the modern era. "
At least we can agree on that.