'Inequality - A failure of vision and values'

Delivering the 2012 TASC Annual Lecture in the Royal Irish Academy last night, social justice campaigner Fr Peter McVerry said that the mantra of the old economic model "more is better" must give way to "moderation and restraint".

He also said that: "Those who make the decisions in our society are almost always middle-class, comfortably off and well educated. They understand the culture from which they have come, the view from the top...To build a just society, decision makers need to reach out, to understand, to befriend, to listen to the views, feelings and concerns of those who are on the margins, they have to spend much more time in shelters for the homeless, refuges for women suffering domestic violence, the overcrowded homes of those on the Local Authorities waiting lists, in the drug clinics and on the streets, with mothers of children with special needs, with those dependent on public health services, with those on low incomes unable to qualify for medical cards. Only then will they begin to see the view from the bottom, to understand the experiences and feelings of those who have that view."

Extracts from McVerry's speech - 'Inequality - A failure of vision and values' - are below, and you can read the full-text on the TASC website, here.

I am not an academic, nor an economist, as will very quickly become apparent!   I can only share with you some reflections arising from my work with homeless young people. One of the effects of working with homeless people has been to make me angry; and I am glad to be angry; and I always say that when I lose my anger I will be no use to them. From that angry perspective, then, I share these few thoughts.

This crackdown on people who are unemployed is not primarily to help people get a job; it appears designed to punish people for being unemployed.  Welfare payments are seen as a waste of valuable resources on people who are unproductive in the economy.

The Government’s “Action Plan for Jobs” hopes, over the next five years, to reduce the number of people who are unemployed by 100,000. 436,700 people, at least, will be competing for those jobs or training places. Even if they all materialise – a huge “if” – there will still be 336,700 people unemployed. It would actually make more sense if those who chose NOT to compete for those jobs, thus giving others a better chance of securing them, were to be rewarded for opting out, not punished! Why ask everyone to chase jobs when we know that more than 3 out of 4 cannot succeed?

Do those who make such policies understand the consequences of their policies, or do they simply not care? I believe the people who make such policies are usually good, caring, compassionate people who simply live in a totally different world, unaware of the real consequences of their decisions.

[There are] two totally different views of Irish society; there is a view from the top and a view from the bottom.

Both views are equally valid. But that is not, in itself, the problem. The problem arises because all the decisions in our society are made by those with the view from the top – and they have no understanding of the experiences of those at the bottom. They know the views of those at the bottom, they have read reports, they have visited the places they live, they have a concept of what their views are. But they have no understanding of their experiences.

Equally, those homeless people with whom I work have no understanding of the views and experiences of those who are at the top, earning €100,000 euro per year, going on foreign holidays, driving BMWs. Those homeless people come into me looking for their bus fare to get home, otherwise they have to walk. There are two different worlds, side by side, but light years apart. One year when I was going on holidays, I, jokingly, told some homeless people that I was going to Skerries for two weeks. What I found sad is that some of them actually believed me!   No disrespect to the people of Skerries but I wouldn’t dream of going to Skerries for a holiday.  But, for some homeless people, going on holidays to Skerries is a dream that will probably never come true. Two different worlds, both important, both interlinked, but light years apart.

The sort of society we build depends on the decisions that some people make. Those who make the decisions in our society are almost always middle-class, comfortably off and well educated. They understand the culture from which they have come, the view from the top. Decision makers have, inevitably, a stronger affinity with some groups than with others, and so the concerns of those groups will be much more easily understood and felt than the concerns of others.

Good people make bad decisions not because of a defect in moral values but because of a defect in vision. Because they are unaware. They have little or no understanding of the problems, feelings and struggles of those at the bottom of society.

To build a just society, decision makers need to reach out, to understand, to befriend, to listen to the views, feelings and concerns of those who are on the margins, they have to spend much more time in shelters for the homeless, refuges for women suffering domestic violence, the overcrowded homes of those on the Local Authorities waiting lists, in the drug clinics and on the streets, with mothers of children with special needs, with those dependent on public health services, with those on low incomes unable to qualify for medical cards. Only then will they begin to see the view from the bottom, to understand the experiences and feelings of those who have that view.

Why, in Ireland in 2012, do blighted, neglected estates such as Moyross, South Hill or Dolphin’s Barn continue to exist, where people continue to live in intolerable decisions?  Of course those who make the decisions have some concept of the conditions that exist in those estates, but they don’t live there, they don’t spend time there, they are unaffected by the conditions of life there.

I look with anger at the different treatment of bondholders and homeless people. A political decision was made that unidentified- and apparently unidentifiable - bondholders had to be paid, no matter the cost. And so it happened. Why could we not have made a political decision to eliminate homelessness, or blighted housing estates, no matter the cost?  It is not rocket science! The problem of homelessness is not so complicated that we cannot identify or find a solution. But politicians understand the world of finance and are comfortable in that world, whereas the world of homelessness is a different world, right beside us, amongst us, but light years apart.

Our lives are dominated, even controlled, by the economic system in which we are immersed.  This economic system has taken our deepest desires as human beings and manipulated them to consolidate and promote the economic system itself. It imposes values on us which ensure the marginalisation and exclusion of some in society, and which provide the justification for keeping them marginalised, for those who want it.

In 1996, when the Celtic Tiger was just beginning, there were 2,500 homeless people in Ireland; in 2008, when the Celtic Tiger was just ending, there were 5,000 homeless people in Ireland.  During those years when our Government had more money that it knew what to do with, the number of homeless people doubled. Why? Basically, the escalating cost of housing pushed up the cost of renting; a flat that had cost £30 per week in 1996 would cost €130 per week in 2008.  Some already wealthy people got even wealthier from building or investing in houses, while at the same time, and for the same reason, homeless people were priced out of the market into homelessness.

This economic model in which we are immersed seems to me to be fundamentally unjust but it benefits those countries, companies and individuals who are wealthy and who define the parameters within which decisions can be made.

The values inherent in this economic model also seem to me to be flawed. This economic model has, as its primary objective, the pursuit of maximum profit for one sector in the economy, namely shareholders in the banking and corporate business world. Everyone else is simply a means to that end.

· Employees have no value in themselves; their value is dependent on their ability to create profits for shareholders; when they are no longer necessary (e.g.: replaced by technology or considered too expensive), then the employees are dispensable – as per Irish Ferries, Hibernian, Dell and others, most recently Hewlett Packard whose shares went up 11% the day after they announced the laying off of 20,000 workers worldwide.

· Nor do customers have any value beyond making profits for the shareholders: some low-cost airlines show almost contempt for their passengers except in so far as they generate money for the company.

In that pursuit of maximum profits for shareholders, the key stakeholders pursue for themselves the goal of maximum personal gain, as evidenced by revelations of obscene salaries, bonuses, expenses, pensions, golden parachutes and “exceptional payments”.

Driven by the desire to benefit one sector of the population and devaluing everyone else in the process, [our economic system] fails to respect the value of each individual in society, seeing them only as a source of profit for shareholders.

Our lives, then, are largely determined by the aspirations and economic control of a few – the more powerful and affluent who single-mindedly pursue profit. Governments, such as ours, must dance to their tune.

I’m not competent to spell out an alternative – that’s TASC’s job! I can only dream.

And so I dream of an economic model based, not on the myth of “infinite growth capitalism,” but based on “limited but sustainable growth”; an economic model that seriously questions the limits of growth and searches for sustainable models of growth.  The mantra of the old economic model “more is better” must give way to “moderation and restraint”. We can return to full employment but not at the current standard of living which is currently available to some.   We can give all those living in poverty a decent quality of life, but not while most of us, in the Western world, enjoy the standard of living which we have come to take for granted. The ethics of a new economic model must be based on the inherent value of each individual, and must involve not only a more just sharing of the wealth created, but a more just sharing of power.

Of course, for the global economy to revive, there must be a real demand for new goods and services, a demand that will create investment opportunities – but not a demand for superfluous goods and services like Gucci handbags, which creates an economy that primarily benefits those who can afford them. No, the goods and services that create a new demand, which can fuel a new economic model, must be goods and services that are necessary and enduring, goods and services which seeks to lift everyone out of poverty and marginalisation.  Where the old economic model emphasised the individual, the new economic model must ensure that everyone benefits, it must therefore be built on the value of solidarity.

Today, to move into a new world, a world that promises a better life for all, and a real hope for a better future, we need a new war: a war on poverty, at home and abroad, and a war on climate change. A war on poverty would create a demand for investment in producing basic needs for all, adequate housing, food, medicines, infrastructure, health and education.  A war on climate change would create a demand for non fossil-fuelled transport, for clean energy, for public transport. Such a war requires a solidarity that, unfortunately, no longer exists in Ireland, or indeed elsewhere; it was almost destroyed by the Celtic Tiger. It requires a sacrifice of self-interested short-term gains, which, on the national level, is willing to put future generations and the poor in first place, and, on the international level, is willing to dismantle barriers to free trade set up by rich countries to protect their own interests, to dismantle barriers to the free movement of labour with the same enthusiasm as they dismantled barriers to the free movement of capital. Such an economic model would consider justice, compassion, community, and ecological responsibility, not as afterthoughts, but as points of departure for economic life.

Such an economic model would seriously reduce the living standards of most of us in the economically-developed world, but would allow those now living in poverty, both at home and abroad, to find a better quality of life, and would bequeath a world to future generations that they could actually live in. Such a vision is anathema to the vision which our economic system has so successfully built; solidarity instead of individuality, putting others first instead of self-interest, living simply instead of an endless pursuit of yet higher and higher living standards.     Such an economic model may seem like an unrealisable pipedream, but it is actually essential for the survival of the planet. To continue with the same old economic model, with the same values, will destroy the human race, either through the destruction of the planet or through social conflict.

We cannot build a new economic model on an old political model. A transformed economic model requires a transformed political model, a transformation of leadership: political leadership which does not bow to powerful vested interest groups, which does not seek their own good at the expense of the good of others; which is not self-serving but seeks to serve the common good; which gives rightful place to other values beyond mere economic growth, values such as solidarity, community, respect for the dignity of others. Such a transformed political leadership seeks to build security for our country and our world, not through unsustainable economic growth but through building sustainable community.

And so I dream on. At the heart of a new economic and political model is the concept of solidarity.

We will never eliminate homelessness and poverty in Irish society, or in our world, as long as we see homeless and poor people as outside objects in need of our compassion; we will only solve homelessness and poverty when we see homeless and poor people as part of ourselves, and we as part of them. We are one people and one community. Reaching out to those who are homeless, poor and marginalised is not an act of charity, it is a demand of justice. A shared sense of solidarity, the solidarity that acknowledges the dignity of every human being, a solidarity that feels the pain of others as our pain, that sees the desires and hopes of others as our own desires and hopes is the fundamental requirement for building a more just society. {jathumbnailoff}

Image top: Myki Roventine.