Wages remain static, yet the price of goods and services continue to rise. The message is clear: work hard. Yet, Americans find themselves working multiple jobs just to cover rent. 61% of Americans live pay check to pay check, and the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for all items has increased by 6.5% in the past year. A recent report from the Business Insider indicates an affordability crisis, finding that the minimum salary required for a comfortable life in New York City is around $95,000 per year. The traditional narrative of go to college, get a job, buy a house has proven to be just that - a narrative. This ideal is ingrained in us from childhood, and many of us plan our lives around it, only to become disillusioned by an ongoing housing crisis, relentless inflation, and a job market that is now only becoming outsourced and increasingly automated. The notion that home ownership is possible on an average income now feels outdated. Waged work, once considered a reliable avenue to accumulate wealth, is now an insufficient pathway to financial freedom for most. Miya Tokumitsu, a prominent writer and scholar, notes, 'Even before the global financial crisis of 2008, it had become clear that if waged work is supposed to provide a measure of well-being and social structure, it has failed on its own terms. Real household wages in the United States have remained stagnant since the 1970s, even as the costs of university degrees rise.' Graduates already burdened with student debt, are now confronted by a harsh employment landscape defined by unpaid internships, temporary contractor work, and low pay. An oversupply of college graduates vying for a limited number of positions in a competitive job market has pushed many of them into unskilled or entry-level work, further narrowing prospects for non-degree holders. In the midst of a clear affordability crisis, individuals are recognizing the necessity of acquiring income-generating assets to regain a sense of agency and autonomy over their future. Working hard does not equate to wealth, yet contemporary society places such emphasis on hard work. There exists an obsession with the concept of productivity, a fundamental principle of capitalism. This pervasive obsession on extracting every last drop of productivity from one's labour exists in most work environments, where one’s value is intricately linked to their market contributions. Those unable to substantiate their existence through tangible market-driven outputs are all too often relegated to the fringes of the system, deemed redundant, useless, even lazy. However, this outlook fails to recognize the intrinsic value of human beings and fails to account for the diverse tapestry of human existence. Market-centric perspectives often overlook the presence of children, mothers, certain disabled individuals, and others who, though they may not conform to the traditional definition of 'productive,' enrich the social fabric in profound and immeasurable ways. This narrow focus on quantifiable productivity risks overshadowing the inherent value of compassion, creativity, and human connection – vital elements that transcend the boundaries of economic transactions and contribute to the multifaceted tapestry of a truly inclusive society. Upon meeting someone, one of the first questions we often ask is, "So, what do you do?" We tend to categorise people by their jobs, and our worth is distilled into the economic value we contribute to the market. This perspective often dismisses those who don't generate substantial income as irrelevant or lazy. This utilitarian ethos strips away the multidimensional essence of individuals, reducing them to mere cogs in an economic machine. And let's not delve into the U-word territory. No, it's not urinary tract infection – it's unemployment. Viewed as a drain on the system, unemployed people are shunned socially like the black plague. Now no one is saying that it is respectable to avoid work, and lazily sit around masturbating all day, (though this does seriously sound appealing). But if we merely exist to serve the market, is this not a dehumanising way of looking at individuals? As globalization continues, there's a growing sentiment of corporations trying to figure out how to extract the maximum output from workers whilst providing minimal compensation, almost as if we are cows, with our breasts out to be milked. Paradoxically, the equation of working harder with achieving wealth is increasingly debunked. The allure of continuous growth is captivating, yet its persistent pursuit is symptomatic of mindless globalisation and often overshadows a crucial truth: wealth and happiness don't necessarily align. The drive for productivity and the relentless extraction of effort from workers masks a larger issue – the insatiable desire for the acquisition of more. In a world where many still struggle with poverty despite working tirelessly, the ultimate purpose of this pursuit comes into question. After all, true wellbeing is not quantified merely by the volume of output, but rather by should be measured by quality of life and human spirit. Politician, Andrew Yang touched on this during his 2020 presidential campaign, with his introduction of Human Capitalism. Andrew Yang's concept of Human Capitalism emphasises a set of fundamental principles that challenge the conventional economic view. He describes human capitalism as having 3 core tenets, 1. Humanity is more important than money, 2. The unit of an economy is each person not each dollar, 3. Markets exist to serve our common goals and values. Yang asserts that the essence of humanity holds greater significance than monetary gain, advocating for a shift in focus from money-centric perspectives. According to Yang, the real building block of an economy should be each individual rather than every dollar, suggesting a more human-centric approach. His philosophy contends that markets should function as a means to serve our shared objectives and values, placing people at the core of economic systems. On the other hand, the counterargument is that corporations and employers compensate individuals for their skill sets rather than their inherent worth. While this perspective acknowledges the infinite and intrinsic value of each human being as an individual, it recognizes that the value of their labour is distinct and finite. This more conservative perspective on the market encompasses a recognition that an individual's labour has inherent worth and that the market isn't solely an institution artificially created by society. This perspective argues that the notion of markets extends beyond mere societal constructs. It signifies the acknowledgment that one's labour possesses an innate value. Rooted in this belief, this conservative perspective emphasizes the capacity for individuals to detach their labour from themselves, allowing others to engage in transactions for its acquisition. However, this perspective fails to empathise with or confront the reality that some individuals might find their labour insufficiently compensated, particularly in professions like truck driving, where demanding work hours yield comparatively low earnings of around 46k a year. As the landscape of work evolves with automation, the traditional concept of free markets, where labour can be alienated, undergoes transformation. Many individuals face the looming challenge of automation potentially rendering their labour as worthless, or obsolete. In this changing economic landscape, the discussion around labour's worth and the very essence of markets takes on new dimensions, underscoring the necessity to re-evaluate how we assess and reward human contributions in an era where automation reshapes the nature of work. Life unfolds as an involuntary game; one you didn't choose to participate in and one you can’t opt out of. Opting out means being shunned, written off, and homeless. Fear and greed can entrap us in jobs or circumstances we don't enjoy, chaining us to the hamster wheel. The landscape of wealth accumulation is undergoing a profound shift, where the conventional path of waged jobs as a means to amass wealth is being re-evaluated. In an era marked by changing economic paradigms, the focus is shifting from trading time for money to acquiring assets that hold the potential for sustained growth. The traditional notion of working tirelessly at waged jobs as a means to build financial security is giving way to the understanding that true financial freedom lies in owning income-generating assets. This shift reflects a recognition that stagnant wages and the demands of a rapidly evolving job market have made the pursuit of wealth through labor alone increasingly challenging. Instead, individuals are recognizing the importance of investing in assets that can multiply value over time, decoupling financial success from the constraints of hourly wage rates. This paradigm shift reflects an evolving understanding of the importance of leveraging resources strategically, opening new avenues for wealth generation and financial independence.
Disillusionment with the Central Banking system and Financial Institutions In recent years, an increasing number of individuals have grown disillusioned with the traditional centralised banking system, particularly the policies and practices of central banks like the Federal Reserve. This has given rise to a surge in interest towards alternatives that challenge the conventional financial system. Hence, we see the rapid popularity of decentralised cryptocurrencies which has mass appeal to those who seek a departure from the perceived politics and lack of accountability associated with central banks. Central banks have long held the power to influence economies through monetary policies, such as interest rate adjustments and quantitative easing. However, scepticism about their decision-making processes and their potential to prioritise political interests over economic stability has fuelled a desire for more transparent and equitable financial systems. Cryptocurrencies have emerged as an alternative, offering decentralised networks that rely on cryptographic technology and consensus mechanisms, rather than centralised institutions, to validate transactions. One driving force behind the growing popularity of cryptocurrencies is the belief in their utility. Historical controversies surrounding central banks, such as the Fed's role in economic crises and concerns about its independence from political influences, have further fueled disillusionment with traditional banking models. For example, in 2008, Obama bailed out Wall Street, and the central bank was involved. Despite engaging in predatory lending practices, taking on excessive leverage, and some individuals participating in insider trading and market manipulation, financial institutions were bailed out. This was unfair to the taxpayer, as the bailout used billions of taxpayer dollars to rescue private financial institutions. Ultimately, this creates moral hazard as institutions are more likely to engage in irresponsible activities, knowing the Fed will intervene when necessary to bail them out. The Fed's actions to provide bailouts or support during financial crises may encourage excessive risk-taking and irresponsible behavior among financial institutions, knowing they might be rescued in times of trouble. Decentralisation, as seen in the world of cryptocurrency, represents a departure from concentrated power structures. It empowers individuals with control over their financial assets and transactions, while promoting transparency through distributed ledgers. The surge in the popularity of crypto is driven by both the desire for a more accountable financial system and the recognition of the practical utility that blockchain technology offers. This movement reflects a broader trend in modern society—questioning established power structures and embracing decentralised solutions that empower individuals and promote transparency.
