By Charlie Mitchell
OXFORD – The man in the furniture store helped me bump the chest of drawers away from the wall. We were looking for a price tag, but what we saw was a label, “Made in Vietnam.”
While driving around Mississippi I never fail to see log trucks, some loaded with hardwood, some loaded with pulpwood. In the not-so-distant past, much of the finished lumber went to Northeast Mississippi, the furniture-making capital of the nation. I don’t know where it goes now.
“All our wood products are made somewhere else – Vietnam, Malaysia, Mexico,” the furniture man said. “Some of the fabric on upholstered furniture is made in the United States, but not much of the other.”
It made me wonder what’s changed.
It can’t be labor. Not in this state anyway. Mississippi is a “right-to-work” state, meaning no dastardly union can have a closed shop and engage in business-busting collective bargaining.
So maybe it’s the shameless accumulation wealth by the super-rich, those who exploit the poor and refuse to pay a living wage.
Or maybe it’s meddling by federal, state and local governments, which have intrusive regulations regarding safety, pay and benefits.
When folks think about America’s 10 percent jobless rate and the reality that most of our clothing, fuel, electronics and even our food originates in some other nation, we’re conditioned to blame a single culprit.
Creating such circular (and pointless) arguments is a tactic.
Candidates who can convince us that unions have ruined America can be elected if that sentiment takes root. Likewise, candidates seeking the working person’s vote will bash the wealthy. Campaigning against both – anti-government – also works.
But after voting, we go back to that furniture store with the chests of drawers from Vietnam, across the street to the auto shop where the best prices and the hottest selling tires are from Japan or Korea or we go to Walmart or Target where shirts and shoes, kitchen appliances, flowers (fresh or silk) and big-screens are from Bangladesh, Bolivia or China.
The powers-that-be dither and tell us it has to be this way. Some of us still recognize it’s nuts.
Last week, a top story in USA Today said a record one-fifth of the income of all Americans came from Uncle Sam via “spread the wealth” programs. Nothing wrong with Social Security, welfare, food stamps, Medicare and all the others – except that these are “transfer payments.” They do not arise from productivity. They arise from continued government borrowing.
It doesn’t make sense.
And it doesn’t make sense for us to let the powers-that-be keep pushing us into one camp or the other.
Confronted with what appears to be an almost-insurmountable national debt and current-year spending of nearly twice as much money as the federal government has coming in, President Barack Obama has talked about broad-based remedies. Yet his concentration has echoed his belief that some people make too much money and don’t need it. I have pored over the U.S. Constitution and so help me I can’t find a single place where it says presidential duties include deciding how much money private citizens need.
Regardless, the discussion shouldn’t be about how bad the poor are hurting or how lavishly the rich are living. It shouldn’t even be about whether government is too intrusive, at least not in the abstract.
The discussion should be about prosperity and whether acts of any government or even by entities in the private sector advances or inhibits prosperity. The discussion should be about balance.
Prosperity is not an either-or proposition except in one context: A nation and its people cannot prosper unless it produces the goods it consumes.
And, oh, nothing against Vietnam or the furniture store – but I didn’t buy the chest of drawers.
Charlie Mitchell is a Mississippi journalist. Write to him at Box 1, University, MS 38677, or email firstname.lastname@example.org.