Towards a WORLD WIDE (Living) WAGE (WWW) by Charlie Fellowman
I am writing in favor of globalization. Why am I, a progressive, in favor of globalization?
Because I am doing it with a twist. When I was growing up, it was said that some countries were developed, and some still developing. The reason people in the third world got such low wages was that they were not technologically developed, so their labor was worth less.
Now, though, transnational corporations are investing in the third world. The corporations in which workers work, have access to the latest technology. Therefore, the whole world has the potential to be “developed”. But workers in the third world still make much less than in the first world, even when doing the same work.
What is the solution? I propose the WORLD WIDE WAGE. This would be a minimum wage throughout the world. It would be enforced by the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, and/or the United Nations. Countries that do not institute the World Wide (Minimum) Wage would face trade or other sanctions.
If the World Wide Wage increased the need for fuel, then renewable energy could be used. The effects of the World Wide Wage on the environment, such as preservations of rain forests and species, need to be examined. Population could be limited or reduced to allow people from all countries to enjoy prosperity. I am putting the idea of a World Wide Wage forth as a working hypothesis based on fairness.
Inflation could be kept down with cost-of-living clauses in workers’ contracts. In Sweden, where workers bargained industry-wide, each worker doing the same job made the same wage, which also helped keep down inflation.
Let the wealth trickle up, or should I say, spurt up, and investment will follow. Consumers will be able to purchase more, and invest more.
So vive la globalization. If that is, there is a World Wide (Minimum) Wage, and possibly a World Wide Living Wage. A Living Wage is a minimum wage high enough to support a family of four prosperously.
The Contradictions of Matter
Evolutionists believe that matter is the ultimate building block. Creationists believe that God created matter, which then became the main building block.
But what if matter can be proven not to be real, due to contradictions? For those familiar with physics, you may be aware of the wave/particle duality. This means that the very same essence, when looked at in different ways, is seen at one time as a wave, and at another time as a particle. For those who are familiar with this, you will see it as a contradiction of matter.
For those who are non-physicists, perhaps you are familiar with basic chemistry. You may know that atoms are composed of a neutron, protons, and electrons. The difference between atoms of different substances is not in the quality of their protons and electrons, but merely in the quantity of them. In other words, we are being asked to believe that different quantities of the same building block lead to different qualities of substances, including the great amount of variety we see in the world. I contend that this is another contradiction of matter. How can different quantities create different qualities?
Matter works for scientific purposes, and for purposes of our common sensory experience. But it is not ultimately real.
In fact, Meher Baba has a more elegant argument to prove this. The cosmos, or for those who don’t believe in the cosmos, the universe, is infinite. This seems like common sense. Yet matter is finite. You can go on adding all the matter in existence, and you will get a finite amount. Therefore, if the cosmos is infinite, which I believe it is, matter must not be ultimately real. It is just an appearance. Only the infinite is real.
The Definition of Love
Most people say that you can’t define love. Love is ethereal, beyond definition. But I think I have come up with a definition. Love consists of empathy, affection, and trust. Without all three of those, you can’t have love. But with all three, you do have love.
Why There is Suffering
Some people say that we suffer because we disobey God. The reply is: What parent would punish their children like that for mere disobedience?
Some people say that we suffer because of our desires. The reply is: Why can’t we have everything we desire?
Some people say that we suffer because of ignorance. The reply is: Why don’t we just know everything all the time?
Some people say that we suffer because everything happens at random. The reply is: If matter is not real (see above), then consciousness is the ultimate reality and could be in control by all rights. Therefore events do not happen at random.
So why do we suffer? Let’s look at physics again. A law of thermodynamics states that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. If you apply that to consciousness, you get: Consciousness can neither be created nor destroyed. This proves that suffering is an illusion. But why do we even have the illusion of suffering?
Let’s look at another law of thermodynamics. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. This means that every amount of pleasure must have an equal and opposite amount of pain to balance it out. Another way of looking at this is to look at the poles of a magnet. Every magnet has a positive and a negative pole. If you cut the magnet in half, it becomes two magnets each with a positive and negative pole. You can’t have the positive charge without an equal and opposite negative charge.
Does this mean we are condemned, like Sisyphus, to go up and down a hill forever? Not really if you look at what the mystics have achieved. The mystics have gone beyond duality, to a state of non-duality. In this state, there is not pleasure, pain, nor indifference. This is not as bad as it may sound. The mystics have nothing to gain. But the reason this is not a bad thing is that the mystics don’t lack anything. If they don’t lack anything, they don’t want to gain anything. If there is no lack and no gain, there is perfect peace. This has also been called the peace that passeth understanding. But even this is not right, because if there is no conflict, there is no peace. When we get tired of living in duality, we work our way back to the non-dual state, where there is no problem. And no solution. Because we don’t need a solution if there is no problem. So be it.
Part I of this post, A Balance of Ideals, is here.
In late 2004 or early 2005, Charlie joined the Vedanta Society of Providence. He finally found a congregation where he could fit in and actually agree with what they believed in. Although Charlie now feels that it is best to trust in and rely on God, and that we all get what we deserve due to our karma, the momentum of his political philosophy led him to this presentation.
Charlie Fellowman published his recovery story on this site, a link to the first chapter, A Quiet Kid, is here.
Image from Texas Labor Against War