Be Your Own Boss - Libertarian Ideas to Escape the Grind

There is little love lost between progressives and Bigdemand and consumer choice both increasing.
Corporations. Many Big Corporations, such asCompetition is the best-known and time-proven
Wal-Mart and about a thousand others, are burnt atmethod of lowering prices for consumers, and it can
the rhetorical stake for their failure, inter alia, todo so in health care as well. Such competition is
provide great (or any) medical and dental benefits orhardly achieved now - by forcing an employee to quit
a high-growth 401(k). Progressives generally believehis job before he can easily find new insurance.
that the market is to blame for this undesirableThe second solution is through the negative income
deprivation of basic freedoms, and that the onlytax. States should be able to provide supplemental
solution is more progressive regulation.income to their low-income citizens in order to help
The problem with these objections is that businesseswith health insurance costs. Such subsidies could be
should never have been expected to be interested inpaid right into the health savings accounts, allowing
offering such benefits in the first place. One wonders,low-income individuals the same opportunity to
why should your boss tell you how to dictate yourparticipate in the health insurance market. The
future, stifle your independence, and peremptorilyunfortunate truth is that the labor market is not the
decide what kind of relaxing, leisure life is good forplace to expect welfare - if you want the labor
you? Expecting company-centric benefits smacks ofmarket to be efficient. The dirty truth of economics
Quasi-Government Bureaucracy, Inc., hearkening backis that markets work efficiently when they pay their
to the Good 'Ol Days of the company town, theemployees what they should be worth on the
lifetime employer, and the 80-hour work week. Whomarket. The safety net beyond an employee's fair
wants that?market value is important - and it should provided by
As William F. Buckley once wisely said, "I will not cedethe government, not forced through employment.
more power to the state. I will not willingly cedeGoogle employees, for example, get wonderful
more power to anyone, not to the state, not tobenefits, simply because they also make obscene
General Motors, not to the CIO. I will hoard myamounts of money. Wal-Mart employees, by
power like a miser, resisting every effort to drain itcontrast, get minimum wage because Wal-Mart's
away from me." The man speaks the truth. Thecompetitive advantage is cost-cutting. That's life, and
choice of health insurance - and a doctor, for thatthat's why there's no Olympic-size employee
matter - should always be a patient's, and never answimming pool at your local Wal-Mart. But the policy
employer's. Likewise, the choice of a financialeffort shouldn't be to force Wal-Mart to act like
strategy for retirement should be between theGoogle; the two companies have opposite purposes
investor and his advisor, and this relationship is notand strategies. Instead, the effort should be to let
most effectively dictated by a supposedly omniscientthe Google and Wal-Mart employees use their
corporation.compensation in the same way - for the purpose of
The provision of health and retirement benefits issecuring health and retirement benefits on the open
also a complex, cost-ineffective endeavor for themarket - and thus drink from the same fountain.
company. Certainly, no reputable economist has everCase Study 2: Enron (The disappearing pension)
predicted that businesses would be efficient atEnron is perhaps the favorite progressive case study.
providing services that have absolutely nothing to doHoward Dean, for one, once famously objected to
with the corporation's core business purpose. It'sSocial Security private accounts by saying it was "run
really ironic that progressives blame the market itselfby the same people who gave us Enron." Apart from
for the failures of Corporate America. First, theysuch a blubbering logical fallacy (is the Congress run
expect the market to function like a government,by the same people who gave us Manzanar? The
providing health care, retirement, and other goodiesFugitive Slave Act?), Mr. Dean clearly missed the
without regard for market efficiency. Then, theypoint in another way. The market could have
harp on the market when it performs these tasksmitigated the Enron disaster.
like...well, an inefficient, bureaucratic government.Think about it. Businesses come and go; markets
Surprised?change and companies become bankrupt. Even
The Solutionwithout wanton accounting malfeasance, any
The libertarian, of course, is not surprised, and has acompany can go bust at any time. Why then, would
market-based policy solution for this so-called marketyou want to rely on one company for your
failure. It's called: Stop expecting your employer toretirement? (Insert sound of crickets.)
act like a government, and give employees freeThe secure appeal of Social Security private accounts
choice to let the benefits market actually function.is that the money can be invested anywhere in the
How do we do this? Glad you asked, grasshopper.market, separately from the company, controlled by
First, privately-controlled and nationally-implementeda separate investment firm, overseen directly by the
Health Savings Accounts should be the source foremployee, diversified into several different markets,
every American's health care spending. The accountsand also backed by the Social Security Administration.
should be independent of one's employer. EmployeesIn other words, with Social Security private accounts,
should also be able to choose the insurer of theirEnron wouldn't have been nearly the disaster it was.
choice and retain insurers when they change jobs.Its employees may have lost their jobs, but they
This process would cause insurance companies tonever would have lost their retirement pensions. It's
compete to attract individual patients, instead ofcertainly better than the current system, controlled
businesses looking to minimize costs and increaseby the same people that gave us Howard Dean.
efficiency. This so-called "de-linking" of health benefitsSeriously.
and employment would also open up the insuranceCase Study 3: GM (The inefficient benefit)
market to greater consumer demand andIf anyone needed more confirmation of my earlier
competition. Employers would pay a specificpoint that businesses are horrendously inefficient at
percentage of an employee's salary into this savingsproviding health benefits, one only needs to look to
account, but employees would be able to modify theGM. Aside from the decades-long insistence of
contribution percentage as necessary to cover anyquantity over quality, another competitive
insurance premiums, expected co-pays, and otherdisadvantage of theirs is working (surprise) to sink
expenses. The insurers could then access thethe American carmaker - with excessive health
account to collect premiums as well as contributebenefits. These benefits were procured at the
immediate financial coverage for various treatmentsbehest of the United Auto Workers, an extortionate
and procedures. The accounts should be secured andlabor union, and they did much to prove the fact that
regulated in order that the transactions betweenbusinesses shouldn't be in the business of choosing
patient and doctor, insurer and insured, and employeehealth benefits for all of their employees at once.
and employer are as efficient, open, and as free asWhen they do, the company goes down in flames.
possible.By contrast, our health savings accounts are immune
Second,private retirement accounts should beto the collectivist wrangling of labor unions, and they
implemented for pension funds, along the samealso aren't guaranteed in perpetuity. As your health
principles. Social Security (FICA) taxes should be paidcontributions are always merely a function of your
directly into the account, as well as any otherpaycheck (and the percentage you choose to
retirement contributions requested by an employee.contribute), health insurance costs can never sink a
The funds in the account should be able to becompany. When labor costs are too much, wages
invested in any stock, bond, or other investmentcan be reduced.
fund, as determined by the employee. RetirementMoreover, private accounts help to level the playing
funding is an employee's choice, and any investmentfield. Rather than relying on GM to provide medicine
in that process is simply a market exchange betweenand doctor visits, GM's employees could find such
the employee and his fund manager and/orbenefits on the open market, even through a
investment advisor. The choice should be open andcompeting company. Now, as we've noted,GM has
unfettered. In other words, your boss should haveenough problems building quality cars - it's unlikely that
nothing to do with it.their health insurance crisis is the sole cause of their
Now, imagine if such an intelligent market-based policydisaster. But it's undeniable that a private accounts
were implemented. Employees would be free to shopsystem, with employees allocating their individual
around to find the best health insurance, doctors,compensation to health and retirement benefits as
retirement funds, and more. Most importantly, theythey see fit, is superior to the current Marxist
wouldn't even have to leave their jobs to do so. Or,nightmare of hundreds of thousands of unionized
even if they chose to change jobs, they could takeemployees all demanding a fat piece of a
their benefits with them. Let's examine some casenon-existent future pie.
studies to observe how such a brilliant policy couldCase Study 4: Dunder-Mifflin/Initech (The death of
solve so many of the "crises" that are "created" bythe American dream)
corporations.Our final case study is probably the most common.
Case Study 1: Wal-Mart (The non-existent benefit)It's not corporate exploitation - it's corporate tedium.
Among being pilloried for saving poor people moneyEither an employee wants to leave a boring,
on basic goods, Wal-Mart is also subject to heapingunsatisfying job but is afraid to lose his valuable
progressive ridicule for not "providing" healthbenefits, or an employee likes the job okay but
insurance to many of its employees. How dare you,wishes he could get some better benefits to make
Sam! Of course, our friendly proposal would solve thishis current misery a better long-term welfare
little difficulty. Under it, Wal-Mart employees couldinvestment. Or maybe he hates both. Many
purchase health insurance as they please, without theemployees feel "stuck" in their jobs, as red tape
permission or sanction of Wal-Mart. This makes soabounds to limit mobility, and entry costs into new
much sense it's difficult to take the progressive lineindustries or new jobs are too high. The corporate
seriously. Why should an employee have to work forbureaucracy, from the perspective of the employee,
benevolent employer - or lobby for some proposedcan often be at Soviet levels.
legislation forcing benevolence - before he can getThe solution to this menial Corporate Drone existence
decent health insurance? If a Wal-Mart employeeis thankfully provided by our friendly market-based
wants to spend a third of his lilliputian paycheck onproposal. Personal accounts allow employees to "shop
comprehensive health insurance, shouldn't he bearound," in effect, both for jobs and for benefits.
allowed to?Since the two are disconnected, the market can be
Everyone nods. But what about those who can'ttruly effective. Jobs are chosen because the person
afford health insurance, you ask? To this, there arelikes the job, and the benefits are chosen because
two solutions. The first is the natural lowering ofthe person likes the benefits. It's so simple, even a
health insurance costs that will result from marketprogressive could support it.