Economic Disobedience

So, Lisa Dodson came and talked at my college recently about what is basically the worst thing about America: the huge gap between the rich and the poor living in the United States.

Minimum wage is not enough to live on. It is not enough to support a family on, not enough to by childcare when parents are at work, and often not even enough to keep the fridge full of food (let alone healthy food). Parents trying to make ends meet work 12+ hours a day, obviously they don't have time to help their kids with their homework or even talk to them about how their day went.

Obviously, these people aren't lazy. They aren't stupid. They have to be very resourceful, as Dodson illustrated through a short anecdote about "Emily" a single mother who had different after school arrangements for her two children every day of the week. Emily had to shift her children from a free activities club (hosted only on Mondays), to relatives, neighbors, and even having them sit at school and then on the playground until she can come to pick them up.

Why don't our jobs pay enough to provide families with basic needs and human dignity?

Dodson's talk focused on people who decide to unlawfully help their fellow human beings. I like to think of them as Robin Hoods. The grocery store manager who lets his employee take food from the store home for free to feed his family. The truck drivers who siphon off a bit of gas to give to an elderly couple whose government given gas voucher has run out in the middle of winter. The store owner who "accidentally" overstocks the prom dresses when the daughter of an employee can't afford a dress. The doctor who writes prescriptions for two children when a mother and child are sick, but only children are covered by insurance. These people are committing economic disobedience. A term Dodson has chosen for its similarity to civil disobedience. Economic disobedience is refusing to let people suffer for the wrongs of the economy.

Last year, as a freshman, I was given a survey which was supposed to gauge my views about the world and ultimately my morality (justice-oriented? humanistic?). The test had scenarios such as this:
[INDENT]John's village is going through a famine. All of the people in the village, including John's two young children are starving. There is a rich man in the village hoarding food and charging exorbitant amounts of money for the slightest bit of food. What should John do?
[/INDENT]The answer choices went something like this:
[INDENT]John should not steal from the rich man, but instead find another way to earn money for food.

John should steal only what he needs from the rich man to feed his family.

John should organize with the other villagers and demand that the rich man share his food.

etc.[/INDENT]
While at the time the questions seemed hypothetical and extreme, I now see how close some of the scenarios come to the truth. Do we turn our backs on those in need because "that's the way the business works?" Do we turn Robin Hood and try to level the playing field.

I'm not suggesting that economic disobedience is an answer to the poverty crisis in America. Not by a long-shot. In order to raise the bottom, raise the standard of living for the poorest people in the US, there will have to be many systematic changes. What struck me about Dodson's talk. What I'd like for you to think about, is that the corruption of the system is not reflective of corruption in individual people. Many individuals work against the corruption of the system every day! These people are the root of hope and the beginning of change. By sharing the stories and experiences of these people we can legislate and make changes that improve the lives of soooo many people!

So, remember: the system may be corrupt, but not all of the people in it are.