Bees & Landscapers: The problems of fiddling with massive complex systems

Playing around with public policy is rife with the law of unintended consequences, we know this. We saw this in the debate over the auto bailout. Sure it would have been easy to allow GM, and Chrysler to fail, but the unintended consequences would have been to kill a bunch of ancillary industries for whom a majority of their business comes from supplying the auto industry. Which meant that the auto bailout not only saved the American auto industry but also thousands of ancillary jobs associated with it. Taking action via policy can often be like spraying pesticides it fixes a crop problem but can have a dramatic effect on the bee population needed pollinate the crops.

With that in mind, should we consider the plight of the garden landscaper? This arises out of a discussion I had with a friend of mine about the growing income disparity in the country. In an effort to make a point, I’d said something to the effect that if higher taxes on the wealth in this country destroys the landscaping industry so be it. My friend rightly pointed out that the landscaper industry is probably vital to a whole host of ancillary industries, which equals a whole host of jobs affected by well manicured lawns. While it is right to consider the wider range of people affected by policy decisions, the fact that they are impacted should not necessarily prevent enacting change.

So let us ask the question again, should we care about the loss of the garden landscaper? Besides some mild environmental impacts that generally only the hardcore environmentalist are concerned about, a landscaper has an honest, hard working, blue collar job. Like with many industries there are problems with undocumented workers, and other labor issues but as an industry it’s not poisoning well water, or causing higher rates of asthma. That said, while it is possible that some great breakthrough could arise from this industry, it is unlikely the next technological revolution will come from this industry. From a societal impact, the plight of the landscaper is largely irrelevant. If they exist no harm no foul, if they don’t, ditto. Yes that workforce would have to be redistributed to other industries, say farming, but avoiding a redistribution of the labor force is not a reason to keep an industry.

Which brings me to the larger point. Currently there are many industries and services that exists largely because the wealthiest in this country have the disposable income to afford to pour money into them. If we gear our economic policies towards reducing the gross wealth distribution disparities in the country, something a majority of Americans believe should be done, these services and their workers are bound to be affected. To which the opposition will argue the policies are punishing the job creators, and costing Americans jobs. The follow up question to such statements should be which jobs? Because if the jobs are for industries that have a neutral or worse yet negative impact on society as a whole, it may be beneficial to have that labor redirected.

The goal of public policy is to achieve the goals of the electorate with the least unintended consequences. If policies such as a wealth tax result in a decrease in the number of landscapers, who instead go on to become say farmers (an industry that could always use more innovation) the job creators may be hurt, but society has been improved.