Ideas are intensely essential as they facilitate guiding decisions. Regardless of being new or old, ideas play significant roles in facilitating our lives so as to achieve prosperity. However, according to Matt Miller, he argues that the current society relies upon dead ideas. Dead ideas that is outdated (Miller, 2). He asserts that as far as the economy and the society run under such dead ideas, it, therefore, has unavoidable repercussions including frustrations, social discontentedness, underperformance and other serious consequences. Moreover, he claims that the United States, in particular, thinking is embedded in the tyranny of dead ideas replicating botch to adapt. The main point in his argument is that the old methods of thinking are hindering America’s adaptation to constraints resulting from globalization (Miller, 2). With regards to this, he presented a proposal how the new ideas ought to be instead of regrettable repercussions arising from the outdated dead ideas. Contrary to Miller’s argument, I differ with his arguments that old ideas which he refers to as dead ideas, that they are not effective and needs to be gotten rid of. In fact, these “dead ideas” are the ideas that have led to the prosperity of America and still continue to. Therefore, this paper is an in-depth rebuttal argument against Matt Miller’s argument on his various dead ideas he presented.
Today, technology advancement has contributed a lot to the economic development of both the United States and the world as a whole. The gradual economic development over time has, as a result, resulted in salary increment to employees. As time goes by, salaries for employees have always been increased year per year (“Employment and Wages by Occupation”). The salaries that employees earn today are not the same as what was earned sometimes back. Therefore, this is contrary to Miller’s argument that it is a fallacy to believe that our children’s earning will eventually be greater than ours. The government is always striving to improve the economy, as a result of the developed economy; our children will definitely have higher earnings. Moreover, a majority of business in the United States use salary increment as a reward system in their organizations to encourage good performance from their employees. Employees are entitled to a 3 to 5 percent salary increments annually based on performance in the United States (“Employment and Wages by Occupation”). So, with regards to this, it is highly expected that our children will get higher earnings than we do when they grow up and get employment.
Even though Miller argues that economic factors such as the increased taxation imposed by the government, costly healthcare services, the increasing pension needs will eventually render our children in future to work hard to cater for all these costs (Miller, 5). This argument is not sufficient enough because even if our children in future will have to work to pay for these costs, at least they total earning will be high enough to accommodate their needs including these extra costs (Booth and Bourne, 89). Despite the economic challenges that might arise in future, it will, however, ignite a renaissance interest in economic commodities in order to cope up with the situation therefore that does not mean that their earnings will be less.
Despite the reality of free trade is good, on the contrary, it is not good for everyone. Some people are rendered unemployed, while others experience stagnated and slow business or even decreased revenues. Miller asserts that free trade is regarded as being good no matter how many people are disadvantaged out of it is a dead idea (Miller, 6). He argues that free trade is not any good at all nor is it for protectionism. Since free trade is a world affair, the most affected people would be those in developing countries are quite poorer as compare to the United States people. Essentially, a well-established free trade needs to be formed, considering the safety and protection of the people, especially during economic change (Booth and Bourne, 97). Insecurities such as the disappearance of pension and healthcare security that are not accrued to the job are likely to occur. Meaning that trade adjustments such as ensuring wage insurance are provided needs to be done. With regards to this, I believe that Miller is wrong when he asserts that politicians need not make a commitment to any additional development of trade until the protections are provided. Miller should have advocated for immediate action to provide this protection while at the same time development activities to promote trade to be taken. Time is money, and therefore time should be economized by concentrating on the two objectives at once. The politicians should not sit back and watch trade dwindle but rather intervene to make further development.
Miller asserts that it is a common wrong belief in our society that money follows merit (Pike, 6). Actually, people in the United States have not worked that hard above income inequality since they always believe that high payment is granted to those with a greater contribution. He goes ahead to argue that when underperforming CEOs of organizations which fallen stock prices disappear with $25 million and the financial planners are racking havoc to the economy but still obtain the bonus, then things are totally bad (Miller, 7). Miller is wrong when he argues that frustration is most likely to overcome high educated people who are not attributed to any merit and ends up getting paid a small amount of money. His argument is not practical. Instead, in reality, those people that have high levels of merit or have been a contributing a lot to the society get frustrated when they receive a smaller amount of payment than they expected (Miller).
In his view, Miller says that inequality is a big problem, the preeminent economic challenge of the 21st century (Miller, 6). He believes that the second tier status has awoken to put the merit of the lower upper at stake thus making them begin seeking other options elsewhere. Miller is wrong in this argument because the lower upper class will definitely view their situation inclusive of all people struggling and trying to cope up with the changing economy. They henceforth get exposed to new appeal to attain basic engagements for the society. As a result, they end up being commissioners for equal opportunity.
Miller is wrong when he argues that we wrongly believe that our companies ought to take care of us (Miller, 9). Companies that we work for should take care of us. We spend most of our time dedicating our efforts to play a role in ensuring the prosperity of the company. Moreover, according to occupational safety and health records, most diseases and health complications are work-related (“Health Plans & Benefits”). Daily work activities are most likely to eventually lead to health complications for an employee; therefore, it is recommendable that the companies should protect its employees. Health insurance has always been granted to employees by employers and up to date, it is still provided by employers. I differ with Miller when he says that believing that our companies should take care of us is a dead idea because he always works for this company helping them attain their success, therefore, they owe us health insurance to remain healthy and as well be more productive also to their advantage. Regardless of Miller’s argument that companies do not take care of its employees by providing health insurance due to high healthcare expenditures, companies still care for its employees especially permanent employees providing them with various types of insurance such as traveling insurance amongst others. Companies invest in its employees and therefore, their employees’ health matters.
Generally, Miller has provided concrete figures to support his argument in his assertion on what the contribution made by the federal government ought to be, and what level of GDP tax revenues will have to accelerate by pinpointing the precise programs that will address the issues raised (Miller, 10). In his arguments, Miller has failed to include significant details on the preeminent issue to support his ideas. This makes some of his arguments pointless and less practical in real life. This omission is more challenging since albeit Miller advocating for higher taxes on people with high income, he had before in the previous chapter cautioned against it. This does not only make a big contradiction but also a risky suggestion to give since increasing taxes on wealthy people with an aim of stabilizing marginal income rates will significantly affect the country’s economy negatively (“National Tax Association”).
To sum up, Matt Miller has vividly expressed his arguments intending to embrace change in the old ideas that are still present in our society. He has laid his emphasis on focusing on coming up with new ideas that address issues of the current generation. However, despite his good argument, I differ with some of his arguments. I find him wrong as some of his arguments are impractical in real life. Moreover, some of his arguments such as that of imposing a higher tax on wealthy people with an aim of stabilizing marginal income rates are dangerous to the economy of the country and therefore should not be taken into consideration.