YOU MUST have noticed that the Christmas season is not always one of good cheers for the less fortunate. Even we in the “middle class” grimace over rising prices of food, notably ham, which increases in price with each beginning of the Yuletide.
More often than not, we respond by pinching pennies. To make both ends meet, we buy less of our basic needs – say, a half-kilo of meat instead of the previous one kilo at the risk of our family craving for a second serving. It’s really a “sacrifice” aimed at neutralizing the diminishing value of our peso.
Even the greedy merchants who impose higher prices eventually see the erosion of their own gains whenever they buy their own needs at higher prices, too. Sooner or later, whatever money they have saved in the bank, even if it earns negligible but taxable interest, devaluates.
Hasn’t the Great Book (1 Timothy 6:10) told us, “The love of money is the root of all evil”?
Unfortunately, “austerity” can only get us so far. Cost-cutting does not really compensate, especially if it’s a forced move aimed at eating three budget meals a day. While you can cut and slash expenses to the bone to conserve your bottom peso, you could get sick and be unable to afford mandatory medicine. Going into debt would then be unavoidable.
The only way to keep pace with inflation is to earn more income, which is an elusive dream as far as the average wage earner is concerned.
Of course, we know of friends who have gone into “sideline” or a little business and have consequently prospered.
Those who demand wage increase but don’t get it are doomed to suffer further.
Let’s take a look at the average wage earner making P12,000 per month. If this were your income in the 1980s, you could have lived like a prince. Today, you would have to endure a Spartan existence (no TV, no ref, no phone) to have a roof over your head, to feed your children, to keep them clothed and to send them to school.
When my kumpare Eli – who used to send his children to the Ateneo – suffered business reversal, he literally begged of them to transfer to a public college in exchange for bigger daily allowance. Otherwise, they would have to sell precious possessions. The children agreed and finished college.
Between cutting back on expenses and doubling your income, which is preferable? Obviously, it’s adding more income.
In certain instances, however, increasing income at the expense of the poor doesn’t really solve but aggravate the problem. Consider the newly-granted clamor of jeepney operators and drivers for minimum fare hike from P7.50 to P9. That has already become ground for some jeepney operators to impose higher “boundary” or vehicle rental. Passengers would likewise “retaliate” by taking lesser number of jeepney rides.
When laborers ask for wage hike across the board, their employers would have to hike prices of their products or services – which further fuels inflation. The better alternative would be to stimulate demand by keeping prices low and thus produce more products. With more products selling like hotcakes, both the producer and the consumers benefit. This is the “secret” behind the success of export-oriented China.
Working abroad for better pay is another option for Filipinos who no longer see the “future” in the local job market. As the song New York New York says, “If you can make it there, you’ll make it anywhere.”
I can’t blame my only son for making it there. (hvego31@gmail.com/PN)
