Conservative Vs. Liberal Views: Top Down and Bottom Up Economics

We hear the terms ‘top down’ and ‘bottom up’ when people are referring to the economics of politics and quite a few people don’t have a clue what these terms mean.  Top Down refers to what the conservative side of politics espouses and Bottom Up is what the liberal politicians practice and each of these has arguments that go in their favor. There have been great leaders from both persuasions of this philosophy and each has been equally passionate that their way is the proper way.  Bottom Up or Top down, which is the way that a successful country should go?

Firstly, ‘Bottom Up’ is a philosophy of starting at the bottom stratum of society and providing financial assistance to this group.  This is usually done by an arbitrary body which decides that wages should be raised to enable low paid workers to buy goods that they need.  If they have more money in the coffers they will be able to buy food, clothing, medical insurance, educational supplies, and generally look after their families in pursuit of happiness. If the worker is worth his keep then the wages for the worker should provide him with enough money to enable him to look after his family and to live comfortably.  Isn’t this what the Bible actually says about fair and equitable rewards for work done?  (Matthew 10:10) “…for the worker is worth his keep.” 

Therefore this is clinching proof that employers should consider the workers in their charge and ensure that they are justly compensated for their labor.  Why then is the industrial world in so much turmoil over wages?  Why then are unionists so opposed to employers when it comes to the way companies are organized, and payrolls are meted out?  Could it be that employers are so bent on generating profits and looking after their bottom line under the watchful eye of their investors that they tend to ignore the humble workers who are the source of their wealth in the first place?

But hold on, sure the workers supply the labor that gets things done, but if the employer didn’t supply the infrastructure in the outset, how would the worker in fact do anything?  If the boss didn’t say one day when he was an employee that he wanted to start his own business, then his company would not be there.  The worker would not have a job to go to.  The worker wouldn’t have any pay in the first place, because there’d be no company to work for.  It stands to reason therefore that the employer or boss of the business took the risks at the outset to get the company started so he should in fact reap the rewards.  If the boss keeps his costs down then his profit margins will be greater and he and his share holders will make more money.