Gwyn Morgan: retired from getting paid to be an asshole, now doing so on his own time

Before I get going, a little background: Gwyn Morgan is the now-retired CEO of EnCana (a company for which there is definitely no love lost on the AGDRT side). The article that I'll be referencing below to is only supposed to be available to Globe Insider subscribers, but I googled it and found it archived here on a Globe and Mail site. In case it goes down, I'm going to post a copy here. If anyone from the Globe is reading this and has a problem, just send us an email and we'll remove it promptly.

Sorry about the harsh title, but this guy just gets my goat. Not just any gazillionaire would write an editorial in a national newspaper saying that we don't have to worry about the growing gap between the plebeians and gazillionaires like themselves -- it takes a pretty special gazillionaire to do that. Lorne Gunter loves writing articles about this, but at least he has a small amount of credibility that comes from being middle class himself.

However, blatantly self-serving diatribes are not in themselves enough to warrant comment; the main problem I have with this article is that it isn't very good. The thrust of Morgan's argument seems to be that Canada's troubling demographic income patterns referred to in this Toronto Star article are at least partly attributable to young Canadians "choosing post-secondary education without reference to the economic needs of society." Essentially, he's lamenting the lost earnings and "wasted" resources that come from young people choosing career paths that he considers to be economically unproductive, such as the fine arts or social sciences.

First of all, Morgan implicitly assumes that the students who  are choosing these personal-income-ruining pursuits are  coming from the lower rungs of the income ladder. In my mind, if the students were more-or-less equally distributed with respect to income across career paths -- which I would say is largely the case -- then guiding towards higher-income positions would have almost no effect on income distribution as it would affect all classes equally. I suppose this argument could have some rationale with respect to the stagnating incomes of the middle class (if not the income gap), but he makes another leap in implicitly assuming that access to education across classes is equal. This is something I find highly doubtful, and is ironically something Morgan and his right-wing brethren are intent on exacerbating (which you can see shades of when he makes an editorializing reference to taxpayers funding the "vast majority" of a student's educational costs).

Morgan also seems to ignore the possibility that there is any kind of value in education beyond simple job training. Somewhat ironically given my position on this issue, I'm educated as an engineer and currently work in that capacity, but in terms of specific elements of my education I use very little on a daily basis. What I do use daily is that ability imparted upon me to conceptualize problems and identify steps to solve them. In other words, I didn't learn how to, say, use a psychrometric chart so much as I learned how to think -- which is something that I'd say is fairly constant regardless of university program.  Morgan seems unable to comprehend that a literature graduate, for example, would be capable of anything other than creating or analyzing literature. Perhaps the narrow-minded hiring practices of Canada's employers are more to blame for this problem than Canadians daring to study things that they're interested in.

The man is nothing if not a strident free-market advocate, but seems to have for some reason lost faith in the almighty market for the time it took to write this article. As he notes, there is a significant  economic incentive to enter a field like medicine relative to something in, say, the social sciences, so why not let that incentive do its work? Doing as he suggests and herding young Canadians toward certain professions of their political superior's choosing reeks of the "social engineering" that he and his conservative ilk will detest to the last of their breaths.   

This article didn't do much to address what was ostensibly its topic -- Canada's stagnating or declining incomes for all but the wealthiest in society -- and instead came off as a moralizing polemic against people studying things that he himself doesn't deem valuable. It really seems to bother Morgan that some people choose to value things above economic returns, but to be frank: that is none of his goddam business.

Comments

[Lexington]

This article didn't do much to address what was ostensibly its topic -- Canada's growing income divide -- and instead came off as a moralizing polemic against people studying things that he himself doesn't deem valuable.

Exactly right.

It's ironic that a guy who has such scorn for a liberal arts education is either too dumb or too intellectually dishonest to realize that his argument isn't remotely related to his thesis. Thing is, the faster we steer people away from higher education and toward more economically useful occupations like plumbers and mechanics the less likely it is that people are going to notice that being wealthy and powerful in no way correlates with being smart or right. Guys like Gwyn "Let them eat cake" Morgan will at long last get the social, economic and political deference that is their due.

And as an added bonus he'll probably even be able to finally get some decent domestic help.

In the meantime the world obviously cannot do without more business graduates inventing ever more exotic asset bubbles to maintain the illusion that the socio-economic order which counts Morgan as a pillar is in any way sustainable.

[Jewel]

Thank you! for keeping in mind that some people like to learn for learning's sake.

Perhaps I'm just bitter that people either have no degree what my degree is or think its complete rubbish.

Either way, great critique.

[sc]

It angers me that men like this are integral to decision making in Alberta. With sentiments like Gwyn Morgan's, extremely important occupations such as child care will never be valued as important enough occupations. As a result, the individuals who care for our children, while the parents are out trying to make ends meet with their low paying liberal arts degree, will continue to not be compensated appropriately for one of the most important occupations in our society. However, Gwyn probably didn't think about this... I'm sure that his 'chosen' occupation of raping and pillaging Alberta's natural resources compensated him more than enough to hire a private nanny for his children.

[One Alberta Voter]

Would it make any difference to your views (and to those of your commenters) if you knew that Morgan himself comes from very humble beginnings (read extreme poverty) and that he made his own success through hard work to get an education (in engineering) and distinguish himself in business? In other words, his is the experience of a true self-made man.

I question whether it is fair for Morgan to project his experience onto all others, but I think that he does not deserve the kind of vitriole I see in this posting.

[ch]

One Alberta Voter:

The fact that Morgan grew up on a small family farm that was abjectly poor (not unlike a lot of other farms in Alberta at the time) does not give him a carte blanche to smear or inflict hardship on others.

I respect that unlike many of his peers he worked hard to get to his position, but that doesn't make him any less of an asshole for dumping oil and toxic waste over half of Ecudaor (Encana under his watch), making racist comments about recent immigrants, or now denigrating students that don't ascribe to his personal vision of a public duty to our unsustainable economic system.

[Aaron]

I've got a lot to say about this one. First, Asshole guy is partly right - if you go into fine arts and can't make it as a potter, don't bitch and whine about the unfairness of the fact that you're still working at Starbucks.

Second, enrolment data don't mean anything, because 50% of students in their first year of university will not make it to the third year. Universities, especially the U of A, are notorious for weeding out students early on.

Third, fine arts degrees and arts degrees are employable - even in Oil & Gas. Someone with an MFA might make 70k in an oil & gas firm as a communications or HR person, whereas they might make less elsewhere; meanwhile, a philosophy major might find employment in the IT department as a programmer: the point - pay grades by occupation ignore the possibility that you have engineers working as economists, and economists as occupation health & safety professionals.

Fourth - social siences and fine arts professions do not enjoy the priveledge of having a professional body that regulates entrance into the profession. Restricted entry keeps wages high for engineers, doctors, dentists, accountants, lawyers, etc.

Fifth - the deregulated tuition prices for law, commerce and medical degrees has resulted in higher tuition for these jobs, which erodes the net present value of the higher wages earned later in life.

[jk]

One Alberta Voter:

Although I obviously can't speak for the commenters, I was aware of Morgan's humble roots before I wrote the post.

ch summed up my feelings fairly well: I admire him for having the resolve and dedication to go from where he started to where he is today, but I certainly don't think that's any reason to absolve him of his consistently narrow-minded and myopic behaviour.

[jk]

Aaron: thanks for the lengthy comment!

With regards to your first bit, I too agree that students should be culpable for their career choices. The problem I have is that the Globe story that Morgan refers to in the article has absolutely no mention of any students complaining about unfairness like he insinuates in this quote:

"Students have every right to ignore this reality in their career paths, but to later complain about unfairness is simply not legitimate."

Neither of the students that he refers to in his article attempt to blame anyone or anything for their plight at any point in the article. That's what bugs me so much about this piece: it's basically a rant against people who don't share his narrow conception of value under the guise of an article about something that's actually topical (ie shifting demographic patterns.)

[bf]

What a feed! I can't elaborate any further on these fine points, but I had a couple o' questions to throw out there.

First of all, in terms of Alberta, can't our current high paying jobs "health care, engineering and applied sciences" and "boom" be attributed largely to the fact our government caters (overwhelmingly) to Mr. Morgan's industry? In theory, if all of the benefits awarded to O & G were also given to say.......fine arts, wouldn't some of those professions soon become higher earners? If Alberta were to give the same net value of all the tax breaks and royalty advantages given to the oilsands to support the building of say....our very own ridiculously sized and brand-spanking new "Mega Broadways", downtown Edmonton and Calgary, specifically designed (at all costs) to draw in arts audiences from around the world, wouldn't the statistics eventually change? It seems as though our government plays a large part in what industries, and thus careers, will be successful.

Second question (probably rhetorical) - can't Canada's "world's best quality of life" be partly attributed to the parks & reserves, festivals, social support, cultural fairs, arts, humanitarian efforts, etc., that are supported by people trained in "unmarketable programs"? I don’t think we would ever want people to stop entering programs that help enrich our country so much.

This may have veered a little off the original topic. But in all, this article just makes me sad. I also am an engineer and I used to think similar to Gwyn. But now I've come to have a completely different set of morals that seems both out of touch with industry and the government that supports it.

[Feynman & Coulter's Love Child]

In theory, if all of the benefits awarded to O & G were also given to say.......fine arts, wouldn't some of those professions soon become higher earners?

No, because those professions still would have to, at the end of the day, produce something that people want to buy. Morgan's company, which has funnelled actual wealth into the hands of Albertans, sells oil and gas (which those who watch the news might see is worth some coin these days).

If Alberta were to give the same net value of all the tax breaks and royalty advantages given to the oilsands to support the building of say....our very own ridiculously sized and brand-spanking new "Mega Broadways", downtown Edmonton and Calgary, specifically designed (at all costs) to draw in arts audiences from around the world

Would they really "draw in audiences from around the world"? The actual Broadway barely does this, and our current Broadways (ESO, Citadel, etc.) doesn't even come close. How much good money do you want to throw after bad?

As for the "tax and royalty advantages", the tax revenue for, say, the Fringe Festival hasn't helped it gain more people. In fact, smaller and smaller percentages of people making their way to the festival grounds actually bother to go see a play. If you want to talk "royalty advantages", the Arts actually get a far bigger advantage than the tarsands. Maybe bf is onto something, and the Alberta Government should instantly declare that the creative potential of Albertan musicians and playwrights and sculptors are all resources belonging to the Queen's Provincial Legislature, and that starting instantly a "royalty" (but not a tax!) of 25% be applied to the revenue of all creative works sold. Better yet, assume that each play will do $Y worth of business, and that $X of "royalties" will be charged regardless -- which makes it more in line with the current royalty framework.

With sentiments like Gwyn Morgan's, extremely important occupations such as child care will never be valued as important enough occupations.

"Sentiments" don't value what child care is worth, people who care for children value what it is worth. One of the reasons child care is so low paying is because the only people who pay for it are people with lower incomes. IIRC, incidently, EnCana like all large companies pays part of childcare costs of its employees.

[eh]

One of the reasons child care is so low paying is because the only people who pay for it are people with lower incomes.

Riiight....ever heard of Canada's live-in caregiver program? Do you really think that low-income people are the only people who pay for child care???? Perhaps if this was the height of the Industrial Revolution and even then I don't think that argument would hold.

[Lexington]

"Sentiments" don't value what child care is worth, people who care for children value what it is worth. One of the reasons child care is so low paying is because the only people who pay for it are people with lower incomes.

Congradulations.

You know your blog has arrived when it acquires its own bonified troll.

Anyway, daycare costs in the neighborhood of $800 a month per child in Calgary. Can you please explain how low income people pay for this?

[MK]

I see no issue with Gwyn Morgan's article, in fact I quite agree with it.

WHy choose an education that doesn't provide a good income after graduating? Doesn't make sense to me to spend $50K on obtaining a social science degree that will result in a low paying job.

People that obtain a degree which will enable them to join a profession (accountants, lawers, dentist, doctor, engineering), will likely earn far more than one who majored in philosphy.

Sure, you might want to go to college and learn about your 'passion' instead of the boring technical classes in engineering, or the accounting classes. To some, that may meet their objectives of furthering ones self; whether it helps earn a living is another story.

[Werner Patels]

Actually, I wrote an article about this on May 18.