What I wish I had said on TV

Reflections on my op-ed and TV interview

Me on BNN Bloomberg’s The Close.

So last week was an unexpected whirlwind. First, I had an op-ed on zombie firms published in The Globe and Mail. Then, on Friday, I was invited onto BNN Bloomberg to chat about the piece.

That was all very exciting, but I’ve also been reflecting a lot over the weekend on what I said and didn’t say in the op-ed and during the interview. In this, I’ve been spurred on by my ever thoughtful and incisive wife, Sharmin, who often knows better than I do what I’m trying to say, not to mention what I could be saying with a platform.

My main reflection is that it is easy to misinterpret what I said. You can read or watch and come away with the idea that I believe the main problem is that wasteful government spending props up zombie firms, talent is just an interchangeable commodity, and actions to increase the economy’s productivity are universally beneficial.

If you are a frequent reader, you’ll know that I believe none of those are true.

More than anything, my argument is that the current extractive model that dominates our economy impoverishes us all, and zombie firms are one example of that.

My guiding conviction is that we need to focus on real outcomes for real people in real communities. What I failed to do was to connect the dots more clearly with how extractive practices undermine those outcomes.

I’m influenced by concepts like Dani Rodrik’s “productivism,” which “prioritizes the dissemination of productive economic opportunities throughout all regions of the economy and segments of the labor force.” I also draw from arguments such as Lenore Palladino’s that we need to “orient corporations toward operating as innovative enterprises, not as sites of value extraction for a small elite,” and

Laura Basu

’s that we need to build “a new economy centred on the things that actually matter in life: care and love.”

Implicit in all those is that a firmer, more activist state role in the economy is needed to achieve the outcomes we want. It certainly isn’t a case of cutting down government subsidies and leaving the market to itself. I don’t think any of that came through as clearly as it could have in my writing or interview.

I also fell into tropes I wish I avoided, being provocative and arguing zombies must die, instead of showing genuine care for real people as I believe is necessary.

Yes, research suggests eliminating all zombies would increase growth by freeing talent to work in more productive firms. At a macro level, having more innovative firms is good for social mobility and, in theory, contributes to a more inclusive economy.

But that argument overlooks a lot. In the op-ed, I emphasized EI reform to reduce impacts on workers. While reform is necessary, that line of thought ignores that many displaced workers, such as older ones impacted by ageism, won't find new careers even with all the EI reforms of my dreams.

Calling for zombie firms to exit ignores the impact on local communities. Many zombies operate in commodity sectors like mining, and mostly in rural or smaller, less economically complex communities. Losing even one zombie firm could harm these communities for years, even while a wider reset is underway.

The argument that talent is something to be freed also requires more probing. It perpetuates the idea of talent itself as a commodity, rather than viewing skills as being invested in real people. In doing so, I also overlook work on “situated knowledge,” as Nichola Lowe has summarized:

Skill is not a set of fixed capabilities that workers carry with them to all work settings and environments, nor can it be reduced to a descriptive list of requirements for a given job. Rather, skill is "situated" in the work environment itself and results from a dynamic and ongoing interplay between workers and their day-to-day work-that is, how they experience and come to understand that work.

Treating talent simply as a commodity that can be shifted from zombies to productive firms ignores that idea.

It also perpetuates real harms to people caught up in systems designed around that concept.

This is something that hits extra close to home. The Toronto Star published a piece this weekend that explored how the Canadian immigration system was, and remains, built around talent as a commodity, yet leaves many immigrants “starting from scratch” despite years of experience.

The picture at the top of that piece is of my mother-in-law, Stella Rahman. As the article explains, she moved to Canada as a permanent resident thanks to her 16 years of experience as a physician. But she faced the reality that despite Canada bringing talented and experienced people in, they are promised one thing and delivered quite another.

As Stella said in her interview with the Star, “I realized it’s impossible to get into the system. I lost my profession, my career working as a doctor. That still bothers me ... especially when I turn on the TV and I see there’s a shortage of family physicians.”

Talent is invested in real people with real stories. It isn’t something that can easily be traded, taken out of one context, and put into another, especially because of systemic discrimination. Putting people’s skills to work isn’t the logical maximizing of economic theory. Racist, sexist, colonial, ableist, and ageist systems, processes, governments, and employers impact real people in the real world when they try to bring their talent to bear.

If we want to build a better economy, it can’t be at the cost of the people we’re trying to build it for.

Orbit Policy's major newspaper op-ed and live-TV debuts were great experiences and great learning opportunities. I appreciate seeing the wide variety of comments and feedback on the pieces. I want to contribute to the change I think is necessary, and as I ask the systems, companies, and people around me to think differently about what the future can hold—and how to unlock Canada's best potential—I have to turn that gaze inward as well.