Some great posts in this thread. Especially Jeff's last one. Max: Do you know you're a Democrat yet? I know you're pro-life, but we've got a big tent over here. Come on over.
Amen! People tend to forget that. Considering how contentious things get in here sometimes, I guess it's not hard to forget that the Democratic party fit JFK and John Connally just fine. Sam Rayburn and Harry Truman come to mind. They were Democrats who were conservative in a lot of ways, but still Democrats through and through. The notion that Democrats are a bunch of "leftists", whatever that means today, is just silly. I prefer Liberal, myself, as in Liberal Democrat, but there are certainly Democrats to the left of me, although that wasn't as true 30 years ago. I used to be a lot more demonstratively liberal than I am now. Gynch probably thinks I'm an irritatingly conservative Democrat, don't you, glynch. The party has a long history of conservative Democrats in Texas and the South. The white Democratic Congressmen who were the main targets of redistricting were conservatives. That's why they kept getting reelected in their largely rural districts. As a matter of fact, the main thrust of the redistricting battle was an attempt, successful so far, to consciously force the Democratic party in Texas to be a minority party. The Republican leadership wants the public to have the perception that Democrats here are Black or Latino and that if you're white, then the Republican party is your natural home. And that is racist. The jury is still out on whether it'll be a successful ploy by the Republicans, but those Congressmen are conservatives who were well liked by their districts and they are Democrats. I'm rambling, I guess, but your damn right, Batman, we've got a big tent... and we welcome conservatives. Shoot, if you think, as a Republican, that the Democratic Party is too liberal, then join it and work to make it more conservative. I welcome it. And I think there is more chance of being successful doing that then having a Republican make a success out of moderating the Republican Party of today. I certainly wouldn't discourage that, but the far-right currently has a powerful grip on the GOP. I honestly think the path of moderation in the Grand Old Party will seriously start after some serious election defeats.
But since we are all inherently sinful, we can never exist in a perfect world in this lifetime. Suffering will always be a part of this world, along with inequity. You either accept it and move on or don't. We will never eradicate suffering because that is just the way the world is constructed. I know your heart is in the right place. But on any economic issue, you have to listen to your intellect.
Someone, somewhere said in relation to jobs/careers "Find something you love, and you'll never work a day in your life." When I was a growing up, my father very rarely took any time off, and we're not talking a 40-hour work week, either. He was nearly constantly on-call and very often would spend 12 hours working only to get home, eat dinner and go back out to do another case. And the thing is, he loved every second of it. His work was his life. As he's gotten older, he's made the decision to slow down a little bit. He doesn't take call anymore, and he'll take a week off here and there (almost never more than two weeks in any given year, though). But he still usually puts in over 60 hours per week. Of course, if I was married to that shrew he's married to, I wouldn't want to go home, either. In my brief forays into the working world, I've never understood why so many companies are slaves to the timeclock. I've worked jobs where I could do all the work in half a day, so the rest of the day, I just had to sit around and pretend I was busy. I understand if your job is to man the front counter and be ready for anyone who comes in that you need to be there a set length of time, but there are a great many jobs that could be done in a shorter amount of time and just simply have the person go home when they're done. Heck, I would think it might even be an incentive to be more efficient if I got to go home once I was finished with my work (and get paid the same, of course). But what do I know? I was listening to an interview with the author of this book who went around 'undercover' working at all these low paying jobs, and she said turnover is very high, and studies have been done showing that it costs more to replace rather than keep a good worker. A living wage might change that. Or it may not. A crappy job is still a crappy job. I know of companies that pay $12 to $15 per hour and still have high turnover. That may well continue. I don't know that the person working the crappy job who quits is necessarily moving up to something that pays more money. There are lots of reasons people quit their jobs, oftentimes those issues relate to the jobs themselves rather than the pay. But I don't know. Perhaps people would be willing to put up with more crap if they made more money. Of course, theoretically speaking, if I start having to pay people twice as much, I'm just hiring half as many people, which might well make the unemployment rate higher and lead to worse conditions for those who currently make such a small sum (and, by the same token, if I have to pay someone more money, I'm going to expect more out of them. For $6 per hour, I might take a chance on someone. For more than twice that, I'm less likely to take a chance). Wouldn't paying that janitor more money create spur the economy by increasing demand, as the janitor is able to increase consumption. And the company will benefit from a growing economy. That may well be true. I believe that was the Henry Ford model. Pay your workers well so they can afford to buy your stuff. By the same token, if a company creates an environment where people feel valued (and that doesn't just mean higher pay), they're more likely to work harder for you and potentially increase your chances of success and spur company growth. To use an entertainment industry example: The reason CAA was able to go from nothing to the largest, most-powerful talent agency in roughly ten years was largely because Ovitz and his partners created an atmosphere that valued the workers. Their workers were highly paid, sure. But they were also highly respected. Teamwork was truly valued (bonuses were even largely based on team goals rather than individual goals. Landing a big client by yourself probably wouldn't get you a big bonus, but putting together a movie package with five other agents, for example, would), as were ideas (there was no punishment for having an idea and expressing it, even if it wasn't one that could be used). People were promoted within and oftentimes were promoted quickly. I'm sure it wasn't a completely heavenly place to work or anything. I'm sure there was a lot expected of people, and I know most everyone put in insanely long hours. But because they treated their employees well overall, there was a great deal of loyalty, and I believe that's the main reason why they became what they became (and continue to be even years after Michael Ovitz left).
That is the essential difference between you and I. I do not believe in the inherent failure of humanity. I believe in the inherent goodness of mankind. I am not a Christian as I mentioned, so I do not accept the concept of original sin, therefore, I do believe that we can attain the elimination of suffering, maybe not in our lifetime or in 100 more lifetimes, but I believe it is not just a possibility, but an eventuality. But, even if I didn't believe these things, it would not change my opinion that there is no amount of intellect available to anyone anywhere that could justify the needless suffering of another human being, ever. Using the "world is not perfect" argument as a way to dismiss the plight of others is not only inhumane, it is un-intellegent and illogical. It is a convenient dodge that keeps us from feeling guilty when we ignore the suffering of others.
Do you really think the message of Jesus was Since world can never be perfect we shouldn't try and make it better and "Accept suffering in the world and move on"?
But lets remove religion from this argument. Men are not perfect. So in any society that can not attain perfection, there will be inequity and suffering because men act selfishly. I'm not justifying suffering, I'm just saying that no matter how many times the Federal govt. raids my check to transfer the fruits of my labor to those who do not, we will always have poverty. We will always have smarter people and less intelligent people. That's just a fact of life and if you want to believe in a utopian vision of the world, you're going to disappointed when such a utopia can never come to pass...ever. Perfect equality can never exist when every single person has differing talents and abilities and levels of those gifts.
You say you aren't trying to justify suffering, but what you are describing is a justification for not trying to alleviate suffering. If poverty will always exist and it is just the way of the world, then it is a perfect reason to not "raid your check to transfer the fruits of your labor" to people who need it. Why should you give up a few bucks to people who suffer when it won't work anyway? Right? That IS justification. It is a way to dismiss the problem and justify not helping. So is this whole utopia and perfection argument. Working to help people who suffer doesn't require perfection. It requires effort. And, I'm not even talking about some sort of socialist equality. That is just another way of avoiding the real subject. Why can't we just start with eliminating childhood starvation and preventable disease for millions upon millions of children every single year? Hell, why can't we just start by providing food and shelter for the millions who live on the streets of our OWN COUNTRY right now? How is that utopia? Personally, I see that as the responsibility of humanity, nevermind a religious obligation.
He said to help those who are in need and love them like brothers. But there is a difference between helping and supporting them so they can sponge off your goodwill. And need I add govt-forced contributions to various wasteful social programs is not charity.
That's not the way our system works. You perform a task in the free market that a company requires and they pay you in exchange for those services. By doing so, you can provide for yourself and your families both the neccessities and luxuries of life. Accept the reality that some refuse to live within the confines of that system and move on. But when you allow a group of people an excuse to buck thes system and give them a means to buck the system (an excessive safety net), you cause the whole system to become unstable. People will start asking "why am I working so hard when that b*stard just heads to the mailbox to take a check siphoned from my earnings." That's theft, stealing from me to provide for another unwilling to work. Utopia is a perfect society without all of the ills you mentioned. As I said before, it is impossible. I'm not very happy with the insinuation that I'm some kind of heartless b*stard who'd love to see people starve and die because I don't want to "give up a few bucks." We've spent trillions on the war on poverty and yet......there is still poverty. Why waste anymore of my money on a fruitless quest.
Bamma, Jesus also told his followers to go from town to town and get handouts of food and lodging from those that had it. Jesus said that if they could not they should brush the dust off from their sandals at the town and move on.
Pure capitalism would be as mindlessly cruel as the Darwinian theory of the survival of the fittest. As much as it seems that the rich get richer now it would be nothing compared to a true capitalist system. That is why for the greater good capitalism must be tempered with socialism. In today's world it not whether a country will be capitalist or socialist , it 's just a matter of the degree of socialism we accept. In the US we have a progressive income tax and rely on property taxes that lay more burden on the affluent. We have social security, medicare and indigent care programs as a safety net for the poor. This by any definition is socialism no matter how our proud bootstrap conservative would deny it. It is only different from the European model by a small degree. One interesting point to ponder is how the Bush Whitehouse is changing it's policy about how Non-resident workers are being allowed in to this country. The traditionally low paying jobs could not be maintained at the low pay without the continual importation of disadvantaged peoples. Without the influx of immagrant labor a ditch digging job may pay a living wage in this country, it would be the only way you could entice someone to do the back braking work. I still wonder how we can ever pay coal miners enough money. Now I'm an internationalist and I think that that the plight of all mankind is equally important and international borders are just a way for groups of people to control and exploit natural resources for their own gain. Theoretically this one earth should be shared equally by all her people, so let 'em all in till Calcutta and LA are equal. But for Bushies, allowing immigrant labor in is just to keep costs low and profits high. It diminishes the value of the labor of the indigenous proletariat while providing for the lifestyle of the elite.
A few comments/corrections to what Bama posted, from the perspective of modern economics: 1) Bama correctly stated that according to standard neoclassical theory of the labor market, a minimum wage will either have no effect on total welfare or it will reduce total welfare. HOWEVER, recent empirical studies (based on game theoretic models in wage setting and backed up by reams of data) have shown that the neoclassical view of the labor market is not necessarily the most accurate portrayal of our world. Basically, it has been seen in some cases (notably in either NJ or PA, I forget which one) that an increase in the minimum wage actually INCREASES total employment, most notably in the sector of jobs which is impacted by the increase! That's exactly the opposite of what neoclassical theory suggests! Essentially, without a minimum wage, employers of low income jobs may have the incentive to engage in a "rage to the bottom" in terms of wages paid, and this game results in Pareto optimal wages which are lower than those wages which maximize total welfare (i.e. efficiency) The landmark study is by Angrist, et. al. (published in AER or JLE around 2000) and there have been others by Card and Kruger as well. 2) The claim that poverty is the result of personal choice must be heavily, HEAVILY qualified. This is only true if people are not faced with credit constraints, unavailability of insurance and asymmetic information. Guess what though? These are the basic problems that plague basically all people that are in poverty! The idea that poverty is a choice is odious to any legitimate economist who has a reasonable perspective of the world. If we assume that people didn't have credit constraints, then sure, we could chalk it up to laziness in the distribution of people's efforts. However, it is clear that systematic poverty can be explained (and predicted) very well and often persists despite the best efforts of poor individuals. Basically, systematic poverty is symptomatic of a market failure. And if you don't realize that, you're living in denial. As such, it's not something that a completely lassiez-faire approach could reduce or solve, and some kind of market intervention is required to achieve the efficient outcome. That said, we can employ "second-best" techniques that are employ free market incentives and investments to reduce poverty in an efficient manner. Thumb through basically any introductory textbook on Development Economics and I promise your perspective on poverty will change (mine sure did).
That would seem to go hand-in-hand with the idea that if people have more money, they'll spend more money, growing the pie overall. I think about it this way. Look at an area like Oak Cliff in South Dallas. The area has a high poverty rate, and I think that can feed on itself. Why would I, for example, go open a store in Oak Cliff knowing that my customer base is extremely limited because of the low income most of the people there earn. And if that store doesn't open, there aren't jobs being created in the neighborhood. If, however, there's a larger number of people who live in that neighborhood who make a "living wage", the area may well be more attractive to open a business because there are more customers there than now. And if I open a business there, it's likely I'm going to hire someone, creating a job within the neighborhood that would potentially take someone from the unemployment line to a job. But my brain is too small to figure out how it would all actually work. It's something that seems to make sense to me, though, on some level. But that doesn't mean it would actually work that way (especially because I keep coming back to the idea that someone has to pay the workers. A significant increase in the salaries might well mean closing up shop for a good many small businesses).
Actually, from what I have seen, small businesses tend to have far less minimum wage employees than corporations do. Small business people tend to work closely with their employees and generally try to keep good ones around, which generally requires more than minimum wage. For example, my wife works for a small business that is basically a Kinkos combined with the UPS store. She makes FAR more than clerks at Kinkos and UPS, as do all of her coworkers. Corporate America is FAR more likely to hire people at the bottom of the wage range and if you think that McDonalds or Taco Bell are going to scale back because of even a substantial raise in the minimum wage, you have another think coming.
Judging by the amount some of you people post from the workplace, it would seem to me that everyday is a vacation day for you.
I'm sure that's true. My wonder, though, was if they were paying say $9 per hour and the new minimum became $15 per hour, for example, they'd be affected even though they were paying above the minimum before. I did make minimum wage to start when I was working at a hamburger place (locally owned) in Amarillo, but we were just teenagers (and the day crew made a lot more money, more than twice what we made at night, though that was back in the day of $3.35 minimum wage). It was a good job in many other ways, though (no work on Sundays. Closing up at 9pm, etc), so I would've taken less money to work there over some other places. Speaking of teenagers and the minimum wage, aren't the majority of minimum wage earners teenagers on their first jobs? Judging by the amount some of you people post from the workplace, it would seem to me that everyday is a vacation day for you. Hey, I wrote ten pages so far today, as well as getting some significant ADR done with the lovely Eryn Brooke. I spend too much time on here. I will agree with that, but I get a lot of work done in any given day, as well.
When you own a business that has you sitting at the computer 10 or 12 hours every day, your get your breaks wherever you can.
i think the lesson i've learned, batman...is that i'm done identifying myself under the tent of any political party. supported and been disappointed by both of them.
