Unscientific America, by Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum is a depressing book. It is a brief history of the rise and fall of the respect for science in American culture and what can be done about it. Unfortunately, the answer seems to be nothing more than “trian scientists to be better speakers”. I don’t that is either likely or would be enoiugh even if it came to pass.
The book is well written and the two authors are not shy about their positions or about stepping on toes. They are quite caustic about the New Atheists and they aren’t afraid of calling out popular bloggers like PZ Myers for what I think are well deserved criticisms. They spend a brief amount of time on a case for the decline of science and respect for science in America, but the real point of the book is to lay out the reasons for the decline and to suggests solutions. The authors list many reasons: the consolidation of the media, the partisan war on science, the traditional loathing of popularizers that the scientific community seems to have (using the shameful treatment of Carl Sagan as exhibit number one), the extreme specialization and the general lack of attempts to deal with politicians and the general public on their terms. The authors make a good case for all of these being serious problems, but their solutions address only two of the problems.
The authors really only have one solutions: encourage the scientific community to learn to communicate better. There are many details to this plan, but that is what it amounts to. The problem with that solution is that it wont touch the fact that politicians feel free to ignore good science or that media consolidation will continue to ruin science reporting. The authors make very good cases that those two items are important reasons for the decline they lament, but their solutions would do literally nothing to address them. They argue for no organized effort to remove anti-science politicians, and they argue for no organized effort by scientists to halt or reverse media consolidation. Even odder, they don;t agrue against these ideas either. It as if those notions didn’t occur to them or that they see no value in political action by scientists. I doubt the last is the case as they spend quite a bit of time on the success of ScienceDebate2008.
So we are left with a book that has a very comprehensive case for why respect for science has declined in America but provides us with solutions to only part of the problems and completely ignores the possibility that the other aspects of the problem may, indeed, have solutions. It is still a very good book, just one that could have been even better.
Judd
Kevin
Kevin T. Keith
leanleft
tgirsch
Very interesting, I might have to check this out. I’m fascinated by the making of scientists – being that I am one and have known I am a scientist since I was 4 years old, and how scientists perceive the world outside of lab, and vice versa.
Many of my good friends are scientists as well, and, like me, have pretty much always been scientifically inclined. Since long before any of us were graduate students or PhDs, we’d be in the bars, talking about science-related stuff. Shit, my first Physical Chemistry lesson came several years before I was a chemist, in the form of electromotive force scribbled down on the backside of a beer coaster.
Science has “declined” in America because non-scientist Americans take for granted what science really is and what it does, all the while thinking that the ownership of an iPhone makes them some kind of technologically advanced member of the species. While science is progressing, slowly in some areas, rapidly in the others, it seems to me that the non-science community has a lot of misconceptions about what the scientific community does, what it can and cannot do. Forget the stem cell research debate, I’m talking about the idea that new technology is somehow supposed to save our asses.
Firstly, we have new technological advances coming out and close to completion that are going to change things for the better, but chances are, only a few people will notice; anyone looking for a huge “eureka” moment is going to be disappointed. For example: lab on a chip to make diagnosing and early detection widely available and affordable. This is one area which I believe will come to fruition within the next ten years. Energy storage and solar is slowly chugging along, but making steady progress. We might see better batteries, and have improved ways of storing clean energy that comes from wind and solar.
Science isn’t really in the business of saving our asses, we’re in the business of learning what the laws of nature will permit us to do, and demonstrating that it can or cannot be done. The coupling of scientific discoveries with engineering efforts leads to the emergence of new technologies, but still, you wont see anything drastically different. You’ll see smaller, lighter, perhaps more efficient versions of technologies we already have. The scientific principles of things like batteries and airplanes are things that will stand the test of time. We can improve them, but there’s no need to re-invent the wheel.
Blame the ivy-league glory-hounds if this disappoints you. You’ll notice that, for the most part, the only people making grandiose statements about their fabulous discoveries are from Harvard, MIT, and Berkeley. This should surprise no one. These three schools are in endless competition for students, not because they want the best and the brightest – there really isn’t a shortage of highly qualified applicants. They want more attention and more bragging rights than the other ivies, because this allows them to draw the most covetted faculty and gain subsequent bragging rights, etc etc. That’s the ivy-league game. But really, what these guys will boast to their publicity agents, is widely viewed as arrogant and a game to win attention. It really is a farce; similarly important discoveries are made all the time at public universities all over the world. The public must learn to deal without hearing scientists making boastful statements to the media. It’s not our job to sooth the public nerve, and it’s our interest to communicate our discoveries earnestly to other scientists who we believe could benefit from our advances, and hopefully, one day, we’ll feed into some kind of new improved technology.
The scientific community is all about learning what laws of nature are limiting our abilities to produce cheap solar cells with good efficiency, or how to harness more energy into a battery without creating a veritable bomb (the only difference between a battery and a bomb is that the bomb releases all of the energy in contains in one big out-of-control burst. A batter holds a similar amount of energy, but it is designed to release it in a slow and controlled current). We will need to focus on things like cheaper routs to waste processing, and water and air purification. We already have these things, but science will hopefully improve on them.
New technology is a farce. Nothing is really becoming more modern. Due to our abilities to shrink things down (nanotech), we can put a bunch of sensors and processors into something like an iPhone, but apart from the size decrease, there’s nothing miraculously new about the iPhone. Technology makes for wonderful marketing because people believe they’re accessing something uber hi-tech and that this somehow makes them a more evolved, advanced human. Basically, the iPhone costs as much as it did/does because of all the patents, not because of how hi-tech it is. It’s quite similar to the pharmaceutical industry, in that respect.
In my opinion, the widespreading proliferation of nano-gadgets in our society is what causes people to think that we’re a lot more technologically advanced then we really are. In reality, all of our scientific achievements that are accessed by the public (I make this distinction because apparently everyone takes for granted the new dyes and lasers used in bio-imaging and micro-surgery, or scientific advances that improve how science is conducted but are not marketable beyond the lab) can be boiled down to this:
Smaller is better
More efficient is better
Renewable is better
If anyone is interested in understanding our basis for scientific thinking, I suggest starting with a basic physics text book and reading Newton’s laws of thermodynamics, and then read up on emergence on quantum theory: DeBroglie and Planck’s experiments, and Einstein’s discovery of the photoelectric effect. It will tell you something about how humans learned to study and measure the fabric of our existence. IMO, every invention that has advanced our understanding of science and lead to the creation of new technology can be traced back to the quantum evolution.
.-= Shoothouse Barbie´s last blog ..Zen and the Art of Shoothing: Welcome to the dollhouse. =-.
I just looked up the authors – they appear to be lobbyists of some sort. Well, yay for science lobbyists? But my guess from your synopsis and review of this book, Kevin, is that the authors of this book understand very little about the world-wide scientific community, in addition to science itself. Scientific illitteracy? Give me a break! Sounds like a ploy, or a lobbying effort. America has an education problem, and a raising-our-children-responsibly problem. We’re not marekedly deficient in science. We’re the world’s leading pharmaceutical research country. China clobbers almost everyone else in nanotech. Even though some countries are considered a level above the rest for their more specific fields of research, there is world-wide collaboration on science projects. It’s not entirely every country for themselves. The secret to Asia’s notorious reputation for scientific leadership? Look at 1) the structure of their early education system and 2) the tradition values they employ in raising their children. The suicide rate of chinese children is remarkably high in part due to the enormous pressure to succeed, to not fail and dishonor the family.
If you haven’t already, I recommend Kuhn’s “The structure of scientific revolutions.” It pinpoints the real problems that scientists face
.-= Shoothouse Barbie´s last blog ..Zen and the Art of Shoothing: Welcome to the dollhouse. =-.
Kuhn’s an interesting read, but he’s also full of crap.
Scientific revolutions actually almost never occur the way he suggests they ought to.
Also, I find it difficult to imagine you would have any quarrel with the idea that we as a nation have a pathetic scientific literacy rate, unless you’re fundamentally misunderstanding what that term means. The scientific literacy rate in the US is around 28%. Fewer than 40% of Americans believe in evolution, fer the love of Pete!
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..Alberto Fielder? =-.
Barbie
IO may not have made this clear, but they attack your attitude in the book. Thye are clear that scientists who blame it on the culture at large are both significantly wrong about the releative scientific knowledge of the country and counter-productive.
Mooney is a journalist and Kirshenbaum has a Phd and has done everything from lab work to scientific advisory for Congress.
.-= Kevin´s last blog ..Alberto Fielder? =-.
The only thing I’m blaming on culture is taking science for granted, and maybe letting educational standards slip drastically. Sure, I think creationism is a load of crap and I’d happilly be fired rather than teaching it as an alternative theory in a classroom, however, I’m confused now regarding what the authors want (perhaps because I haven’t read the book). Would they be satisfied if more people believed in evolution? Frankly, that seems to me somewhat superficial. Lack of belief in evolution or the scientific isn’t something that I feel is a real threat to science. Especially when it is becoming increasingly obvious that renewable energy and efficiency is needed. You don’t have to believe in global warming being due to CO2 emissions to hear the call for advancements in science and technology; the US auto industry was buckling at the knees before the economic crisis because other automakers were improving fuel efficiency.
I’m not exactly sure what the general definition of “scientific literacy” is. Belief in evolution? Climate change? In my oppinion, our scientific advancements are not suffering for lack of believers or scientific literacy. It’s certainly regrettable that people aren’t learning nearly the amount of science in highschool today compared with what was taught in classrooms 40 years ago. However, educational standards in general have been on a downward drift, and it doesn’t surprise me that science – being filled with a lot of abstract concepts that wont be as readily grasped by those who aren’t already scientifically inclined or generally intellectually curious – would suffer more than other subjects.
Quantum mechanics – arguably the greatest scientific revolution of the past 2 centuries – came about with plenty of naysayers and most likely an even greater dearth of scientific literacy world wide. So, even if I’m wrong about scientific literacy rate, Kirshenbaum and Mooney can eat my butt, ’cause baby, I’m not counter-productive by any scientific standards. Only by theirs…and maybe yours. Feel free to email my boss and tell him that his political party frowns on my perspective and it’s counter-productive to scientific literacy. R. M. Crooks, he’s in the chemistry department at the University of Texas. You can look him up.
As I said, I wont be teaching creationism, and I have and will continue to vocalize my belief in the scientific and make clear that it is a defensible stance. However, if people want to have their non-scientific belief systems, that’s up to them, and I don’t find it nearly as revolting as the authors of this book apparently do. I don’t think the non-scientific beliefs, or an oppinion like mine is counter-productive, or threatens science, but I do think it threatens certain politicians. I’m going to read this book, but my first thoughts on it, from reading your review and a few other scraps of info I’ve found on the interwebs, is that it’s a politically motivated lobbying effort, designed to scare up people into thinking that alternative, non-scientific theories and religion are a threat to scientific theories and that the belief in the unscientific (a.k.a. religious) should be demonized. I’m not concerned: religious beliefs will not disprove science, but I’m comfortable allowing someone to choose to believe what they want. I know where I stand, and I will always be a proponent of science. But that doesn’t mean I have to turn my nose up or go to fisticuffs because an alternative belief exists. If Mooney and Kirshenbaum, or anyone else feel that my stance, my attitude on science and nature, and non-interest in demonizing that which isn’t scientific makes me a counter-productive and bad science, then they’re obvious bullies – some politicians pitbulls – and they can f*** right off. If that turns out to be their oppinion, they will have proved to me that they’re mainly interested in scaring up not just non-scientists, but practicing scientists into joining their lobbying efforts.
Tell me, T, how do scientific revolutions occur? Kuhn’s observation about the retention and shifting of paradigms – models – is a pretty accurate portrayal of what goes on in the scientific community. It’s demonstrably true of the quantum revolution, and even today, some of the best scientists in the field still resort to what we like call “hand-wavey” explanations in brushing off anomolies; that is, they defer to the model that is most popular and in accordance with their own pet theories as a way of brushing off previously unexplained and less-supported (perhaps more modernly demonstrated) phenomena. A lot of old models don’t explain phenomena that are consistently observed in research, and they’re met with heavy opposition from many in the scientific community because these anomolies threaten old theories. It really is similar to what you can observe with other paradigms in society: people who are set in their ways are less receptive to change. Scientists are like that too, especially when they’ve built their careers around a specific paradigm. They really don’t want to let that go, even though they’re more or less aware of the failures or limitations of a specific model! The creation of a new model that accounts for the old paradigm and explains the anomolies in terms of why the old model fails to account for them but holds true in previous experiments is a difficult task, but will eventually lead to a paradigm shift. You can observe this in action from routine research group meetings to major science conferences.
The proof of a new model, of a useful model is – for lack of a better word – awesome, in terms of scientific significance.
But I digress. What do you think scientists should do to change this scientific iliteracy, and what are you hoping for? What would ease your mind about it?
.-= Shoothouse Barbie´s last blog ..Zen and the Art of Shooting: Welcome to the dollhouse. =-.
Apologies for the snark, boys. I can’t retract it, but I’ll put a leash on it (I’ve been watching a lot of “Scrubs” reruns lately and my inner Dr. Cox felt like voicing up). I am interested in continuing this conversation.
.-= Shoothouse Barbie´s last blog ..Zen and the Art of Shooting: Welcome to the dollhouse. =-.
[...] Kevin has a good post/thread up: it’s a pretty interesting book review up, regarding science literacy in America. I leaped right into the discussion without looking (Me? I know, totally shocking maneuver ) …but apparently, as Kevin clarified, it’s attitudes like mine regarding science that is adding to the problem. Hop over and have a looksy. secretlivesofscientists @ 12:26 am [filed under Conversations with Scientists Leave a Comment » [...]
“So, even if I’m wrong about scientific literacy rate, Kirshenbaum and Mooney can eat my butt, ’cause baby, I’m not counter-productive by any scientific standards. Only by theirs…and maybe yours. Feel free to email my boss and tell him that his political party frowns on my perspective and it’s counter-productive to scientific literacy. R. M. Crooks, he’s in the chemistry department at the University of Texas. You can look him up.”
See, the problem isn’t that we can lok him up. The problem is that people who support Student Bills of Rights — that would force you to accept creationist answers on a test, for example — or that oppose research based on fear mongering, or who don’t understand why they should be spending state money on science when those scientist are all atheist poopy heads who don’t love real Americans and hate Jesus can look him up just fine. And if you don;t think thats a threat worth countering …
“But that doesn’t mean I have to turn my nose up or go to fisticuffs because an alternative belief exists. If Mooney and Kirshenbaum, or anyone else feel that my stance, my attitude on science and nature, and non-interest in demonizing that which isn’t scientific makes me a counter-productive and bad science, then they’re obvious bullies – some politicians pitbulls – and they can f*** right off. If that turns out to be their oppinion, they will have proved to me that they’re mainly interested in scaring up not just non-scientists, but practicing scientists into joining their lobbying efforts.”
But, as I have mentioned, some religious beliefs do adversely effect science – -creationism, anti-vaccination, etc — and they must be countered. I don;t think it a stretch to say that scientists have a moral and practical obligation to help in that countering, to say nothing of helping people and politicians understand just what the heck we are spending all that money on you for.
.-= Kevin´s last blog ..Alberto Fielder? =-.
Listen, it’s not that I don’t think that science is under attack, but I don’t think science is threatened by these attacks, by people wanting to push creationism into classrooms or the horrid wackos who won’t vaccinate their children (which I consider child abuse because it does pose a direct threat to the safety of the child). They are going to continue to make with their god talk, and they are going to be as obnoxious as possible because they feel that science is a threat and an insult to them, but they are not the reason for the low scientific literacy numbers, in my opinion.
I will fight tooth and nail in defense of my scientific beliefs, and to convince others that factual and verifiable evidence supports my scientific views, but I will not advocate for someone else, or a political party, to demonize the beliefs of those whose opinions oppose mine.
Ok, so you think I’m paid to tell the god-will-heal-my-children bunch that it’s not safe to forgo vaccinations? Sorry, charlie. That’s where you’re wrong. It’s the scientist’s job to do the experiments to get the data to show the effectiveness of vaccinations. You pay us to determine what vaccinations do, not to force our opinions onto people who aren’t arguing in the realm of science. If they’re on our playing field, we’ll play. If they meet us with god talk, there’s nothing more we can do besides continue to put out results that support science. I’m paid to determine the energy-saving properties of new materials for fuel cells. We put it out there, we make it our life to present results that are as unambiguous as possible, so that you can apply scientific credence to your view of reality.
.-= Shoothouse Barbie´s last blog ..If you’re not part of the solution… =-.
The better the science, the stronger the conclusions, the more prolific the results. We can lead the horse the water, but we can’t pull its head out of its own ass if it likes the view… Now, I do provide head-from-ass removal services, but there’s a small fee, and it’s not really part of my day job, just something I do on the side, and , oh, yeah, like with psychotherapy, it does no good unless a person has the desire to be straightened out. Plenty of scientists have this problem as well, when it comes ot accepting theories that contradict their pet theories. The problem is not that they have their heads up their asses, it’s that they like the view. Nespas? Those people are still going to choose their wacky beliefs no matter what. I think you should trust that science is a bigger threat to their belief system, than their belief system a threat to science. The bigger problem with things like the Student Bill of Rights being used to force teachers into accepting creationist answers on a science test is not the harm it does to science, but the fact that such a bill is very bad for education in principle. Not just science, but all areas of education. It’s not fair to other students, for one, and it’s pure poppycock for a student to say to the teacher, “you have to accept my answer because my religion says it is the right answer.” My longstanding opinion on how to solve the creationish vs evolution in the science classroom is such: if a person is inclined towards not accepting any classroom instruction on the theory of evolution, then the teachers need only say this: “there are flaws and human errors in every scientific practice, even the scientific theory of evolution, because science is not reality, but a model of reality that is constructed by man. Since this is a science class, we can discuss the scientific shortcomings iof the theory in terms of the scientific method.” This doesn’t compromise science, or the teaching of evolution; students will need to understand the theory in order to understand some of the holes, however teaching the theory doesn’t force them to accept it. It just asks them to be able to identify and explain what it is. That is really the bottom line.
.-= Shoothouse Barbie´s last blog ..If you’re not part of the solution… =-.
Tell me, T, how do scientific revolutions occur?
For the most part, gradually. There have been a few big ticket items that can be viewed as sudden “paradigm shifts,” allowing that Kuhn’s definition of “paradigm” was a bit of a moving target. Take biology and genetics (and even evolution), for example. No real “paradigm shifts” there, just a long, steady, progressive march. On evolution, Darwin gets all the credit, but Alfred Wallace had independently come up with pretty much the same thing — and that was just concerning the mechanism of evolution; biologists posited that evolution was happening well before then.
Even relativity and quantum mechanics, two better cases for “revolutionary” science, build on Newtonian physics more than they throw them out. (And for garden variety stuff, we still use Newtonian physics to this day.)
So in that regard, Kuhn’s rather like an early Malcolm Gladwell — he tells stories that seem compelling on the surface, but don’t always hold up to detailed scrutiny.
As for what scientific literacy actually is, start here.
When you hear someone say “evolution is just a theory,” that’s a pretty good indicator of scientific illiteracy. That someone doesn’t even know what a theory is.
I will fight tooth and nail in defense of my scientific beliefs, and to convince others that factual and verifiable evidence supports my scientific views, but I will not advocate for someone else, or a political party, to demonize the beliefs of those whose opinions oppose mine.
See, that’s a big part of the problem, right there. You’re defining science as “just an opinion,” no different or better than any other. That’s setting up for a loss right out of the gate. An opinion is just an opinion. In science, as you well know, you have to do better than that. You can’t just assert something, you have to be able to demonstrate that your assertion is true, or at least has a good chance of being true. You of all people are among what I would expect to be the last people to matter-of-factly state “you’re wrong.” Well, that’s what scientists need to do more of, in my opinion. They need to do less tippy-toeing around people’s sensitivities, and more asserting with confidence what the evidence suggests. Yes, always have the humility to acknowledge that you could be wrong, but that acknowledgment has to come with an accompanying challenge: “If you think I’m wrong, prove it.”
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..Alberto Fielder? =-.
I do assert and demonstrate that my assertion is true. I tell people they’re wrong all the time, and likewise, have also been told that I’m wrong. There’s not fear or tip-toeing around sensitivities. I’m not worried about destroying someone’s fragile belief with my scientifically backed up conclusions. We do demand that others prove it when we’re wrong. We’re not questioning our science. We’re not overly humble about the power of vaccinations, or evolution. The problem does not lie with scientists being wussy and not saying “step up.” Scientists do engage in conversations with the public, and are concerned with education and literacy, as per the definition you threw up there. But what you want is for scientists to call for a politically sponsored uprising and removal of opposing views, and that will never happen, I hope. This tells me you really don’t understand science. I find it prudent to point out that the NAS given definition of “scientific literacy” doesn’t call for this either. It would be very bad to do such a thing.
Do you think that touting that NAS line strengthens your argument? Have you really thought hard about what your saying? Scientists, it seems, understand that it is a very bad idea to remove or negate the opposing view. You cannot remove that context, you must say it is better because, and allow the oposing side to continue in it’s attempt to dethrone. Historically, it has always been very bad when the opposition to a popular viewpoint is ostracized. All it does is generate a bunch of false believers, similar to religious indoctrinations: people who don’t know why it’s wrong to oppose a view, they just know that it is. Science is essentially becoming the new religion, and guess what – you’re basically becoming the equivalent of a religious fanatic. It used to be “you’re not allowed to do this because if you do, you’ll go to hell.” It’s not Jesus (a pre-emptive “bob, f*** off goes here) going around turning water into wine, it’s scientists going around doing things that seem like miracles – if you’re a goddamn idiot. It’s made a lot of people succeptible to believing that science is the new goose which lays the golden egg. It’s the new ruler of our land. But you know very little about the practice of science itself, because you don’t practice science, and yet you know without a doubt that you hate and must destroy anything which opposes or purports to oppose science. Amazingly, it’s the people like you, who are going around vehemenantly attacking everything that opposes your adopted definition, and are calling for the heretics to be burned at the stakes. Meanwhile, scientists continue to produce stand up evidence to counter the oppostion, and we have proved that, while evolution and creationism are both theories, they are not equally useful or applicable, and evolution is more useful and vastly supported. The fact that opposition exists is not due to a weakness of science, nor is it a failure. I feel badly for you if you can’t make that distinction or understand the importance of allowing people the freedom to oppose existing widely accepted theories.
If you don’t see how dangerous your position is, man, you really frighten me.
.-= Shoothouse Barbie´s last blog ..If you’re not part of the solution… =-.
If the need to erase the opposing viewpoint from existence in order to prove that you’re correct or your way of looking at the world is superior, than you really need to take a step back and look at what you’re really asking for. To understand that is the difference between being a scientists and a diletant. There’s another term we have for those who seek the removal of views that oppose theirs, purportedly for the good of society: facist.
.-= Shoothouse Barbie´s last blog ..If you’re not part of the solution… =-.
Barbie
Thanks. I think I need to go back to Askimet, but I don’t want to end up shutting you out either.
I don’t think anyone’s asking anyone to “erase the opposing viewpoint.” What we’re asking for, instead, is to return scientific discourse to being a meritocracy, instead of a “squeaky wheel” scenario. You want to teach your kids that evolution is a lie to promote godless communism, fine, but that has no place in the science classroom; at the same time, it has no place in the political discourse when the subject matter at hand is scientific in nature (e.g., environmental concerns).
When discussing matters scientific, being able to make a lot of noise simply isn’t enough, and it doesn’t mean you’ve earned respect or that you should be taken seriously in the public discourse. Yet that’s precisely how things seem to work today.
I absolutely encourage people with opposing views to express them and to fight for them, but I also expect them to defend them. And if they can’t defend them, then they shouldn’t piss and moan and whine when nobody takes them seriously.
You may want to retreat further into your ivory tower, but I think that’s precisely the wrong way to go. (You elitist bitch.
)
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..zOMG!!1!! The Brewers Won a Series =-.
I don’t know, Kevin, I haven’t seen much spam lately.
And Barbie, you of all people should know that creationism is many things, but a “theory” is NOT one of them.
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..zOMG!!1!! The Brewers Won a Series =-.
Tom, thanks for the semantics check. Creationism *is* a theory; but it is NOT a scientific theory. I’ll cry that until cows come home, I have no problem saying that publicly, or in a political setting, and neither do any other scientists. We do this – say that creationism is not a scientific theory all the damn time! What do you want, for petes sake? I know it’s not “to fight harder against creationism, because we already do fight. Against. Creationism. So it most certainly is something you’re unwilling to say…
“I don’t think anyone’s asking anyone to “erase the opposing viewpoint.” What we’re asking for, instead, is to return scientific discourse to being a meritocracy, instead of a “squeaky wheel” scenario.”
Don’t you see that you *are* asking for scientists speak against religion. You still don’t understand that science is and has remained a meritocracy. Creationism doesn’t disprove evolution. Science does in fact shut down creationist accou nt of how the world came to be. This point cannot be made stronger. It’s out there, man, we’ve made it loud, out there and put in everyone’s face. Scientists will continue to attack bogus “theories” like creationism, we will continue to defend and promote what we believe to be the most supported, relevent, and usefull theories, like evolution, but we will not attack religion itself. That’s not in the job description.
“I absolutely encourage people with opposing views to express them and to fight for them, but I also expect them to defend them. ”
If you don’t think the scientific community does this when faced with opposition, you’re blind. But I don’t think you’re unaware, T. I don’t think you’re blind to this. I think you boys have bought into some really bad juju here. Scientists do argue against creationism to the extent that you have been saying they should, so I know that’s not really what you’re calling for. What you’re really asking is for scientists to outright publically condemn religion.
If you don’t like being called a religion-bashing fascist diletant, don’t act like one.
- Elitist bitch
.-= Shoothouse Barbie´s last blog ..If you’re not part of the solution… =-.
Creationism *is* a theory; but it is NOT a scientific theory.
But don’t you understand? Most people don’t understand that distinction. You seem to think it’s perfectly okay for scientist to worry JUST about what other scientists think, and to remain indifferent about what the general public thinks. I think that’s a recipe for disaster.
Don’t you see that you *are* asking for scientists speak against religion.
Yes I do, but only in those cases where religion places itself in direct opposition to science on public policy matters. Outside of that, I’m totally cool with Gould’s “separate spheres.” (At least, I think that was Gould.)
Creationism doesn’t disprove evolution.
That’s not what creationism’s proponents claim. Have you not BEEN to sites like AnswersInGenesis.org? The cdesign proponentsists freely admit that they’re trying to use a wedge — this is just a stepping stone to get [their] religion back into the classroom, and anything that they feel threatens it out. Back when I used to be a Christian, I always felt that creationism and evolution could peacefully coexist, but I was decidedly in the minority on that point.
(For the record, Creationism doesn’t disprove anything at all, nor does it prove anything at all, because it’s not science.)
But at no point have I advocated for attacking religion just for the sake of attacking religion, nor has anyone else here, so far as I can tell. I’m frankly wondering just how that idea even entered the debate.
If you don’t think the scientific community does this when faced with opposition, you’re blind.
What I think is that by and large, the scientific community only does this when attacked on what they feel is their own turf; when it gets into the wider public policy debate, they largely try to stay “above the fray,” probably for [legitimate] fear of all the demagoguery that will ensue. Scientists all too often take the “just leave us alone and let us do our thing” approach (hence my “ivory tower” remark), and when they do enter the fray, it’s seemingly always from a defensive posture. But the public policy debate is hugely important, and directly relevant to what scientists are doing. Their role should be a more active one, and in my opinion, that begins with pushing for better scientific literacy in general.
And for purposes of this discussion, “scientific literacy” simply means understanding what science is, as well as what it is not, and being able to read and understand news reports on scientific matters. I certainly don’t expect everyone to be able to read a formal study, but I do expect them to be able to read and understand descriptions of that study. As of right now, something like 70% of Americans can’t even do that. You might not think that’s a problem, but I simply can’t fathom how you’d think that.
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..zOMG!!1!! The Brewers Won a Series =-.
Holy crap, what’s going on here?
Got to hit a couple general points with the book itself (which I admit I’m not familiar with) before jumping in to the discussion. If I’m repeating anything I apologize in advance.
The plan is to remove anti-science politicians from office? I think I smell a rat. So what do we do with a guy like Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn who’s dead wrong on his refusal to fund stem cell research but spot on with his criticism of the idea of anthropogenic global warming (and the catastrophe it will cause)? Seems to me it will depend on the scientist you ask and I know enough of them to know that can of worms ought not be opened.
I’m forced to agree with Barbie’s assertion that the general scientific ignorance of the general public isn’t something we ought to be more actively engaged in. For starters I don’t think it’s necessary. I can’t fathom how anyone in the 21st century doesn’t believe the theory of evolution as the most plausible explanation for the origins of life on earth but there are still people that do. The scientific community has put our reasoning out there and the data to back it up while the Creationists sit behind their book. You know what? That’s why we’re winning. Look at how far acceptance of evolution has come. 83 years ago John Scopes almost went to jail for having taught it in a public school and in less than a century it’s become the standard despite the fact it directly conflicts with a whole lot of people’s deeply-held religious beliefs. We’re winning. The trouble is all those deeply-held religious beliefs. Personally I think they’re stupid as can be but you’re going to have a might hard time forcing people to give them up. Push too hard too fast and there’s bound to be a backlash (Hello, intelligent design!) from those who aren’t yet ready.
Here’s my example for why you can’t force people who aren’t ready to accept something. My roommate my freshman year was a private school kid (anyone who knows me knows where this is headed) who, despite being a double major in engineering and physics, was a Young Earth Creationist. We got along well enough but any time we’d get in to it on that subject things would get ugly. He actually believed the reason the universe was only a couple thousand years old but we could still see light from objects in the sky that are billions of light years away is because after Creation the speed of light was much much faster, has since slowed and is still slowing down today. Seriously. What can you do with that? He was an intelligent person who was totally rational when it came to any other subject but on that issue he wouldn’t have any of what the rest of his field was telling him. I took every approach imaginable and beat him about the head with facts, reason and logic for two full semesters. His shell didn’t crack. If we can’t persuade someone like that what’s going to happen when we’re dealing with people who have a high school science education or less?
It bothers the hell out of me but that’s the situation as it is right now and what we’ve got to deal with. Screaming at someone that something they’ve believed all their lives is wrong and the paradise they’ve been working toward isn’t real is something that probably won’t win us a lot of friends. Noble aim but the wrong method.
Judd:
I’m going to have to go ahead and sort of … disagree with you about Coburn. For starters, the evidence for AGW is far more solid than the evidence that stem cell research will ever lead to anything concrete (although I think the evidence for the latter is still pretty good, and I support it). But yes, any politician from any political party who consistently and intentionally obfuscates science and tries to pass off junk science as the real thing in order to advance a particular political agenda should be targeted.
On AGW more specifically, most of the stuff you’d need to do to combat it make sense to do anyway, for reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with CO2 emissions. (And it should be noted that the global warming “skeptics” and the evolution “skeptics” use tactics that are eerily similar, and eerily similar to the tactics of the “smoking doesn’t cause cancer” people who came before them — speaking of smelling rats.)
And I think you’re over-optimistic about how much we’re “winning” on evolution vs. creationism. The correct comparison isn’t against 83 years ago, but against 20-25 years ago. Best case is we’ve gained no ground during that time, and in all likelihood we’ve lost ground.
Now I know there will always be people that won’t believe the plain truth, no matter how solid the evidence. (Believe me, I know — I’ve been debating global warming for a long time, and evolution for an even longer time.) But it’s one thing to let them have their silly beliefs, and quite another to let them impose their silly beliefs on others. We dodged quite a bullet in Dover, PA — I don’t think for a moment that it couldn’t happen again.
But to a large degree, I think we may be talking past each other. Nobody’s talking about “forcing” people to believe X, or abandon belief in Y. What we are talking about is advocating for good science, ensuring that our students are getting a quality science education, working to improve the public understanding of how science works, and vigorously opposing anybody who pushes back against those goals. It’s their right to do so, of course, but it’s incumbent upon us to proverbially kick their asses in debate when they try. None of this passive shit.
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..On Weight and Weight Loss =-.
I also wouldn’t sweat it about that Students Bill of Rights thing. I’d never heard of the issue until just now and I think if anything it provides the non-believers among us with an opportunity for some quality free entertainment. Assuming the things on the list I saw are what’s typically in a Students Bill of Rights (right to meet with other students, right to identify your belief through signs and symbols, right to distribute religious literature, right to pray on campus, right to do projects with religious themes, etc. etc.) those of us on the outside are in for a great show. If I know Christians, and I do, they’ll be all in favor of this new list of student rights, that is until some Muslim student tries to exercise them. Can you imagine what that category six shitstorm is going to look like? Glorious!
That’s a pretty point you’re making there, Judd. It’s worth noting that the best route to teaching someone the error of their ways is to let it backfire in their face.
.-= Shoothouse Barbie´s last blog ..If you’re not part of the solution… =-.
T,
I would greatly enjoy being able to have a longer discussion with you on the subject of anthropogenic global warming, I just don’t think this is the most conducive place to do it. I’ve taken on many a Kool-Aid drinker in the past (and won every time) but it’s good to keep the claws sharp.
I’m going to keep my comments restricted to the subject of evolution since it’s the major area where there is no debate among scientists but there’s still a significant gap with some of the general public.
As to how things have progressed decade-by-decade since Scopes I’m forced to admit my ignorance. 20 years ago I was still in shortpants and so if you say the rate of our progress has substantially slowed since then I’ll take you at your word. I look at the increasing number of people claiming to not be members of any of the major organized religions as at least one sign science is being more accepted. I may be wrong in making that link and I fully and openly admit that.
I think you’re falling in to a trap though. You said “But it’s one thing to let them have their silly beliefs, and quite another to let them impose their silly beliefs on others.” To a good many on the other side we’re the ones trying to impose our silly beliefs on them. A month or so ago I read an extensive poll done by Pew on the general public’s attitude toward science and the attitude of scientists toward the general public. In their survey they found 36% of the general public believes science conflicts with their religious beliefs. 36% is a minority but it’s a healthy one who’ll be damn near impossible to engage in an effective and meaningful way. We can advocate good science to them and they won’t listen. We can try to teach their kids good science and they’ll piss and moan despite their own ignorance. Vigorously oppose them and they’ll just turn on Fox News and hear quoted that same Pew survey which showed 81% of scientists either are Democrats or lean to the Democrat Party (which personally shocked the shit out of me but did explain a lot).
I wholeheartedly support your proverbial asskicking idea. My question is “What’s the best way to go about it?” Being passive is stupid but I doubt browbeating will be effective either. Do we just have to write off that 36% or do we try to engage them? To what end? Do we keep the proverbial powder dry to head off the next Dover? Should we merely focus on engaging people in a calm, rational and logical fashion when the opportunity arises? Is there any scientist who’s not doing that already?
I don’t believe there is an easy fix to the fact some people in America have a big problem with science. I do believe anyone who takes what science presents to them and then ignores it for the comfort of their own ignorance is doing a tremendous disservice if not outright damage to our nation. But those people have the right to be wrong.
In the interest of full disclosure and to quell the notion I’m soft or willing to compromise, I’m a laissez-faire libertarian capitalist who voted for John McCain (after which I needed a very long shower) and I lean much more strongly toward the Republican Party than the Democrats. If Mike Huckabee gets the Republican presidential nomination in 2012 I’ll sign up to be an Obama campaign volunteer the next morning and happily give up my sliver of free time to do what I can to keep Huckabee out. I still wouldn’t actually vote for the Dear Leader as that would require me to tar and feather myself but he would definitely be the more palatable choice simply because of the Huckster’s views on evolution.
Barbie:
That idea is superficially attractive, but I’m not sure I’m willing to accept the collateral damage. Especially when one considers that most of what’s in that BoR is already perfectly acceptable. The problem (that religious folks have) has never been that individual students aren’t allowed to pray in school — they are, and always have been — but that the teachers (or administrators, or coaches) aren’t allowed to lead the students in prayer. Since that went down, everything the Christian conservatives have tried has been a back door attempt to get that sort of formalized religion back into the schools (cf., the Texas cases where they let the students vote on who gets to lead the pre-football-game prayer). It’s not just that they want to be able to practice their religion; it’s that they want the schools to officially legitimize their religion. It’s worth noting here that the overwhelming majority of church-state school cases brought before the court involve religious families doing the suing. In many cases, the plaintiffs are themselves Christians, just of a different sort than the kind of Christianity the school’s pushing.
Judd:
On AGW, declaring yourself the winner and actually winning are two very different things. I invite you to browse our climate change archives, though. When I accuse the “skeptics” of AGW of using the same kinds of disingenuous tactics used by evolution deniers, I’m talking about examples like this, this, and this. I’m sure there will be another thread here in the not-too-distant future, so keep your eye out, and we can go toe-to-toe then.
Since you declined to threadjack on global warming, I’ll decline to threadjack on the topic of just how terrible an idea “laissez-faire libertarian capital[ism]” is.
On the topic at hand, a couple of points. First:
I look at the increasing number of people claiming to not be members of any of the major organized religions as at least one sign science is being more accepted. I may be wrong in making that link and I fully and openly admit that.
I’m afraid you’re probably wrong about that. They’re not members of organized religions, but most of them are still religious in various ways, and many of them are even Christians who are uncomfortable with the label. And, of course, there’s all the new-agey crap that always seems to be popular. Moving on:
You said “But it’s one thing to let them have their silly beliefs, and quite another to let them impose their silly beliefs on others.” To a good many on the other side we’re the ones trying to impose our silly beliefs on them.
Well, “silly” is the operative word here. Views should be taught to the extent that they are supported and supportable by the available evidence. This is especially true in science classes. This is why I said, way upthread, that science shouldn’t be a democracy, but a meritocracy. Opposing views will be accepted and incorporated to the extent that they have demonstrable merit. Before then, so sorry.
In their survey they found 36% of the general public believes science conflicts with their religious beliefs. 36% is a minority but it’s a healthy one who’ll be damn near impossible to engage in an effective and meaningful way.
You’re right, they’re a large minority, but they’re still a minority. They shouldn’t be able to shove their preferences onto the majority, unless they can empirically demonstrate the merit of those preferences, which they cannot. The problem is, they’re a noisy minority, and being noisy gets a lot of things done in this country.
I think a big part of the problem here is that science simply needs better PR. It needs to be out there promoting itself even when it’s not under attack; it needs to be explicitly associating itself with the advances that people love and embrace, rather than simply assuming they “just know.” There will always be some you can’t reach, but there are some that you can, and you shouldn’t wait until the gloves are off to try to reach them.
Final side note: There’s no such thing as “the Democrat Party.” That’s a term of derision coined by somebody who’s obviously too fucking stupid to know the difference between an adjective and a noun.
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..On Weight and Weight Loss =-.
One of the biggest difficulties science will have with people is the way it is presented by those who are not scientists (and sometimes even those who are).
Evolution is a perfect example. Items which were presented as “factual, indisputable evidence” of evolution in classrooms (or in some cases publications such as National Geographic) have been proven to be false but retractions are never presented as publicly (peppered moths, piltdown man, brontosaurus, neanderthal, Archaeoraptor, coelacanth). It is similar to a newspaper presenting a story on the front page and then a week later after finding out it was wrong, publishing a retraction on page 8 in a one inch by one inch column.
It takes a great deal of “faith” to accept the idea of species evolving from one form to another as being factual. As I have stated in the past, I do not have that much faith.
That being said, I am constantly impressed and amazed at what science can teach us and the discoveries that are being made through scientific research. However, whenever scientists (or their publicists) come out and say “this is absolutely the way it is and we will mock and ridicule anyone who disagrees” in regards to issues that starts to look an awful lot like a religious fervor.
Big U:
I seriously doubt any respected/respectable scientific journal would present anything as “indisputable” affirmative evidence of anything at all. And the number of “false” pieces of evidence has been absolutely dwarfed by the amount of evidence that still stands. But you won’t accept that evidence, because you don’t wish to.
However, whenever scientists (or their publicists) come out and say “this is absolutely the way it is and we will mock and ridicule anyone who disagrees” in regards to issues that starts to look an awful lot like a religious fervor.
Nobody’s suggesting they do this. What I suggest instead is something along the lines of “there’s far more evidence for this explanation than for any other explanation we currently have.” But they should absolutely invite and engage informed dissent. It’s the uninformed dissent that’s a problem. “A heliocentric solar system contradicts my religious beliefs, therefore I reject it.” That’s not informed dissent, and that’s the kind of dissent we usually get.
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..On Weight and Weight Loss =-.
tgirsch > think about it in laymans terms and consider the lazyness of much of the public. When National Geographic (I am assuming this is classified as a respectable magazine) presents a discovery such as archaeoraptor and the entire tone of the article is that it is proof of a bird/dinosaur link, that is something I would classify as the scientific community presenting as proof and evidence.
When biology textbooks cite, for years, that peppered moths in England are an incredibly clear and highly valued piece of EVIDENCE regarding evolution, to me it is being taught as a fact.
I realize no one is suggesting that scientists or supporters of specific positions “should” mock and ridicule dissenters. I am stating that it DOES happen (see global warming as an example). And that puts it into the camp of religious fervor.
You say uninformed dissent is the problem, but by the same token, uninformed presentation is just as bad. For an example, Al Gore’s film has been introduced into curriculum in many countries as 100% factual when in fact in some instances it contained very misleading and in some cases completely false, information. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth
It matters not the credentials of a scientist if he comes out against any idea or thought proposed by climate change proponents. He will be branded a kook, mocked, ridiculed, etc.
Increased hurricane activity was cited as evidence of what would be cause by global warming but decreased activity in the past years is said, by global warming proponents, to be a blip that doesn’t count. So, toss the evidence that does not fit in with the belief system. That, to me, is a pattern that fits very well with the most criticized aspects of religious fervor.
Increased hurricane activity was cited as evidence of what would be cause by global warming but decreased activity in the past years is said, by global warming proponents, to be a blip that doesn’t count. So, toss the evidence that does not fit in with the belief system. That, to me, is a pattern that fits very well with the most criticized aspects of religious fervor.
Ugh. That is evidence; it’s anecdote. And, the plural of anecdote is not data.
You know what your example is?
On the basis of Albert Pujols’s career of over 5,000 plate appearances, and a fair does of regression analysis, player modeling, linear weights, and component analysis, I assert that Albert Pujols is likely one of the best right-handed hitters the game of baseball has ever seen, and he will continue to proceed as such likely threatening a number of hallowed offensive career-based records and achieving numerous rare milestones . Then, Albert Pujols goes 1 for his next 14.
digg > a more apt comparison would be if Pujols average and power dropped for the remainder of this season and all of next season.
Hurricane activity started increasing in 1995
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/lib/lib1/nhclib/mwreviews/2004.pdf
Thus, since Pujols started playing ball in 2001, a comparable period to be cited would be 1.5 seasons. And realistically, if his production dropped for the next 1.5 seasons to below what it had been in any season since 2001, you can guarantee that during the offseason following 2010 people would be saying it is evidence of a decline in his ability. Anyone denying that his talent could possibly be declining would be branded a Pujols-lover who refuses to see the truth.
Big U:
There’s an important difference between presenting “evidence” and presenting “indisputable evidence.” Nice try at moving the goal posts, however.
Also, you could have picked a better example of “flawed” pieces of evolution than the peppered moth. Just because some creationists have whined about it doesn’t mean that they’re no longer legitimate evidence. They did legitimately find technical errors in the initial study, but when those errors were corrected and the studies re-run, the initial results were verified. Not that that stopped the creationists from whining and hiding between the imaginary “micro/macro” divide, of course.
It matters not the credentials of a scientist if he comes out against any idea or thought proposed by climate change proponents.
Her credentials don’t matter if she comes out for climate change, either. What matters is the weight of her arguments, and the extent to which the evidence supports them. The only people who are “vilified” are the ones who argue in bad faith (see my links above), and those people are deserving of the treatment they receive.
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..On Weight and Weight Loss =-.
Tgirsch > better take a look at your peppered moth info. Research is now indicating that there is a significant population shift back to the lighter colored moth and that the darker variety may disappear completely. Evolution doesn’t present in a fashion that says x will change to y and then back to x again. At least not that I have ever seen.
Regarding global warming, you may want to look at the following comments:
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/TheExperts.htm A number of these people have been vilified simply because they are not jumping on the bandwagon and their research has been tossed without giving it any serious consideration.
Big U:
Got a cite on the moth info?
Regarding the AGW link, a cherry-picked list of largely discredited experts whine that their insufficient data has been rejected, and I’m supposed to be impressed? It doesn’t help that they lead off with Lindzen, who’s been tilting at the anti-AGW windmill for decades now, without bringing much if anything new to the table. And he’s one of the more credible critics. I don’t doubt that some of them received unfair treatment, but the way to defeat that isn’t to piss and moan about it. The way to defeat it is to prove your opposition wrong, something the critics of AGW have thus far failed utterly to do.
I assure you I’m a much stronger, better informed AGW skeptic than either IBD or that Serr8d person. But even if there is another thread on the subject, as I said earlier, a blog’s comment thread is not the best medium in which to debate the issue. I’ve found it’s too difficult to debate what end up being fairly long and detailed points and counterpoints. It also robs me of seeing it when the other person’s mouth drops slightly and they get that look of “Oh, shit, he’s right.” And I love that look.
Now back to the whole religion deal.
To me people giving up a mainline organized religion (say, Catholicism) for non-denominational Christianity or some New Age crap is at least a small step in the right direction. It’s nowhere near as large as it could be but movement in the right direction is, in my opinion, still a net positive. Even if we never win the heart and mind of someone who gives us regularly attending a Lutheran church in favor of staying home to watch football on Sunday we’ve got a lot better chance with the next generation.
Point in case: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mcOIyf9TOQ
It’s an oldie but a goodie. I still laugh my ass off at the 40 second mark of that video.
But I digress.
“Silly” was the operative word in that line I had and you’re dead on right about science not being up for a vote; an overwhelming majority of the evidence points to evolution as the most logical explanation for the origin of life and so that is without question what ought to be taught in science classes. The trouble is that aforementioned 36%. You know as well as I do that it’s most always a loud, vocal and passionate minority that shapes things and when they’re energized they can be difficult to combat. When they push for the inclusion of things like intelligent design in to the science curriculum they ought to be loudly, forcefully opposed by the entire united scientific community (though it would probably come in the form of the actions of individuals as opposed to an organized movement). We also ought to try to respectfully engage people so we can explain why we believe what we believe. Even if we can’t convince the “true believers” on the other side of the folly of their hocus pocus we might be able to win of the less passionate & more reasonable center.
In a way I suppose part of the problem is “science” is kind of like “the economy”. Unlike a religion or a political party, science is not some singular entity that we must be careful not to anger (South Park reference, whooooo!); it’s a community of independent individuals in wildly different fields of study and which, also unlike religions and parties, doesn’t claim to know everything and admits its been wrong in the past. Given that the science community is a much looser assortment it will be damn near impossible for us to have “better PR”. The trees had the Lorax but who among us is qualified to go on CNN or MSDNC and speak for science? The difficulty associated with the answer to that question is why I don’t know if it’s possible for any type of an organized pushback against unscientific America.
That and it’s really really hard to have a reasonable debate with unreasonable people. Honestly if you’ve looked at all the evidence for evolution and it still doesn’t work for you I don’t know what I can do, short of a tack hammer, to make it any clearer.
On your final point I’m aware of the origins of the term “Democrat Party”. I come from a long, long line of elected Democrats at the local and state level. My last name used to be something of a brand where I came from. So I learned how to stick the proverbial thumb in the eye a long time ago; anymore it’s almost become force of habit to say Democrat Party.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/5577724/Moth-turns-from-black-to-white-as-Britains-polluted-skies-change-colour.html
http://www3.telus.net/csabc/PepperedMoth.html
There were several items in Al Gore’s “documentary” that were proven to be false and yet it has still been placed in several school systems as being factual. If proving something wrong was truly effective then the film would be pulled. But as it has gained religious status, anyone going against it is ridiculed.
BU
No,.actually, that article is not correct:
Big U:
The errors in An Inconvenient Truth are mostly minor and generally don’t undermine the film’s conclusions. As the people at that link point out, the criticisms of the movie manage to be more guilty of the very types of sloppiness and dishonesty they allege than the movie itself.
This is rather like the faux-debate over the hockey stick. There were legitimate errors in the original research, this much is true; but when those errors were corrected, the results were essentially identical. So you still wind up with a hockey stick. But people point to those original, since-corrected errors as if they’re some sort of “Aha!” moment.
Of course, churches still teach that the Bible is “truth,” despite the fact that it classifies rabbits as ruminants and claims that pi is exactly equal to three. I don’t hear you complaining about that.
Judd:
But even if there is another thread on the subject, as I said earlier, a blog’s comment thread is not the best medium in which to debate the issue. I’ve found it’s too difficult to debate what end up being fairly long and detailed points and counterpoints.
I disagree wholeheartedly. A blog thread is an ideal forum, because you can take your time formulating your thoughts, express them without being interrupted, and can provide references for your assertions. When subjects are debated in person, interruptions abound, and it becomes more a function of who’s the better verbal debater than of who’s actually right about the issues in question.
But as I said before, it doesn’t much matter, because the things we’d need to do to combat combat man-made global warming would make sense to do anyway, even if global warming weren’t a legitimate threat.
And I don’t have much against using disparaging names to describe a political organization you don’t like. I just tend to expect them to be clever, and to exceed a third-grade reading level (although, if you get too far beyond the third-grade level, you eliminate a whole lot of GOP voters…)
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..On Weight and Weight Loss =-.
T,
Then we have a difference of opinion on debate formats and I guess we’ll have to leave it at that.
WARNING: Hijack inbound
I openly admit some of the basic solutions proposed by the policymakers who fear AGW are things that do have some merit. I would love to be able to tell Saudi Arabia and Venezuela to take their oil and go fuck themselves. I just think for those alternatives to be seriously considered they must be able to compete in a free and open market. I’m all for research in to making solar energy more cost effective but I vehemently oppose things like giving tax breaks to people who install solar panels or trade in less fuel efficient vehicles for ones that get better gas mileage. At its core that involves forcefully taking wealth from a free citizen and giving it to someone to whom it does not belong. It may be a noble aim but it’s well beyond the purview of the federal government. If you believe the ends justify the means, then, well, I guess that’s you.
If disparaging names are cool then great. “Republican” is such an unrevealing term after all. It’s been used by too many disparate people to mean anything concrete any more. It’s a fancy label that tells us nothing. I prefer John Stuart Mill’s branding of the conservative bunch as “The Stupid Party.” That’s right up-front and lets you know exactly what you’re getting; I’ll try to use just that from now on. Lord knows it fits. In a similar vein I’ll stick to calling the Democrats “The Evil Party.” I could try to break out some brilliant rhetorical flourish but there’s something to be said for keeping it simple and to-the-point.
Judd:
I wouldn’t mind your free-market-only approaches if the free market were any good at accounting for externalities. Unfortunately, it really sucks at that. Like analogies? The free market is to pricing externalities as the Washington Nationals are to baseball.
What I _would_ like to see is for the government to actually pay for those tax incentives they give for clean energy by taxing dirty energy. Solve the problem coming and going. And since the purchase of energy is commerce (usually interstate, quite often international), regulating it and taxing it are completely within the federal government’s purview.
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..On Weight and Weight Loss =-.
You’ll have to explain your baseball analogy. I swore of it when they all got on roids. Or something similar using football (either professional or college) would work as well.
Free Market:Pricing Externalities = Duke Blue Devils:College Football
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..On Weight and Weight Loss =-.
A new competent leader has the potential to lead them to previously unknown heights of success? Well were someone different in the White House you might have a point…….
Sorry. I couldn’t resist.
I know what you meant but I would like to hear your expound on your basis for that opinion.
Oil and coal prices do not currently reflect the costs associated with the pollution they produce. Oil prices do not reflect the cost of all of our foreign adventures that serve to secure the oil supply chain. Oil prices do not reflect the fact that the resource is finite (it’s plentiful and easy to get at NOT, but won’t always be that way).
Left to their own devices, market forces will incent people to buy as much of what’s cheap, while it’s cheap, with no regard for the long term costs and consequences of doing so.
Let’s use another example. What “market forces” would prevent overfishing? The market would say that as long as there’s demand, take as much as you can while you can. And as a certain species of fish becomes scarce, it commands a higher price, which only encourages MORE fishing of that species.
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..On Weight and Weight Loss =-.
Market oil prices don’t reflect the cost of our foreign adventures because Americans have collectively decided they should not. I’m going to make up some numbers here for the sake of making a point rather than trying to estimate the actual costs as making such an estimate is well above my pay grade.
Let’s say in a free and open market oil would cost $75 a barrel and Americans don’t want to pay that much and we’re also bound and determined not to put a structure the size of JFK International Airport in an area roughly the size of South Carolina (ahem!) to access any more of our own. We’re left with foreign sources then. Imagine some higher-up government executive at the level of, I don’t know, the vice-president, gets the president’s ear and says “The American people don’t like paying $75 a barrel for oil. If we can come up with some made-up bullshit excuse to invade Venezuela we can open up their reserves, the price will drop to $40 a barrel and the people will be happy.” The cost incurred by financing the military excursion is just a part of what the taxman was already taking and so people don’t notice they’re paying more to pay less later (unless of course there was a tax hike simultaneously with the launching of the war to cover said costs, but no president would ever do something that politically stupid) so in their minds they don’t even really pay for it. Whether or not things are on-balance cheaper to launch the invasion or pay the higher price is something that would have to be a case-by-case determination but regardless, it would be because of a collective choice on our part to affect the market price that we don’t pay what we actually should. It’s stupid but, hey, it’s our fault.
Your example of overfishing is a classic of what’s wrong with a lot of American liberal economic theory. You assume too many things are static and that everyone is remarkably short-sighted. If you’re in the salmon business and are making good money doing it you’ll want to make sure you’re able to continue making good money for as long as you can. If there are no more salmon you’re out of business. That’s a huge incentive for everyone engaged in the salmon business not to go out and catch every single one. That’s why paper mills plant several new trees for every one they cut down. That’s why despite the number we consume every day, chicken are in no danger of extinction.
I realize not every individual in every market engages in such good business practices, in particular the smaller entities more adaptable to change should a resource disappear; however, taking the possible consequences of an unregulated free-market to that extreme while ignoring any other possible outside influences is just unfair.
Kevin > “Evolution experts are quietly admitting that one of their most cherished examples of Darwin’s theory, the rise and fall of the peppered moth, is based on a series of scientific blunders.”
This actually reinforces my point about how things re: evolution are trumpeted when discovered and then very very quietly acknowledged to be false later. Long after 1999, biology textbooks still showed the peppered moth as an excellent example.
Judd:
On the overfishing example, I don’t know how else to respond other than to say your logic is wrong, and laughably so. We humans have overfished innumerable species of fish to endangered status and often to the brink of extinction. It’s only when governments (or, in less-frequent cases, sufficiently monolithic industry groups) have forcibly put moratoria in place to severely limit or prohibit the taking of certain species that those species have rebounded. And I’m not assuming that “everyone” is remarkably short-sighted; I’m assuming that some portion of the population is so short-sighted, and there’s a plethora of evidence to support that assumption. If three producers scale back production, and demand hasn’t decreased, then some other producer will step in to fill that demand gap, unless there’s some external force to stop them. If people want (say, for example) salmon, and are willing to pay good money for it, someone will find a way to provide it, long-term implications be damned. That’s what market forces dictate. The market doesn’t care about long-term consequences; it only cares about the here and now. That’s what markets are good at.
By the way, fish are not like chickens. High-quality chickens can be farm-raised just about anywhere. Most fish can’t be farm-raised, and most of those that can are widely recognized to be of inferior quality to wild. Your example of salmon is a particularly good example of a farm-raised fish leaving much to be desired in terms of quality, never mind the environmental impact.
Actually, the bottom line is you’d have been hard-pressed to pick a worse example than salmon as to how the market will take care of overfishing. In this case, overfishing of another species is likely to blame for the salmon decline.
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..On Weight and Weight Loss =-.
Big U:
I suggest you go back and re-read Kevin’s excerpt again, because what it says is that the quote YOU just cited is actually false. In other words, the article SAID that evolution experts were “quietly admitting” something, when in fact they were saying no such thing. Your continued harping on this blatantly false example is precisely the kind of cherry-picking we’re complaining about.
Ah, yes. I did misread Kevin’s article and the quote he used. But it also showed he (and possibly you) ignored the 2009 article in the telegraph completely. Why? It is something that is happening right now and is being observed. The people that study the moths are saying there is a huge swing back.
Now I would like to know where the quote Kevin used came from because I couldn’t find it in the articles I linked. However, it was nice of Kevin to pull out documentation from something 10 years ago. Using comments from 10 years ago to refute something that is being visibly observed today would seem to me to be a great example of cherry picking that you dislike so much.
I fail to see how the 2009 telegraph article helps you. A change in the environment favors certain traits over others, and those traits become more prevalent. A subsequent change tilts the favor again. This is a threat to evolutionary theory precisely how? Far from disproving evolutionary theory, this appears to be evolution at work. Once again, however, we’re back to creationists trying to create an artificial distinction between “micro” and “macro” evolution, because it’s been repeatedly observed on that they call the “micro” level, and they can’t dispute that.
Kevin’s cite comes from Wikipedia, where it’s made clear that the whole creationist furor over the peppered moth is much ado about nothing. Straw man argumentation at its finest.
Still, keep parroting those Discovery Institute talking points if it makes you feel better.
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..On Weight and Weight Loss =-.
Forgive me for jumping in late, but I am a professional scientist, like many on this board. I will disagree with Barbie’s point that scientists have no responsibility to educate society in scientific method or literacy – quite literally, they pay us to do just that. We’re not here just to find answers, we’re here to find answers and make them understandable to the people around us. Further, a disturbingly large number of our peers are incredibly lacking their own understanding of scientific method and it is beginning to reflect poorly on all of us…witness the increasing reports of scientific misconduct, plagiarism, et al within the community and on public television. Yes, the one most of us probably don’t watch much, but that most of the rest of the citizens do…
Unfortunately, until we as a group begin to convince everyone around us that science has purpose and importance, we’ll continue to see these arguments. Creationism not withstanding, how long until we have to teach the Flying Spaghetti Monster as an alternate possibility?
Part of the issue is societal; in a society where children can not fail, all experiments MUST be successes – the first in a number of events that cause children to dislike science. Experiments are about failure, we learn far more from those failures than the successes. Unfortunately, our society does not value this; we have gone to the Lake Wobegon theory where all children are above average.
Another part of the issue is our own community. We can not get our own acts together, and intelligently debate issues and ideas. Global Warming is a great example of this. On one side, the “humans and CO2 caused it all” crowd fails to recognize issues like the Milankovitch cycle and disregards the possibility that CO2 in the atmosphere increases as the heat increases. On the other side, we have equally prominent scientists describing how the “humans and CO2″ crowd are wrong, and that all of the warming effects are natural as a result of the Milankovitch cycle and the fact that the weather stations charting temperature, etc are now in urbanized areas with thermal loading while 30 years ago they were in sylvan, forested environs. There may be a grain of truth in either, or both (I am NOT a climatologist), but until we as a community can debate these issues intelligently, it is a bit much to expect that majority of the citizens to approach the issues scientifically.
Bottom Line: We need to act like scientists, amongst ourselves and publicly, and ensure that we are all using scientific methods as much as possible. Then we need to debate the issues, and find ways to make those same issues and conclusions clear to all.
tgirsch > first off I’ve seen you guys attack the validity of wickipedia articles so I am surprised any of you would use them as a proper source.
Second – My understanding of evolution is the development from one species into the next. If there exist black peppered moths and white peppered moths at the same time, then increases or decreases in population would simply mean that as factors change, the populations change. (i.e., in this case, as the white became easier to spot, they were targeted more by predators. As the black are now becoming easier to spot, they are targeted.) No species change. No evidence that black moths are birthing white moths or vice versa. Simply population shifts due to ease of predators to spot their prey. This is not evolution. Otherwise any time an animal goes extinct due to any factors, that would be classified as evolution at work. Which is simply dumb.
Big U:
Seems to me, two things are happening here:
1. You misunderstand what the theory of evolution actually says.
2. You misunderstand what the peppered moth illustrates about evolutionary biology.
That makes discussion of this topic, err, difficult.
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..How Superman Should Have Ended =-.
T,
We’re getting sidetracked on the issue we got sidetracked in to. I’m acutely aware of the actual workings of the fishing issues; it’s something very near and dear to my heart. As I pointed out, not everyone using a given resource is going to use it in a way that makes conservation a priority. If there was a $10 million market for stuffed tiger heads and only five tigers left in the wild, they’d likely be fucked. In a less extreme example as far as long term preservation goes big business can be an ally of conservationists (as you acknowledged). It’s all what market pressures will dictate and market pressures are merely a reflection of the value people place on a thing. My objection was to what seemed to me like a blanket assertion that the market will always lead to the complete and total destruction of source for a renewable resource so long as the demand persists. If that’s not what you intended to say then it’s my fault for misinterpreting your original statement on this issue.
I do still stand by everything I said regarding the pricing externalities related to oil. If you find yourself troubled by this particular deliberate perturbation of the free market that’s what Ron Paul is for (assuming of course you can get past all that 9/11 troofer crap, which I can’t.)
SJ,
To get back to the original issue, I think you raise some very valid points. I wonder if the misconduct doesn’t have something to do with the cutthroat nature of staying in business these days. I remember hearing Georgadubya did a number of NSF funding and if that’s true, competing for a smaller pot could lead people to do desperate things. I heard stories of grants that had been running for decades (plural) are getting the axe lately. Desperate men, regardless of their background, are desperate men.
I think a big part of the problem with us relating to the general public might be we’ve gotten to the point we know too much. I’m a chemist by trade and I know my particular sub-discipline pretty well but even in the general overarching field of chemistry there are things in other subfields I know enough about to be semi-conversant but I’m light years behind the people who actually study it. If as a scientist I have that much trouble keeping up with the intricacies of what other scientists are all doing, for someone with a high school diploma or a four-year liberal arts degree it’s got to be even harder to get your head around. We may be just too specialized and far beyond the superficial knowledge most people gain in the course of their education and that gap turns people off. If people don’t really want to know what it is we do then that’s kind of a deal-breaker.
I don’t hold us blameless though. My grandfather quit school in the seventh grade and when he asked me what I’m doing, it took some time trying to explain molecular probes for studying the mechanism of action of this particular plant enzyme. It was a balance of relating to things that were understandable without taking it to a level that made it seem like I was talking down to him (for which he would have probably kicked my ass).
I just don’t think this issue can be dealt with by means of a quick and easy solution, or at least not by a practical one. What we do has been exploited and politicized enough times by enough people (be they named “Limbaugh” or “Gore”) that I think we’ve got to worry about stopping that mess before we can attempt to reach out to the general public in a meaningful way. That’s my two cents, at least.
Judd:
I concur that there is neither an easy, nor quick solution to the main problem here; if there were, Congress would do it, right?
Domain specific knowledge is a part of the problem, yes, but I still go back to the question of “how do we make this domain specific knowledge/thing/stuff interesting enough to both intellectually excite and enthuse a younger generation?”. In the 1960′s we did it with a mammoth PR campaign and targeted Government funding to train and create a cadre of scientists with strong math and science skills. Getting to the moon was a useful goal, but the side effect was motivating an entire generation to gain technical skills. I suspect that we need to find a similarly motivating goal if we wish to entice a younger generation to gain these same skills. That is to say, we need to find an interesting enough goal that they become motivated to learn these things, instead of just having them preached to them.
I have another friend, a physics Ph.D., who travels to 4-6 schools per year and puts on a demonstration of practical physics for elementary students. He works with liquid nitrogen, does magnetic experiments with the difference in the rate of descent with steel and copper piping, brings a nice static field generator, etc and each year he gets three or four young students who are interested in becoming physicists as a result. We’ve hired 2 or 3 of them each year as student co-ops, and later as interns. Even among the students with limited science interests, they walk away talking about the demonstration for days, and remember it years later. As a community, we should be doing more of this, and less preaching about how important science is.
So, with that said, how do we reach out to explain our unique cylinders of knowledge, while convincing the next generation that they care about science? This generation is lost – they became lawyers (many of whom are unemployed), but we can influence the next generation. What is the next “Send a man to the moon” goal that we should initiate, aggressively pursue, and campaign for?
tgirsch > Based on using the peppered moth as an example of evolution, evolution must now mean that any change in how many of an animal are present represents evolution. There was/is no evidence of any kind of change in species. There was/is no evidence of any biological change in the moth. The population count for the black ones and the white ones vary based on man-made changes in environment. If that is an example of evolution, the the slaughter and virtual wiping out of Buffalo herds was evolution at work (man-made change causing significant change in a specific population) and the increase in herd sizes now are another type of evolution (man-made protection of the animal). Are you really going to say that?
Judd:
My objection was to what seemed to me like a blanket assertion that the market will always lead to the complete and total destruction of source for a renewable resource so long as the demand persists.
Not always. Just most of the time. I think history is pretty clearly on my side on that assertion.
Regarding externalities and the price of oil, you’ve only accounted for the military externalities, and then only partially. Environmental impact? Not so much. Public health impact? Nope. And even the military externalities aren’t as well accounted for — your explanations made sense when we were the only game in town, but with growing demand from India and China, our ability to impact prices is quite limited.
SJ:
It’s not quite as sexy as going to the moon, but it ought to be renewable energy. It should be the up-and-coming generation’s Manhattan Project.
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..How Superman Should Have Ended =-.
Big U:
That’s so wrong, it’s difficult to know where to begin addressing it. First of all, a dramatic shift in the prevalence of a certain coloration can NOT be fairly described as “no change,” the way you just did. In the case of the peppered moth, a change in the environment led to a certain coloration being advantageous, so moths with that coloration outlived and outmated the ones with other colorations; thus, you had a whole lot more of these. The other colorations didn’t completely die out (at least not yet), but they were far less successful. Then, subsequent changes in environment shifted the advantage back to the original coloration, so those moths started to gain a survival advantage again, and their populations rebounded, and they even started to outcompete the other coloration. This is precisely the mechanism by which evolution works; I’m not sure why you don’t understand that. It’s actually quite simple.
Now, take simple changes like that, and compound them over thousands or millions of years, and you have some dramatic shifts over time.
But again, you have a vested interest in NOT believing in evolution, so you’re going to seize on every little thing that you perceive as a flaw, and cling to that as if it brings the whole mess down. I sincerely doubt you could articulate what additional evidence could be presented to you that would convince you that the theory of evolution is true. No such evidence CAN exist, because you don’t want to believe it, or more accurately because you want to NOT believe it.
For what it’s worth, I can easily name something that would prove to me that the theory of evolution is false. Find a set of human remains that dates back to the cretaceous period, and it’s game over for evolutionary theory.
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..How Superman Should Have Ended =-.
You’ll have to explain your baseball analogy. I swore of it when they all got on roids. Or something similar using football (either professional or college) would work as well.
Because, presumably, you think the football players are any cleaner?…
/dumbfounded.
Big U,
You’re really caught up about biology textbooks talking about moths and schools showing an Al Gore movie. On the list of common inaccuracies taught by the educational system, that seems like picking nits. The moth debate seems like an open and shut case to just about everybody else in this thread. The innacuaracies attributed to the movie do not substantially undermine its overall message and validity. Meanwhile, you have history books still making ridiculous claims about Christropher Colombus discovering America and egregiously inaccurate hagiography out the ying yang. I guess we all pick our battles, but it seems this is a strange thing to get up in arms about. I know that I’m introducing something of a strawman here, as you’ve never compared the (perceived) innaccuracies of science textbooks with the patent falsehoods served up on the regular in just about any other subject, but my point is largely rhetorical anyway.
It’s been a while since I ended a post on a hip hop lyric, so here goes.
“I’m so great, the textbooks will portray me as a white man.” -Rise (Demigodz)
digglahhh,
What does it say about the baseball players if the football players are just as guilty but still smart enough not to get caught?
T,
There is a difference though between “most of the time” and “always”. I just wanted to make sure it was recognized.
I focused on perturbations of the market oil price due to military excursions because that’s the example you cited. To move on to the environmental/public health issues that go in to the “actual cost” of a barrel of oil, I think I see what you’re getting at. “What’s being charged for oil (or any other carbon-based fuel) doesn’t reflect the cost its consumption because it involves the emission of all these nasty greenhouse gases which will kill the polar bears and then a lot of us, too,” or something to that effect. The problem is not everyone agrees on that. I, who haven’t seen conclusive evidence to make me think AGW is a legitimate threat, will refuse to pay the inflated market price that you think is fair. The market’s actually very good at pricing externalities when there’s some consensus on what it should be.
As an example, let’s imagine there was no FDA. I’m not necessarily advocating this; it’s merely a thought experiment. I go down to the local A & P to pick up some pork sausage. If I find one brand that’s very cheap and another that’s slightly more expensive but is certified rat and rat poison free, I’d pay for the latter. I doubt I’d be alone. This example’s somewhat simplistic but it does shed at least a little light on the fact the free market can take externalities in to account very readily when the demand exists. I pay for independent food testing so I don’t get killed by breakfast. Granted this is an externality that would pretty much sell itself but that’s not to say that other harder sells are impossible. Convince enough people they ought to pay a higher price for carbon-based fuels and the market will respond. It’s when you want to use the coercive force of government to make that price go up to what you think it ought to be that I have a problem.
Judd:
Never mind global warming. Burning gasoline (and other fossil fuels, like heating oil) releases pollution into the environment (particulate pollution, carbon monoxide, etc.) and those emissions have public health and environmental impacts that are very real, very costly, and not reflected in the price of gas. Those costs are defrayed (and often very hidden), and by and large aren’t paid by the people producing or consuming the fuel. So the true cost of a gallon of gas isn’t reflected in the price of a gallon of gas, because none of these externalities are properly accounted for. And the market simply can’t account for them on its own. Ditto for the military intervention aspect: say what you will, but they’re part of the cost of a gallon of gas yet are not reflected in the price of a gallon of gas.
I go down to the local A & P to pick up some pork sausage. If I find one brand that’s very cheap and another that’s slightly more expensive but is certified rat and rat poison free, I’d pay for the latter.
But without an agency like the FDA, who’s certifying that the meat is rat and rat poison free? And what’s to stop the producer from simply putting that “certified” stamp on there with no backing whatsoever behind the certification?
Convince enough people they ought to pay a higher price for carbon-based fuels and the market will respond.
I seriously doubt it. As demand for carbon-based fuels falls (for whatever reason), the market’s response will be to drop the prices, and to keep dropping them, until the price is attractive enough to override people’s environmental concerns. The key thing to understand is that people will virtually always put their short-term needs (and even their short-term wants) ahead of their long-term needs, even if doing so is actually detrimental to their long-term best interests. That says nothing about whether or not people in an unregulated market will respond to how their actions impact the long-term interests of others (they usually don’t care). Any economic model or theory that fails to take those truisms into account is fatally flawed. In other words, the Achilles heel of libertarian-capitalism is that in order to work, it absolutely requires people to behave ultra-rationally in all (or at least most) situations, when we know for a fact that they won’t do so. (This seems like a good time to mention that Predictably Irrational needs to be on your bookshelf.)
It’s when you want to use the coercive force of government to make that price go up to what you think it ought to be that I have a problem.
I only want to do this where the market won’t do so on its own. Which, I’ll admit, turns out to be most of the time.
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..How Superman Should Have Ended =-.
T,
I conceded to you long ago that the price of a gallon of gas and the cost of a gallon of gas are not the same thing. But we collectively have made a decision for that to be the case. We chose to vote in to office people who would use the military to keep the oil supply lines open rather than allowing all those people God put on top of our oil to manipulate the market themselves. We’ve (indirectly) chosen to pay any higher medical costs resulting from pollution rather than jack up the price of gasoline or automobiles. It could be the costs in that case are so distant it’s hard for people to make the connection (seeing as how they can’t figure out why that brand new $12 box of Kleenex’s you get every day at the hospital is making their insurance premiums skyrocket) but even if that’s the reason, people still have the right to be wrong.
I don’t want to get too far in to the food example as I’d intended it as merely a thought experiment but if you’d like me to be more specific, I’d be fine with any qualified outside independent reviewer. I see no particular reason it would have to be someone from the government; I believe as Keynes did that it’s a mistake to assume a businessman is less moral than a bureaucrat. As to your question about what would stop someone from labeling something incorrectly, such an action constitutes fraud and ought to be punished swiftly and very very harshly.
Libertarian-capitalism is aided by rational people but then again so are most things. It would be ludicrous of me to try to claim there aren’t people who focus solely on the near-term without regard to what will happen tomorrow. The system I advocate is something which stacks the deck in favor of rational people but does not require it from everyone. In my line of thinking anyone who puts a plasma TV on their credit card as opposed to starting an IRA frankly gets what they deserve and ought not be rescued by you and I no matter how much they cry to their senator that Social Security just isn’t enough. Corporations can be guilty of this as well. That’s why I so fervently believe both General Motors and Chrysler should not exist today, Michigan’s electoral votes be damned. There are too damned many irrational people out there but what you’re asking is the punishment of the rational for their sake. I reject such a notion out of hand.
I would also point out the catalytic converter was developed by private industry and had been around for years before the government decided we all should have one.
On a personal note, T, you’re a fascinating opponent. I fully expected this discussion to devolve in to a shouting match before we got half as deep in to it as we have. You’ve earned my respect, for whatever that’s worth to you.
Starting with the end, it means a lot to me, actually. I like informed debate, and hate it when debates devolve.
WRT gas prices, pollution, etc., the point is still made: the market simply doesn’t account for those externalities. It does a lousy job of that. Given a “choice” to mask or defray those costs, we virtually always will. And because of that, we can’t rely on the market to do what’s right for the long term, because the long term costs, whether by choice or by necessity, aren’t part of the equation. That was my point. If you wait for the market to “fix” long-term or pervasive social problems, you’ll be waiting til the 12th of Never. That was my point. There HAS to be external intervention at some point, and in many cases, yes, it makes sense that it should be the government to do this. As a libertarian-leaning friend of mine even concedes, “I don’t want to buy ground beef in Libertopia.”
It would be ludicrous of me to try to claim there aren’t people who focus solely on the near-term without regard to what will happen tomorrow. The system I advocate is something which stacks the deck in favor of rational people but does not require it from everyone.
Funny, because that’s the system I advocate. It’s just that my idea of what that would look like differs greatly from your idea of what that would look like. In part, I think it’s going to vary with your idea of just how much of the population is truly “rational,” and how much of the time those people are. Contrary to our preferred conceits, we’re all susceptible to irrational behavior, even the smartest and most meticulous among us. The way to combat that, as I see it, is to institute rules that prevent people/businesses/what have you from taking unfair advantage of those well-known human tendencies. But rules require enforcement to have any meaning, of course, which is the “coercive force of government” you’re so keen on avoiding.
Believe me, if I thought for a moment that we could achieve something like that WITHOUT government involvement (or with minimal involvement), I’d be all in favor of that. But I think that human psychology and history both dictate that regulation is absolutely necessary.
And to make things just a little bit more clear, I don’t want to “punish the rational” to benefit the irrational. Far from it. I want to prohibit an unscrupulous few (or, depending on how you look at it, not-so-few) from exploiting the irrational. I don’t want to protect the inner city drug addict from himself; I want to protect him from the unscrupulous payday loan shop that takes advantage of his addiction to make a quick buck. That sort of thing.
Finally, on catalytic converters, yes, it was originally privately developed, but it was developed by someone concerned about pollution, not by someone whose primary goal was to make a quick buck. Of course there are people out there with good intentions and good ideas who have nothing to do with the government; I’d never deny that, and in fact we should encourage it. But it would be folly to rely on that alone.
Anyway, that point raises an interesting question: do you believe that all cars today would have catalytic converters if the government didn’t require it?
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..How Superman Should Have Ended =-.
TG,
I’m basically staying on the sidelines here because you’re doing a pretty good job of speaking for all of us, or me at least. One question though, when you say “we” who are you referring to? Humans? Americans? Righties? Lefties? I say this because I believe this is way more nurture than nature so to speak. Placing one’s short term wants above his/her (and the collective’s) long term best interests is not a problem of human nature (the concept referred to as human nature doesn’t exist, in my opinion, we can talk about that later), but of culture. Humans are highly capable of acting this way, but the have to either a adopt a personal value system or exist within a society that rewards such a value system.
Judd,
I guess we should leave it one thread hi-jack at a time, but football players certainly get caught too. The sports themselves are different, the cultures of the sport, of the fan, and the place of the sport in the collective culture of society are all different. In 2006, the best defensive player in the sport pissed positive. He served four games and nobody cared. He led the league in sacks and was elected to the Pro Bowl. He finished third in the Defensive Player of the Year balloting, and had support for league MVP. When Jason Taylor commented that Merriman shouldn’t have even been eligible for the award b/c of the steroid use, Merriman sent him a box of popcorn and a note that read “Have fun watching me in the playoffs.” The public laughed. People just react differently, that’s all.
I think we’re rapidly approaching the point at which our philosophical differences are going to limit how effective a debate can be. It’s illustrated in your payday loan example. I’m totally fine with someone being “exploited” in the situation you describe. Stupid isn’t a crime but it isn’t without consequences either.
No, there’s no way all cars today would have catalytic converters if they were not mandatory.
I agree a significant portion of the population is governed to a greater extent (and sometimes wholly) by their short-term position with little regard given to the future. More than that, I agree we’re all susceptible at times to that kind of behavior, which brings up again the issue of the market accounting for externalities. A free market will do that if those participating are consciously aware of them. As you point out though, a good many people aren’t. The root of the problem isn’t the market system itself but rather the people participating in it. The trouble is what (if anything) to do about it.
Obviously the responsibility of saving us from our own shortsightedness would have to fall to the government. And “government” means “politicians”. This is where I leave my friends on the left. I recall something the late, great George Carlin once said in regard to politicians: “Well, where to people think these politicians come from? They don’t fall out of the sky. They don’t pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from American parents and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses and American universities, and they are elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do, folks.” As my choice of quotes may lead you to believe, I have a somewhat cynical view of politicians. To me the view that all we need are the right social engineers and then all will be made well isn’t too realistic if the people who need the engineering are the same ones responsible for picking the engineers. And any politician in either party has as their first job ensuring their own re-election. That makes it hard for me to trust them to do what’s actually best, assuming in the first place they’re capable of knowing what that thing is. That is one of the reasons I put such a high premium on individual liberty.
Even worse is when we’ve given the government the kind of power you claim they need but then the irrational majorities elect irrational leaders. When I listen to Nancy Pelosi, Dobby Kucinich or Mike Huckabee speak I just sit in stunned amazement and wonder “How. In the hell. Did your constituents. Pick You.” We got four more years of Bush because a whole bunch of people in Ohio thought two gay people getting married would lead to the end of civilization, but that just comes with the territory in a democracy. Thomas Jefferson once said (and I’m paraphrasing here) that a moron ought to have just as much say in the selection of our leaders because the moron is just as much a free man. As much as I want to be able to argue with Jefferson on that he’s got me pinned down and I’m forced to capitulate. That leaves me with hoping whomever the irrational majority selects to lead me doesn’t have the power to do much lasting harm.
digglahhh,
I reread what I wrote earlier and I realize I didn’t state it as clearly as I should have. I didn’t mean to imply the entire NFL is clean, I just don’t believe it’s nearly as “dirty” as MLB was. For me personally it was made even because of people like Barry Bonds. I come from generations of Braves fans and so I’ve got a soft spot for Hammerin’ Hank who, as that banner in Busch Stadium said, did it with class.
http://i.a.cnn.net/si/2006/writers/tom_verducci/05/09/bonds.bonds/tx_sign.jpg
To see someone like Bonds take that record really rubbed me the wrong way, and as a capitalist the best thing I know I can do to register my displeasure is not consume the product. Will that make a shit bit of difference to baseball? Probably not, but I can feel like I at least did something.
If a substantial number of high-profile football players all get caught in the same way I’ll probably have the same reaction.
And end hijacking of hijacking.
Judd:
I agree that we’re reaching the limits of what can really be debated, given the underlying differences in philosophy. A couple of quick points, however:
I’m totally fine with someone being “exploited” in the situation you describe. Stupid isn’t a crime but it isn’t without consequences either.
I know my hypothetical drug addict isn’t a good example of this, but it doesn’t need to be stupid. It could just be desperate. Payday loans are especially pernicious, because they specifically target the poor for exploitation. And I don’t put scare quotes around that word, because I think that’s precisely what it is. Factor in generational poverty, and it becomes even more egregious, because most poor people aren’t poor as a result of laziness or bad choices or what have you. They’re poor because they come from poor families, and the cycle of poverty is extremely difficult to break — even more so if the poor are bilked out of what little money they do have. (This isn’t to say that the cycle can’t be broken or that it never happens; just that it’s very, very difficult and requires a whole lot of luck to boot. A poor person could work hard and make all the right choices, and one inopportune illness [for example] could undo all the progress they’ve made.)
Basically, I’ve got no problem at all with people making an honest buck, but I do put a lot of emphasis on the “honest” part of that equation. Burying nasty consequences in fine print or taking advantage of the fact that people are bad at math — especially at compound interest, for example — does not constitute making an honest buck in my opinion.
My bottom line is this: It ought to be illegal to rip people off. It really doesn’t seem that controversial to me. And I have little sympathy for people who avoid fraud charges by using the methods I just described, or by otherwise maintaining plausible deniability.
As my choice of quotes may lead you to believe, I have a somewhat cynical view of politicians.
So do I. That’s why transparency and accountability are important. I’ll be the first to admit we’ve been terrible on those counts for at least a decade.
That said, to recycle an overused phrase, I refuse to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The Glass-Steagall Act, enacted following the great depression, put heavy regulations on the banking industry and financial sector. It wasn’t perfect, but we did enjoy 50 years of prosperity under its protections. The normal cycle of recessions and recoveries was still in effect, but no major catastrophes. We weakened GSA in the early 80′s, and within a few years, we had a major financial meltdown. We repealed it in the late 90′s, and have had two major financial meltdowns in the ensuing decade. That’s not coincidental, I don’t think.
So no, regulation isn’t perfect, but it works remarkably well a remarkable amount of the time. Especially when the people doing the regulating are NOT elected officials, which is usually.
Digg:
By “we” I mean people. Humans. The tendencies I describe can be overcome with vigilance and hard work, but it takes both of those. I don’t buy the idea that it’s all cultural. If you have evidence to the contrary, I’d love to see it.
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..How Superman Should Have Ended =-.
…except of course when Hammerin’ Hank took those amphetamines. But, don’t take my word for it, he wrote about it in his own autobiography, “I Had a Hammer,” co-written by Lonnie Wheeler.
Now, Aaron only experimented briefly, but he stopped using them only because he didn’t like the way they made him feel. There was no expressed moral awakening, no reason to presume that if Hank had went on some great run upon beginning his experiment that he would not have continued to use them. “They didn’t work” is not an excuse for cheating; intent is all that matters. Professional athletes routinely attempt to cheat. They do their best to adopt the most advanced means of cheating available to them. They deny doing it. They retire and claim self-righteous indignation when others (who they perceive threaten their own legacy) do the same. That’s the, ahem, cycle.
There’s no Santa Claus, no tooth fairy, and no PED-free #44, hate to break it to ya.
BTW, the most egregious abuser at BALCO was not Barry Bonds, but NFL star Bill Romanowski, this is pretty clear even in Game of Shadows.
Yes, but Romanowski was a piece of shit rat bastard irrespective of whether he was taking anything.
(I guess the same could be said for Bonds, for that matter….)
BTW,
I find it ironic you quote Carlin, Judd. Just becaue he detests politicians, that doesn’t mean he’d be on your side in this debate. You think Carlin thinks that any resembling a “free” market exists in this country? Think Carlin’s sympathies reside with the payday loan scammer or the guy working 9-5 for minimum wage with no benefits who has to take out a short term loan to pay the electric bill? Think Carlin would call that guy/gal “stupid?”
Forgive me for being derisive, but are we debating with Ronald Reagan here? People (overwhelmingly) don’t take out payday loans to put 24-inch Sprewells on their Escalades, they do so because they are broke and have needs to meet. People make a lot of decisions that look “stupid” when they aren’t actually very free to make any sort of “decision” at all. Highly-educated, insulated, white men who are under the delusion that they are self-made are usually the most quick to label such a decision as “stupid.” The tendency to assume that these payday loans are just dumb, shortsighted, whims aren’t any sort of objective judgment, but simply just an indicator of how wide that afforemention insularity and disconnected actually is.
And, lastly, I might ask, aren’t you, TG, and I all products of those same American families and school systems? Wasn’t Carlin? Word to West 121st Street! So, the same argument applies. Why the fuck should any of us know anything either?…
digglahh,
I would not be so pretentious as to assume George Carlin would be on my side. I just like the quote and I think there’s an element of truth to it. I liked it so I used it, that’s all. Carlin actually said it in the context of why he doesn’t attack politicians and instead attacks the public. It was one of him many truly great bits.
I don’t have time to full respond to your comments right now but I promise I’ll be back to finish later.
I wasn’t saying that everyone who’s ever taken a payday loan is stupid. I was responding to T’s example of someone who takes a payday loan they can’t afford in order to support a drug habit. If that doesn’t seem stupid to you then that’s just something we’re going to have to disagree on.
I realize this is going to make me about as popular as the Clap but I’m going to defend payday loan providers. Not all of them by any means; any time you get a group as large as that you’re going to run in to a few unsavory characters who do unsightly things. I understand their business model though.
I’m going to assume when you rail against payday loans you’re talking about those small outfits that specialize in only that, or possibly payday loans and check cashing. Those operators certainly aren’t the only ones that offer those types of loans. I’ve been forced to take one once in my life and I got it from a major national bank (I won’t name names but it rhymes with “Smells Largo”) and for it I paid an APR that I’m too embarrassed to calculate. I hated doing it but I was over a barrel and needed the cash. Was I taken advantage of? I don’t feel like it. I knew I was paying an astronomical interest rate going in to it, my situation dictated that I pay it and so I did.
Let’s consider those smaller non-bank operations. I’m going to presume the trouble with them is not the loans they offer in and of themselves but rather the high interest rates, penalties and terms that go along with it, and the effect this can have on poor people. The problem is we’re dealing with people in poor neighborhoods. Lower class areas tend to not have as many banks as upper class ones do. From the perspective of Citi or Bank of America there’s a lot of risk in locating in a poorer neighborhood (less opportunity to turn a profit based off your likely clientele, more crime, etc.) so the banks choose not to locate there. That sucks for the good, honest people who are stuck in said shitty neighborhood but can you really blame the banks? Would you send your money to some place you wouldn’t be likely to go yourself? That leaves it to people who are willing to accept the higher risks associated with doing business in those areas and they’ll want the rewards to compensate for the risks they took.
I’m a human being for fuck’s sake. How could I not have sympathy for someone who because of some incident that was no fault of their own ends up needing money one time and now is stuck making interest-only payments on a loan they’ll carry for months or maybe even years? Is that situation worse than those people being in their dire circumstances and having no access to the money they need? In my line of thinking the high-interest payday loan providers are a symptom rather than the disease. To me the tragedy isn’t that these places exist and some people are get taken by them, it’s that the circumstances that allowed for their creation ever came to be. That’s the root of it and that’s a lot harder problem to deal with.
You, T and I are indeed all products of that same American system. And you’re exactly right, that same argument applies perfectly. That’s at the very core of why I’m a libertarian. After his venture away from Washington and in to business and private life, no less an authority than George McGovern wrote an op-ed about the potential perils of stacking on increased government regulation, especially when those tasked with the job might not know enough about what they’re supposed to regulate. It’s a revealing piece some temporarily bright member of the Stupid Party thought to have entered in to the public record.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r102:S04JN2-163:
I would not trust T, Carlin, you or me with the task of setting down all the regulations by which the nation must abide. McGovern all but admits that when he was in Congress he was arbitrarily making rules for things he didn’t fully understand. There may be some who would be better at it than others (with a gun to my head I’d take Feinstein over Boxer and anybody over Pelosi) but it’s still all different flavors of bad. Until, to use Carlin’s words, the politicians start either falling out of the sky or passing through a membrane I can’t bring myself to trust them that much.
I wasn’t saying that everyone who’s ever taken a payday loan is stupid. I was responding to T’s example of someone who takes a payday loan they can’t afford in order to support a drug habit. If that doesn’t seem stupid to you then that’s just something we’re going to have to disagree on.
Well, it depends whether that person meets the clinical defintion of an “addict.” Once you’re a legit addict, your body’s chemistry has changed to the point that whatever substance you are addicted to has become a legitmate need. Quite possibly, we can label the behavior of becoming an addict stupid, but this type of behavior develops incrementally, over time. People don’t aspire to become drug addicts. So, “stupid’ seems like a poor choice of words. Now, if that person just wants to party and is taking an advance loan so he/she can snort some coke, pop some X, and hit the bars, well then that’s just as stupid as taking that same loan to go buy a television or a handbag. So, I’m reserving judgment until the context is more clearly defined with this specific debate in mind.
From the perspective of Citi or Bank of America there’s a lot of risk in locating in a poorer neighborhood (less opportunity to turn a profit based off your likely clientele, more crime, etc.)
Insert snide remark about de fact redlining here. But, anyway, the problem with that is simply that it is untrue. Somebody help me out here – I’m pretty sure I saw numbers posted on this very site that refuting the idea that banks in poorer neighborhoods don’t make sufficient profit.
That sucks for the good, honest people who are stuck in said shitty neighborhood but can you really blame the banks? Would you send your money to some place you wouldn’t be likely to go yourself?
I’m not sure what this means. I don’t live in Kennebunkport or something. I live in NYC; I go where I gotta go when I gotta go there. Might I also take the liberty of shortening and translating the above sentence – that sucks for, what, 97% of the neighborhood’s residents?…
Also, such behavior is kind of shortsighted because it tends to limit the development of future consumers in your product. Not only would I support policies encouraging more banks to locate themselves in these areas, I’d also support policies stipulating that some to-be-agreed-upon percentage of a branch’s loans need to be given to businesses and individuals within the community in which it is located.
Alternative response: Cause, you know, most people defrauding the banking system and robbing banks are from the hood and target their local branch…
In my line of thinking the high-interest payday loan providers are a symptom rather than the disease.
I’d say they’re more like where the disease goes to become drug-resistant.
But, I do acknowledge the point that not all payday loans/loan providers are necessarily predatory. It’s predatory lending as a practice, not payday loans as a tool, that is the real problem.
Judd:
I’ve already conceded that my druggie example was a poor one. What more do you want from me?
Anyway, we’re probably not going to agree on payday loans/paycheck advances. As you freely admit in your personal example, they charge an exorbitant rate to exploit desperate people who are “over the barrel.” In all but a tiny fraction of cases, they serve only to worsen the long-term financial outlook of the people who use them. So yes, to my mind, they’re mostly predatory. Now on the one hand, I’m not sure I’d go so far as to ban them completely. I would, however, prevent the kinds of aggressive marketing we normally see associated with such outfits, and I’d probably also cap the rate (something I’d do for loans in general, returning us to the fiscally-less-irresponsible days when 19.8% was the limit).
That leaves it to people who are willing to accept the higher risks associated with doing business in those areas and they’ll want the rewards to compensate for the risks they took.
That leaves it to the unscrupulous folks who have no qualms about exploiting the misfortune of people in bad circumstances, and making a whole lot of money in the process. There, fixed it for ya.
In my line of thinking the high-interest payday loan providers are a symptom rather than the disease. To me the tragedy isn’t that these places exist and some people are get taken by them, it’s that the circumstances that allowed for their creation ever came to be.
In my line of thinking, they’re morally no different than war profiteers. And the tragedy is that not only do these outfits do nothing to resolve the problems, they actively make it worse. Indeed, it’s in their financial best interests to perpetuate and worsen the financial plight of the neighborhoods they serve.
I would not trust T, Carlin, you or me with the task of setting down all the regulations by which the nation must abide.
You realize that you’ve just completely pooh-poohed the idea that people can work together to solve and/or prevent problems, right? Anyway, it’s silly to think of regulation as inherently bad or inherently good. It’s just going to vary on a case-by-case basis. The regulations enacted by Glass-Steagall served us well for 50 years; when we started dismantling them, allowing people the “freedom” to do what they think is best with respect to banking and the financial industry, we wound up with three major financial crises in a 25-year period, one of which almost sent us into Great Depression 2.0.
So, yes it’s possible to over-regulate, or to poorly regulate.The best we can do, then, is to demand openness and accountability from our politicians and the regulations/regulators they enact/appoint. But it would be folly to simply avoid regulation altogether because of this, just as it would be folly to ban guns (something I’m sure you’d oppose) because guns can be used wrongly/poorly/result in the deaths of innocents. (Personally, I like Chris Rock’s expensive bullet approach, which starts at 2:50 of that video.)
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..Easy to Forget =-.
digglahhh:
I know how chemical additions work. My response was specific to T’s example which has since been admitted to not be the best. As I said in my previous post, I would consider taking a payday loan to feed a drug addiction stupid and I won’t qualify that by circumstance. If we disagree then we disagree; it’s a matter of opinion. Really if your situation’s so bad that you’re forced in to debt to support your drug habit you’ve got deeper problems than the interest rate you’re paying. In regards to what you cite, I would consider it as equally stupid to take a payday loan to pick up your bar tab as it would be to take one out to buy a television or put 24” Sprewells on an Escalade. Since I’ve taken a payday loan myself it wouldn’t make much sense for me to suggest anyone who has ever taken one did so out of stupidity though. I also recognize the difference between what I referred to as stupid and a person who’s short on cash, blows a tire and has to have their car fixed now in order to get to work.
On to the banking problem, yeah, though an overwhelming majority of the population in an area may be good, upright and decent people, how many does it take to ruin it? Crime is a big factor here, too. I don’t mean just bank robberies (lord know that upper-class white people are better at that than anyone anyway) but how many people with the qualifications to be a branch manager or a loan officer are going to want to be one in a bad neighborhood? How much more does upkeep cost in a high-crime area? How much more security will be necessary? Poverty is part of the reason major banks don’t locate in an area but it’s hardly the only one. I’ve been in small backwater towns in the reddest of red states where poverty was rampant because the local saw mill that had provided everyone their job had closed down and now nothing was going on but there was still a bank operating. As out-of-place as I may have been there as I stopped to get gas I could have walked down the main street with my pockets stuffed with hundred dollar bills and I probably would have been perfectly safe. There’s not a chance in hell I’d try a similar stunt in the Lower 9th Ward though. To stick with my example that situation sucks for all the good people living in the Lower 9th Ward but at the same time I understand the bank’s position and don’t fault them for refusing to locate there.
T:
I only went back to the druggie example because digglahhh brought it up. The comment wasn’t aimed at you. As far as I was concerned that was buried.
The problem with capping payday loans at 19.8% APR is that will eliminate them. I did this calculation really quickly so I might be off a little but I think I’m at least in the ballpark. If someone goes to a payday loan provider and borrows $500 for whatever reason at 19.8% APR and pays it back in a week (‘til payday, right?) then that comes to a repayment amount of around $502. You can’t stay in business offering that kind of loan at that kind of rate. Even if you could process the loan, look at the risks. If you’re taking out a payday loan to handle and unexpected expense it’s because you don’t have a credit card or a card with enough room on it to cover what you need. That suggests your average payday loan taker is going to be someone with little or no credit history and little or no collateral. I would classify that as a substantial risk. Would you loan a stranger with that profile $500 of your dollars to get $502 back?
I’ve seen the Chris Rock bit before. I’m not going anywhere near the gun issue.
And I never ever said anything pooh-poohing the notion that people can work together to solve and/or prevent problems. The key words in the line you quote from me are “the nation”. I’m not an anarcho-capitalist. I just don’t have a lot of faith in the federal government’s ability to solve social problems. I think if you and I personally had a problem there’s a good chance we could work together to solve it. Solving problems for the nation is an entirely different animal. I started to touch on this issue with digglahhh. “Poverty” is a problem. The trouble is what works to help combat the urban poverty I saw in Detroit might be totally ineffective against the rural poverty I saw in Clearwater County, Idaho. The power of the federal government is simply too big a hammer. That’s why I’m a state’s rights guy. I believe it was Justice Kennedy in the oral arguments of the Heller case who posited that what makes sense in New York might not be what makes sense in Wyoming. He’s right. The nation’s too large and diverse for a lot of what McGovern referred to as one-size-fits-all rules. That diversity is one of our strengths; not only do we have the scientists to develop and then refine clean coal technology to the point it might become an effective alternative but we’ve also got the coal miners to provide us with the resource in the first place. The trouble is in trying to come up with a single set of rules and regulations that make the most sense for all 300andhowevermany million of us.
Judd:
The problem with capping payday loans at 19.8% APR is that will eliminate them.
I don’t really have a problem with that. If you have to systematically gouge people in order to make your business model work, it’s frankly not worth protecting. Though I still think you could do something along the lines of a fixed fee — say, borrow up to $500 for a $25 fee, with an interest rate (not more than 19.8%) that kicks in if you don’t pay it back right away.
I’m not going anywhere near the gun issue.
I don’t blame you.
But there was a larger point I was trying to make.
I just don’t have a lot of faith in the federal government’s ability to solve social problems.
Yes, because state and local governments and the free market did such a good job on civil rights issues before the fed stepped in.
The trouble is what works to help combat the urban poverty I saw in Detroit might be totally ineffective against the rural poverty I saw in Clearwater County, Idaho.
Nah, it’s the same pretty much everywhere: jobs and education. Now how that manifests itself specifically is going to vary on a case-by-case basis, but at the end of the day it all comes down to money for jobs and education. That’s the sort of thing that a larger level of government HAS to provide, because the local level simply won’t have the resources to do it. What you wind up with is a downward spiral, because as a city/village/county loses jobs, people move away, shrinking the tax base. Now the local government has LESS ability to address problems, at just the time when it needs to be doing the MOST.
That’s why I’m a state’s rights guy.
Having close friends who lived through segregation, I’m extremely skeptical of “states rights.” Most of the time, the state is fighting for the right to oppress and discriminate against people as it sees fit, free of federal interference. That unfortunately remains true even today.
Now, as you say, too many “one-size-fits-all” rules are a bad thing, but there are certain rules where one size really does fit all.
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..Easy to Forget =-.
I’m not so sure your payday loan fix will work. We’re getting far enough in to the technical details I think we’ll need harder data to figure out which (if either of us) is right. If the loans are going to exist they need to be structured in such a way that the people offering them turn a profit (because no profit, no product unless that product is cars) and they’re taking on substantial risk offering the service they do (see my previous post for the explanation). How low could that level be and still have it be worth their while? I don’t know. Until that’s unequivocally determined then there’s no point in arguing on it. And let us not forget they get business because they offer something people need. Someone here stated earlier that the majority of people who use them are doing so to pay the electric bill or things like that; I used the example of someone whose car breaks down and is in need of immediate repair. If the payday loan corporations aren’t there then that bill doesn’t get paid or that car doesn’t get fixed. Is that really any better? <—-Rhetorical question. I don't need or expect an answer. I stand by what I said earlier, the presence of the payday loan providers, whatever their motives, are a symptom rather than the disease. The human tragedy that set up what you refer to as predatory lenders was that there were people out there in desperate need of money that either had nowhere else to go for it or didn't have the education to understand where the choice would lead them. Subtract those two elements and the payday loan people would shrivel up and die. Granted those are much harder things to combat but that is the root of it.
"States rights" does not mean "states rights to go out and do a damned illegal, immoral and unconstitutional thing." Holding up the fact some disgusting xenophobes in the past used this issue to cloak their bigotry is throwing the baby out with the bath water.
I also reject the notion of the federal government sending tax dollars to any area that's losing population for the purposes of propping it up. I recognize the downward spiral effect you describe and I agree with you as to where it leads but that's an issue for the state/county/local government to solve. If a town came in to being because of the timber industry and the timber industry leaves then the town ought to go with it (assuming there's nothing else available to support it).
"Jobs and education" is good superficially as a solution to poverty (I think that's what anyone would say) but the issue's much deeper. "Jobs" as an answer to combat poverty is self-explanatory. I think we'll probably disagree as to the role of government in providing them and since that discussion will lead nowhere; I'll focus on "education." The value of the education is obvious. People still drop out of high school though. Some don't even make it that far. What needs to be done that we're not doing already? Is the reason people aren't getting the education they need to keep them from poverty all a matter of low standards? Bad teachers? How much more money must we throw at the problem before it's solved? Is it even a problem the government's capable of solving? If it's that promising, capable students are in families where there's no premium placed on education and there's no parental encouragement then will anything the government does matter? I agree with you that education is part of the problem but I'm not confident in the ability of the federal government to solve it. I'm not trying to be cute or snarky here either. I'm honestly interested in what you've got to say and I'm susceptible to being swayed on this issue. What would you do and how would you do it?
Judd:
I think we’ve beaten the payday loan thing more or less to death. Frankly, I don’t much care if my proposed regulations effectively do them in. When someone’s business model clearly and demonstrably is predatory by its very nature, and does far more harm than good, I don’t have a problem essentially regulating it out of existence. The number of cases where they’re legitimately providing a useful service, one that actually helps people without actively worsening their situation, is tiny as compared to the whole number of cases. What few cases are left could still be handled by traditional banks like Smells Largo and their ilk. Or, as libertarians often like to point out, charity could step in to fill the need.
Holding up the fact some disgusting xenophobes in the past used this issue to cloak their bigotry is throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Then you need to find a term that hasn’t been repeatedly poisoned, and lacks all that baggage that completely justifiably makes people lose their shit when they hear the term. So “states rights” is out. How about “federalism?”
That, I’ll say, is a good idea. Except when it’s not. Which is pretty often.
I also reject the notion of the federal government sending tax dollars to any area that’s losing population for the purposes of propping it up. I recognize the downward spiral effect you describe and I agree with you as to where it leads but that’s an issue for the state/county/local government to solve.
Here is an area where we’re going to have to agree to disagree. State/county/local government maybe are the people who ought to solve the problem, but the entire point is that they can’t solve it. And I never said the assistance had to come in the form of propping the area up. It could come in the form of helping the people who got left behind so that they can also get the hell out of dodge. There’s precedent for doing this. Contrary to libertarian myth, it’s very difficult for most people to just up and leave for greener pastures. Maybe if nobody had mortgages or binding leases they could do this, but that’s just not the real world.
One of my biggest peeves with libertarianism is how utterly ambivalent it so often is about the human toll its preferred policies would bring about. It’s easy to say “the area’s dying, let it die,” but how many lives are we willing to watch crumble into ruin in the service of letting “nature run its course?” Proverbially, now I’ve got 20 years left on my mortgage, and thanks to the downward spiral, my house is worth substantially less than what I paid for it, and its value drops further by the day. I can’t just up and leave. What’s the libertarian response to my dilemma? “Tough shit, you should have planned better.” Or, “Congratulations! You have the freedom to fail, and you used it to your fullest potential.” Some consolation.
“Jobs” as an answer to combat poverty is self-explanatory. I think we’ll probably disagree as to the role of government in providing them and since that discussion will lead nowhere
Well, maybe not exactly nowhere. I strongly prefer that jobs come from the private sector, but I do prefer certain restrictions on them. For example, you need to pay a decent wage. And the country’s pretty much doomed if we don’t find a way to bring manufacturing jobs and other unskilled labor jobs back here. Because not everyone can be a network administrator, and we only need so many network administrators anyway. I’ve got no interest in trying to catch India and China in a race to the bottom, but that’s precisely the way we’ve been vectoring since about the Reagan Administration.
I agree with you that education is part of the problem but I’m not confident in the ability of the federal government to solve it.
Well, since the states and cities have done such a “fine” job, I don’t think we have much choice other than to give them a crack at it. I mean, seriously. It’s hard to imagine they could do much worse, at least in the inner cities.
The real fix to the problem is a bit of an anti-freedom pipe dream. No private schools, no parochial schools, and no home schooling. All schools become boarding schools, and all children are randomly assigned to a school. No picking or choosing, they wind up where they wind up. Now, for a parent, that bad school over there becomes their problem, instead of just a problem, because it could be their kid who winds up there. Now, no, I’m not suggesting we actually DO anything of the sort. But it illustrates what lies at the core of the problem — the “not my problem” mentality.
More seriously, for the most part, schools are exactly the kind of problem that can be solved by throwing money at the problem. Switch to year-round schooling, reduce class sizes, provide ample security, etc. Yes, introduce some performance metrics into the teacher/principal pay equation. (But standardized testing is evil.) Empower teachers to remove disruptive kids.
Also, too much of the focus on attempting to “fix” education has traditionally been concentrated on high school and college, but by then it’s far too late.
The problem is, we’ve been letting our school systems deteriorate in this way for 40 years or more, so there’s no silver bullet fix, and no easy solutions.
If you haven’t read Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers, there are a couple of good chapters in there on schooling, in particular the need for more of it.
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..Rant of the Day, 2009-08-12 =-.
The point you make on rebranding is an interesting and valid one. That “liberal” to “progressive” thing seemed to work for the Democrats. I’m no good at labels though so I wouldn’t know what to call it.
I’m guilty as charged on the ambivalence. I don’t like it but it comes with the territory. To your list of problems with disappearing towns you could add that even if your mortgage isn’t underwater to start with and you are theoretically able to just up and leave that you’ll probably still have a tough time selling a home in an area with no jobs that people are moving away from. I believe that’s part of why you can get places in the Detroit area at such a “reasonable” price. No one ever said the death of a town was easy or painless.
On the jobs issue we agree about what needs to happen (with the exception of the wages as I think there ought to be no federal minimum set), the question is how. Your point about network administrators is well-made and I’m in agreement. We need less-skilled jobs for less-skilled labor. But American less-skilled labor needs to be able to compete. There’s a down side to being very replaceable.
This brings me to education. For all our vast disagreements on other issues, I love your “real fix”. I could never support such a thing because of all those anti-freedom issues but if it ever happened on some level I’d be smiling. Hell, I’d sit next to you on the couch and watch the shit fly. I’d even bring the popcorn.
I also agree with some of your ideas for improvement. There’s no reason at all to not do year-round schooling in this day and age. I’d lengthen the school day, too. Rather than just empowering teachers to remove disruptive kids I’d bring back the switch. Teach kids some respect for authority figures and the consequences of being disrespectful thereto. Hell, we could probably do that for free. Metrics are a good idea but only under a more homogeneous system like you describe in your pipe dream. The free market libertarian capitalist in me thinks that will provide too much incentive for what good teachers there are in bad schools to bail out and make the situation in the bad school even worse.
I honestly believe part of the reason we are where we are is middle-class and upper-middle-class Baby Boomer parents. I will explain. It has been my experience that too many people are raising children whom they believe to be the second coming of Einstein, Mozart and da Vinci all rolled in to one. And since their child is clearly brilliant they need every advantage to maximize their gifts. Couple with that the fact that a whole lot of American life (going back at least to when we industrialized) has been about keeping up with the Joneses and then there’s no doubt about what a proper child must do with their life. To quote George Carlin again “these pathetic, insecure, yuppie parents” “enroll you in college before you’re old enough to know which side of the playpen smells the worst.” I’ve been teaching freshman and sophomore undergraduates for years now. Some of them I just look at and wonder “Why? Seriously? Why?” My youngest brother, for example, wasn’t a helpless moron but isn’t overly bright, never had any interest in school, got mediocre grades all throughout his career (which my parents blamed on his teacher’s inability to recognize how smart and creative he truly was) he got pushed in to college when he didn’t want to go and washed out his first semester. How much hell did my parents put teachers through for that? What resources were sent down that memory hole? I doubt this was an isolated incident either. A good number of people like my brother who “have” to go to college so they’ll get good jobs and good lives are draining the system unnecessarily when those resources could be better spent elsewhere. Though trying to put a stop to that will go down about as well as your idea. I lament it but I don’t see an easy way to fix it, beyond something like an exam given in the 8th grade that will determine if you attend something like a “college track” high school as opposed to something vocational. Even that would probably be too much for your average helicopter parent to take.
I have read blink! but haven’t gotten to Outliers yet. My current stack of unread books will last me for months and what with the economy like it is I’ve throttled back a little. I’ll get to it eventually but it will be awhile.
Tgirsch:
It seems to me that your position right now depends on the integrity of both society and the politicians to make it work. Closing down a business because it is “predatory” is open to a lot of interpretation, much of which can be manipulated to shut down a business for any reason whatsoever. Now, before this touches off a flame war, I am completely against the payday loan model.
That said, “predatory business” practices could easily justify shutting down any business if it was successful and yours wasn’t. There is ample data that the system will/will be manipulated by all of the parties involved. The veneer is different, but the effect the same. We have judges who have tried to use eminent domain laws to seize portions of a building lot that they particularly liked, politicians who are clearly corrupt and following only the money trail, and laws that are not beneficial to the society at large. Any ability to shut down a business just because someone does not like it’s practices (beyond anti-trust, which has also been shown to be a pretty toothless tiger of late) simply provides another lever for removing those not paying tribute/homage/doing business the way we want them to. Next on line will be shutting down a business because a Vietnamese/Indian/Chinese/Hispanic/Caucasian/African person owns it in a more Chinese/Hispanic/Vietnamese/Indian/Caucasian/African dominated area – that must be predation of the populace, right? This is a slippery slope, and a really bad idea – it generally leads to either socialism or fascism. It’s probably time for all of us to re-read our de Tocqueville, and maybe even Martin Niemoeller….
Somewhere we lost the original point of the argument, which I’ll come back to here – most of the issues with payday loans, poor laws, and evener poorer politicians come back to two things: a functional education system that actually educates, and a society that actually cares. Right now we lack both. Society as a whole can not be bothered (I’ve put democracies into countries in the past, and they have a *much* better voter turn out than we do), and we as citizens allow blatant fraud during the elections (more people voted in some counties of Minnesota than were registered, let alone some of the other games being played). Our society is not thinking in terms of an American entity, but often simply “how do I get ahead”. We need to become a society again, not the fragmented pieces of self-interest that have arisen.
Secondly, and more to the topic, we need to re-invent an education system that educates. The quality of education is dropping significantly, even among younger professionals from good schools. Unfortunately, many students lack the basics in many areas and have no understanding of mathematics or liberal arts or foreign language/culture or the model of government. Heck, some believe we live in a democracy! We don’t, of course – we live in a representative Republic. Until we begin to fix this problem, many of the issues at hand, including interest in science to begin with will remain high flying ideas without the solid grounding and basis required to implement effective (read: goodness/quality here) change. Change is easy – good, effective change is not. Judd is right, we are pushing many people who do not belong there into colleges, partly because we have no other socially acceptable vocational training programs right now. Too many people have been pushed to believe that college is the only path to success…despite the fact that we also need plumbers, electricians, craftsman, mechanics, etc many of whom make a great living wage.
Sorry for the long winded response…
Judd:
Starting with Gladwell, Tipping Point > Outliers > blink! — all three were good, but I thought blink! was the weakest of the three. The reason I think Outliers is so relevant, especially when the topic is libertarianism, is that it casts serious doubt on the whole “pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps” myth upon which libertarianism is built. The old expressions that “it’s not what you know, but who you know,” and, “I’d rather be lucky than good,” really come into play. That Randian rugged individualism suddenly doesn’t look so hot when you start to analyze how big of a role luck and external assistance plays in “individual” success. Hard work isn’t a sufficient component of success, and in some cases, it’s not even a necessary component.
On the ambivalence thing, that’s where we diverge: you’re an idealist, and I’m more of a pragmatist. From where I sit, if the inevitable result of my ideals is a whole lot of human suffering, it’s time for some new ideals.
On the dying town thing, however, I don’t expect the government to eliminate the pain. It simply can’t. What it can do, however, is soften the blow a little bit, and ease the transition (or, in many cases, enable a transition). Yeah, it’s going to suck, but it shouldn’t end your prospects for success. It shouldn’t ruin your life.
On the minimum wage, you’ve got to have one. Otherwise, what’s to prevent the race to the bottom? And a decent minimum wage yields results. Historically speaking the poverty rate was at its lowest level in the US when the minimum wage had the most buying power, contrary to the argument that raising the minimum wage hurts the poor the most (in 1968, the minimum wage was the equivalent of $9.50/hour in today’s dollars). And I will say that to me there’s an ethical component to it. If somebody is willing to work a full-time job, they ought to be able to get by on the money they make from that job. I’m not asking for them to have a life of luxury, but they at least ought to be able to put a roof over their head, clothes on their back, and food on the table.
Of course, unless you set the minimum wage ridiculously high, minimum wage jobs are never going to be “posh.” So the fact that you’re working for minimum wage is the downside of “being very replaceable.” The thing is, it doesn’t just benefit the workers to have them working. It benefits all of us. Because if they’re working, they’re paying taxes (rather than draining them), and they’re putting more money into circulation in the economy. The more people you have working, the more potential consumers you have for your goods and services. Everybody wins.
On education, lengthening the school day isn’t a bad idea (discussed in Outliers), but I can’t agree with you about bringing back the switch. About the only thing that might accomplish, apart from breeding resentment, is that it might make YOU feel better. Memphis city school allowed paddling until 2004, and it didn’t really make a difference in school quality. Shelby County schools still allow it. And study after study shows that corporal punishment is wholly ineffective.
I honestly believe part of the reason we are where we are is middle-class and upper-middle-class Baby Boomer parents. I will explain.
You don’t really have to explain, because I largely agree.
Parents are a huge part of the problem. We should be raising the standards rather than lowering them. But the problem is, individual parents have this attitude of “get tough, but not with my kid.” And there’s the aforementioned tendency to run away from problems rather than face and fix them. This has served our schools exceptionally poorly.
something like an exam given in the 8th grade that will determine if you attend something like a “college track” high school as opposed to something vocational
Actually, my public high school in Milwaukee had something like this (it wasn’t based on a test, though, just grade history). You went to the same high school as everybody else, but went to a different set of “AP” classes. Then again, college is about a lot more than intelligence. There are zillions of examples of students who were nominally “less intelligent” than I was who did a lot better in college, probably because, oh, I don’t know, they applied themselves?
Went to class? Cared? I did manage to get my four-year degree in just eight short years, but I wasn’t really the college type.
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..Rant of the Day, 2009-08-12 =-.
SmokeJaguar:
If we spent all of our time obsessing about slippery slopes, we’d never actually do anything. Yes, it’s open to potential abuse (what isn’t?), but that’s what transparency and accountability are supposed to be for. Admittedly, we’ve lost a lot of both over the past decade or so. Nonetheless, I don’t have a problem with such bans in principle.
We need to become a society again, not the fragmented pieces of self-interest that have arisen.
I agree. I expect this to be extremely unpopular with the libertarian crowd. You commie.
Judd is right, we are pushing many people who do not belong there into colleges, partly because we have no other socially acceptable vocational training programs right now.
And because we’ve shipped the overwhelming majority of the decent jobs that don’t require a college education overseas. It’s a huge problem. People feel pressured to go to college because without going to college it’s very difficult to get a decent job. I mean, what jobs are open to high school graduates, really?
we also need plumbers, electricians, craftsman, mechanics, etc many of whom make a great living wage.
The problem is, you’re still talking about skilled trades, for which there is only so much demand. These don’t require a college education, but they’re in the same territory as network administrators. In a city of one million (of which somewhere between half and two thirds want/need to work), how many network admins, programmers, electricians, plumbers, and mechanics do you really need? Not half a million, I can tell you.
Mind you, we’re in almost total agreement on this stuff. But it’s a tough nut to crack, because of our collective short-sightedness from at least the Reagan Administration forward.
Sorry for the long winded response…
Have you noticed the length of MY comments lately?
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..Rant of the Day, 2009-08-12 =-.
[...] a recent thread, an off-topic conversation on the relative merits (or lack thereof) of payday loans came up. [...]
Funny, T, I would actually rank the Gladwell books in the complete opposite order. But, if I was given the power to impart the knowledge of any single one of them into gattsuru’s head, I would pick Outliers. I’m sure you can see how that makes total sense.
I’m going to basically agree with the choir here about the growing myth that college is the only path to success, and how unhealthy that notion is for society in general. It’s as if there is a shame to being a blue collar worker, or a shame if your child grows up to be a blue collar worker. I can solve the New York Times crossword puzzle, but I couldn’t even begin to fathom how to rebuild a carborator. Given the choice, I’d probably rather be able to complete the latter.
I did not go to a fancy college. That decision was part philosophically measured, part economic, and part circumstantial. But, the point is that I saw many individuals who had no place being in a college classroom. If you ask on the first day how long the final term paper is, you should probably go learn a trade. And, you should be proud of that trade – because I fully respect the value of good, honest, reliable, plumber or auto mechanic, or whatever. I’d know be pretty damn proud if I taught myself how to [Marissa Tomei] rebuild some trannies [Marissa Tomei]. What I don’t repsect are dumbfucks with degrees their parents pay for who I have to deal with as a function of my job. The sad thing is had I chosen to go to some 40K a year university, the situation would be largely the same.
Further, the culture of treating university brand names and pricetags the way the women of “The Hills” might treat handbags and designers has even more profound ripple effects than moronic entry level workers in the private sector. The debt accrued by many of these students with no business being in universities to begin with does two terrible things. One, it causes them to start their adult lives in massive debt. Two, it leads many to follow the money because they are compelled to have to pay back the debt. From the introduction into the real world, money takes precedence over all else; that’s an uttlerly corrosive mentality casually reinforced by this whole cycle. And, it isn’t always so benign. I’ve cited this before, but many of our country’s top medical students are now choosing to pursue dermatology – all part of the (designer) higher education fetishization rampant in our society.
Digg:
I agree with your gripe about the perception that there’s shame in being a blue collar worker. But I think that’s only part of the problem. The larger problem is that for the most part, there’s no security in being a blue collar worker. The company decides to shut down the plant, or to send production overseas, and you’re pretty much fucked. And even while you’ve got the work, the pay is generally subpar in most cases. We need lots and lots of retail clerks, food service workers, mall employees, etc., but by and large, those jobs pay for shit. It’s even worse with the deterioration of the influence of the unions. (Mind you, I’m not a big union fan, but they’re better than the alternative.)
Also, I have no illusions that there’s total security in skilled or knowledge-based professions; there’s just a lot more than there is in the unskilled professions.
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..Payday Loans =-.
You know what’s funny, T? In the view of the people on my side it’s you who’s the idealist and us who are the pragmatists. I’m sure we both have a litany of reasons for thinking what we do, some of which may even be valid. It just made me kind of chuckle.
SmokeJaguar:
Society arose from self interest. It’s the collective desire of individuals to, in exchange for some amount of their personal autonomy, share certain responsibilities. You provide me and mine with food and I’ll provide you and yours with security. That’s a very simplistic example but it’s still and illustrative one. If forming societies weren’t in our self-interest it probably wouldn’t have happened.
Judd:
Let me ask you this: How much of your opposition to, say, the minimum wage, is because you think it’s ineffective, and how much of it is because you think it’s immoral? If it’s mostly the former, you’re thinking pragmatically, and we can discuss the evidence for and against that point of view. If it’s mostly the latter, that’s idealistic thinking, and it’s not really open to much debate.
Now, I’ll acknowledge that it’s not strictly an either/or. The ends often don’t justify the means, even for a self-described pragmatist like me. There are certain lines that can’t be crossed, and that is, indeed, idealism. But by and large I advocate for the policies I do because I think they will work better, not because they’re inherently “right” and other approaches are inherently “wrong.”
My favorite example of this divide is the “taxation is theft” crowd. Even if some modest level of mandatory taxation results in a noticeably better society for everyone (including the taxpayer), with better health, better education, more stability, etc., taxation is inherently immoral, they argue, so it’s better to have poorer health, poorer education, less stability, etc., than to compel someone to pay taxes.
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..Payday Loans =-.
To use your terms, I hold the minimum wage to be both immoral and ineffective. Immoral in that it is not the government’s concern what one private individual contracts with another private individual or private corporation for as wages. I don’t know that “ineffective” is really the best term; “counterproductive” may be better, though I admit I’m not particularly good with labels.
As the child of a mom and pop hardware store owner I’ve seen the effect of policies like this. Not hypotheticals, I’ve seen it with my own eyes. The only way for a job to exist is if the work a person does is worth more to an employer than the money they’re paying out. Injecting an arbitrary federal minimum means puts the employer in a tough position if there’s work that needs to be done but isn’t worth $6.50 an hour. Most businesses don’t just have some giant pile of cash sitting around with which to pay this new expense; it all gets passed along to the end consumer who pays the higher price (which goes back to George McGovern’s op-ed I linked to way back upthread). Minimum wage laws and increases benefit the low wage workers who hold their jobs through the increase but they make it that much harder for those on the outside to break in.
I oppose overtime laws for the same reason. To use myself as an example again, in the summer between when I graduated from high school and when I left for college I was working nearly 40 hours a week at the job I’d held for the past year. As I was putting myself through school I needed all the hours I could get, my boss actually would have liked to work me more (something I would have been more than happy to do for the wage I was already receiving) but corporate policy forbade overtime and so the hours instead went to someone who was nowhere near as good a worker as I was.
Politically it’s all a sop to the labor unions but I don’t think that even needs to be debated.
We share essentially identical reasons for having the philosophies we do. Not to toot my own horn too much but I think we’re both reasonably intelligent people, it just mystifies me how our conclusions can be so radically different. I think that’s what makes you, as I say a way upthread, a fascinating opponent.
The “taxation is theft” crowd is misguided and, thankfully, small. It may feel a bit like theft (especially when you look at some of what they do with it) but if your intention is check whether or not I’m crazy, sorry to disappoint. Taxes are user fees. The Constitution under which I have consented to live lays out some very clear functions for the federal government and for that they need revenue. Taxes can have secondary effects of discouraging behavior (such as what we’ve tried to do with tobacco) but at their root they’re a necessary evil. We’ve tried a government with no authority to tax and that fell apart quickly enough to prove to anyone that’s a bad idea. We can argue about the proper form taxes should take and that’s a meaningful debate (I oppose the income tax, for starters) but not having them at all is a non-starter.
Not hypotheticals, I’ve seen it with my own eyes.
Oh, no, not hypotheticals. I, sir, have. real. live. ANECDOTES!
I don’t currently have the time to get into this debate, but I had to get that in there.
I will say this quickly about your second anecdote; corporate policies are not laws. Saying that you wish the company you worked for several years ago would not have forbade overtime is not the same thing as saying you oppose overtime laws. In fact, what you are complaining about isn’t even a “law” at all. But, you did admit that you are bad with labels…
Judd:
I don’t know that “ineffective” is really the best term; “counterproductive” may be better, though I admit I’m not particularly good with labels.
That’s not really a label, it’s a description. If you can’t describe what you’re talking about, you’re going to be in a world of hurt.
To clarify, “ineffective” would be something that fails to achieve its stated goals, whereas “counterproductive” is something that actually moves away from the stated goals.
Not hypotheticals, I’ve seen it with my own eyes.
The plural of anecdote is not data.
But on the mom-and-pop thing, I don’t have much of a problem with variable minimum wages, of the sort Chicago tried to implement a while back, in which large employers were held to stricter pay and benefit rules than small businesses were.
Injecting an arbitrary federal minimum means puts the employer in a tough position if there’s work that needs to be done but isn’t worth $6.50 an hour.
Work that costs more to do than people are willing to pay to have done is a fairly common phenomenon, and the economy seems to handle that just fine. But to combat some of this, I wouldn’t oppose an exception that allows small businesses to hire minors part-time during non-school hours for a lower wage.
Generally speaking the CW on a minimum wage increase is that it results in slightly fewer jobs, but better jobs. But it’s hard to find unbiased research on the matter, as most of the studies (pro and con) seem to have a political axe to grind. In any case, assuming the CW is true, how you view it is going to depend on whether you think it’s better to have somewhat fewer jobs, but they’re better jobs, or to have more, crappier jobs.
But here’s why I call myself a pragmatist on the issue: if I became convinced that a drop in the minimum wage would on balance benefit the working poor and reduce income inequality, I would support doing so; if I became convinced that an increase in the minimum wage is, in fact, counterproductive (i.e., it hurts those it’s supposed to help), I’d oppose it.
I think that’s what makes you, as I say a way upthread, a fascinating opponent.
Likewise, though I’m not sure “opponent” is the word I’d choose. Adversary, maybe? Again with the labels!
The “taxation is theft” crowd is misguided and, thankfully, small.
I’ve been encountering more and more of them lately, and that’s worrisome. But I’m glad that you’re not among their number.
We’ve tried a government with no authority to tax and that fell apart quickly enough to prove to anyone that’s a bad idea.
Anyone reasonable, which pretty much excludes the “taxation is theft” crowd.
I oppose the income tax, for starters
Me, too. I’d much prefer to tax wealth rather than income.
*ducks, hides*
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..Payday Loans =-.
digglahhh:
I included something anecdotal but that was not the sum total of my argument against the minimum wage. Or maybe that’s what you didn’t have time to get in to.
My overtime example wasn’t intended to be a complete argument either. The top of this thread makes it abundantly clear (assuming you were willing to try it in the first place) that if all you really have is an anecdote you will be called on it. Call what I said “a trial balloon”.
T:
I think the CW on minimum wage adjustments is fairly reasonable. Unfortunately I think what you say about the studies of it is true, too. Even if we subtract the moral issue from it, this still sets itself up for a lot of passionate political divisiveness. Anyone saying the minimum wage drives down employment, hurts workers and should be repealed is a puppet of big corporations who doesn’t care about the plight of hard-working people trying to feed their families and anyone saying the minimum wage needs to go up so people can support themselves is a hack for big labor who doesn’t understand what it takes to make a business survive in the real world. I guess people are just really really passionate when it comes to money.
I think the reason for the growth of the “taxation is theft” bunch is because the party they would normally support has been so completely eviscerated. They’re still as passionate as they ever were, there’s legislation being debated they don’t like (be their reasons for that real or imagined) and they’re powerless to stop it so that just works them up more and the cycle repeats.
Honestly they’ve had some help in that from your side, too. When something the size and nature of the stimulus bill gets passed there are bound to be enough things in it the rabble rousers on the right can use to inflame passions. I’ve personally never been of the opinion that ginning up an unruly mob is a good political solution but, hey, that’s just me.
And speaking of unruly mobs, I’ve ignored the whole mess going on at the town hall meetings right now so if you ask I’ll be forced to throw up my hands.
The wealth tax idea is something that I won’t dismiss out of hand. I’m averse to most taxes to start with but I think if enough thought were put in to that it might maybe be possible to string together some form of that I could consider thinking about supporting. It’d never happen though. That ranks somewhere up there with my pipe dream of the repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment. Working within the context of what could feasibly make it through Congress, I’d like to see the institution of a small VAT and simultaneous movement to a flat income tax and closing most if not all loopholes. Everyone would get a little of what they want to help them choke down what they didn’t care for and the government has extra incentive to keep commerce flowing to keep the VAT receipts up. I don’t know that this would ever happen either but a man can dream.
Judd:
I’m not down with repealing the 16th Amendment in large part because I’m not in favor of regressive taxation. And I even live in a nice laboratory demonstrating that that’s precisely what would happen. You see, my current home state of Tennessee has no individual income tax. You’ve got property taxes and sales taxes, and that’s pretty much it. And lo and behold, Tennessee has the most regressive tax structure in the union: the less you have, the more you pay, as a percentage of gross income. I’m not sure I want to see the nation follow in that direction.
Nor am I particularly fond of the libertarian favorite, use taxes, because those basically say that whether or not you deserve a needed service is based wholly upon whether or not you can personally pay for it. Sorry, but I’m not willing to go back to the bad old days when education was a privilege of wealth, so much so that even wealthy families would single out one or two children for robust education.
Although all that said, I wouldn’t have a problem with what I’d call a modified flat tax (actually a two-tiered tax), which would be set up as follows:
- Everything counts as “income” — no separate catagories for payroll vs. dividend vs. capital gains
- Payroll taxes are repealed
- No deductions of any kind. Any social engineering you want to do, you do by direct payment, not by tax adjustment
- All income, irrespective of the source, is taxed at a flat rate of 2%, so everybody’s got skin in the game
- All income above 115% of the poverty level is surtaxed at a higher rate, say 30% — whatever rate is needed to cover about 110-120% of the federal budget (the excess is used to pay down debt, or for a rainy day fund, in case the economy tanks and tax receipts suddenly fall off the map)
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..How Bad is Brewers Pitching? =-.
TG,
I hope your proposed tax structure is only describing the income tax, since, well, it doesn’t tax wealth at all. Other than that, it doesn’t sound bad, for a flat tax, but I’m in favor of progressive taxation. (Though I must say that I like the idea of dropping deductions in favor of separate programs.)
One thing I would love to see (and is completely impossible) is an effective death tax of 100%. I say ‘effective’ because you have to incorporate the related issues of gift taxes and end-of-life care, and most importantly costs of child-rearing. (Just like poverty, college education is a generational phenomenon.)
Other than that, I’ve been playing with the idea of taxing just natural resources, which might even (for the right rent rates) work as an effective death tax.
A minor backtrack, as I am traveling – sorry…
Tgirsch – yeah yeah, we can overtalk the issues of society, but since no one is actually doing much about them, it is at least worth occasionally going back to first principles on the problem. Concur.
I’ll disagree on the cause of most jobs going overseas. We caused the jobs to move, not “they moved” by allowing inflated wages in unions, and creating a society that did not want to do that kind of work. This is obviously a can of nuclear worms, but there really was no cause for the guy who puts 4 bolts in a door in Detroit, tightens them, and repeats ad nauseam to earn $80-100K a year. Many, many of the jobs in our country left because we priced the labour involved in those jobs out of our own market. Ok, got my kevlar on now, let the shooting begin.
Dan, et al:
Wow, this has gone wildly off topic, but what the heck. First and foremost, while I support a flat tax, it has to be a true flat tax. No 20-30% surfeit for “high income” earners, etc. The problem with additional surfeits is that it actually slows down economic growth, and discourages both invention/innovation and the creation of jobs. High income people do not continue to produce after they hit a certain tax bracket – that is part of what has led to tax reform each time we try (and fail as a rule) to do it. The highest income/wealth earners are often those generating the most new jobs and positions…venture capital has to come from somewhere for example. Many of the VC’s I know, and quite a few of the senior scientists/engineers/consultants who produce and create a lot of our newer technologies, quite frankly, would just stop at certain tax points. I do some work in the creation of technology, technology transitions, and creation of companies with VC’s and a lot of those guys manage their salaries to within $500.00 of the amount of taxes that they are willing to pay. The only thing a surfeit will do is slow them down and damage the economy further.
Everything as income (dividends/real income/capital gains) sounds great, but you have to be very careful with capital gains from the sale of houses, etc. For the majority of Americans, the house that they and the bank own is their greatest asset. This is directly counter to the European model where many homes are passed down generation to generation effectively preventing that sort of asset building. One of the reasons so many Europeans have greater actual saving is due to the complete inability to own their own home due to the incredible expense. Renting apartments or buying an apartment, yes, but to own a home is a pipe dream for many. Back to the USA – Taxing capital gains such as home sales would directly dilute the fiscal leverage of most of the middle class and be quite disastrous. No deductions is a good thing…
BTW, I don’t have the citation in front of me, but if I remember correctly, an 8% federal flat tax on everyone generates sufficient income for all of the government services, and provides for deficit reduction in a relatively short amount of time. The downside is that national health care/health insurance will create a sucking sound for resources of a like we can not begin to comprehend, and is a key driver for the 50-60% effective tax rates in Europe. When the people who have national health care are telling you it’s a bad idea, it might be good to listen.
So, since we’re throwing out thoughts on fixes, here goes:
1. Flat tax, 9% at the Federal level. States continue to do their own thing. I used to live in Tennessee, so I hear you on “regressive taxes” but will argue that what we are calling poor is a relative sense here. This is the only country in the world where the poor drive to pick up their welfare checks, complain about ‘only’ having 30 channels of cable, and have stationary bicycles and riding lawnmowers…
2. Inheritance taxes at zero percent to $1M, graduate above that rate. Many households in areas such as New York, Boston, Washington D.C., Los Angeles, etc end up valuating out quite highly as the property has increased in time since those homes were built. Providing an up to $1M nest egg to the children/survivors means that they can afford to send the grandchildren to University/College/Vocation Tech/whatever without needing to take out school loans.
3. This is the big one – Tort reform. Get serious about fixing the laws that let people sue people over things. Hot coffee in the lap the third time you went to the same place is not/not a reason to sue someone. You can make coffee at home or even buy it somewhere else if it is too hot. Doctors paying 60% of their practice’s gross into malpractice insurance is ridiculous. Establish a reasonable cap on personal lawsuits, and establish criminal penalties that affect the corporations when they are successfully sued for negligence/etc that really hurt. The FDA fining a diet pill company $2.7M for fraud after they made $47M is not really a penalty.
Fix the Patent system and return to a 10-15 year cap on Patents. Mickey Mouse is still protected 70+ years later for heaven’s sake. That is ridiculous. Require WORKING hardware to issue patents again.
4. Apply the same mentality used for the 60′s Man to the moon mission for renewable energy (good one above!). Drop the rhetoric of global warming as their is no/no solid causality established (ducking now, but have the facts) but work renewable – it’s clearly a good thing. Invest in Bussard’s designs and actually get them tested. Use the need to replace and recapitalize our energy systems to drive blue collar expansion and start making things again. You can not have an economy where the key output is the service industry…
Ok, I now have a bright orange target on my shirt and am ready to receive incoming rounds!
Dan M:
I was kind of pipe dreaming about a wealth tax. It would be way too difficult to implement, way too easy to circumvent (by shifting wealth overseas), and unfair even by my standards, as it would shift the tax burden too far the other way (when you consider the sheer numbers of Americans who have a net worth of zero or even a negative net worth).
With some tweaking, my proposed income tax structure would actually wind up being considerably more progressive than what we have today. Under current tax policy, the effective rate of taxation caps out around 24% of AGI, and does so somewhere around the border between the top and second quintiles — for higher incomes, it actually goes DOWN (because the more income you have, the more of it is likely to come from capital gains, which are taxed at a much lower rate). The numbers I removed from a secure, undisclosed orifice in my off-the-cuff post up above don’t work all that well, but that could be tweaked.
That said, I don’t have a problem with adding another 5% surtax over $1 million, and an additional 5% surtax over $10 million, to increase the progressivity while still retaining some measure of simplicity.
SmokeJaguar:
While auto workers’ total compensation got out of hand (mostly because of benefit costs, not direct wages), I frankly don’t think we should be trying to compete on the world market in terms of wages and benefits. In China, $100/month is considered decent — no way we can compete with that. You may be eager to rush headlong into that race to the bottom, but for me, no thanks. Of course, if we had a decent social safety net (say, with universal health care and the like), then labor costs wouldn’t have gotten so high to begin with.
Maybe it’s a pipe dream, maybe we’re all doomed to one day be like Bangalore, but I’d like to make an effort to maintain some semblance of our standard of living, thank you. There has to be a happy medium between the race to the bottom and rigid protectionism. I’m not saying I know what it is, just that there has to be one.
High income people do not continue to produce after they hit a certain tax bracket
Really? That makes it pretty difficult to explain the economic growth we experienced during the 1950s and 1960s.
But the truth is, it doesn’t much matter to me what the “high income” people do. What’s more important is what the economy as a whole does. What good does it do if the high income people start “producing” a ton more, but keep all the spoils of that additional production? The answer is that it depends on whether you’re one of those high income people. If you are, it’s great! If you aren’t, it makes no difference to you at all. Because contrary to what St. Reagan told us, almost nothing actually manages to “trickle down.” Behold, a chart! Which shows that right now, today, the wealthiest 0.01% of the population (or about 30,000 people) have 6% of the nation’s income — the highest percentage ever. (And if you looked at wealth rather than income, it would be even more dramatic.) Income inequality is, in other words, the worst it’s ever been. That’s not good for the country.
When did that massively upward trend begin? With St. Reagan, of course, when he shifted more of the tax burden onto the working class and away from the wealthy, after nearly 40 years of relative stability. Mind you, under the “oppressive” top marginal rates of the 50s/60s/70s, you still had some supremely wealthy people. Even at bottom the top 0.01% of the people collectively had nearly 1% of the income.
Everything (dividends/real income/capital gains) sounds great, but you have to be very careful with capital gains from the sale of houses, etc.
That’s workable. If you wanted to keep it simple, exempt the sale of your primary residence. If you’re John McCain, you’re SOL on the other 6.
BTW, I don’t have the citation in front of me, but if I remember correctly, an 8% federal flat tax on everyone generates sufficient income for all of the government services, and provides for deficit reduction in a relatively short amount of time.
I doubt it. From 1952 to 2007, federal spending averaged around 20-21% of GDP, hovering between 17% (1957) and 23.5% (1983). It’s difficult imagine paying for that, PLUS debt reduction, on 8% of income. The “Fair Tax” people put their rate at about 30%, and claim that that rate is “revenue neutral” (which means you’d still be falling behind, because we have been for years), and most economists doubt it actually would be revenue neutral. Though, to be fair, the “Fair Tax” is a tax on spending, not on earning.
The downside is that national health care/health insurance will create a sucking sound for resources of a like we can not begin to comprehend, and is a key driver for the 50-60% effective tax rates in Europe.
I dunno, we already spend close to double per capita what they do on health care, and our effective tax rates aren’t nearly that high.
This is the only country in the world where the poor drive to pick up their welfare checks, complain about ‘only’ having 30 channels of cable, and have stationary bicycles and riding lawnmowers..
Everybody hide! Welfare queens in Cadillacs at 3:00, inbound! Sheesh! Apart from the time-tested rhetorical trick of holding up the worst examples as though they were typical, are you really going to go on record as saying that such abuses, to the extent that they actually exist, are unique to the United States?
Inheritance taxes at zero percent to $1M, graduate above that rate.
In other words, preserve the status quo. On that, I’m with you.
This is the big one – Tort reform. Get serious about fixing the laws that let people sue people over things.
Conservatives seem to have a giant hard-on over this, but I’ve never seen any evidence that it would make that big of a difference. I could see maybe giving the judges more leeway to toss out frivolous lawsuits, but I can’t see capping damages. Because you and I both know that once you do that, the bean counters will simply start budgeting for it.
As for malpractice insurance, you could fix that the way the French did — handle malpractice claims like worker’s compensation claims rather than as lawsuits.
Fix the Patent system and return to a 10-15 year cap on Patents.
No argument there, however…
Mickey Mouse is still protected 70+ years later for heaven’s sake.
Mickey Mouse is copyrighted, not patented. It’s copyright law you’re apparently complaining about. But the larger point stands — we need to fix intellectual property laws.
Apply the same mentality used for the 60′s Man to the moon mission for renewable energy (good one above!)
Yes, yes, yes! But you realize, of course, that that “mentality” involved the government throwing warehouse-loads of taxpayer money at the project, right?
Drop the rhetoric of global warming as their is no/no solid causality established
Depends how you mean, I suppose, but whatever. As I mentioned above (and you seem to agree), you can justify doing the right things in other ways.
You can not have an economy where the key output is the service industry.
Hooray, we end on a note of agreement!
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..How Bad is Brewers Pitching? =-.
Side note: Holy topic drift, Batman!
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..How Bad is Brewers Pitching? =-.
I don’t have time to respond to all this right now but, T, I’ll see your chart and raise you an Excel file.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/04in06tr.xls
I apologize for having numbers that are a few years out of date but the perspective this can supply is still useful.
In 2004 the top 1% of wage earners made 19% of the income and paid around 35% of all income taxes, the top 10% paid nearly 70% of all federal income taxes and the top half of all wage earners paid around 97% of federal taxes. We’re already doing a pretty fair job of soaking the rich.
Judd:
Those income tax figures are an excellent example of how to lie with statistics. This is true in two ways, actually. First, the reason their share of the income taxes has gotten so much higher is because their share of the income has gotten so much higher (as shown in my chart). But second, and more importantly, the statistics you cite commit a great lie of omission: they refer only to income taxes. When you start factoring in sales taxes, payroll taxes, and other such taxes, the overall tax burden flattens considerably.
According to the Urban Institute, only 45% of federal revenues come from the progressive income tax. Another 36% comes from payroll taxes, which are highly, highly regressive. Also from Urban:
Or, if you prefer, that bastion of anti-market commies, the WSJ’s Market Watch:
[Emphasis mine.]
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..How Bad is Brewers Pitching? =-.
After some more Googling, I found the tables we need here (parent post here).
When you look at the total income and tax picture, it becomes clear just how misleading those income tax-only figures are. As of 2007, the top 1% have 22.4% of the income, and pay 23.6% of total federal taxes. That hardly seems like they’re being “soaked” to me. And that’s why right-wing anti-tax think tanks rarely mention share of income, and never mention payroll taxes.
(Also, be careful not to conflate “adjusted gross income,” “taxable income,” and “income,” as these are not all the same thing.)
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..How Bad is Brewers Pitching? =-.
The picture from those statistics is incomplete, yes, but I meant it to illustrate how the rich are the ones picking up the tab and so them getting richer can be considered a good thing. I think with that issue we might be headed back to that realm of irreconcilable philosophical differences though.
To your earlier point, I have no problem with regressive taxes in and of themselves. By definition they’re going to hit the poor harder as a percentage but the rich will still be the ones carrying the freight if the government’s going to function. The poor are too poor to be taxed in any way that puts on them the burden of paying for government. Speaking of which, I was surprised to hear Tennessee now has the most regressive tax system in the nation. I thought it was still that great conservative bastion Washington State. When did you “dethrone” them?
The reason the payroll tax is regressive is the cap on benefits that mirrors the cap on payments. If you “fix” it and make it non-regressive those rich people who’ll paid in more will have a justifiable claim to a greater benefit from the system later on. Is that really any better? “Tax” might even be a misnomer here. It could be considered nothing more than a mandatory payment in to a government-administered retirement account. I’m not necessarily endorsing that view, especially when you consider what actually happens to the funds collected but, on its surface at least…..
Let’s also not pretend liberals can’t be talked in to supporting regressive taxation. One of the first few bills President Obama signed included an increase in the national sales tax on cigarettes which, apart from being regressive by its nature, is hitting the poor particularly hard as a disproportionately high number of smokers are low income people. Most of those smokers probably didn’t choose to become addicted to cigarettes and to have the government just come along and exploit their addictions……… well, it was to fund health care for children.
T,
What in your view is wrong with intellectual property laws?
For starters, I’m on record opposing the use of cigarette taxes to pay for S-CHIP. I don’t have a problem with cigarette taxes (or other “sin” taxes) so long as those taxes go directly to pay for the costs those “sins” have to society, such that as the number of people engaging in that behavior drops, the need for the revenue does as well.
And, from another perspective, though the tax is regressive in effect, it’s also totally voluntary. Nobody has to buy cigarettes (or alcohol, or whatever), so avoiding the tax is easy. With things like payroll taxes and sales taxes more generally, not so much.
We start getting into mush territory when we start talking about who benefits from regressive taxes. Social security and Medicare are open to everyone who establishes a working history, not just the working class, so yes, even the wealthy benefit from it, even if they benefit from it somewhat less. Note, too, that the wealthier you are, the more likely you are to live to see benefits from those programs, and see them for a long time. But most importantly, consider the fate of the social security trust fund — that fund was raided (the government borrowed against it by selling the fund T-notes) to pay for other areas of government, rather than raise other taxes (or refrain from cutting taxes), so the regressive portion pays for a lot more of government than you’re otherwise willing to give credit for.
So again, the question of whether the rich really are “carrying the freight” depends on how one defines that term. Either way, I don’t want to hear them whining about it — as they consolidate more and more of the nation’s wealth onto themselves, as they’ve spend most of the last three decades doing, they should expect to have to pick up more and more of the tab. In the words of a famous deodorant commercial, anything less would be uncivilized.
Where we’re REALLY likely to diverge is in whether we view this consolidation of wealth to be a good or a bad thing, and what (if anything) we’re willing to do to change it.
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..How Bad is Brewers Pitching? =-.
Another study of the overall tax picture in the United States. Also, a side note: a 2003 study indeed shows Washington State as worst, and Tennessee as third-worst (Florida was second-worst). I recall seeing a more recent study that had Tennessee worst, but I can’t find it, so I’m willing to concede the point. The conclusions are the same, anyway: the more you rely on consumption taxes, and the less you rely on progressive income taxes, the more regressive your state’s tax structure will ultimately be. (Which is why the “Fair Tax” some libertarians have a boner for is a terrible, terrible, terrible idea.)
I have to say, it appears to me, reading the charts you cited that the top 20% is paying a very reasonable percentage of the total combined tax rates, and a reasonable percentage of both income and payroll taxes. Breaking it down a bit, the top 20% of earners is paying 68.3% of total combined taxes, while the lowest 60% of earners are paying 12.9% of those same taxes. Income taxes in particular are quite high as a percentage for the top 20% earners, while payroll taxes as a percentage appear to be high for the the 60-75% earning brackets. I’ll agree that the top 20% may not be getting soaked, but I will say that they are paying their fair share.
You cite payroll taxes as a big issue, but you seem to have missed the difference between percentage of taxes and amount payed in. Payroll taxes include social security and medicare, as well as unemployment tax. Social Security payments into the system are capped, meaning that they max out for incomes above $106,700 (FY2009). As a result, they are a smaller percentage of gross income, and the amount paid into Social Security becomes static above that point. This means that the percentage does, in fact drop, despite remaining a higher amount of money than the lower tier incomes, where it is a higher percentage and lower amount of money. As social security also pays out a lower amount past certain income points, this seems fairly reasonable to me – social security provides the greatest benefit to the lowest income brackets, as it was designed to do. Paying a higher percentage does not mean paying more. Again, referring to the chart you cited, between both taxes, the lowest 60% of incomes are paying no more than 9% of their income for both COMBINED, while the highest 20% of incomes are paying a combined rate ranging between 27.8% and 23.6% with the highest burden in the 80-95% of income range. This hardly seems disproportionate, nor unreasonable for the lowest 60% of incomes to me. The 60-80% income range is paying about 18% combined – not too shabby. Medicare fairs similarly, as most in the top 20% will also have excellent health insurance, and not be dependent on medicare. Granted that this is direct federal taxing only.
Now, I will agree that the dividend tax rate of 15% does protect the upper earners significantly and that dividends should be considered normal income.
Mea culpa on Mickey Mouse – that is what happens when I post without having had any coffee! After 2-4 cups in the morning, I do know the difference between the patent system and copyright. IP laws writ large need a serious overhaul, as does the tort system.
As for the poor driving to get welfare and complaining about ‘only’ getting 30 channels of cable, I’ll stand by that statement. It’s not a question of abuses, it’s a simple reflection that poor in this country is incredibly relative, and I have lived far far too many places with the truly poor.
The 1950s and 1960s were well before the insanity broke free on many labor rates in this country. It’s not an apples and oranges comparison. The cost of labor, particularly factor worker/manufacturing labor in this country was a huge driver in the move overseas. You are correct that only so many plumbers, electricians, etc are needed, but there are many other high paying blue collar jobs that are available, such as mechanic, welder, etc. I’m in no rush to the bottom either, and am not sure where that assertion came from – I simply identified the causal element. If we truly want to stop job movement overseas, two things need to happen – 1) reasonable pay scales for unskilled labor and 2) fair trade as opposed to free trade. Number 1 is pretty self explanatory ($85K to attach car doors is ridiculous when average family income is $45K), number 2 may need more explanation. We like free trade in the US, hence NAFTA, etc , but many of the jobs fled to markets with VAT or high tariffs in order to subsidize local manufacture and make entry of foreign products into those markets difficult. Fair trade would look at tariff schedules that match barriers to higher costs for goods from those countries. Quite frankly neither the Democrats nor the Republicans want that, as it would raise the price of goods from China significantly and risk a call on the national deficit.
St. Reagan? That is below your normally skilled rhetoric… trickle down is definitely not the issue regardless; the issue is that without the top earners capitalizing businesses, there are no jobs at the bottom. Past a certain point those capitalizing businesses simply will not do so if that pushes them over a certain tax burden. The AMT has really taken a toll on a lot of people who might otherwise invest more into the economy in the form of businesses who simply choose not to in order to avoid higher mandatory taxes.
Wealth consolidation is a difference we won’t resolve. I’ll just drop it at that.
We’re in lockstep on sin taxes. My philosophical aversion to them gives way to the pragmatic view that government will pick up costs associated with certain behaviors and so if government’s bound and determined to do that then we ought to tax those responsible. The trouble with that is if you give a politician a source of revenue then they will spend it on something.
As you point out the same’s true with payroll taxes which is why I thought Al Gore’s oft-maligned “lockbox” idea had some merit. Unfortunately the fact we’re right means little. You’re dead on on the regressive nature of the tax when Congress raids it but that’s more of a problem of politicians behaving badly as opposed to something with the system itself. It’s up to those Congresscritter’s informed constituents to hold their feet to the fire when they do shit like that.
*waits for the laughter to subside*
Judd:
WRT intellectual property laws, it’s not an area I have super-strong feelings about, but the big problem as I see it is that they primarily protect the content owners rather than the content producers — the two are generally not the same.
SmokeJaguar:
I’m pretty sure the odds of us ever agreeing as to what constitutes one’s “fair share” of taxes are pretty close to zero.
However:
Again, referring to the chart you cited, between both taxes, the lowest 60% of incomes are paying no more than 9% of their income for both COMBINED, while the highest 20% of incomes are paying a combined rate ranging between 27.8% and 23.6% with the highest burden in the 80-95% of income range.
You’re misreading the chart. The middle 20% does not pay 9% of their income in taxes; they’re collectively paying 9% of the total tax burden (against collectively having 11% of the total income). Which underscores my point that the overall tax picture we have today is pretty close to flat (which isn’t the same thing as being “fair,” by the way).
If we truly want to stop job movement overseas, two things need to happen – 1) reasonable pay scales for unskilled labor and 2) fair trade as opposed to free trade.
Ahh, back to the range of issues where we can agree. You forgot #3, however: Firebomb Bentonville, AR.
St. Reagan? That is below your normally skilled rhetoric.
I can be allowed to engage in a bit of demagoguery from time to time, can’t I?
Past a certain point those capitalizing businesses simply will not do so if that pushes them over a certain tax burden.
That’s probably true, once we stipulate just where that “certain point” is. I can tell you that it sure isn’t the difference between a top marginal rate of 35% and a top marginal rate of 39.6%. It’s probably somewhere between the 50% top marginal rate that Reagan instituted and the 70% top marginal rate that preceded him. Personally, I’d like to see us return to something like that 50% top marginal rate, although I think it’s ludicrous that the highest bracket kicks in at something like $387,000. Put that bracket back at 39.6% (where it was during the Clinton administration, when the economy boomed) and create a couple of even higher brackets for multi-million dollar incomes, capping at 50% (like during the Reagan administration, when the economy boomed).
And there’s a piece to this “top earners capitalizing business” puzzle that you’re missing — it’s Very, Very Bad if there are very few such top earners, because we come to overdepend on just a few such investors. I have no desire to wipe out wealth, and I have nothing against the wealthy. I just think that if we could have a lot more multimillionaires at the expense of a few multibillionaires, that can only be a good thing.
Side note: I hear a lot of rhetoric about investors choosing not to invest because the tax bill would be too high, but I never see this supported by actual evidence. It’s always made as a “just-so” statement. My counter-argument to that is that investors who are smart enough to turn their investments into profits that push into the highest tax brackets generally aren’t stupid enough to turn down money just because the tax rate is higher. I get into that argument a little bit here (mainly in comments).
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..How Bad is Brewers Pitching? =-.
Wealth consolidation is a difference we won’t resolve.
There’s that pragmatism vs. idealism divide again.
*ducks*
That’s okay, T. I imagine idealism at least feels good and I won’t try to rob you of that.
Seeing as how this thread has already gone to hell and there are probably only about three or four people still reading it I have fewer qualms over going in another semi-unrelated direction.
In the quick pass I made over this discussion to date it’s at least touched on the public perception of science, energy policy, the proper role and function of market economics, government regulation thereof, payday loans, the root causes of poverty, jobs, education reform, the minimum wage, state’s rights and tax policy. The degree of depth we’ve gone in to on those issues has varied but despite our sometimes vast differences the discussion itself has been largely polite and respectful.
The reason I bring it up is I finally got a chance to catch up with the whole town hall protest thing that’s been going on. Unbiased media seems VERY hard to come by; the right makes them out to be informed freedom-loving Americans calming exercising their First Amendment rights and the left makes them out to be violent, unruly ignorant mobs seeking only to disrupt a civil gathering for the purpose of shouting at elected representatives. I don’t want to get in to who’s right and who’s wrong on this issue, nor am I looking for a debate on health care reform itself as it’s unlikely to go anywhere. What I do wonder about is why in the hell we’re able to act like adults when so many other people aren’t.
I don’t think it’s a matter of the politics itself. The right is acting unseemly (which is how I regard most protesters) now but the left can hardly claim to be clean and pure as the wind-driven snow. I don’t think it’s a matter of commitment and strength of conviction. We disprove that notion ourselves. I could list a couple more but nothing seems to really sum it all up.
So why then are we able to debate issues like grown-ups and not shout at each other when so many out there on either side of the political spectrum can’t seem to follow our lead?
Even accepting that I misread the chart, the overall conclusion remains – The lowest 60% of income earners are paying significantly less of their income as a percentage than those in the higher brackets.
We appear to disagree than the middle 20%, earning 11% of income and paying 9% of taxes is unfair. You are correct – we probably will not agree on this one. I believe the fact that the lowest income brackets are paying significantly less than their % of income is reasonable, and that after that is tends to match is pretty reasonable.
Given the anecdotes provided above, I have no issue with pointing out that I know several VCs and others who are not investing their funding against new businesses, etc specifically to avoid the tax issues right now. Still hearsay, but I can at least say that I know personally of cases. I don’t know how much experience you have with this crowd, but they are interesting, to say the least…
SmokeJaguar:
I’d be surprised if the tax issues were the primary thing preventing them from investing right now. Taxes right now are the lowest they’ve been in history, so now WOULD be the time to invest as compared to waiting until they inevitably go up in the near future (best case, when the Bush Tax Cuts expire at the end of 2010). More likely, the reluctance to invest is born of the fact that demand is in the toilet right now. Investing in new products and services in a terribly economy seems akin to throwing away money. (Which, I’ll grant, VCs are known for doing from time to time.)
As for taxes, all across the income spectrum, the share of the tax burden that falls on an individual is very close to his or her share of the income. If the low end of the spectrum paid the same percentage-relative-to-income as what Bill Gates paid, you would have a highly regressive tax structure, with most of the tax burden falling to the poor and working classes. Which, frankly, is precisely what most flat tax advocates want.
Judd:
What I do wonder about is why in the hell we’re able to act like adults when so many other people aren’t.
Because we’re better-informed than the general public, and I’m betting neither one of us spends much time watching Sean Hannity or Keith Olbermann, or listening to AM talk radio.
So why then are we able to debate issues like grown-ups and not shout at each other when so many out there on either side of the political spectrum can’t seem to follow our lead?
Fuck you!
…because virtually none of those people (on either professed “side”) would have the patience, appreciation and understanding of nuance, intellectual capital and knowledge base to read a discussion like this one in complete.
While we may have a fair amount of conviction in our respective, and differing, viewpoints, we understand that these issues are not easy. And, further, we realize that seeing what one might feel would be a good solution and assessing the feasibility of its implementation are two separate issues.
To be a part of the type of discourse you (and all of us) wish for, Judd, a person has to accept that there are no simple answers to complicated question, argue only in good faith, and have a fair amount of smarts to bring to the table in the first place. To those who fit the bill, these criteria don’t seem to onerous, but in reality, they’re rather exclusive.
Jag,
Going back to the flat tax argument for a second, allow me to play one of my broken records.
How do you reconcile the fact that the most wealthy among us benefit from the services taxes provide on a scale, and in ways, that the less fortunate do not. For example, if I own a business (or even just sit in a C-suite in one), I rely on the education system to educate a whole crop of employees who will provide valuable, and revenue-generating, service for me. I may rely on buses on trains to get my workforce to work, even if I drive. I rely on roads not just to deliver me to work, but to deliver my products to their destinations. I rely on the fire and police depts to protect not just my home, but my place of business and my valuable employees. I use more resources on a different scale than most of my employees do. Basically, if taxes can be though of (at least theoretically) as fees for service, why should I pay anywhere near the same [percentage] for the services that somebody else uses exponentially more of than I do.
And, if you think it’s fair because 9% is 9% and the fact that my 9% is a greater number because my whole is greater, then I’m tempted to ask you if you’re located in the NYC area, because I’d love to have you at my next poker night…
Digglahhh,
I am afraid that I disagree with your basic argument here. The wealthy generally benefit less from the services taxes provide, and in fact, are often penalized by those services. Taking your example – the education system first, the education system provides education to those who might otherwise not be able to get it at all. This provides the opportunity, for example, to go to college, which is often a bellweather of future potential success. Given that many wealthy parents put their children into private schools, at an additional cost beyond their tax loads, this would seem to present an interesting counterpoint to your argument. The idea that the rich disproportionately benefit from roads to deliver products, etc is a bit dis-ambiguous – without those roads, there would be no jobs at all. Similarly, the rich rarely use medicare, they pay for services or use insurance that they pay for our of pocket. Everyone benefits from roads, except perhaps those without cars, who are a remarkably low percentage of the US populace. The DOT, for example, in 2003 showed 196M licensed drivers and 231M cars. Granted, many families have multiple cars, but there is a clear indication that most licensed drivers have autos.
Access to roads allows the poor, middle class and wealthy to get to work, whether in their own auto or public transportation, it also allows goods (as you point out) to flow between locations and provides access to markets. All of these things directly benefit all citizens, regardless of income. Educating the populace does yes, provide the rich the opportunity to hire workers that improve their profitability, but also provides those workers incomes and opportunities to improve themselves. Before I hear a “B.S.” loudly, I should point out that I was in the Army, got out, used my G.I. bill to go to college (only way I could afford it), got into the workforce, had my job pay for my Master’s degree, and my job is currently paying for my Ph.D. So, my mileage is that I have seen the system work…many people of ALL income levels fail to take advantage of the opportunities that are there. There are also many, many scholarships available – often targeting the poor. I can accept an argument that the truly poor may not have access to all of these resources, although public libraries are hugely underutilized, but I find it challenging to believe in the “there is no opportunity left in America” approach I keep hearing. Given the large number of immigrants that come to this country and succeed, using those same public services we are discussing, I find the argument to be spurious at best, and disingenuous at worst. Taking the Asian populace in the Northwest as an example, the immigrants worked hard, succeeded at menial jobs initially, and sent their children to school. They worked hard at school, got advanced degrees and are excelling as a group. Hard to fault that kind of result. Yes, their parents pushed them and provided huge pressures to succeed – but any success comes of hard work and dedication. The reality is that a lot of people fail to apply themselves, and thus do not get much out of their opportunities. There are a lot of people partying, when they could be studying and working to grow and learn. How many people go home and watch television, when they could go to night school? Or go to an online University? Or go to a votech school? I don’t get weekends, because I spend them at the University working to complete a Ph.D. while I am working full time. No, not everyone can do this, and I accept that, but a lot more people can do than actually choose to.
Police and Fire are universal – they try to protect all regardless of income or assets. Again, see the number of immigrants buying small grocers, dry cleaning, laundry, etc and working hard at it to succeed. They invest in themselves and their children, who go on to be doctors and lawyers. Look at the number of people from Tennessee, who are hugely disproportionately represented in the Armed Forces, who join for 2-4 years, go home to get college educations and become successful. The opportunities are there, they are often overlooked. Whether you agree with military service or not, it is one heck of a way to get skills and a college education afterward.
Taxes are used to support services that are by definition economic costs – no one individual or business can support those costs, but they benefit all. If you are not getting everything out of those services, perhaps it would be worthwhile to determine why not… This is not meant as an accusation or a shot, but an honest question.
Sadly, I am not in NYC – I am more of a country boy, but would *love* to show up at the next poker night.
SmokeJaguar:
It won’t surprise you to learn that I think digg has the better of you here. Unless the mythical wealthy person made/makes all of his or her money out of the country, s/he benefits much more from tax dollars than the average working stiff. Without the roads, working stiff has no job. Without the roads, Entrepreneur has no business. Without a reasonably healthy, reasonably well-educated, and reasonably mobile populace, Entrepreneur has no workforce to operate his or her business. No distribution network to deliver products. Etc., etc.
Yes, the consumers benefit from having access to the products, but the business owner benefits more, because s/he’s making profit from the sale of those goods. And from a defense perspective, Entrepreneur has a lot more to lose if something Very Bad happens to the country than Working Stiff does. Strictly financially speaking, who lost more in the 9-11 attacks? The working class, or the wealthy class?
Also, I don’t think you get to say that “most wealthy people don’t use Medicare” without a cite.
Police and Fire are universal – they try to protect all regardless of income or assets.
Fire, maybe. Police, not so much. Even police departments follow the money.
Look at the number of people from Tennessee, who are hugely disproportionately represented in the Armed Forces, who join for 2-4 years, go home to get college educations and become successful.
Say, who pays for those college educations? I’m glad you’re in favor of government programs that pay for people’s education. I am, too!
Taxes are used to support services that are by definition economic costs
I would certainly say that education, transportation, and health care count as economic costs. Would you disagree?
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..Speaking Truth to Power =-.
tgirsh:
No, no it does not surprise me. Unfortunately though, there is some poor logic in use here. First, your comments imply somehow that jobs just exist in a vacuum. You are right – without the roads, there is no business; precisely correct. Without the business, there are no jobs at all. Again, you are correct – without a reasonably healthy, reasonably well-educated, and reasonably mobile populace, (the) Entrepreneur has no workforce to operate his or her business. Of course, without these same things there are no jobs for anyone, and society writ large decays. The implication that the entrepreneur or business owner is benefiting unfairly is sort of ridiculous – they are returning jobs to the community, in exchange for that profit. Your arguments seem to imply that you believe that people should work equally hard regardless of whether or not it benefits them…obviously this is not the case in the real world. Businesses exist, and employ people in order to make a profit – it is that simple. Otherwise, they close, and many people become unemployed.
The losses in 9/11 affected everyone. Measuring the amount lost in terms of dollars is highly misleading. Yes, the rich lost much more in terms of dollars, but the middle and lower income people affected lost almost everything they had in many cases. To me, it would be far worse for a worker earning $44K a year (median family salary when I last checked) to lose their job in entirety, than for someone with $10M in assets to lose $2-3M. It’s a question of scale – yes, the rich person lost more money, ok, but the middle class person just lost everything that kept them solvent. I’ll punt on the defense issue – there have been many mis-handlings of the Armed Forces over the last 20 years, but at the end of the day, the military is there to prevent us from dealing with having to watch our families get gang raped to death…which unfortunately has occurred in far to many of the troubled spots around the world… and to give us the freedom to debate issues like this without having to consider whether or not we will be sent to re-education camps.
Given the number of assertions made in many of the arguments, I’ll stand by my assertion on Medicare. I am too young to be even remotely eligible, but know far too many well off older folks who gladly pay the insurance and don’t deal with medicare.
Who ever said that I was against Government programs that pay for education? I’m not for blithely giving everyone a scholarship to go to college, but I am entirely for people serving their country and earning the ability to go to college. Opportunity is a wonderful thing. Gifts are not – charity often demeans the recipient, who then resents the giver. Earning one’s way, on the other hand, is incredibly empowering. I am 100% pro Government programs that are empowering, and require effort from the participants. I am about 75% against programs that are simply hand-outs. I say 75% because there are some very good ones – programs for the disabled for example; however, I am vehemently against anyone who calls welfare “their paycheck”.
I’d agree that basic education (K-12) in this country, and access to public highways/transportation where available are economic costs to the general citizenry in this country- these lose money, and would not exist without government funding. Health care in this country is not an economic cost – it is, in fact, incredibly profitable, at least for the health care companies.
As a nation, we are examining many ways to look at the health care cost problem – some involve insurance reform, others involve tort reform, still others look at changing access methods and eligibility. There is probably not a single good answer to health care; for better or worse, a large part of US health care dollars subsidizes the rest of the world’s health care. Unfortunately, universal health care is a pretty bad choice – it is an enormous expense, and ends up reducing quality of care for the vast majority of its recipients, as evidenced in Europe and Canada.
I noticed that you had no comment on the issues of opportunity. I’ll close with the statement that if more people would utilize the opportunities available to improve their situation in this country, they would be far better off. There is work and opportunity in this country – it may require a move, or additional training or joining the military. It may not be fun, but then again, that is why it is called work. If it were fun, it would be a poker party…
SmokeJaguar:
I’m afraid the logic hole is yours. I’m not arguing that not everyone benefits from the existence of roads, etc. I’m arguing that not everyone benefits equally from them. The employee’s benefit is limited to the job, the pay that comes from it, and those products s/he actually consumes. The employer’s benefit is much broader and larger. That’s the point.
And I noticed your switch in terms, which I assume is unintentional, so I’ll let it slide: the employer doesn’t benefit unfairly; the employer benefits disproportionately, which is a different matter.
I’m not going to argue much on the 9/11 point, because it was a poor choice of example on my behalf. Too controversial. My point in bringing it up is that if we’re going to talk about costs strictly in terms of dollars, then it makes sense to also talk about benefits in terms of dollars. From that perspective, rich people benefit a whole lot more from a stable, secure country than not-so-rich people do. There wasn’t much point beyond that.
I’ll stand by my assertion on Medicare.
But you won’t bother to defend it.
I am 100% pro Government programs that are empowering, and require effort from the participants.
Good, then you support universal health care, as it empowers people to actually go about the business of improving their lives, rather than working just to pay the health care costs.
That means you also support government-provided day care for low-income workers, so that parents can more easily join the workforce.
Health care in this country is not an economic cost – it is, in fact, incredibly profitable, at least for the health care companies.
Well, more insurance than care in that regard, but so what? Don’t you think education would be more profitable if we turned it over to the private sector and allowed the schools to refuse to educate people who are too difficult or too costly to educate? That doesn’t mean we ought to do that. Health care is pretty close to being a public good; probably closer to public good status than education is.
Unfortunately, universal health care is a pretty bad choice – it is an enormous expense, and ends up reducing quality of care for the vast majority of its recipients, as evidenced in Europe and Canada.
My guess it that when I ask you to back up that assertion with cites, you’re going to do as you have in the past: stand by the statement, without bothering to back it up with evidence. I sincerely hope you’ll prove me wrong on that count.
In fact, in Europe and Canada, the quality of care is considerably better for the vast majority of the recipients, and you’ve set a misleading standard because in those parts of the world virtually everyone is a recipient, whereas here it’s limited to seniors and people who have jobs and can afford expensive coverage. As you’ve doubtless heard, the US actually ranks 37th in the world (PDF link), behind Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominica, France (#1), Germany, Canada (#30), Japan, Portugal, Oman, and the UK (#18) among others. Now I imagine US care would fare somewhat better if you took the “I’ve-got-mine-Jack” approach and limited your analysis just to the Americans who actually have health insurance, but that’s cheating. (And in any case, I doubt we’d fare all that much better.)
I’ll close with the statement that if more people would utilize the opportunities available to improve their situation in this country, they would be far better off.
I wish it were that simple. It’s not. I seriously doubt that there are 15 million jobs out there just waiting for people to come fill them, if only they’d move to the right place. There are opportunities out there for a relative few. For most people, their opportunities are quite limited. Factor in a poorly-timed illness or injury, and the outlook becomes grim.
I’m not going to discount the value of hard work, but as I’ve said before, hard work by itself ain’t enough. You need quite a lot of luck in there, too. If I thought hard work by itself even gave somebody a 50/50 shot, I’d be more sympathetic to that line of argumentation. But I’m afraid in real life, the odds are a lot longer.
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..Speaking Truth to Power =-.
SJ,
It’s a wonderful little (though probably unintentional) syntactical sleight of hand when supply siders refer to the entrepreneurial class as “giving,” “creating,” or “providing” jobs. Oh, where would the lowly poor be without the benevolent rich who so graciously and generously create jobs for the them? I mean, I understand the underlying theory, but the jobs the wealthy create are the byproducts of their individual pursuits of wealth – especially since these job fairies immediately cease their do-good-ing when it starts to become a bit less profitable for them to do so, according to your own anecdotes.
In respect to private schooling, you missed my point. If individual wealthy families CHOOSE to send their kids to private schools because they THINK their children will get a better education there, that’s their decision. But that’s peeing in the ocean compared to the pool of the country’s work force, many of whom are products of at least some public education, from which those wealthy individuals choose employees.
Similarly, when it comes to the police and fire, not only do the wealthy have businesses AND homes to be protected, but they actually own shit. For most of the poor, their house CAN’T burn down. Know why? Because they don’t own a house, let alone multiple houses and businesses. It takes more resources to protect more stuff. Now, you may say that by protecting the wealthy, we are protecting the opportunities for the working class. But, that assumes that without the wealthy there would be no such opportunities. I’d disagree, but if we start talking about that stuff, we’ll probably divert far enough so that it will be difficult enough to retain much common ground for a discussion at all.
(slowly becoming a rant) I will ask this, seeing as how you represent yourself as somebody very dedicated to worthwhile pursuits, hard work, productivity, and intellectualism. What the fuck are we protecting in the first place that’s so damn valuable? What do we do that’s so great anymore? Largely we churn out bullshit and groom reinforcements to peddle that bullshit and create artificial demand for new and improved forms of bullshit. I’d love to see a society where we struggle to produce more advertising execs, PR drones, and all sorts of industries financially supporting and propping up to toxic MTV and TMZ culture. When we’ve gotten to the point that twelve year olds compete in texting tournaments instead of spelling bees and know more about handbags than long division, economic growth is frankly not atop of my concerns. Frankly, we need a whole lot LESS of a lot of the industries that have been thriving over the same duration that consolidation of wealth among the upper 1% has been growing.
Tgirsch, Digglaah:
I’ll start with the obvious case of unsupported argument, of which there is abundance from myself, and you both. Defending medicare is something, that quite frankly, I don’t feel like running the numbers on. Since that seems to be your whole objection on that front, I’ll just let it go. We’ll call it even with 9/11…
Actually, the switch was intentional and most deliberate. Both of you seem to think that jobs just appear – the entrepreneurs and businessmen take risks are that are greater than their workers, and hence have a chance at greater gain. Any citizen can do so – most choose not to do so. Those that do take that risk often succeed, which you asserts gains them greater benefit from the tax dollar – to date, you have not actually provided factual input to that case, but merely asserted that they “get more benefit from the roads” or “disproportionately benefit from a stable society”. I am simply pointing out that those individuals also invest more into society, and that the investment is good for all citizens.
Digglaah – there is NOTHING gracious about it – let’s be clear, profit motive creates both businesses and jobs. Period. Why are you confusing the ouput of a new business (jobs, cash flows) with the inherent reason for it’s creation (profit)? Are you implying that jobs should just exist? Of course profit seeking causes those businesses to be established. In turn, for that risk, the owners expect greater profit than the employees. They also input far more in terms of taxes – both individually and as a business. Remember, the income tax is not the only tax out there; there is business licensing, fees, various taxes on the property of the business, etc. The business returns far more to the community than you are accounting for.
Neither of you stepped up to the opportunity line; again, those wishing to improve themselves most assuredly can. Yes, to make it to the top 20% may require some luck in addition to hardwork, but that is life. People are equal under law, not in terms of life skills or capabilities. I can not play football like Peyton Manning, nor hit a ball like Barry Bonds – it’s unreasonable for me to expect to earn their living. We will all rise or fall to the level that we are capable of, and that we choose to exert ourselves to. Yes, some will fail. That is life. First and second generation immigrants here are a huge success as a rule, because they apply themselves, and work their children to improve themselves. The opportunity to improve is there for all.
Nope, you totally misunderstood me on health care. Universal health care is bad. I am totally against it. Universal access to insurance with reasonable rates, given any pre-existing conditions at the start of a policy, and no ability for insurers to drop coverage for those getting a condition while covered is probably good.
You are confusing earning with access again. Government PROVIDED resources implies free or access without cost. I am against free services, but pro the ability to work and gain access to lower cost services. If you want government child care, great, but the cost should be something like provide 4 hours of community service back per week for the 40 hours of subsidized child care. Require some effort to earn the value of the service, and I’ll probably jump on board – it’s the idea that you have a “right” to something or that you expect it to be free that I have issues with.
You will probably notice that many well off Canadians and Europeans come here for medical care when they need it – probably an indicator that the quality of care is better here, if only at the top tiers. The World Health Organization reports cited have been shot full of wholes enough times that I won’t rehash them, I’ll just post the following links: Cato Institute (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9236), and the Economist (http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/04/14/health-care-around-the-world-an-introduction/). In some cases, basic medical care may be better in some countries with universal health care. In others much less so. The waiting periods vary immensely, and unless you have lived there you miss all of the reports of deaths to due immense waiting times, lack of access to specialists due to lack of resourcing, etc.
Tgirsch: in closing you state that:
I wish it were that simple. It’s not. I seriously doubt that there are 15 million jobs out there just waiting for people to come fill them, if only they’d move to the right place. There are opportunities out there for a relative few. For most people, their opportunities are quite limited. Factor in a poorly-timed illness or injury, and the outlook becomes grim.
Explain the success of new immigrants then? As a group they consistently succeed… Unfortunately, many Americans in this country expect things to be GIVEN to them as opposed to the need to EARN them. This is a huge change from the 1900-mid 1960s, and is part of why the apples and oranges comparisons made earlier do not work. People who are willing to work hard succeed, period. Does that mean that they improve to the top 1%? No! Does it mean that over time, they improve to the median 50% – pretty likely with some effort. Hopefully they send their children to better schools, who in turn earn more and continue the move to better prosperity. Too many people don’t DO anything to improve their conditions, and hence don’t improve.
Digglaah – I’m just going to skip your last rant. It’s your opinion, you are entitled to it. The really great thing about this country is that you have the ability to change it, if you so desire.
Tgirsch – in closing, I think that in many ways we’re closer in goals than you realize, just that we believe that different methods will get us there.
…entrepreneurs and businessmen take risks are that are greater than their workers, and hence have a chance at greater gain. Any citizen can do so.,
If they’re independently wealthy to begin with, sure. Otherwise, they have to get a loan, and we know that every citizenhas the same ability to secure one of those, since there hasn’t been anything like institutionalized, premeditated, calculated systematic discrimination and disenfranchisement pervading the history of such lenders.
Those that do take that risk often succeed
No they don’t. The fail quite disproportionately. I’m getting a bigger and bigger hard-on for this poker game by the post…
you have not actually provided factual input to that case, but merely asserted that they “get more benefit from the roads” or “disproportionately benefit from a stable society”
That’s not an assertion or opinion, that’s a truism that virtually anybody debating in good faith should be willing to concede.
I am simply pointing out that those individuals also invest more into society, and that the investment is good for all citizens.
Depends on what they’re investing in. The wealthy have been caking off at unprecedented rates for over two decades now. It ain’t done dick for me. It also depends on what you value. If you think the hookers and coke dealers were more of a toxic force on 42nd Street than Conde Nast is, then you’re not going to agree with me. And, that’s most people, so I’m willing to be in the minority there. But, still, it depends on what they are investing in.
Are you implying that jobs should just exist?
No. I’m implying three things. One, jobs would not cease to exist if there was a greater escalation in the tax rates of the uber wealthy. Two, the economic growth of the upper one (or five, or whatever) percent does not necessarily translate to increased job opportunities or, more importantly, quality of job opportunities on a long term scale. Somebody run the numbers on concentration of wealth vs. unemployment rate – as flawed as that stat is to begin with anyway. Three, there are alternative models to creating jobs, meaningful jobs that advance our society, health, and environment, not simply the profits of the investor class who largely don’t care if they are profiting off of bullets of books.
The opportunity to improve is there for all.
Existant, yes. Equal, far from it.
Explain the success of new immigrants then? As a group they consistently succeed…
Relative to whom or what?
Unfortunately, many Americans in this country expect things to be GIVEN to them as opposed to the need to EARN them.
I agree, but when we picture the archetype for this phenomenon, the figures we respectively conjure probably look quite different. Mine shops at American Eagle and Abercrombie and Fitch, where does your shop?
People who are willing to work hard succeed, period.
Did I mention that Horatio Alger is the dealer at my poker nights?
I’m just going to skip your last rant. It’s your opinion, you are entitled to it. The really great thing about this country is that you have the ability to change it, if you so desire.
You strike me as one of those people who is under the illusion that he is self-made, when in reality you are the beneficiary of decades, or rather centuries, of stacking the deck in your favor ,whether you realize it or not. It doesn’t diminsh your accomplishments or your drive if to recognize that you may have had options that are much less available to many others. It doesn’t mean you haven’t done a lot for self. One of the highest forms of intelligence is self-awareness.
To the extent many people may even have some of these opportunities, they don’t necessarily even know they exist. People can always do more and work harder, you, me, and tgirsch too. But, the point is that more and harder is often not enough, to pretend it is to willfully ignore the weight of reality threatening to smash one’s glass menagerie.
I’ll give you the last word if you’d like it.
SmokeJaguar:
Actually, the switch was intentional and most deliberate. Both of you seem to think that jobs just appear
That’s what we call knocking down a straw man, or arguing in bad faith. I expected better of you.
the entrepreneurs and businessmen take risks are that are greater than their workers, and hence have a chance at greater gain
And “greater gain” = “benefit more,” which directly confirms Digg‘s point. They pay more because they benefit more.
Those that do take that risk often succeed
…but far more often, they fail.
you asserts gains them greater benefit from the tax dollar – to date, you have not actually provided factual input to that case
Is your argument that these investors/entrepreneurs would still be able to make just as much money in the absence of a reasonably healthy, reasonably well-educated, and reasonably mobile workforce? What about consumers with the ability to spend? Does not their success rely on that? If we’re guilty of “seem[ing] to think jobs just appear,” you’re at least equally guilty of seeming to think that qualified workers “just appear.”
I am simply pointing out that those individuals also invest more into society, and that the investment is good for all citizens.
Yes, but the bottom line is a lot better for some than for others. You don’t seem to disagree with this at all, even as you superficially argue against it.
Neither of you stepped up to the opportunity line; again, those wishing to improve themselves most assuredly can.
Rejecting your premise is not the same thing as “not stepping up.” Opportunity exists, but is limited. That’s the important part that you’re dismissively waving away. A Wal-Mart store needs a lot more stockers, checkers, and other entry-level staff than supervisors and managers. So the argument that opportunity exists for everyone is disingenuous in the extreme. All of those entry-level employees could bust their asses until the cows come home, and only a small handful of them would ever get anywhere as a result of it. The math just isn’t there.
First and second generation immigrants here are a huge success as a rule, because they apply themselves, and work their children to improve themselves.
One presumes you’re talking about legal immigrants, which leaves a pretty big elephant in the middle of the room. But even setting that aside, this statement raises all sorts of red flags for me, for a couple of reasons: #1, we never hear about the ones who fail. And #2, the expense and long process of simply getting here legally strongly biases the sample in favor of immigrants of some means.
In any case, if you’re going to make the alleged overwhelming success of immigrants the centerpiece of your argument, you might want to back it up with actual figures. I’ve given you your one freebie on Medicare.
The business returns far more to the community than you are accounting for.
Yep, ExxonMobil just keeps on giving! Seriously, though, I don’t dispute that, at least not completely. I’m just making the ought-to-be-non-controversial point that those who benefit the most from a stable, prosperous society ought to be the ones who pay the most for its maintenance.
Nope, you totally misunderstood me on health care. Universal health care is bad.
No, I didn’t misunderstand you. I followed your logic where it actually led, instead of where you wanted it to go.
I know you don’t support universal health care. Death panels shouldn’t be overseen by government bureaucrats; they should be overseen by private sector insurance company bureaucrats. 
You will probably notice that many well off Canadians and Europeans come here for medical care when they need it – probably an indicator that the quality of care is better here, if only at the top tiers.
Merely an indicator that those who can afford to bypass the line will do so. Good thing nobody here wants to prevent them from continuing to do so. In any case, that right-wing talking point has been blown out of all proportion — only a tiny fraction of Canadians and Europeans do any such thing. But I’ll concede that point: for wealthy elites, our health care is probably about the best. So bloody what?
Meanwhile, the CATO Institute is down on public health care? Say it ain’t so! Next you’re going to tell me that the ACLU opposes military tribunals! And your Health Care Economist link actually generally agrees with me that the French system is a very good model — not perfect, but very good.
Explain the success of new immigrants then?
Right after you demonstrate it with something more compelling than disjointed anecdotes.
People who are willing to work hard succeed, period.
Absolutely untrue. Hard work is no guarantee of success, even modest success. One poorly-timed illness or unfortunate accident, and it’s game over. And you don’t even need something all that bad to happen to you.
People who work hard generally have a better chance at success than people who don’t, but it’s far from 100%, and there are plenty of counterexamples (people who don’t work hard but do succeed — I can think of an example that rhymes with Ferris Shmilton).
Basically, though, our primary disagreement seems to be that you believe the myth of the American dream, and I’m cynical about it. The idea that hard work alone will get you places in America is disproved every day.
I think that in many ways we’re closer in goals than you realize
The more we talk, the less convinced of that I become. I hope you’re right, though.
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..Speaking Truth to Power =-.
Tgirsch, Digg:
Unfortunately, work is picking up as is school, so I’m going to have to be brief. There was no strawman argument, merely a clarification of terms to avoid the ongoing assumption that jobs simply exist in isolation. Neither a bait and switch nor strawman – It would be worth reviewing your logical fallacies for a few minutes if you are not tracking on that one…ad hoc, post hoc in particular, although Digg has recently moved heavily into ad hominem…
Working hard does equal success; success can not be measured by the assumption that it means that everyone can be in the top 50% of income any more than the idea than anyone can be a top tier athlete. It can be measured in the amount of improvement made, as well as the advantages that their children can access. Someone earning $16K a year, moving into a $35K a year job has been very successful. Similarly someone earning $35K a year moving to a $42K a year job with better benefits is successful. If you mean that everyone should be independently wealthy, then no, not everyone will be successful. For that matter, yes, some people will get sick and fail. It happens. Not everyone gets to be a rocket scientist…get over it.
Again, we are confusing benefit or access to a public service with greater money. These are not the same thing. The ability to make money from usage of a public road may be greater for someone owning a trucking firm than for me – but I have the same access or utility. I could stop working on my job, and open a trucking firm. I might need a loan to do it. OR I might need to serve in the army for 20 years so that I have income to float myself while I start the job. OR I might need to start with a pickup truck and a startup service taking garbage away. Where there is truly a will and motivation, success follows. It’s not an overnight process, and everyone gets setbacks during the process. The trucking company does not benefit disproportionately to the return – the company provides jobs at some rate back to the same community, which provides income to the employees and allows them, if they choose, to improve themselves.
It is my argument that without a stable, reasonably well educated workforce, very few of the jobs that most people want would be available. First, the company would be unable to remain in business (hence, closing the jobs) and second as we have seen, it is less expensive to move jobs that don’t require that education level elsewhere. The jobs in the US are changing, for people to continue to be employed will require additional education. I certainly do not believe that qualified candidates just appear – hiring good people is darned hard work.
Opportunity – you pretty much ignored the bigger point. Working as a stock checker or stocker is an entry job. If you are still there 5 years later, you made a choice to do so. I’d like to know how many of your stock clerks are going to night school to change their profession? If they are not, that is on them, not on the company. Or, why hasn’t the stock clerk joined the Army, Navy, Airforce, Marines? The Armed forces train literally hundreds of thousands of people in skills that are directly applicable to the civilian world each year…heck, join the reserves… Go to school on Saturdays, do something to improve yourself. If you are not doing that, then you do not have much right to complain about being stuck in a dead end spot; it’s your own fault.
At the risk of sounding heartless, you are right – I am only concerned with the legal immigrants. Quite frankly, the illegals have no/no right to accessing any of the benefits of our citizenry. That is harsh, but as you say – it would be disproportionate to their input. I’ll get the numbers on immigrants (assuming I can find them, and get some time this weekend) if you will – you are making the same unsupported claim when you state that they arrive with means.
The people benefiting from the stable,prosperous society are the ones who pay the most for its maintenance. (I fixed that for you). The stable, prosperous society is the output of people having jobs and companies growing/expanding, not the precondition.
The French system is a good model for the French. It might be here, but it is still not a right at this time. There are many ways to get this one wrong (most of what I keep reading in the health care bill) and few to get it right (NOT what is actually in the bill). Have you read the health care bill yet? If not, you probably should – it’s not going down a good path.
Ferris Shmilton did NOT succeed. In fact, I’m pretty sure that she is heading down the path of being cut off by daddy. Now, how many thousand more can you name, compared to the number of folks who worked hard, retired from the military and set up pizza shops back at home and are making a good living? Or mechanics, or florists, or whatever else? The opportunity is there, just needs to be seized.
Digg – loans come about from income and ability to repay. If you have a good business plan, you can probably get a loan (At least a few years ago). For people not in that position, there are literally millions of dollars of grants provided to start businesses each year, and there are even set-asides at the federal level for {small businesses, minority owned businesses, SDVs, businesses in economically disadvantaged zones, etc}.
Failing is parting of succeeding…the key is what you do when you fall down…Some businesses make it, others don’t.
I’m more of a Banana Republic guy than an American Eagle guy, myself. Think that most of the middle income earners can afford to shop either…especially if you consider Abercromby and Fitch…
Unfortunately, I have to cut this one off now. I’ve got an 8 o’clock meeting this am.
As an entertaining aside – the captcha this morning was “bitterly exhorts”…sort of amusing…
I’m more of a Banana Republic guy
You don’t say…
See, that’s actually an ad hominem. None of my previous attacks were ad hominen. I implied two things about you, as a person. One, it appears to me that you have a warped view of the level of “opportunity” available to a large proportion of our citizenry as well as your personal agency in your own success. That’s my interpretation from the whole of this discussion (and certainly not uniquely mine). Even if I were to say that I think 90% of your last post was a rank, steaming, crock of shit (let’s end the hypothetical, that’s what I think), it’s still not ad hominem because I’m not attacking you as a person in ways unrelated to the argument. The other implication I’ve made is that if you and I sat down at poker table, the money flow would look something like Pac Man Jones at a strip club. That was not ad hominem either, that was based on the inability to recognize the fact that flat taxes are actually regressive when viewed in relation to one’s total “chip stack,” as well as your warped perception of odds of success. Snarky, yes. Ad hominen, no.
As I said, I’m not commenting further on the actual arguments at hand. I’m confident in leaving the discussion up there as is for others to judge the relative merits of our respective positions. I just wanted to respond to the charge that I was being ad hominem.
Good luck with your Ph.D.
-Peyton Manning
Digg:
That may be your funniest comment in quite some time, and that’s saying something. For reasons I can’t quite figure out “Pac Man Jones in a strip club” really tickled my funny bone.
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..Health Care Reform =-.
SmokeJaguar:
First of all, you’re now officially operating on the KTK definition of “brief.”
I don’t know where you learned the logical fallacies, but where I learned them, we pretty clearly identified attacking a position your opponent never took to be knocking down a straw man. Since neither Digg nor I implied that “jobs exist in a vacuum.” You assigned that position to us and then proceeded to attack it. Nor did I ever argue that successful businesses benefit “unfairly” — that’s another position you artificially assigned to me, but which I never actually staked out. Thus, I stand by my accusation of arguing in bad faith. As with Digg, I’ll leave it to the (probably nonexistent by now) other readers to decide who’s right on that count.
[Success] can be measured in the amount of improvement made, as well as the advantages that their children can access.
And even by that modest standard of “success” — the one I’ve been using all along, in case I haven’t been clear on that — success isn’t guaranteed, or anywhere close to it, by hard work. In fact, the more the deck is stacked against you (by things like generational poverty, the legacy of institutionalized discrimination, etc.), the less likely it is that any amount of hard work, in and of itself, will get you there. The cycle of poverty is, as Barbie would probably say, “wicked hahhd” to break, and it’s not because poor people simply lack the motivation to get out of the rut.
Again, we are confusing benefit or access to a public service with greater money. These are not the same thing.
Agreed. I support giving universal access to public services, irrespective of income. I oppose simply handing out money. Glad we’re on the same page on this.
(Yeah, I know, we’re not.)
Where there is truly a will and motivation, success follows.
As Digg already pointed out, there’s a phone call for you. It’s Horatio Alger. He wants his myth back.
Snark aside, you say that will + motivation = success, but that’s simply not true. Success just does not work that way, even by the modest definition we listed above. It has at least as much to do with luck and outside assistance, and frankly it probably has a lot more to do with those other things. I don’t think there’s any way I can get you to recognize that, however. The “hard work = get ahead” myth seems to be gospel to you. And you can’t argue with a True Believer.
The jobs in the US are changing, for people to continue to be employed will require additional education.
That’s a wholly unsustainable model. The demand for “knowledge”-based jobs will always be relatively small, no matter how well- or poorly-educated a populace is. But that’s another argument for another time.
Working as a stock checker or stocker is an entry job. If you are still there 5 years later, you made a choice to do so.
Contradict yourself often? You just said above that not everyone can get ahead. Now you’re saying that the only thing stopping them is desire or decision-making. Which is it? I said this before, but since you seem to have missed the point, I’ll repeat it: you’ll always need a lot more checkers and stockers than supervisors and managers. The need for entry-level or unskilled workers will always far outpace the need for skilled workers. So just by simple arithmetic we can see that a whole lot of people will have to do jobs they’d rather not do — jobs they consider beneath them — as the supply of “better” jobs is always necessarily smaller.
(My solution? Make sure even the crappiest jobs are at least decent. Not everyone gets to be a rocket scientist, as you said, but that doesn’t mean we can’t assure at least some measure of dignity and stability to anyone who’s willing to “work hard,” as you put it.)
Or, why hasn’t the stock clerk joined the Army, Navy, Airforce, Marines?
Because they won’t take him? All four armed services combined recruit about 180,000 new members per year. There are currently about 15 million unemployed people in the country, never mind the number of stock clerks (who’d more likely qualify as “underemployed”). Just how far do you think that will go? And that sets aside the implication that someone has to be willing to sign away their freedom of choice for four years, and volunteer to be sent to a literal war zone in order to get ahead. Not to mention the fact that those who DO enlist, survive, and get training/education do so on the taxpayer’s dime, so they’re on the government teat just as much as the next guy (though I’m sure you’d argue they’re more deserving).
Go to school on Saturdays, do something to improve yourself.
If you can afford it, and if you can get someone to watch the kid.
I’ll get the numbers on immigrants (assuming I can find them, and get some time this weekend) if you will – you are making the same unsupported claim when you state that they arrive with means.
Well, more specifically, my claim was that the ones who succeed arrive with means. In any case, here (PDF) is a good starting point. Yes, immigrants do better than non-immigrants, as you say they do. But their degree of success is tied directly to the level of income and education they have when they arrive, as I said. And the advantages enjoyed by immigrants seem to be deteriorating, meaning that either they’re less willing to work hard, or that hard work matters less than it used to (I suspect some combination).
The people benefiting from the stable,prosperous society are the ones who pay the most for its maintenance.
Right! And that’s exactly as it should be! I’m glad we’re in agreement.
The stable, prosperous society is the output of people having jobs and companies growing/expanding, not the precondition.
No, the chicken came first! No, wait, it was the egg! Seriously, though, are you arguing that the middle east is unstable because it lacks prosperous private enterprise? Or is it the other way around? It strikes me as more of a cyclical, symbiotic relationship than a cause-effect relationship.
There are many ways to get this one wrong (most of what I keep reading in the health care bill) and few to get it right (NOT what is actually in the bill).
Right. Passing a plan without a robust public option to keep costs down is probably getting it wrong, for example.
Have you read the health care bill yet?
Only portions of it. Usually in response to wild allegations by opponents of the bill, that turn out not to actually be in the bill. In any case, I’m not willing to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Ferris Shmilton did NOT succeed. In fact, I’m pretty sure that she is heading down the path of being cut off by daddy.
Two wonderful pieces of irony here. First, “daddy” didn’t “succeed,” either. Just as with his elder daughter, he dumbed his way into his fortune by accident of birth. Second, it’s actually quite the opposite: Daddy and Mommy benefit from her “celebutante” status, and actually foment it. It’s gotten to the point where she’s their meal ticket, rather than the other way around. (And by the way, if dumb-lucking one’s way into a fashion line, several TV shows, modeling gigs, etc., doesn’t constitute “success,” then sign me up for that kind of failure!)
Now, how many thousand more can you name, compared to the number of folks who worked hard, retired from the military and set up pizza shops back at home and are making a good living? Or mechanics, or florists, or whatever else? The opportunity is there, just needs to be seized.
How much success your parents had is a much better indicator of how much success you’ll have than how hard you work, or how you “seize” opportunity. Economic mobility in the US is virtually nonexistent — people tend to stay in the same economic class as their parents. So to make your standard make sense, you’d have to talk about successful pizza shop owners who were raised poor, and their number is quite small. See the bottom of page 4 (another PDF):
So much for hard work trumping picking the right parents.
With that, I think I’ve ranted long enough. OK, too long.
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..Health Care Reform =-.