Meritocracies

[Jason McCullough]

Building on that zillion post thread about the co-valedictorian lawsuit, I thought I'd post a few thoughts about the US form of meritocracy. Kaus's End of Equality (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465098290/qid=1058242802/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_2/104-7324953-4191105?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) is a source for a lot of this.

The chief problem with a meritocracy is its effect on the losers. An opening line from Kaus:


The more an economy's implicit judgments are seen as being fair and based on true "merit" (and "equal opportunity"), the more the losers will tend to feel they deserve to lose, the easier it will be to equate economic success with individual worth, and the greater the threat to social equality.

The US system is doing an increasingly bad job of separating the notion of self-worth with economic success - remember the quotes from those kids at the south american prison camp, sent there by their parents? They quote a few talking about how if they hadn't been sent there, they'd end up "dead, or living in a trailer." For god's sake, they rhetorically considered poverty the equivalent of death.

Another example:




In the summer of 1943, John F. Kennedy was a well-known author, a graduate of Choate and Harvard, and the son of one of the richest men in America. Serving with him on a small PT boat in the South Pacific (as recounted by Robert J. Donovan) were:

Andrew Kirksey, 25, a high-school dropout who before the war had been working as a refrigeration engineer in Macon, Georgia.

Leonard Thom, the left tackle on teh Ohio State football team of 1939 and 1940.

Leon Drawdy, 30, a machinist from Chicago.

Maurice Kowal, 21, son of Polish immigrants, who had been working in a factory that built engines for Victory ships.

John E. Magurie, 26, from Dobbs Ferry, New York, who had quite his job at Anaconda Wire and Cable.

George Henry Robertson Ross, 25, another Ivy Leaguer (Princeton, Class of '41).

Raymond Starkey, 29, a former commerical fisherman who had been working in the oil fields of California.

Charles "Buck" Harris, 20, from Watertown, outside of Boston, who had taken a job at Hood Rubber after high school.

Gerard Zinser, 25, a career Navy man from Illinois, who during the Depression had joined the Civilian Conservation Corps.

Edmund Drewitch, 30, a jazz pianist who had worked as a steel inspector at Jones & Laughlin and attended law school at night.

Harlord Marney, 19, who had finished tenth grade at a trade school and enlisted in the Navy at 17.

William Johnson, 33, who had driven a trailer for Gulf Oil.

Patrick MacMahon, 37, a mechanic for the Detroit Street Railway Company.

You get the point. During World War II, Kennedys and other wealthy types served with a broad cross section of ordinary Americans.....Is it just because we won that so many Americans seem to feel that this war, despite all the death and destruction, provided some of the best years of their lives? I don't think Charles Peters is far off when he suggests that it was World War II itself, and the draft, that as much as anything else cemented America's mid-century sense of social equality and consensus.




Now compare that draft, and Kennedy's World War II experience, with the diary entries of William Broyles, who served as a second lieutenat in Vietnam (and later recounted the experience in his book, Brothers in Arms):

I have fifty eight men. Only twenty have high school diplomas. About ten of them are over twenty-one. Reading through their record books almost made me cry. Over and over they read-addres of father: unknown; education: one or two years of high school; occupation: laborer, pecan sheller, gas station attendant, Job Corps. Kids with no place to go. No place but here.

It doesn't take deep insight to realize that in the intervening period something began to go deeply and fundamentally wrong with the US. Kaus provides all sorts of other examples: are schools are more segregated by class than ever, as are our social lives and neighborhoods.

Anyway, the meritocratic US system is a part of this; as long as money is unchecked, the classes will be mercilessly sorted farther and farther apart. I highly recommend the book, it's full of all sorts of neat policy suggestions.

[Rywill]

How do you respond to the argument that over the same period of time, US wealth, power, and overall standard of living--even for the poor--increased at a greater rate than any other country? How do you explain the fact that the more meritocratic a society is, the better it seems to do, at least in modern history? (Of course, that assumes certain judgment criteria--that a country is "doing better" if it has more wealth, security, freedom, etc. You may or may not agree with those criteria.)

[Lunch of Kong]

The USA is not a meritocracy. In a meritocracy, every individual has the same opportunity to succeed as anyone else (on merit). In the real world, success is largely based on how wealthy your parents were.

[Jason McCullough]

Hourly wages for the poor and lower-middle class have flatlined since 1970, actually.

Regardless, it's not the relative incomes that are important - its that the postwar egeletarian society is disappearing, driven chiefly by the increasing meritocratic nature of the economy. Whether it actually is sorting by economic merit or not is irrelevant; people believe more and more that it is.

Kaus has tons of examples; US magazine ran a demographic "here's our readership" spread a few years back, showing who "US readres weren't" by laughing at those troglodytes who have Ritz crackers on the table.

He doesn't suggest doing away with it; just keeping its influence from bleeding outside of the private finance sphere.

[bmulligan]

I don't think Charles Peters is far off when he suggests that it was World War II itself, and the draft, that as much as anything else cemented America's mid-century sense of social equality and consensus.


I love this mystical notion of 'social equality'. What in the heck does this mean, anyway? The cement that forms bonds between men are born of shared principles, not social standing in a PT boat in the pacific during WWII. The similar belief unites, not the war itself.

You also don't have to be a millionaire to be happy or similarly be poor to understand the values of hard work. But according to your statement about the children in the Jamaican millitary school, we should be happy with failure? We should be content with poverty and not strive for improvement? Achievement is bad? Your aversion to labeling bad and good is why we're in this 'don't offend anyone' pollitically correct society mess in the first place. Because it teaches people we don't need to better ourselves, someone will take care of us. We don't need to get good grades because grades don't mean anything. We don't need to achieve, because someone still cares about us in our trailer.

The world used to be a place where your destiny was predetermined. Your father was a blacksmith, you will be a blacksmith. Your father was a Lord, you will be a Lord. Never the 2 paths would cross. There will always be class differences in any society, but I would rather live here where there is always the chance that someone can find the crossroads.

There are actually 3 roads, and the middle road is still the most populated.

[Jason McCullough]

This into some sort of welfare/class warfare thing; it's a sneering at the lower classes thing.

Can you think of anything that would get the crowd on JFK's boat all in one place? Even baseball games are extremely price-segregated now.

[bmulligan]

It's only class warfare when certain political leaders create the animosity necessary to incite war. Rich people need poor people to work in their factories, don't they? Poor people need rich people to give them factories to work in, don't they? Isn't this a good trade? Not everyone can be company president, it's called a natural order. We all have our little place in the world. Some rise, some fall, some stay the same. I say stop trying to fix everything for everyone. Doesn't god help those who help themselves?

All I'm saying is that there may not be anything wrong with being poor, but there also isn't anything wrong with trying to not be poor.

[Peter Frazier]

It's the same in Australia. We have a so-called 'aspirational class' here that our conservative government has targetted. These are members of the middle class who want more. Rather than brand them as greedy, arrogant, self-centred, nouveau-riche wannabees, they've been labelled 'aspirational'. Sheesh. 'Entitled' is another disagreeable word to me now.
There is a poverty of community spirit nowadays. I'm definitely not for socialism but it would be nice to have a free-market society with citizens who regulate themselves by an agreed social compact. Aint gonna happen though. Unlike America, too much religion is regarded suspiciously and there aren't many alternatives for people to model.
There was an interesting speech by our former Director-General of Education where he claimed that comprehensive public schooling provided the glue of our tolerant society. The fact that everyone had a similar shared experience and exposure to shared values allowed greater social cohesiveness.
There has been a marked increase in private school enrolments as people try to give their kids a more religious education or they want their kids kept away from the common riff-raff. Either way, I feel it builds a few more walls between people.
Sometimes I just wish a wiser person than I could calmly and lucidly explain to me why times seem to have changed for the worse and what I should be doing to help fight it. (BTW Cleve, you are not that person!)

[Brad Grenz]

It doesn't take deep insight to realize that in the intervening period something began to go deeply and fundamentally wrong with the US.

It's not exactly fair to compare a random sampling from WWII and Vietnam. For one people believed in WWII and signed up willingly to defend their country. Most were drafted into Vietnam. The smart ones went to college and got a pass. The rich ones also went to college, or fled the country or joined the Texas Air National guard to keep the skies over Dallas free from Commies. So you end up with a force largely made up of poor people with no prospects. There's nothing suprising about the disparity, given what we all know about history.

I can't understand you Jason. You seem to be arguing against a meritocracy by presenting evidense of situations where that ideal is being subverted. You should perhaps give it up and stop using "meritocracy" when what you seem to be talking about is capitalism.

[Chris Nahr]

The US system is doing an increasingly bad job of separating the notion of self-worth with economic success

:shock:

When exactly did the US system even try to do this?

Wasn't the whole nation founded by Puritans who believed that material success was a reflection of a good and god-fearing soul, and that poverty was a character flaw? What about the pop psychology and self-help industry that regularly identifies mental & physical fitness and social acceptance with financial success? Has there been a time in American history when wealth wasn't glorified, at least as long as it wasn't inherited?

[Rywill]

I think I see what Jason's getting at; it's just presented a little strangely in your first post. Let me try to restate it and you tell me whether I'm on track or way off base:

The problem you see is not that some are rich and some are poor, or anything like that--the problem is that everyone equates poor with "worthless" and rich with "valuable"; that rich (or middle-class) people see the poor as lesser beings and won't interact with them in any way beyond what is absolutely necessary. Is that right?

[Jason McCullough]

It doesn't take deep insight to realize that in the intervening period something began to go deeply and fundamentally wrong with the US.

It's not exactly fair to compare a random sampling from WWII and Vietnam. For one people believed in WWII and signed up willingly to defend their country. Most were drafted into Vietnam. The smart ones went to college and got a pass. The rich ones also went to college, or fled the country or joined the Texas Air National guard to keep the skies over Dallas free from Commies. So you end up with a force largely made up of poor people with no prospects. There's nothing suprising about the disparity, given what we all know about history.

I can't understand you Jason. You seem to be arguing against a meritocracy by presenting evidense of situations where that ideal is being subverted. You should perhaps give it up and stop using "meritocracy" when what you seem to be talking about is capitalism.

"Now only people with bad jobs fight in wars" is exactly what I'm talking about - what is it, if not based on "merit?" We don't want to send valuable people to die!


When exactly did the US system even try to do this?

The postwar generation was probably the best at this. The US appears to be slowly developing a British-style class system, which is new.


The problem you see is not that some are rich and some are poor, or anything like that--the problem is that everyone equates poor with "worthless" and rich with "valuable"; that rich (or middle-class) people see the poor as lesser beings and won't interact with them in any way beyond what is absolutely necessary. Is that right?

Yep. Income inequality isn't necessarily bad; its just that the walls around the private, financial sphere are crumbling, and its poisoning the rest of them.

[Chris Nahr]

The postwar generation was probably the best at this. The US appears to be slowly developing a British-style class system, which is new.

That has nothing to do with your claim, though. A class system (which I might add has not existed in Britain for at least 50-60 years) implies a fixed distribution of wealth and power, but not necessarily a moral valuation of material possessions. The latter does not require a class system, only some (possibly temporary) differences in wealth.

[Jason McCullough]

I'll admit I don't know that much about modern Britain; how much of Orwell's quoted "the poor smell" is still held among the upper classes? Anyway, I was talking about the moral valuation of wealth (we're rich! we're better than you!), not the fixed distribution of income.

[Rywill]

Yep. Income inequality isn't necessarily bad; its just that the walls around the private, financial sphere are crumbling, and its poisoning the rest of them.
I didn't understand what you were saying beyond "Income inequality isn't necessarily bad," but here's my opinion FWIW: assuming that a person's wealth is going to roughly correlate with, for example, their intelligence, desire to better themselves, and thrift, is a rational assumption. Are there exceptions? Hell yeah, especially on the wealthy side of the equation. But as a rule of thumb, in my experience (which includes significant enforced time with all three classes of people), it holds up.

I'm not clear whether you're saying "The poor are equally likely to have those traits" or "Those traits should not be relevant (or should not be as relevant) in society's choice of whom to value." Either way, though, I disagree with you. Does our society place too much emphasis on material wealth and possessions? I'd say it does to some extent. But it's hardly an epidemic problem that needs immediate correction.

[Ben]

I applaud Jason's honesty here. Most socialists attack capitalism because secretly they hate that it promotes a meritocracy where the good advance and the bad do not. Jason cuts straight to the point. He still isn't being truly honest, but it doesn't take much reading between the lines. I mean, come on, there's something wrong with America because we are hurting poor people's self-esteem?

Thanks to inherited wealth, you can't deduce much about a person merely from knowing that they are rich, but the poor really are poor because they are some combination of stupid, lazy, and dishonest. It doesn't take a whole lot of virtue to get an assistant manager spot at Taco Bell.

If one values intelligence, work ethic, etc., rich people are better than poor people on average. And if inherited wealth is removed from the equation, the difference becomes even more clear.

On the other point, inherited wealth doesn't play that big of a role in personal earnings. Yeah, Johnny Rich gets to drive a better car than Joe Poor while in college, but after 10 years in the workforce merit will have sorted them out. Daddy can't get you promoted at the law firm. Basically, being rich gives you a nice head start, as you'll go to a better college and everything.


Also, there's nothing wrong with sending the people with bad jobs to war so the people with good jobs can stay home. You're right, we don't want the valuable people to die. What's so wrong about that?

[Jason McCullough]

You're right, Rywill, the income people get is increasingly associated with actual market value. The downside to this is that it makes the "I'm rich, I'm better than you" thing even worse; at least you used to be able to blame it on who got lucky by birth.

Oh, give me a break, Ben, I'm not arguing about capitalism. I'm arguing against a society where the amount of money you make determines everything about you - your friends, your culture, who you interact with. When people get all fuzzy thinking about the 1950s, I don't think they're fantasizing about the gated communities of the era - they didn't exist.


Also, there's nothing wrong with sending the people with bad jobs to war so the people with good jobs can stay home. You're right, we don't want the valuable people to die. What's so wrong about that?

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Can you imagine a public figure in the 1940s or 1950s saying this with a straight face? Much less using "how much money you make" as a synonym for "how valuable you are to society?"

Good summary from a book review (http://www.scottlondon.com/reviews/kaus.html):


The trouble with our society is not just that the rich have too much money, in Kaus's view, but that their money insulates them, much more than it used to, from the common life. It is the "routine acceptance of `professionals' as a class apart" and the "smug content" of the affluent and educated for the "demographically inferior" that poses the greatest threat to civic life, according to Kaus.

[Ben Sones]

I'm arguing against a society where the amount of money you make determines everything about you - your friends, your culture, who you interact with.

If we lived in a rigid class-based society where your income is essentially set at birth and never changes, this might bother me as well. But our society offers more class mobilty than any previous society that I know of. You can change your income, and you can change all those other things, too.

[Kyle Wilson]

It's not exactly fair to compare a random sampling from WWII and Vietnam. For one people believed in WWII and signed up willingly to defend their country. Most were drafted into Vietnam.

Just for the record, most Americans who fought in WWII were draftees. Most of those who fought in Vietnam were volunteers.

[Jason McCullough]

I'm arguing against a society where the amount of money you make determines everything about you - your friends, your culture, who you interact with.

If we lived in a rigid class-based society where your income is essentially set at birth and never changes, this might bother me as well. But our society offers more class mobilty than any previous society that I know of. You can change your income, and you can change all those other things, too.

Except that the meritocracy we have doesn't reward you based on hard work; it's gamed to reward you based on inherent ability. Unless you think everyone out is capable of being a computer programmer or doctor.

A lot of this US "class mobility" comes from silliness like treating a college student who graduates and gets a real job as moving from poor to rich.

Kyle, do you have a source on the Vietnam volunteer thing?

Edit: Oh, here (http://members.aol.com/WarLibrary/vwc8.htm) we go. 63% of all casualties were volunteers because of the odd way the draft was set up:


The draft was specifically designed to trigger volunteer enlistments before age 18 1/2 had been reached. Volunteers were allowed to enlist as early as age 17 (with parental consent) & were required to serve for 3 years on active duty followed by 3 years as inactive reservists.

But the volunteer prog looked promising to the potential draftee because it allowed him to select his branch of service & receive specialized training if he qualified. He was able to fulfill his mili obligation immediately & he would be required to serve only another 3 years in the inactive reserves.

It becomes clear then why almost 65% of enlisted casualties were volunteers & 1/3d of these were 17-19 years of age & over 2/3ds were 17 to 21.

[Ignatius P. Reilly]

but the poor really are poor because they are some combination of stupid, lazy, and dishonest. It doesn't take a whole lot of virtue to get an assistant manager spot at Taco Bell.

I'd love to see Ben try to support a family of 4 while working as an assitant manager at Taco Bell. After about two weeks I imagine we'd hear a completely different rant about what creates and constitutes poverty than this one.

[Rywill]

Except that the meritocracy we have doesn't reward you based on hard work; it's gamed to reward you based on inherent ability. Unless you think everyone out is capable of being a computer programmer or doctor.
Why is that bad? What is wrong with rewarding those who have the inherent ability to be a computer programmer or doctor more than those who have the inherent ability to be a ditch digger? Are you saying ditch diggers should be valued just as much because they work just as hard? Because they shouldn't (and, while I'm at it, they don't--anyone who is going to posit "doctor" as a profession that is opposite to "hard work" doesn't know any doctors).

Besides, part of the reward is for actually going out and DOING that. I mean, if I could make the same money as, say, a park ranger as I do as a lawyer, I might decide to be a park ranger. (Okay, I personally wouldn't, but I know a lot of lawyers who would.)


Edit: Oh, here (http://members.aol.com/WarLibrary/vwc8.htm) we go. 63% of all casualties were volunteers because of the odd way the draft was set up:
This is definitely true. My dad "volunteered" for exactly that reason.

[XPav]

Edit: Oh, here (http://members.aol.com/WarLibrary/vwc8.htm) we go. 63% of all casualties were volunteers because of the odd way the draft was set up:
This is definitely true. My dad "volunteered" for exactly that reason.
Same here.

For those thinking that assistant managers at Taco Bell can make it, go read http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0805063889/qid=1058309730/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/104-4427850-4116710?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

[Jason McCullough]

Except that the meritocracy we have doesn't reward you based on hard work; it's gamed to reward you based on inherent ability. Unless you think everyone out is capable of being a computer programmer or doctor.
Why is that bad? What is wrong with rewarding those who have the inherent ability to be a computer programmer or doctor more than those who have the inherent ability to be a ditch digger? Are you saying ditch diggers should be valued just as much because they work just as hard? Because they shouldn't (and, while I'm at it, they don't--anyone who is going to posit "doctor" as a profession that is opposite to "hard work" doesn't know any doctors).

Besides, part of the reward is for actually going out and DOING that. I mean, if I could make the same money as, say, a park ranger as I do as a lawyer, I might decide to be a park ranger. (Okay, I personally wouldn't, but I know a lot of lawyers who would.)

Ah, but I didn't say rewarding people with money based on their inherent ability to make money is wrong:


I'm arguing against a society where the amount of money you make determines everything about you - your friends, your culture, who you interact with.


If we lived in a rigid class-based society where your income is essentially set at birth and never changes, this might bother me as well. But our society offers more class mobilty than any previous society that I know of. You can change your income, and you can change all those other things, too.


Except that the meritocracy we have doesn't reward you based on hard work; it's gamed to reward you based on inherent ability. Unless you think everyone out is capable of being a computer programmer or doctor.

[Rywill]

Fair enough. But still, is it wrong for someone who is a doctor to prefer the company of someone who is a computer programmer? Don't you think they'll have more in common intellectually and personally? Setting aside the occasional Matt Damon brilliant mathematician janitor, wouldn't the doctor not have much in common with the ditch digger in any intellectual, political or social way?

[Ben Sones]

What Ry said. And from the other perspective, the ditch digger probably feels the same way. Jason, you seem to be implying that these social groups are forced on people, when it seems to be more a matter of personal choice.

You said it's not an issue of income, so I guess I'm just not understanding what you are advocating. Do you think that people should be forced to hang out with people that they don't have anything in common with, just to create some sort of artificial social equity? Do you think that if you take someone that is poor and tell them that you are going to get them some better friends, culture, and people to interact with, that this person is not going to tell you to go to hell? I think that most people, rich or poor, would be insulted by the insinuation that, income aside, they aren't perfectly capable of making their own choices about who they associate with and what kind of lifestyle they lead.

[Jason McCullough]

Fair enough. But still, is it wrong for someone who is a doctor to prefer the company of someone who is a computer programmer? Don't you think they'll have more in common intellectually and personally? Setting aside the occasional Matt Damon brilliant mathematician janitor, wouldn't the doctor not have much in common with the ditch digger in any intellectual, political or social way?

I'm not insisting everyone get better friends; that'd be silly, and people have always preferred to hang out with people they resemble.

But your kids going to schools filled only with members of your own income class? Neighborhoods where the only time you see someone who makes less money, they're doing your yardwork? Private police forces in the well-to-do areas, while everyone else gets half-assed justice? A culture where US magazine sneers at people who eat Ritz crackers and don't get into Harvard? I don't think the rich were all self-satisfied and convinced they were better people anywhere near as much in the postwar era.

Here's (http://www.booknotes.org/Transcript/?ProgramID=1114) a CSPAN interview where Kaus discusses things.

[Ben Sones]

But your kids going to schools filled only with members of your own income class?

All right, I absolutely agree with you on this count. I'd love to see some sort of voucher system for both public and private schools that would allow parents to send kids to whatever school they want.


Neighborhoods where the only time you see someone who makes less money, they're doing your yardwork?

I'm not sure what you could really do about this, even if I were to agree that something needs to be done (which I don't). Do you have any suggestions for what you'd like to see done about this?


Private police forces in the well-to-do areas, while everyone else gets half-assed justice?

If Ry were to have his own TV show, that's what it would be called.


A culture where US magazine sneers at people who eat Ritz crackers and don't get into Harvard?

And you hold US Magazine's opinion in such high esteem because?...

Again, what do you propose? Some sort of law that forces people not to be snobs?


I don't think the rich were all self-satisfied and convinced they were better people anywhere near as much in the postwar era.

I'm not convinced they think that now.

[Rywill]

Private police forces in the well-to-do areas, while everyone else gets half-assed justice?

If Ry were to have his own TV show, that's what it would be called.


Fuck, I'm lucky to get .01 asses for my clients.



Maybe that's because you're a crappy lawyer.

Just thought I'd save you the trouble, Sones. I know you're a busy man. :wink:

[Jason McCullough]

But your kids going to schools filled only with members of your own income class?

All right, I absolutely agree with you on this count. I'd love to see some sort of voucher system for both public and private schools that would allow parents to send kids to whatever school they want.


Neighborhoods where the only time you see someone who makes less money, they're doing your yardwork?

I'm not sure what you could really do about this, even if I were to agree that something needs to be done (which I don't). Do you have any suggestions for what you'd like to see done about this?

Kaus suggests all sorts of zoning changes that would lead to mixed-income neighborhoods; there's no law saying that a janitor and a doctor will end up living on the other side of town. I'll post some stuff form the book later.

[Brian Koontz]

If what you value is money, you will honor those who have it (including yourself, preferably) and dishonor those who do not have it.

If what you value is artistic ability, you will honor those who have it (including yourself, preferably) and dishonor those who do not have it.

If what you value is a beautiful woman, you will honor those who have it (including yourself, preferably) and dishonor those who do not have it.

Money is the opiate of the masses. Since Jason is smiling WAY too much right now, I'll have to counter with this...

The valuation of Money provides a social order, a social construct, a form of social control, a shared reality, a common goal. It provides simplicity and an exact sense of social worth. It is, once again, FOR the masses. The masses can't be trusted with much, and that they understand and appreciate money is good enough for them to value money.

So puff away...

[Jason McCullough]

Uh, yeah.

Anyway (some of these are Kaus's alternative to "money liberalism", but they still apply):

1) Replace all welfare programs with sub-minimum wage public works programs.
2) Shower all people who work in benefits - health care, day care, whatever. No work, no benefits. Reinforce a culture of work.
3) Bring back the draft, with absolutely no exemptions; even those with medical deferments can work in:
4) A one or two year national service program for kids who don't get drafted. There's tons of things that need doing: care for the elderly, maintaining public spaces, police aides, nurses aides day care, tutoring - basically, whatever they could reasonably do that would reinforce a sense of community. A side effect of this would be that you'd have to beat the living hell out of the public sector unions, who'd hyperventilate about the encroachment on their turf.
5) Full public financing of all campaigns. You'd have to put in some reasonable "level of support" cutoffs; obviously. Still, wouldn't it be nice to have politicians who spend all their time with constituents, rather than collecting dollars for television advertising? The influence of money in politics is growing increasingly corrosive.
6) Free television airtime for candidates and debates. They're our airwaves, aren't they?
7) Health care for everyone. Health care isn't like other goods; going without isn't the same as not having a car. It's interesting to note the national pride the Europeans have in their health care systems. We don't have to give everyone a Cadillac of insurance; a Chevy will do. There's tons of ways to go about this, but the imporant thing is to get everyone covered.
8 ) Full day care benefits.
9) Work at getting public holidays back to public holidays - civic events, parades, what have you, instead of them just being another 3 day weekend.
10) Force zoning changes where schools and neighborhoods won't have the ironclad class segregation we have now.
11) Ensure that all children receive roughly equal educations. The spending gaps between districts are ludicrous.

Obviously, this is a liberal list of suggestions, but note that it doesn't have much to do with taxes. The only pricey item on the list - health care - probably wouldn't cost that much more than the current system. More importantly: it doesn't matter how this is financed. Flat taxes, whatever - it's about ensuring a society of equality, not fiddling with income levels.

Altogether, I think we'd have a better society with that list.

[bmulligan]

The only pricey item on the list - health care - probably wouldn't cost that much more than the current system.

you're right 17% of the GDP wouldn't cost that much. until you figure in the cost of the bureacracy, fraud, and other miscellaneous costs, not to mention the doubling of the tax rates to pay for it, the lack of profit motive for research and development, the long waiting lists for elective surgery and urgent care because of rationing, and let's not forget the loss of doctors who will go into underground practices and foreign countries wherre they can be compensated enough to pay their bills. Yeah, socialized medical care would really make me want to become a doctor.

Last but not least, what happens when your doctor makes a mistake? You'll get a payout determined by the government, if you're lucky. You won't be able to sue because you've already waived your rights after being forced to belong to the program. Sounds like a great system. Let's find out how well it's working in Canada, eh?



The valuation of Money provides a social order, a social construct, a form of social control, a shared reality, a common goal. It provides simplicity and an exact sense of social worth. It is, once again, FOR the masses. The masses can't be trusted with much, and that they understand and appreciate money is good enough for them to value money.

I don't know what's more moronic, your statement about money or Bee Cubed statement from the Budget Deficit thread:


all money belongs to the government anyway. all money ultimately comes from government spending and loans and eventually goes back to government as successive transactions are taxed....where the government spends the money is less of a problem, imo. obviously, some programs are more effecient at helping the common good, but any money the government spends is money going into the economy.

I'm leaning towards Bee Cubed, but there's always a chance that something less profound may ooze from your sticky digits onto your keyboard.[/i]

[Jason McCullough]

.....except that some sort of government health care would replace the existing system, so when you subtract that amount, I'm not sure how it'd end up costing that much. Social Security's overhead is half that of private retirement programs, remember.

You rattled off all the conservative objections there, which I'm pretty sure are all wrong, but that's for another thread.

[bmulligan]

Yeah except the social security is not a retirement program, it's a payout program, just like a heathcare system would be. As sson as you start giving shit away it's amazing how many more people stick their hands out to get some.


.....except that some sort of government health care would replace the existing system, so when you subtract that amount, I'm not sure how it'd end up costing that much.

This I don't follow you on. If you're suggesting that the cost of government running a heathcare system wouldn't cost more than what insurance companies now pay to do it, then perhaps we should be talking about why toilet seats cost $300 for the army. And why it takes $7000 to educate a child in the city of Detroit evey year. When government is in control, there is no accountability, no cost control, and no objective oversight. You're basically taking away all limits and it can't possibly do anything but spiral out of control just like social security. Eventually, there will be more takers than producers and the system will go bankrupt, along with the rest of us.

Anything the government does, the private sector can do more efficiently, at lower cost, with greater accountability.

[Jason McCullough]

Toilet seats cost $300 for the army because a) the army does low production runs and b) their accounting rules require them to do just a straight up "cost divided by units" thing, right? It's an irony that the Pentagon, which actually wastes money on entire weapon systems no one wants, got blamed for wasting money because of a silly accounting issue.

"Yeah except the social security is not a retirement program, it's a payout program, just like a heathcare system would be. "

Yes, and social security program has low overhead compared to private retirement programs - which implies that the same might hold for medical care. Far more of our medical spending, percentagewise, goes to "medical overhead" than any other first-world nation.

[Chris Nahr]

Obviously, this is a liberal list of suggestions

Actually it's a fascist list of suggestions -- you're proprosing a Reichsarbeitsdienst to improve the cohesion of the Volksgemeinschaft. That's okay, Jason, I like fascism too, it's nice that we think so much alike after all! :D

Anyway, as for specifics -- "no work, no benefits." Explain how this should work with 9% unemployment? Put everyone into those public works with "sub-minimum wages", i.e. wages they can't even live off? And wouldn't you have to create tons of jobs that are obviously useless, created just to keep people busy?

"Getting public holidays back to public holidays" -- again, how do you do this without quasi-fascist propaganda and/or ordering people to wave flags, USSR style? Where should a currently nonexistent community spirit come from? Especially since I guess you wouldn't want to create a strong sense of group identity that would necessarily tend to exclude outsiders? Wasn't the liberal dogma so far that the destruction of (majority) group identities was beneficial as it would reduce racism and allow multi-culturalism to flourish?

"Force zoning changes" -- how should that work in a country as big as America where the rich (or even moderately wealthy) can simply move out of any community that implements such changes? Because that's exactly what has happened in Europe -- socialist city governments mandated mixing of ethnicities and income levels, and result was the wealthy fleeing the cities for the suburbs.

[bmulligan]

Detroit has had a city income tax for over 10 years and it has not increased revenue because business dont want to locate there and people don't want to live there in the first place.


Far more of our medical spending, percentagewise, goes to "medical overhead" than any other first-world nation.

Letting government take over the system does not eliminate that overhead. And look what we get with that overhead, the best quality medical care in the world. Socializing the system would put a halt to drug research, innovation and development because there would be no profit incentive anymore. Any improvements would result simply by happenstance and dumb luck instead of study and research. Need a new cure for some new cancer or flu virus? Guess what, theres no money in the budget for it. Want to cure the aids epidemic? Guess what, there's not enough money for research because we're just trying to get current drugs made and distributed to all those in need already.

Nationalizing the healthcare industry in the largest market in the world(US) would be an epidemic of gargantuan proportions. Increasing demand 10 fold as the supply diminishes would mean that we all would get sub-par healthcare if we don't pass away while waiting in line.

People like you always want to distribute the bread from the breadfactory with no clue as to how the bread gets made in the first place. You think that the flour is free and the ovens work 24/7 by themselves. You never think about the cost of production, and who covers the expense. Just like social security, when the consumers outnumber the producers, the system will fail. Then get out the hacksaw cause there's no saving that leg.

[XPav]

Socializing the system would put a halt to drug research, innovation and development because there would be no profit incentive anymore.
You take that ball and you run all the way past the end zone out the stadium and onto a hill a few miles away. Then when someone asks why you do that, you say "Well, you told me to get to the end of the field!"

Its really damn easy to point out you're wrong -- because I can just look at the medical treatment given to my grandmother in the Netherlands. She's rather old, and has problems, has no income, and yet has received excellent medical treatment.

In your case, you seem to be defining "best medical system in the world" as the one with that's done the most research and has the best technology, not the one that makes these treatments available to all and provides a baseline healthcare standard.

But then again, you're just a nutzo racist libertarian who think that all taxes are immoral and Africans are a bunch of subhuman animals, so you're not on the same page as most people, you're in the appendix under "varieties of racist fucks".

[Jason McCullough]

Anyway, as for specifics -- "no work, no benefits." Explain how this should work with 9% unemployment? Put everyone into those public works with "sub-minimum wages", i.e. wages they can't even live off? And wouldn't you have to create tons of jobs that are obviously useless, created just to keep people busy?


Oh, you'd have unemployment benefits obviously, but the point is to not subsidize the underclass. Give them government makework jobs if necessary (there's a ton of stuff they could do, actualy, although it'd piss off the unions), but for gods sake, no cash handouts if you're able-bodied. We've partly fixed this in the US with welfare reform, but not completely.

It seems unlikely that the government jobs would be a permanent thing for anyone; they'd be subminimum wage and crap work. Why not just get a regular job?

I don't think the concept translates properly between the US and Europe, though; excepting the underclass, unemployment here (outside of recessions) is right at the "turnover" level.

As to living wages, you'd probably want to expand the EITC to get everyone above the povety line.

"Force zoning changes" -- how should that work in a country as big as America where the rich (or even moderately wealthy) can simply move out of any community that implements such changes? Because that's exactly what has happened in Europe -- socialist city governments mandated mixing of ethnicities and income levels, and result was the wealthy fleeing the cities for the suburbs.[/quote]

Ah, but states can annex those suburbs back to the cities. I'll leave how to do them to the experts, but they're the ideal. And the holidays thing was more about civic spirit than nationalism; it's really amazing how uncommon public events are now in the US.

And mulligan, half the point of a national health care system is that you really don't need the insurance companies anymore. Where do you think overhead comes from? It's good to see the "it'll destroy medical research" line has made such headway on the right, though.

[bmulligan]

But then again, you're just a nutzo racist libertarian who think that all taxes are immoral and Africans are a bunch of subhuman animals, so you're not on the same page as most people, you're in the appendix under "varieties of racist fucks".

now who's painting with a broad brush? Never did I say that all taxes were immoral. Nor did I say that all africans were animals, just the ones who rape virgins because they think it cures aids. Similar to the likes of you who thinks that government programs cure all ailments. You're the nutcase, benji, who doesn't realize that the united states is the largest market in the world. We create the highest demand for everything. and screwing with the supply of such a large part of our econony will destroy our already crippled economy.


And mulligan, half the point of a national health care system is that you really don't need the insurance companies anymore. Where do you think overhead comes from? It's good to see the "it'll destroy medical research" line has made such headway on the right, though.

So, McCullough, you think that overhead disappears? You think research is done only from the generocity of peoples hearts? Don't you realize that nationalizing private industry relieves any sort of control and oversight whatsoever? No one needs to look at the bottom line when they can just raise taxes or spend more deficit money to cover costs. There are no bean counters in government, only spenders and those looking for more ways to spend. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. This is the mantra to destroy a free society.

Government answers to no one except their budget and the majority of voters who would, and are, willing to give away your farm, my chickens, his cows, and expect them to magically appear again so they can be given away again to those who claim to be in the most "need".

Once again you have demonstrated that you have no concept of money, where it comes from, what is stands for, and how it is made. I'm not talking about currency like your commrade Bee Cubed equates with what we spend every day, but wealth, capital, money and the value it holds and why. You think it springs from the ground for anyone to catch with his government issue basin. It doesn't. Someone has to MAKE it first.

God help us all if you and x_perv are "on the same page" with the rest of the world and I'm a freak. You will bankrupt us all with your philospophical ineptness and altruistic intentions. You have probably never run a business, developed a product, met a payroll, or paid your taxes quarterly.

[Jason McCullough]

The only way this research disappears is if the incentive - poeple paying for it - disappears. It seems a bit unlikely that everyone will just somehow *not notice* that they've underpriced medical payouts so much all the providers go bankrupt. Using this logic, all the defense contractors should go bankrupt - I mean, after all, no one wants to pay a lot of money for that stuff!

Here's (http://www.amsa.org/hp/myths.cfm) a source; current private medical overhead is between 9% and 15% of spending. Medicare, by contrast, runs overhead of 2% to 3%.

Sheesh.

[bmulligan]

Price controls are the first step and they're already happening. Every other state in the union is now trying to control the prices and profits of the drug companies. It won't end there. When government becomes the only insurance company, i.e. the only customer, they will determine how much can be charged for certain procedures, de facto. We all know how well price controls work in the California energy market, don't we? This doesn't even take into consideration the collusion that would take place between medical corporations and the government officials they may have in their pockets. It would be a perfect way to funnel money to the big contributors of power politicians

Why should we give the government a monopoly on healthcare insurance? Aren't monopolies supposed to be bad? But I'm sure the government can do a better job than you and I could, right? and what happens to all the out of work HMO employees and their families? How do we judge the salaries of their government equivalents when there is no longer a market to proportion their value?


Here's a source; current private medical overhead is between 9% and 15% of spending. Medicare, by contrast, runs overhead of 2% to 3%.


Medicare does not cover all procedures, or all people. you cannot compare the two. Here is the most important quote from your source:


Canada's waiting-list problem stems largely from underfunding, which is being corrected now.

I wonder how you correct that? Hmmmmmm.......

I'll grant you that a single payer program may be a good idea, as long as it is optional, and still gives you the choice to have other insurance. But believe me, the plan will not stop on the payer side. The intent is to take over the entire industry to control it, it's costs, it's distribution, it's patents, and all other assests, including it's profits.

[Jason McCullough]

Medicare does not cover all procedures, or all people. you cannot compare the two.

My ass you can't. If you have a good reason why overhead would naturally be lower for Medicare, by all means, explain, but "medicare doesn't cover all procedures" isn't an explanation.


We all know how well price controls work in the California energy market, don't we?

Surely you know the CA energy market actually wasn't deregulated in any meaningful sense? They only deregulated one end, and set it up where it was quite easy for producers to game the system.


The intent is to take over the entire industry to control it, it's costs, it's distribution, it's patents, and all other assests, including it's profits.

You're damn right it is. What, exactly, do insurance companies make profits by doing? Its not like *they* are doing research; they make money by actuarial tricks and denying care. The US system of health care insurance is parasitic.

[Robert Sharp]

Mulligan is basically right. The problem with the kind of ultra-socialism that you are proposing Jason, is that there is NO incentive for anyone to do anything. That's why meritocracies work so much better. Why would anyone ever work hard if they don't get anything real out of it. If I am a doctor, and I have lots of money, why would I want to live next to a janitor? It would devalue my property; he would constantly covet all the things I had (I am not saying he would steal them, just resent me), so we wouldn't likely get along; as Rywill suggested, we would have very little to talk about; and more.

I just think these sorts of programs always end up bringing the best people down rather than the worst people up. The only way to achieve equality in these cases is to lower standards because you can't force people to be better than they are (or are willing to try to be). You want to put someone with a 130 IQ in the same class with someone with a 90 IQ? The teacher would HAVE to slow the class down, and the 130 IQ loses out. What does IQ have to do with wealth? Well, not everything, but more than you would think. Wealthier people tend to be better educated BEFORE they start formal schooling. I'm not sure how you would fix these kinds of problems in your system. It sounds like naive idealism. But maybe you have answers to such problems? How will you motivate people and how will you keep the level of excellence up?

Also, you would have to raise taxes by a large amount just to fund daycare for everyone...that stuff is expensive.

[Peter Frazier]

I just think these sorts of programs always end up bringing the best people down rather than the worst people up. The only way to achieve equality in these cases is to lower standards because you can't force people to be better than they are (or are willing to try to be). You want to put someone with a 130 IQ in the same class with someone with a 90 IQ? The teacher would HAVE to slow the class down, and the 130 IQ loses out.
Over here we don't stream children in primary classes. I'm kinda pro-streaming but my wife (who is a primary school teacher) says she prefers classes unstreamed. So yes, the bright child is educated in the same class as the mediocre child. The reasoning behind this (I think) is that the education system is about more than just the bright child. The mediocre child needs to have good learning modelled for them. The bright child needs to see that there is an extra world beyond their priveledged/gifted orbit in which they will live.
Streamed classes are the gated communities in education. It's nice to teach the top classes but the bottom classes tend to be educational ghettoes.
Unstreamed classes may not get the absolute best out of the few top students but they also don't create the huge problems at the bottom.
This translates into a social choice- do we spend more on the underclass in the form of working welfare and cop that tax or do we say 'screw the poor' and end up paying an indirect tax in the form of increased insurance and more prisons?

[Jason McCullough]

The problem with the kind of ultra-socialism that you are proposing Jason, is that there is NO incentive for anyone to do anything. That's why meritocracies work so much better. Why would anyone ever work hard if they don't get anything real out of it. If I am a doctor, and I have lots of money, why would I want to live next to a janitor?

I think "make lots of money" is still a pretty good reason to work hard. Again, I don't really care about income equality, I just want a reasonable baseline of community services.

And why wouldn't you want to live next to a janitor? The normal objections are stuff like "poorly maintained houses, crime, etc.", all of which have more to do with entire neighborhoods being full of the lower middle class and poor than anything inherent to not being rich.

And I'd suggest that maybe the problem with the streaming/non-streaming debate is a fundamental defect in our school setup. Dunno.

[Ben]

Wow, I missed a lot. But I want to get back to my Taco Bell thing:

If you can't support a family of 4 on your Taco Bell Assistant Manager salary, maybe your wife should get a job. Or maybe you could've kept your dick in your pants instead of popping out kids when you only make 18 grand a year.

I see that Nickel... link gets some more play, I think it gets referenced every time anybody mentions the poor. As someone from the lower middle class who has worked multiple minimum and near-minimum wage jobs, thanks for the update.

I don't learn about the horrors of poverty from my "Leftist Propaganda of the Month Club", I've lived that shit. I do actually know poor people.


Other points-

If you set up forced zoning to make people live where they don't want to, they'll either game the system or leave. Why not let people decide for themselves? A radical concept, I know, where you have to admit that just maybe you don't know what's best for people better than they do.

Why should doctors and lawyers fight in wars? That's a waste of potential. We can spare ditch diggers to go catch sharpnel, not everybody has the ability to be a doctor or lawyer. Those people are valuable. Income is a pretty good determinant of how valuable you are to society(with how rare your skill set is, paramedics are important but relatively easy to replace)

[bmulligan]

Quote:bmulligan
Medicare does not cover all procedures, or all people. you cannot compare the two.


My ass you can't. If you have a good reason why overhead would naturally be lower for Medicare, by all means, explain, but "medicare doesn't cover all procedures" isn't an explanation.

Medicare isn't run as an insurance program, it's an entitlement. Their funds are derived from income taxes from everyone in the country and gets funneled into the program. You probably don't qualify for medicare, but you're paying for it right now.


What, exactly, do insurance companies make profits by doing? Its not like *they* are doing research; they make money by actuarial tricks and denying care. The US system of health care insurance is parasitic.

It's naive to think the government won't do the same thing. Please don't tell me you have faith in the honesty of bureauocracy. At least with a private system you have recourse. When the government runs it, you're SOL baby 'cause you can't sue the government!

[Jason McCullough]

If you set up forced zoning to make people live where they don't want to, they'll either game the system or leave. Why not let people decide for themselves? A radical concept, I know, where you have to admit that just maybe you don't know what's best for people better than they do.

Because people's short-run optimal choices aren't always optimal over the long run? And we're not talking dropping ghettoes in the middle of ritzy areas; just houses that aren't quite as big.



Why should doctors and lawyers fight in wars? That's a waste of potential. We can spare ditch diggers to go catch sharpnel, not everybody has the ability to be a doctor or lawyer. Those people are valuable. Income is a pretty good determinant of how valuable you are to society(with how rare your skill set is, paramedics are important but relatively easy to replace)

Why is your ability to make money the determining factor of what you're "worth" to society?

Mulligan, I can't respond to non-sequitirs. What does medicare being an entitlement have to do with the level of overhead it incurs? Why on earth would the government be looking to make money on health care by denying care?

[Anders Hallin]

If you can't support a family of 4 on your Taco Bell Assistant Manager salary, maybe your wife should get a job. Or maybe you could've kept your dick in your pants instead of popping out kids when you only make 18 grand a year.
The point is never in helping the mother or father of four. The point is making sure that the four individuals born to them will be assured a future where they can be all they can be.

[Doug Erickson]

If I am a doctor, and I have lots of money, why would I want to live next to a janitor? It would devalue my property; he would constantly covet all the things I had (I am not saying he would steal them, just resent me), so we wouldn't likely get along; as Rywill suggested, we would have very little to talk about; and more.


Holy cantankerous Christ, that's the most ludicrous thing I've read. I live right next to several people who make nearly 7 digits a year, and I've never felt even the vaguest urge to "covet" their property. Or is everyone that makes less than $10/hr a crack-addled wife-beating philosophically-inert miscreant peasant out to thieve your precious, precious property and rape your golden-haired Stepford wife?

The unspoken belief among neocons and libertarians that ascribes all manner of sociopathic attitudes to those who have proportionally less money is just, well, insane. The whole attitude that "if you aren't making money, you must be lazy, evil, or stupid" still hasn't gone out of vogue, apparently, and the cult of entrepreneurship still reigns supreme in the conservative psyche.

When I visit my parents, I frequent a very blue-collar bar in Centralia, WA. True, I know a lot of these guys and gals through my family, but get this: I have a great time chatting with them nonetheless, despite my relative wealth and white-collar status. A lot of these purported rednecks and yokels are smart sons-of-bitches, with strong senses of iconoclasty and healthy respect for education. If you think you don't have "anything in common" with the perceived lower classes, you're a poor deluded soul trying to desperately subscribe to some upper-class insular meme of superiority.

There's poor crooks, and there's rich crooks. The difference between a guy who snakes a $500 stereo from your 325i and a guy who finagles $50000 out of your IRA is only academic to the folks who find being exposed to the lower-classes to be some sort of personal affront. I guess it's easier to live next to a rich crook when he's thieving other folks' money, eh?

[/list]

[Ben Sones]

The unspoken belief among neocons and libertarians that ascribes all manner of sociopathic attitudes to those who have proportionally less money is just, well, insane. The whole attitude that "if you aren't making money, you must be lazy, evil, or stupid" still hasn't gone out of vogue, apparently, and the cult of entrepreneurship still reigns supreme in the conservative psyche.

I don't believe any of those things, nor do I make value judgements based on a person's income (unless they are value judgements about that person's finances). I do think that people, in general, prefer to hang out with people that they can relate to. For many people, this may mean hanging out with people in your line of work, or people who pursue the same pastimes. Work and pastimes often have a financial factor (not everyone can afford to be an avid computer gamer, for instance), so many people end up hanging out with people that have similar incomes as a result. There is nothing wrong with that, any more than there is anything wrong with rich people being friends with poor people.

I do have a problem, however, with the idea that peoples' voluntary associations are somehow broken and need to be fixed. I think the idea of telling some poor person "we're going to pass some zoning laws so you can have better friends" is somewhat offensive and insulting. I don't understand how anyone can simultaneously say that we shouldn't judge people based on their income, but we should screw with zoning laws because it isn't good that a bunch of rich people (or poor people, or whomever) have all decided to live in the same neighborhood. If income is irrelevant to our value of any individual, then who cares where they live?

[Jason McCullough]

The rich people care, apparently, since they have a pretty strong insistence on using zoning to design neighborhoods with effective income floors.

And you still didn't explain its better to draft poor people.

[Ben Sones]

Better to draft poor people? Did I miss something?

[Jason McCullough]

You said we shouldn't draft smart people because they're more valuable. In a meritocracy, the non-smart drafted people will be poor.

[XPav]

A draft or mandatory national service would be an excellent way to fill our universities up with foreign students. It would also be a wonderful way to suck up lots of money.

Also, I have these great visions of exactly what these 18-20 year boys and girls are going to be doing out in the woods.

"Hey! What you kids doing?"
"Uniting the country, two people at a time!"

[Ben]

If their short run choices are truly sub-optimal, how about we let them deal with the consequences of their poor choices?

That the liberal fascination with social engineering projects continues despite the horrible track record of all "make people do what's best for them" programs is a testament to the weakness of the educational system.

Your income is your value to your employer( in the case of the self-employed, society directly). It's not so difficult to make that mental leap, right?

Doug- How altruistic of you to slum with the common man. What courage it must have took to talk with actual poor people, even poor people you knew. Your story proves the point you were arguing against. You didn't say: "I have poor friends", you said "I once went and met some poor people, they weren't nearly as awful as I expected. Many of them could even read!"

Your friends are in the same socio-economic class as you are. It's just how life works.

Anyway, I don't think that quote is as ludicrous as arguing against an unspoken belief. And the cult of entrepreneurship, as you so dismissively call it, is the reason for the vast majority of good things in the world. Greed is good.

[Jason McCullough]

Why on earth would they be out in the woods?


Your income is your value to your employer( in the case of the self-employed, society directly). It's not so difficult to make that mental leap, right?

Yes, it *is* difficult to make the mental leap to "poor people are worth less to society than rich people, and therefore only poor people should be drafted." Jesus christ.

Keep on arguing against that "why do liberals want to force me to have poor friends" strawman, though.

[MikeJ]

Greed is good.

I think we can make a distinction between rational self-interest and greed. Greed occurs when the desire for aquisition overcomes rationality. It's definitely not good.

[Anders Hallin]

Does everyone have some pathological need to socialize with their neighbours or something? Because in my house of fifteen households, I know about two people by name. People will socialize with who they please, but I think when you live in the same neighbourhood you're at least aware of other people in many respects being just like you.

[Anders Hallin]

Also, my mother is more intelligent than my father but makes about half- to two thirds as much.

[Doug Erickson]

Your friends are in the same socio-economic class as you are. It's just how life works.

Very wrong. Only one of my friends - Jason - is in my "socioeconomic class." My other regular pals are a horse trainer, a senior security guard, a Staples clerk, an EB clerk, a part-time schoolteacher, and a pair of writers.

And most surprising to you, I imagine, I have no lack of things to discuss with them.

[Robert Sharp]

If I am a doctor, and I have lots of money, why would I want to live next to a janitor? It would devalue my property; he would constantly covet all the things I had (I am not saying he would steal them, just resent me), so we wouldn't likely get along; as Rywill suggested, we would have very little to talk about; and more.


Holy cantankerous Christ, that's the most ludicrous thing I've read. I live right next to several people who make nearly 7 digits a year, and I've never felt even the vaguest urge to "covet" their property. Or is everyone that makes less than $10/hr a crack-addled wife-beating philosophically-inert miscreant peasant out to thieve your precious, precious property and rape your golden-haired Stepford wife?



My God, did anyone read what I wrote? The quote is right there! I said that I was NOT accusing the janitor of being a crook. I was intentionally avoiding making such a claim as I certainly don't think people who are poor are criminals. Do you think I am rich? I am talking about getting along, plain and simple. And I wasn't even talking about the monetary inequities either. I said that they had nothing in common...I did NOT say it was purely because of wealth. The doctor is better educated and lives a VERY different life from the janitor. They MIGHT become friends, of course. I'm just saying it's unlikely and forced, and that there is no need for it.

I don't mind people disagreeing with me, but PLEASE at least disagree with what I have said instead of attacking me for what you make up and then attribute to me.

[Robert Sharp]

At any rate, the living next to each other thing is a side issue. What bothers me is taking away merit based priviledges. I'll give you an example of what I mean. When I was an undergrad I had to work my way through school by working as a meat-cutter at a grocery store. I worked hard and I was far more intelligent and better educated than most of my coworkers. I did better work than many of the people who had been there longer than I. However, they got paid more because they had been there longer. How hard I worked, how well I did my work meant absolutely nothing. The store was unionized...it was all seniority based. Now, I happen to take pride in my work and feel that if I am being paid for something I should do it right...so I continued to do so. But I didn't get anything for it. Well, I got thanks, but that just tended to cause resentment in my coworkers, so it wasn't really a benefit.

Now change seniority to equality..we all get equal treatment regardless of merit. what exactly is supposed to be so fair about that?

[Jason McCullough]

Except I didn't suggest doing away with merit-based income; just mitigating the downsides. Why shouldn't you be paid more for working harder?

For the third or fourth time, mixed-income neighbors is not the same as "forcing people to have poor friends."

[Brad Grenz]

Jason's being a retard. We should all just ignore him. (but it *was* great when Christopher called him a facist!)

[Kalle]

Also, my mother is more intelligent than my father but makes about half- to two thirds as much.

Same thing here. Not uncommon at all. Is this a good time to bring up gender inequalities in the workplace, women being generally paid less than men, sometimes for the exactly same work?

Associating income with intelligence, or for that matter, value to society is idiotic. There are plenty of other factors at play.

[Anders Hallin]

Also, my mother is more intelligent than my father but makes about half- to two thirds as much.
Same thing here. Not uncommon at all. Is this a good time to bring up gender inequalities in the workplace, women being generally paid less than men, sometimes for the exactly same work?
Does anyone have the latest numbers for relative income, adjusting for the disparity in jobs (ie eliminate the difference that comes from more women in low-income jobs, though that is of course a problem in itself)? I think that 82 (or was it 88?) on a hundred ratio I heard didn't adjust for that.


Associating income with intelligence, or for that matter, value to society is idiotic. There are plenty of other factors at play.
Indeed, not the least of which is ambition. You're a lot more likely to end up with someone of below- to average intelligence (not that I think measurable intelligence has any point) but ambition than someone really intelligent with little ambition to reach a position of wealth/power in this society. Or is ambition part of this "intelligence"? In that case, how so?

[Jack]

"Money is like a scorecard to someone's worth in this society." -- Donald Trump, radio interview.

Notice this is said by a man who came into a $100 million inheritance before he became the poster-boy for wannabe real-estate moguls. Another famous guy who rode his family's money to stardom: George W. Bush. This yutz would have been languishing in a community college rather than Yale, if Daddy wasn't a former president.

Maybe inherited money makes up a small percentage of the rich folks, but it's important to note WHICH rich folks are benefitting from the family cache of cash.

As much as my heart agrees with Jason, my mind knows that Trump is correct in the long run. The people deemed "worth less" to society are the ones easily replaced -- that's what it boils down to. The wealthy entreprenuers tend to be the ones who had a good idea and exploited it; those people are therefore "more valuable" to our culture, in the long run. They cause it to profit and proliferate. Their ideas become part of our society because of drive and desire to make money with that idea. All other ideas, if generally unknown or unmarketed, are not value-less, but they contribute little to our culture.

"Money, it's a gas," said Roger Waters. If a culture is to grow, there must be something driving it. Unfortunately, altruism has very low octane.

[Jason McCullough]

Into the meat grinders with them!

[Robert Sharp]

Into the meat grinders with them!


Heh! Seriously though, I agree that we should NOT measure a person's worth by money. There are lots of other factors out there, and there are lots of great people who have no money because they have other priorities. For instance, the janitor living next to the doctor may read a lot and be more educated than the doctor. They would then have plenty to discuss and could become great friends. I just think that would be unusual and forcing different socio-economic groups to live together would not be practical or successful. There would be exceptions of course, but in general they would just be too different from each other. I am not saying they would hurt each other or anything...just that it wouldn't make a very good community.

Anecdotally, I live around people that are MUCH less educated than I am. Most of them never even went to college, while I am writing my dissertation currently. We talk every now and then, but they all party together and such on the weekends, while my wife and I never attend. We just don't have enough in common. We all like football around here, so we can talk about that, but my wife and I don't drink and we don't care about NASCAR. My neighbors could care less about Baudelaire or Plato. We get along ok with them, but I don't feel like part of this community...I just live here.

[Jason McCullough]

I'm not arguing that we should send people with, say, a doctorate in cryptology to the front lines; just for shared sacrifice. A democracy preserved entirely by the sweat of the poor probably isn't much of one.

[Robert Sharp]

I'm not arguing that we should send people with, say, a doctorate in cryptology to the front lines; just for shared sacrifice. A democracy preserved entirely by the sweat of the poor probably isn't much of one.

I agree with that, but I thought you were saying we should have NO draft exceptions. What about people who are actually IN college...pull them out? It could damage the education system down the road.

Also, regarding the topic here, how exactly are you defining meritocracy, Jason? It tends to mean that people who have proven themselves and/or have talent are given important positions. You don't seem to have a problem with that position, so I assume you are defining the term differently?

[Jason McCullough]

Well, in WW2 they yanked people out of college. Obviously a regular peacetime draft wouldn't have to do that.

I'm just saying put everyone in the draft pool (the ones the military ends up with will be put into the jobs they're best at by the military), and those who don't get drafted do some national service.

I'm using the same definition of meritocracy you are - pay and position is dependent on skill. There's no reason a meritocracy, though, should directly lead to single-income level neighborhoods, or only the rich/smart having decent health care, or day care, or be able to send their kids to decent schools. It's just limiting what money can buy.

[bmulligan]

my wife and I don't drink and we don't care about NASCAR

and you call yourself a man......................



And McCullough- your little draft scenario smells like hitlers armpit. Requiring servitute in the millitary presupposes the state has a claim on the life of any and every individual. Freedom ceases to exist.

I am not a number.......I am a FREE man !!


HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!!!!!!

[XPav]

I'm just saying put everyone in the draft pool (the ones the military ends up with will be put into the jobs they're best at by the military)
Yes, because the military is good at that. :roll:

[ydejin]

I'm not arguing that we should send people with, say, a doctorate in cryptology to the front lines; just for shared sacrifice. A democracy preserved entirely by the sweat of the poor probably isn't much of one.

I agree with that, but I thought you were saying we should have NO draft exceptions. What about people who are actually IN college...pull them out? It could damage the education system down the road.

I think it might do the educational system some good if more students spent two years in the military or doing national service before coming to college. That would reduce the amount of "I'm away from my parents for the first time" type partying and they might actually get more out of their college experience. I think older more mature students often have a better appreciation of college and get more out of it (at least in an educational sense) than younger students.

You are right in that we'd have to think about how to phase things in, but over the long run, starting college at 20 instead of 18 would probably be a good thing.

[bmulligan]

Yeah, I think it would be a good thing too, but not mandating it. You can't call yourself a free society if you force people to serve in the government, or millitary.

[Jason McCullough]

Yeah, I think it would be a good thing too, but not mandating it. You can't call yourself a free society if you force people to serve in the government, or millitary.

Yeah, what was this country thinking in ww2, anyway? If you can't defeat Hitler with a volunteer army, it's not worth doing!

[bmulligan]

so McCullough, what happened to your faith in the majority? Or any faith in individual choice? If the majority voted NOT to have a draft, wouldn't that make it the right thing to do?

[Robert Sharp]

I'm not arguing that we should send people with, say, a doctorate in cryptology to the front lines; just for shared sacrifice. A democracy preserved entirely by the sweat of the poor probably isn't much of one.

I agree with that, but I thought you were saying we should have NO draft exceptions. What about people who are actually IN college...pull them out? It could damage the education system down the road.

I think it might do the educational system some good if more students spent two years in the military or doing national service before coming to college. That would reduce the amount of "I'm away from my parents for the first time" type partying and they might actually get more out of their college experience. I think older more mature students often have a better appreciation of college and get more out of it (at least in an educational sense) than younger students.

You are right in that we'd have to think about how to phase things in, but over the long run, starting college at 20 instead of 18 would probably be a good thing.

Good point, actually. I teach college and I can tell you that you are right about more mature students. Of course, maturity doesn't always relate directly to age, but your point still holds. Since I teach at Vanderbilt, I have had many rich students who don't seem to understand what real work involves. The Army might do them some good. OTOH, people who spend a long time away from school tend to lose some skills. But hard work can fix that.

I guess I was more thinking about them dying though....

[Jason McCullough]

so McCullough, what happened to your faith in the majority? Or any faith in individual choice? If the majority voted NOT to have a draft, wouldn't that make it the right thing to do?

Um, I'm arguing to convince the majority here. :D